PRADEEP MEHRA v. M/S EMAAR INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS
RERA-APPL/207/2025 · 2026-07-08
Jagmohan Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7542 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 7542 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
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