Delhi High Court
Vaikunth Multistate Cghs Ltd & Ors vs Mrs. Kanta Rani on 20 May, 2025
$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 20.05.2025
+ C.R.P. 91/2025
VAIKUNTH MULTISTATE CGHS LTD & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Kajal Dewan and Ms. Mehak
Gupta, Advs.
versus
MRS. KANTA RANI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bijendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. This Court had after hearing the parties on 07.04.2025 passed a
detailed order. The relevant extract of which is set out below:
"7. The present Petition has been filed under Section 15(1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugning the order dated
01.10.2024 [hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"] passed by
learned ADJ-03, South-West District, Dwarka Courts. By the
Impugned Order, the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC
filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.
8. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Plaint is barred under the
provisions of Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulatory and
Development) Act, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as "RERA Act"]
which expressly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of
disputes between builders and buyers which fall under the RERA Act.
9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that entire plaint is
in the nature of builder-buyer dispute. The Respondent has herself
given the details of the project proposed by the Petitioners and the
receipts of the payment made to the Petitioners are also annexed. He
thus, submits any complaint or grievance against the builder is
required to be entertained before the Authority appointed under the
RERA Act. It is contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to
try and entertain the Plaint. Reliance is placed upon the judgments
passed by the Supreme Court in Imperia Structures Ltd Vs. Ani1
Patni and Ors.; AIR 2021 SC 70 and in Kamala and Ors. Vs. K. T.
Eshwara Sa and Ors.; (2008) 12 SCC 661.
10. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that the learned
Trial Court has given a finding that whether or not the suit is barred by
the RERA Act is a mixed question of fact and law which can be
decided at the appropriate stage and has thus dismissed the
Application. Prima facie, the finding of the learned Trial Court is
incorrect.
11. Issue Notice. On steps being taken, let Notice be issued to the
Respondent via all modes, dasti in addition. An affidavit of service be
filed within a week.
12. List on 23.04.2025.
13. In the meantime, the parties shall file their short note of
contentions in the matter, not exceeding three pages each, at least
three days before the next date of hearing, along with the compilation
of judgments, if any, they wish to rely upon. All judgments sought to
be relied upon shall be filed with an index which also sets out the
relevant paragraph numbers and the proposition of law that it sets
forth."
2. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he has instructions
to withdraw the suit as filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff before the learned
Trial Court and thus, the present Petition will become infructuous.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he will take
appropriate steps before the learned Trial Court within a period of two
weeks. The Respondent is bound down by the statement made by their
Counsel.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petition can be
disposed of in view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent before this Court today with liberty to revive the same, if the
necessity arises.
5. The Petition is disposed of in the aforegoing terms. Liberty as sought
for is so granted albeit in accordance with law.
6. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MAY 20, 2025/r Click here to check corrigendum, if any
