Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitendra Shukla vs Shree Vardhman Developers Private ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
RERA-APPL-213-2025 [1]
143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RERA-APPL-213-2025
Date of decision: 17.11.2025
Jitendra Shukla
...Appellant
Versus
Shree Vardhman Developers Private Limited
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Kartik Parmod Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. Challenge in the present appeal filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is to the order dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in IA No.1157 of 2025 in Appeal No.459 of 2025, whereby delay in filing the appeal by the respondent, has been condoned.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, delay has been condoned by the Appellate Tribunal although there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is submitted that the order, on the complaint of the present appellant along with other complaints, was passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula on 12.07.2022 and against the said order, a writ petition was filed by the respondent-builder which was not maintainable and was thus, 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:41 ::: RERA-APPL-213-2025 [2] disposed of and thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Appellate Tribunal in which there was a delay of 963 days which has been condoned vide order dated 01.09.2025. It is submitted that a perusal of the application dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) would show that there was no substantial cause shown to condone the delay and thus, impugned order dated 01.09.2025, condoning the delay, deserves to be set aside and the appeal filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellant and has perused the paper book and finds that the present appeal is meritless and deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.
4. It is not in dispute that against the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, vide which complaint filed by the present appellant along with the other complaints was disposed of, CWP-9247-2025 was filed by the respondent- builder which was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 01.04.2025 in the following terms:-
"4. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 43(5) read with Section 44 of the RERA Act, 2016, within a period of 60 days. It is made clear that if any such appeal/application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided on its merits uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 01.04.2025"
A perusal of the above order would show that liberty was granted to the petitioner therein (respondent herein) to file an appropriate 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:42 ::: RERA-APPL-213-2025 [3] appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 43(5) read with Section 44 of the RERA Act, 2016 within a period of 60 days and it was further made clear that such appeal would be decided on merits uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court. The order was passed on the basis of objection raised on behalf of respondent therein to the effect that the writ petition was not maintainable and there was an alternative remedy available to the present respondent to file an appeal before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. A reading of the above order would show that liberty was granted to the present respondent to file an appeal within 60 days. It is not in dispute that respondent had thereafter filed an Appeal No.459 of 2025 on 28.05.2025 i.e., within a period of 60 days from the date of the order dated 01.04.2025. It was the case of the respondent in the application dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) for condonation of delay that the appeal had been filed within the time granted by the High Court and it was only as a matter of abundant caution that the application for condonation of delay was being filed.
5. The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 01.09.2025, had observed that the application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit and after taking into consideration the same as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 01.04.2025, application seeking condonation of delay was allowed and the main appeal was ordered to be listed for hearing on 25.09.2025. It is the said order which is under challenge before this Court.
6. It is a matter of settled law that every endeavour should be made by the Courts to decide the case on merits instead of technicalities. In 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:42 ::: RERA-APPL-213-2025 [4] the said regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Honb'le Supreme Court in case titled as "Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another Vs. Mst. Katiji and others reported as (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 107, the relevant portion of which is as under: -
"xxx xxx xxx And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that:
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal."
7. The principles stated in the above-said judgment were reiterated and reaffirmed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:42 ::: RERA-APPL-213-2025 [5] case titled as "Dhiraj Singh (D) through legal representatives & others Vs. State of Haryana", (2014) 14 SCC 127. The Appellate Tribunal, by condoning the delay, has followed the abovesaid principle of law that a case should be decided on merits instead of technicalities.
8. The present appeal had been filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which Section reads as under:-
"58: Appeal to High Court.
(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, may, file an appeal to the High Court, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal, to him, on any one or more of the grounds specified in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
Explanation.--The expression "High Court" means the High Court of a State or Union territory where the real estate project is situated. (2) No appeal shall lie against any decision or order made by the Appellate Tribunal with the consent of the parties."
A perusal of the above provision would show that an appeal would lie on any one or more of the grounds specified under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that an appeal is to be entertained by High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law, which is then to be formulated and adjudicated upon. Allowing of the application for condonation of delay by the Appellate Tribunal so as to hear the appeal on merits, more so, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, which 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:42 ::: RERA-APPL-213-2025 [6] have been detailed hereinabove, does not, in the opinion of this Court, involve any substantial questions of law so as to call for interference by this Court. In case the appellant has a good case on merits, then he should oppose the appeal filed by the respondent on merits. The impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and is accordingly upheld.
9. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
17.11.2025 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 20-11-2025 00:35:42 :::