[2026:RJ-JP:3408] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1680/2022 Sunprime Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Address At C-1-A, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Opposite City Mall, Jhalawar Road, Kota 324005 (Rajasthan) Through Its Director Mr. Pawan Kumar Yadav. ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, 2Nd And 3Rd Floor, Rsic Buildinng, Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302005 Through Its Law Officer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mitesh Rathore with Mr. Hardik Mishra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment/Order Date of hearing and conclusion of arguments 19.01.2026 Date on which the judgment was reserved 19.01.2026 Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment Date of pronouncement 28.01.2026 1. The present misc. appeal has been preferred under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 assailing the order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur in Appeal No. 02/2021, whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur was affirmed. [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (2 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 2. The appeal has been filed by framing the following substantial questions of law, which for the sake of convenience, are reproduced hereunder: (i) Whether there has been gross error and violation of principle of natural justice by not appreciating the documents produced by the appellant, which clearly prove that the project of the appellant is not an ongoing project? (ii) Whether Ld. Authority and the Ld. Tribunal below can bind itself with the procedure established under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (iii) Whether the substantial justice be denied merely citing procedural irregularities in filing the appeal and not deciding appeal on merits by appreciating the documents placed on record? (iv) Whether the said project of the appellant is an on-going project in the eyes of the law as per the said Act and Rules framed thereunder? 3. The facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Authority’) issued a suo-motu show cause notice dated 17.02.2020 to the appellant alleging violation of Sections 3, 11(2), 59 and 61 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2016’). The show cause notice arose from an advertisement dated 19.01.2020 published by the appellant in the Rajasthan Patrika, Kota Edition, pertaining to the project titled “SkyLine Premium Homes”, wherein neither the registration number of the project nor the website address of the Authority was mentioned. [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (3 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 4. In response thereto, the appellant contended before the Authority that the project in question had been completed much prior to the commencement of the Act of 2016 and, therefore, fell within the exception provided under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2017’), which exempts projects completed prior to the commencement of the Act and having obtained completion certificates, from the requirement of registration as ongoing project. 5. In support of the said contention, the appellant produced a completion certificate dated 17.04.2017, issued by M/s Shekhawat and Associates Architects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. It was further brought to the notice of the Authority that an application dated 15.03.2017, had already been submitted by the appellant before the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota, seeking issuance of a completion certificate in respect of the said project. 6. The Authority, however, during the course of hearing, vide order dated 24.12.2020, directed the appellant to furnish a completion certificate issued by a competent Authority. Although the appellant produced the completion certificate issued by the project architect, namely Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, the Authority proceeded to pass an order dated 22.01.2021 holding that, in the absence of a completion [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (4 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] certificate issued by a competent Authority, the project was liable to be registered under the Act of 2016 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. Additionally, a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the appellant under Section 61 of the Act of 2016. 7. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2021, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), contending inter alia that due to a lack of legal representation before the Authority, the appellant could not move an appropriate application for placing all relevant documents on record. A prayer for remand of the matter to the Authority was also made. 8. The appellant also placed on record the documents, which were possession letters to the allottees and submitted that since more than 60% of the allottees have been issued the possession letters, therefore the appellant is entitled for exemption from registration under Explanation appended in the form of (ii) to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017. 9. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.03.2022, declining to take additional documents on record on the ground that no application seeking leave under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been filed. The prayer for remand was [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (5 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] also rejected on the premise that the Act of 2016 does not contemplate review of orders passed by the Authority. 10. Hence, the present misc. appeal has been filed. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach adopted by both the Authority and the learned Tribunal under the Act of 2016 was hyper-technical and has resulted in failure of justice. 11.1. It was further argued that the issue as to whether the project stood completed prior to the commencement of the Act is jurisdictional in nature, and denial of opportunity to place relevant material on record vitiates the entire proceedings. 11.2 Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned order submitted that the Authority committed an error in treating the project as an ‘Ongoing Project’, despite the fact that it had been completed much prior to the commencement of the Act and that a completion certificate in respect thereof had been duly produced. 11.3 Learned counsel for appellant also argued and placed reliance on explanation appended in the form of (ii) to Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017, which provides that where possession letters, sale deeds or lease deeds in respect of at least 60% of the apartments in a project have been executed prior to the commencement of the Act, such project stands exempted from the definition of an ‘ongoing project’. [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (6 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 11.4 It was submitted that in the present case, the project consists of 221 units, out of which possession letters in respect of 138 units, constituting approximately 62% of the total units, had already been executed prior to the commencement of the Act. Thus, the project in question was exempted from registration with the Authority. 11.5 Learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention of the Court to various possession letters, collectively marked as Annexure-4, and submitted that no objections were raised by any of the allottees with regard to the completion of the project. It was contended that the appellant has not adversely affected the interests of the consumers; rather, the possession letters clearly establish that possession was duly delivered and the sale of property was carried out in an efficient and transparent manner. Accordingly, the project does not fall within the ambit of an ‘ongoing project’. 11.6 It was further argued that the prayer for remand was rejected in a routine manner without considering that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Authority. The prayer was made on genuine grounds, as the representative of the appellant was unaware of the legal technicalities and, due to lack of proper representation, could not place relevant documents on record which were essential for the Authority to come at correct conclusion. [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (7 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 11.7 Learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the Act of 2016 does not specifically lays down any provision with regard to the filing of the miscellaneous applications. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in stricto sensu. Thus, the hyper-technical approach of the Authority as well as the appellate Tribunal was manifestly illegal. Additionally, the procedural laws are handmaidens of justice and thus, the technical and procedural hurdles should not come in the way particularly while delivering substantial justice and adhering to the principles of natural justice. 12. E converso, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, contending that statutory compliance was not made by the appellant and that additional evidence cannot be permitted at the appellate stage to cure defects. 12.1 Learned counsel for respondent further emphasized that a project is treated as an “ongoing project” unless a completion certificate issued by a competent authority is produced, as contemplated under Section 2(q) of the Act of 2016. It was submitted that the appellant failed to place on record a completion certificate issued by a competent Authority, thereby the action taken by the Authority was justified. [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (8 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 12.2 It was further contended that the issue of prejudice to the Authority does not arise in the present case, as the proceedings were initiated solely to protect the rights of the allottees and to ensure that the sale of plots, apartments or buildings is carried out in an efficient and transparent manner. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. At the outset, it would be apposite to examine the scope and ambit of an appeal under Section 58 of the Act of 2016. Section 58 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal only if the appeal involves a substantial question of law. Section 58 of the Act of 2016 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “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 (5 of 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (9 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 15. Section 58 of the Act 2016 restricts the right of second appeal on the grounds specified in Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as follows: "100. Second Appeal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. (2) An appeal may lie under this Section from an appellate decree passed ex parte. (3) In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely state the substantial question of law involved in the appeal. (4) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question. (5) The appeal shall be heard on the question so formulated and the Respondent shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such question: Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question." 16. The said provision is pari materia to Section 100 CPC which governs second appeals. The settled legal position with regard to Section 100 CPC is that the jurisdiction of the High Court is confined to substantial questions of law, and the High Court does not ordinarily re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or suffer from legal infirmity. 17. Hence, the legislative intent behind Section 58 of the Act of 2016 is not to shut out meaningful judicial scrutiny but to [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (10 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] confine such scrutiny to cases where substantial question of law affecting the rights of parties arise. Thus, keeping in view Section 100 CPC read with Section 58 of the Act of 2016, the existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Act 2016. 18. Having examined the questions framed by the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that question Nos. 1 and 2 are substantial questions of law involved in this appeal which are reproduced as under :- “(1) Whether there has been gross error and violation of principle of natural justice by not appreciating the documents produced by the appellant, which clearly prove that the project of the appellant is not an ongoing project? (2) Whether Ld. Authority and the Ld. Tribunal below can bind itself with the procedure established under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?” 19. As regards to the above substantial questions of law which pertains to violation of principles of natural justice and non-consideration of relevant material, as well as the applicability of CPC; a bare perusal of the record reveals that the appellant consistently asserted that the project was completed prior to the commencement of the Act of 2016. In support thereof, the appellant adduced the completion certificate issued by the project architect and the application preferred by the appellant before the Urban Improvement Trust, Kota for issuance of completion certificate. 19.1 It is also found that the appellant had produced certain documents which were possession letters issued to the [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (11 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] allottees before the Appellate Authority and the respondent counsel had admitted that there is no complaint by any allotee against the appellant. In such situation, this Court finds that opportunity should have been given to the appellant to prove that the project falls under the category of exemption from registration. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach while declining to consider the documents placed by the appellant before the appellate authority citing lack of appropriate application for bringing the documents on record as per provisions of CPC. Since in the appeal proceedings under the Act of 2016, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in their strict sense are not applicable. The Appellate Authority under the Act is expected to act in accordance with principles of natural justice and adopt a purposive, justice-oriented approach. For reaching to this conclusion; Section 53 is reproduced for ready reference: “53. Powers of Tribunal.— (1)The Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure. (3) The Appellate Tribunal shall also not be bound by the rules of evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872). (4) The Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purpose of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (12 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavits; (d) issuing commissions for the examinations of witnesses or documents; (e) reviewing its decisions; (f) dismissing an application for default or directing it ex parte; and (g) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) All proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193, 219 and 228 for the purposes of section 196 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).” 21. It is a settled principle that procedural rules are handmaids of justice and cannot be elevated to a pedestal so as to defeat substantive rights. Denial of opportunity to place relevant evidence, especially when such evidence has a direct bearing on jurisdiction and applicability of the statute, results in violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment passed in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. v. P. Rajkumar rep. by his Power Agent Imam Oli ; (2020) 10 SCC 706 while discussing the jurisprudence behind taking a lenient view in case of application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC observed and held as under: “9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (13 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub rule (3).” 22. This Court also finds that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in this appeal vide order dated 16.09.2023 had permitted the documents to be taken on record which were filed before the Rajasthan Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and thus, since the documents in the appeal have been taken on record, therefore, this Court finds that in such situation it is necessary to remand the matter back to the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority to consider the documents which have been taken on record and decide the suo-moto petition afresh. The above questions are answered in favour of appellant. The appellant has wrongly been denied the opportunity to place the relevant documents on record and also that the provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable in appeal before the learned Tribunal under Act of 2016. 23. In the considered opinion of this Court, both the Authority and the learned Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in a manner consistent with the Act of 2016. 24. Accordingly, based on the answers of substantial questions of law as given above, this Court finds that the order dated 11.03.2022, passed by the Rajasthan Real Estate [2026:RJ-JP:3408] (14 of 14) [CMA-1680/2022] Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and the order dated 22.01.2021, passed by the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur are required to be set aside. 25. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed; the orders dated 22.01.2021 as well as 11.03.2022 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur, which shall decide the matter afresh, after taking into consideration the document, which were taken on record by this Court, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. 26. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and thus, the Authority shall decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations made herein. 27. The exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, preferably within a period of six months. 28. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/