Bombay High Court: Section 79 RERA Bars Civil Suit Where Reliefs Can Be Granted by RERA Authority

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 19.09.2026

Bombay High Court: Section 79 RERA Bars Civil Suit Where Reliefs Can Be Granted by RERA Authority

The Bombay High Court has held that where the relief sought by flat purchasers essentially concerns enforcement of a promoter’s statutory obligations in a RERA-registered project, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) if the relief can be granted under the statutory mechanism created by RERA.

In Mr. Yadavalli Venkata Gopalam & Anr. v. M/s Sai Siddhant Developers & Anr., the High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a City Civil Court order that had returned the purchasers’ plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for presentation before the appropriate RERA forum.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne pronounced the judgment on 4 November 2023, after reserving it on 23 October 2023. The decision is reported with neutral citation 2023:BHC-AS:33740.

Flat Purchasers Approached Civil Court Against Developer and Society

• The appellants had instituted S.C. Suit No. 964 of 2023 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai.
• Their dispute concerned Flat No. 1105 on the 11th Floor, having a carpet area of 643 sq. ft. and built-up area of 772 sq. ft., in the building known as D.N. Nagar Shivneri CHS Ltd., Andheri West, Mumbai.
• They sought a mandatory direction requiring the developer, M/s Sai Siddhant Developers, to adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement concerning the flat and fulfil its statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA).
• They also sought an injunction restraining the defendants from selling, transferring, alienating or creating third-party rights in the flat.

Society Invokes Section 79 of RERA

• D.N. Nagar Shivneri Co-operative Housing Society filed a Notice of Motion seeking return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
• The Society argued that the Civil Court could not entertain the suit because its jurisdiction was barred by Section 79 of RERA.
• The City Civil Court accepted the objection and, by an order dated 11 July 2023, returned the plaint for presentation before RERA. The purchasers challenged that decision before the Bombay High Court.

Purchasers Argue Suit Was for Specific Performance

• The purchasers argued before the High Court that their suit was actually one for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 10 June 2015.
• They contended that they had already paid a substantial portion of the agreed consideration but that the developer had failed to perform its contractual obligations.
• They further alleged collusion between the developer and the Society and argued that RERA could not determine questions involving fraud and collusion.
• The purchasers relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 78, to argue that exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction should not be readily inferred.
• They also relied upon State of A.P. v. Manjeti Laxmi Kantha Rao & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 689, which reiterates the general principle that Civil Courts possess jurisdiction over suits of a civil nature unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly excluded.

Society: Suit Was Really About Enforcement of Promoter’s Statutory Obligations

• The Society disputed the purchasers’ characterization of the suit.
• It argued that the suit was not actually for specific performance of the Agreement for Sale. Instead, the purchasers were asking the developer to fulfil obligations arising under MOFA which, following registration of the project under RERA, could be enforced through the remedies available under the RERA framework.
• The Society relied on Sections 11, 19, 34 and 79 of RERA, arguing that the Act provides an adequate mechanism for seeking completion of construction, possession and enforcement of the promoter’s statutory obligations.

Bombay HC Examines Actual Prayers in the Plaint

• A crucial part of the High Court’s analysis concerned the actual reliefs sought in the plaint, rather than the purchasers’ description of their case during arguments.
• The principal prayer sought a mandatory direction requiring the developer to adhere to the agreement relating to Flat No. 1105 and fulfil its statutory obligations under MOFA.
• The purchasers had also sought a permanent injunction against creation of third-party rights, appointment of a Court Receiver, and a direction requiring the developer to deposit ₹68,78,890 with 18% interest to secure the money paid by them.

After examining those prayers, the High Court reached an important factual conclusion:

• “Thus, there is no prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 10 June 2015.”
• According to the Court, the suit instead sought adherence to the terms of the agreement and/or fulfilment of statutory obligations under MOFA.

Court-Fee Valuation Also Showed Suit Was Not for Specific Performance

• The High Court also examined how the purchasers themselves had valued their suit.
• They had valued the proceeding under Section 6(iv)(j) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, stating that the relief was incapable of monetary valuation because what they sought was enforcement of the developer’s statutory obligations under MOFA.
• The Court contrasted this with Section 6(xi) of the Court Fees Act, which specifically deals with suits for specific performance and, in the case of a contract of sale, requires valuation according to the amount of consideration.
• The High Court therefore found that the purchasers’ own pleadings and court-fee valuation supported the conclusion that the suit was not a suit for specific performance.

Mere Allegation of Fraud or Collusion Cannot Create Civil Court Jurisdiction

• The purchasers also attempted to sustain the Civil Court’s jurisdiction by alleging fraud and collusion between the Society and the developer.
• The High Court rejected this contention on the facts.
• Justice Marne noted that the word “fraud” was not even pleaded in the suit, while references to “collusion” were unsupported by material particulars.
• The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1330, which emphasised that a mere allegation of fraud is insufficient and that fraud must be supported by specific pleadings explaining how it was committed.
• Accordingly, unsupported references to fraud or collusion could not be used to alter the true character of the suit or avoid the statutory jurisdictional bar.

RERA Project Registration Was Crucial

• The High Court noted that under the first proviso to Section 3(1) of RERA, projects for which a completion certificate had not been issued when RERA commenced are required to be registered with the Authority.
• In this case, the project had been registered with MahaRERA under Registration No. P51800004197 on 8 August 2017.
• The Court therefore found that the purchasers could seek enforcement of the promoter’s obligations through the remedies created by RERA.
• Those remedies included seeking refund with interest, fulfilment of the promoter’s obligations and possession of the flat under Section 19(3).

Section 79 RERA Bars Civil Court Jurisdiction Over Matters RERA Can Determine

• Section 79 provides that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding concerning any matter which the RERA Authority, adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered under the Act to determine.
• It also prohibits courts or other authorities from granting injunctions concerning action taken or proposed under powers conferred by RERA.
• Applying this provision to the particular reliefs sought by the appellants, Justice Marne held that the City Civil Court had correctly concluded that its jurisdiction was barred.
• The High Court stated that, in the circumstances before it, the bar under Section 79 was “absolute”, because an adequate mechanism existed under RERA for the purchasers to seek fulfilment of the developer/promoter’s obligations.

Important Qualification: Court Leaves Broader Specific-Performance Question Open

• An important qualification in the judgment should not be overlooked.
• The Bombay High Court did not hold that every civil suit seeking specific performance of an agreement concerning a RERA-registered project is barred by Section 79.
• During arguments, counsel for the Society fairly conceded that such an absolute proposition could not necessarily be advanced.
• The Court expressly stated that the broader question—whether Civil Court jurisdiction is barred in every suit seeking specific performance of an agreement concerning a RERA project—was being left open for determination in an appropriate case.
• The decision therefore turns substantially on the Court’s finding that the particular plaint before it was not actually a suit for specific performance.

What Supreme Court’s Imperia Structures Decision Meant

• The Society had also relied upon Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 783.
• The Bombay High Court observed that Imperia Structures principally concerned the relationship between remedies under RERA and those available before consumer fora.
• The Supreme Court had recognised that Section 79 bars Civil Court jurisdiction over matters which the RERA Authority, adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine, while consumer remedies remain separately available in the circumstances considered in that case.
• However, Justice Marne clarified that Imperia Structures did not resolve the broader issue of whether every specific-performance suit concerning a RERA agreement is barred.

Appeal Dismissed; City Civil Court Order Upheld

• The Bombay High Court ultimately found no patent error in the City Civil Court’s decision.
• Accordingly, Appeal From Order No. 662 of 2023 was dismissed without costs.
• As a consequence, the connected Interim Application No. 14511 of 2023 also did not survive and was disposed of.
• Thus, the order returning the purchasers’ plaint for presentation before the appropriate RERA forum remained undisturbed.

Key Takeaway

The judgment demonstrates that the substance of the plaint and the actual reliefs claimed—not merely the label given to the suit—will be crucial when determining whether Section 79 RERA excludes Civil Court jurisdiction. Where a purchaser essentially seeks enforcement of obligations that the RERA Authority is empowered to enforce, the Civil Court may lack jurisdiction.

At the same time, the Bombay High Court deliberately left open the broader question of whether a genuine suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in a RERA-registered project is necessarily barred.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com