Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7542 (PNJ)

PRADEEP MEHRA v. M/S EMAAR INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS

RERA-APPL/207/2025 · 2026-07-08

Jagmohan Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 RERA-APPL-207-2025 Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 PRADEEP MEHRA ...Appellant Vs. M/S EMAAR INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Neeraj Goel, Advocate for the appellant *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant through instant appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short '2016 Act') is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.08.2025 whereby Ld. Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short 'Appellate Tribunal') has condoned delay of 156 days in filing appeal. 2. The respondent herein has preferred an appeal before Appellate Tribunal against order passed by Authority constituted under 2016 Act. The appeal was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 156 days. The respondent along with aforesaid application complied with condition of pre-deposit by way of depositing ₹3,90,32,907/-. The Appellate Tribunal by impugned order condoned the delay and fixed the matter for final hearing. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that there was no reason to condone the delay. The respondent did not advance any plausible reason and Appellate Tribunal mechanically condoned the delay. DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.09 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RERA-APPL-207-2025 -2- 4. Heard the arguments and perused the record. 5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that respondent preferred an appeal before Appellate Tribunal along with application seeking condonation of delay of 156 days. The respondent deposited ₹3,90,32,907/- towards pre-deposit. The matter is pending for final hearing. No prejudice is going to be caused to appellant if the matter is heard on merit. The delay was not exorbitant whereas it was of mere 156 days. The Tribunal has power to condone delay. This fact is not disputed. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. 6. Dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE July 08, 2026 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.07.09 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment