54-CRA-16-21.doc Rushi modhe IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2021 M/s. Shree Sai Developers and Ors. ...Applicants V/S. Ashok Athmaram Karia ...Respondent Mr. Shivprasad Shetty i/b Ms. Deepti Mistry, for the applicant. None for the respondent. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J. DATE : 22 nd JUNE, 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard, 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for applicants as well as respondent finally. 3. By the instant Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the applicants / original defendants have challenged order dated 2nd December 2020 passed by the trial court rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C for rejection of plaint. 4. The applicants are the original defendants in the suit filed by the respondent seeking specific performance of contract and permanent injunction. In the suit, the defendants had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C r/w Section 79 of the 1/4 54-CRA-16-21.doc Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as RERA) and prayed for rejection of plaint. The application was opposed by the original plaintiff and by order dated 2nd December 2020 the trial Court had rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the defendants have filed the instant Civil Revision Application. 5. Mr. Shivprasad Shetty learned counsel for applicant submitted that the plaint deserved to be rejected in view of bar of jurisdiction as provided under Section 79 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act. He submitted that the controversy involved in the suit should be agitated before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and in view of the Section 79 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act the suit is not maintainable. In support of his submissions about scope of Order VII Rule 11 of C.P.C, he placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dahiben V/s Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported (2020) 7 SCC 366. 6. It has to be noted that the plaintiff’s suit is for specific performance of contract with a relief of permanent injunction. In the suit the plaintiff has alleged that he has paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- in accordance with the oral agreement for purchase of the suit property. Although there is a reference to Real Estate Regulatory Authority project, it has to be noted that the plaintiffs' primary relief 2/4 54-CRA-16-21.doc is for specific performance of contract. The provision of bar of jurisdiction as contained in Section 79 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act deal with matters which can be exclusively dealt with by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. A perusal of the Section 79 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act shows that the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit qua any action taken as per provisions of the said act is barred. As such since the dispute involved in the suit is not with respect to an issue to be dealt with by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the suit cannot be said to be barred on that count. From averments made in the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract based on an oral agreement and as such only because there is reference to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, the suit cannot be said to be not maintainable on that count. The position of law as laid down in the matter of Dahiben (Supra) is not disputed but the instant matter has to be decided by considering the averments in the plaint. 7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Trial Court has given due consideration to the contentions canvassed on behalf of the parties and after considering provisions of Section 79 of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, has recorded its reasons for rejecting the application. The reasons recorded by the trial court does not at all 3/4 54-CRA-16-21.doc appear to be perverse or palpably erroneous, count warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Application is rejected. No order as to costs. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 4/4