1 2025:CGHC:23274-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 97 of 2025 1 - M/s Rajat Builders Through Anjay Surana (Partner), Address Near Shiv Mandir, Shivpara, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Anjay Surana S/o Shri Phoolchand Surana Aged About 59 Years Address Near Shiv Mandir, Shivpara, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.), Present Address Sharda Talkies, Indira Market, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Rajat Surana S/o Shri Anjay Surana Aged About 33 Years (Wrongly Mentioned In Cause Title Of Impugned Order As 35 Years), Address Near Shiv Mandir, Shivpara, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.), Present Address Sharda Talkies, Indira Market, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kusum Kothari W/o Shri Suresh Kothari R/o Hig 160, Padmanabhpur, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Nehru Lal Munda S/o Shri Mohan Lal Munda R/o Polsaipara, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate (Division Bench) (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Order on Board Per; Rajani Dubey, Judge 12/06/2025 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Learned Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Learned Appellate Tribunal") in Appeal No. 325 of 2025 titled "M/s. Rajat Builders vs. Smt. Kusum Kothari and Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Ors.", the appellants have prefer the present appeal. By the said impugned order, the Learned Appellate Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants and affirmed the order dated 12.03.2025 (erroneously mentioned as 02.03.2025 in paragraph 2 of the impugned order), passed by the Learned RERA Authority, whereby the opportunity to file a written statement/reply by the appellants in the complaint case was unjustly closed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present appeal seeking following reliefs :- “01. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Appellate Tribunal. 02. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this appeal and thereby may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Learned Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 325 of 2025 - "M/s. Rajat Builders vs. Smt. Kusum Kothari and Ors." 03. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to remit the matter back to Learned Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the appeal of the appellants a fresh. OR 04. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this appeal and grant opportunity to the appellants to file written statement/reply in the complaint case no. M-PRO-2024-02571 pending before Learned RERA Authority. 05. Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other orders as it may deem fit- in favor of the appellant against the respondents, in the interest of justice.” 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the complainant/respondent No. 1 entered into an Agreement to Sale dated 10.11.2014 with appellant No. 1, M/s Rajat Builders, for the purchase of a residential flat bearing No. 501, located on the 5th Floor, Block 3 of the “Rajat Homes” residential complex at Hari Nagar, 3 Kadambari Nagar, Durg, for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which also included two years' provisional maintenance charges and applicable service tax at prevailing rates. The complainant made an initial payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash, duly acknowledged by the appellants through a receipt dated 28.10.2013, and subsequently claimed to have paid a further amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- as part of the agreed consideration. However, despite substantial payment, the appellants allegedly failed to deliver possession of the said flat and did not provide the mandatory completion certificate within the stipulated timeframe, thereby violating the terms of the agreement. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a complaint before the Learned RERA Authority in September 2024, seeking refund of the paid amount with interest, compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental harassment and litigation costs, interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the entire amount paid, and other reliefs as deemed just. During the pendency of the proceedings, the appellants filed a detailed preliminary objection dated 08.11.2024, raising two fundamental issues: first, the non-joinder of a necessary party, namely Shri Suresh Kothari—then an active partner of the appellant firm and also the husband of complainant, who was not impleaded despite being a signatory and partner at the time of the agreement; and second, an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly ten years in filing the complaint, without any application seeking condonation of delay or showing sufficient cause. It is undisputed that Shri Suresh Kothari was an active partner in the appellant firm as per the partnership deed dated 16.08.2010 and continued in that capacity until 31.03.2018, when he withdrew pursuant to a reconstituted partnership deed executed on 01.04.2018. Nevertheless, the 4 complainant deliberately chose not to implead him as a party, nor made any allegations against him, which the appellants contended amounted to a misuse of the legal process. Despite the seriousness of these objections, the Learned RERA Authority summarily rejected them by its order dated 11.12.2024. The appellants then preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 before the Learned Appellate Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2025, merely holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of fact and law, to be addressed during the final hearing. Aggrieved, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 2025 before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was dismissed by order dated 05.03.2025, holding that no interference was warranted at that stage as the matter was still pending adjudication before the RERA Authority. While awaiting upload of the said order on the E-Courts portal, the appellants could not immediately file their written statement. On 12.03.2025, when the matter was listed before the RERA Authority, the appellants filed an application seeking 10 days’ time to submit their written statement, relying on the order of High Court; however, the Learned RERA Authority arbitrarily rejected the said application and closed the appellants’ right to file the reply. Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.03.2025 (wrongly referred to as 02.03.2025 in the impugned order), the appellants filed Appeal No. 325 of 2025 before the Learned Appellate Tribunal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2025, affirming the arbitrary closure of the right of appellants to file their written statement, thereby giving rise to the present appeal. 5 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 (Annexure A/1), passed by the Learned Appellate Tribunal, is bad in law and deserves to be set aside as it suffers from grave legal infirmities and denial of fair opportunity. After entering appearance before the Learned RERA Authority, the Appellants had filed a detailed Preliminary Objection dated 08.11.2024, specifically challenging the maintainability of the complaint on two substantial grounds: first, the non-joinder of Shri Suresh Kothari—the then active and necessary partner of M/s Rajat Builders and the husband of the complainant (Respondent No. 1), who was party to the original agreement dated 10.11.2014; and second, the inordinate delay of almost 10 years in preferring the complaint, without any application seeking condonation or any explanation showing sufficient cause for such delay. These preliminary objections were dismissed without due consideration, compelling the appellants to challenge the same before the Learned Appellate Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court. However, vide impugned order dated 07.05.2025, the Appellate Tribunal erred in closing the right of appellants to file their written statement, ignoring the fact that these objections could only be fully substantiated with supporting documents and written submissions. In an adversarial legal system, procedure is meant to advance justice, not stifle it. The appellants, despite their bona fide efforts, were denied an opportunity to place material evidence on record, which is vital for proper adjudication. If they are not granted leave to file the written statement, they will suffer irreparable harm, particularly as the RERA Authority has already fixed the matter for final arguments on 02.04.2025, and the matter is likely to be heard on any day following receipt of records. It is 6 also pertinent that at the time of execution of the agreement, Shri Suresh Kothari was not only the husband of complainant but also an active partner of the appellant firm under the partnership deed dated 16.08.2010. Although he formally retired from the firm via reconstituted deed dated 01.04.2018, his non-inclusion as a party indicates suppression of material facts and renders the complaint mala fide. Furthermore, the complaint, being based on the alleged breach of an agreement from 2014, was filed only in 2024, after a decade-long delay, with no explanation or attempt to seek condonation, rendering it barred by delay and laches. The learned authorities failed to address these critical aspects, which are essential to the adjudication of the dispute. Additionally, a typographical error was made in the record, mentioning the date of an order as 02.03.2025 instead of the correct date, 12.03.2025, which further prejudices the ability of appellants to track procedural progress. The appellants, therefore, humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.05.2025, grant liberty to file the written statement, direct the RERA Authority to consider the preliminary objections and defence on merits, and pass any other order in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Having carefully examined the pleadings, the impugned order, and the relevant facts and submissions, this Court notes that the impugned order under challenge is an interlocutory order closing the right of appellants to file a written statement prior to the conclusion of the proceedings. It is well settled that such interlocutory orders are not ordinarily amenable to immediate 7 challenge by way of appeal, especially when the main relief sought arises from the final adjudication in the matter. 6. The appellants have already availed the remedy of filing an appeal before the Learned Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the RERA Authority. The Learned Appellate Tribunal has disposed of the said appeal and the appellants had the option to raise all their contentions and defenses at the final hearing. 7. This Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is premature and not maintainable at this stage. The appellants may prefer their appeal against the final order passed by the Learned RERA Authority in the complaint case after the matter is finally adjudicated on merits. To permit an appeal against an interlocutory order such as the closure of filing of written statement would lead to piecemeal litigation, causing unnecessary delay and defeating the purpose of expeditious adjudication envisaged under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 8. In light of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal and holds that the appellants must await the passing of the final order in the complaint before seeking appropriate remedy. 9. The appeal is hereby dismissed with liberty to the appellants to prefer appeal against the final order passed by the Learned RERA Authority in the complaint case. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajni Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna