The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to complaints filed under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside an order of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed a homebuyer’s appeal on the grounds of limitation despite no such objection being raised during the initial proceedings before the RERA Authority.
Background
The appellant, Smt. Nidhi Sao (allottee), entered into a sale agreement on May 26, 2012, to purchase a flat in the “Green Earth City” project in Durg, developed by the respondent, Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited (promoter). The allottee subsequently filed a complaint (Form M) before the RERA Authority under Section 31 of the Act, alleging substandard construction quality and failure to deliver the apartment within the time prescribed in the agreement. She sought the return of the amount paid along with compensation.
On November 22, 2018, the RERA Authority dismissed the complaint but directed the promoter to complete the finishing work and hand over possession within two months, while ordering the allottee to deposit the balance amount. Aggrieved by this, the allottee appealed to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, took suo-moto cognizance of the point of limitation and dismissed the appeal on September 15, 2023, holding that the original complaint filed before RERA was time-barred.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that the RERA Act does not prescribe a specific period of limitation for filing complaints. It was contended that the Limitation Act applies only to “Courts” and cannot be imported into proceedings before specialized regulatory bodies like RERA unless expressly provided by statute. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ganesan Vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board (2019).
Conversely, the respondent’s counsel supported the Tribunal’s order, asserting that the cause of action arose in 2015 while the complaint was filed in 2018, making it barred by limitation. The respondent also raised preliminary objections regarding the under-valuation of the appeal and a deficit in court fees.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court identified the core issue as whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act could be applied to RERA proceedings. Upon examining Section 31(1) of the RERA Act, the Court observed that “the statute is conspicuously silent” on the period of limitation for filing complaints.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ganesan, the Court noted:
“The provisions of the Limitation Act are primarily attracted when such proceedings are instituted before a court of law, unless their applicability is expressly or by necessary implication extended under a special or local statute.”
The Court further observed that RERA is a specialized regulatory body and does not fall within the strict ambit of a “Court.” Regarding the legislature’s intent, the Court stated:
“The provisions of the Limitation Act, which the legislature did not incorporate in the Act, 2016, cannot be imported into it by analogy… If the Legislature willfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous law in a subsequent statue… the Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it.”
The High Court also highlighted a procedural irregularity, noting that the respondent had not raised a limitation objection before the RERA Authority, nor had the Authority framed any issue on it. The Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the case on this ground for the first time at the appellate stage was described as a “procedural irregularity.”
Decision
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s order dated September 15, 2023. It answered the substantial question of law in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Tribunal erred in applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act.
The matter has been remanded to the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal with directions to decide the appeal afresh on its merits without insisting on the question of limitation.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Smt. Nidhi Sao vs Greenearth Infraventures Private Limited
- Case No.: MA No. 173 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
- Date: 16/04/2026
