Karnataka High Court
M/S Comfort Builders And Developers vs Mr Debesh Chandra Pal on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
RERA.A No. 28 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
RERA APPEAL No. 28 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. M/S COMFORT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
No.2, NORTH PARK ROAD,
KUMARA PARK EAST,
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI T. NARASIMHA MURTHY,
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by VALLI (BY SRI E. SUHAIL AHMED, ADVOCATE)
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. MR. DEBESH CHANDRA PAL,
S/O LATE SRI DINESH C PAL,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. MRS. MADHUMITHA PAL,
W/O DEBESH CHANDRA PAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
RERA.A No. 28 of 2025
HC-KAR
BOTH (1) AND (2) R/AT
FLAT No. 45,
MAHAVEER GALAXY APARTMENTS,
KENGERI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560060.
3. THE KARNATAA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT No.1/14,
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK,
BEHIND UNITY BUIDING,
CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS RERA.APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 58 OF THE
REAL ESTATE (REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 2016,
R/W SECTION 100 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2025 PASSED IN APPEAL (K-
REAT) No.123/2023 BY THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
RERA.A No. 28 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
The matter in the instant appeal lies within a narrow
compass. It appears that the respondent-allottees had filed a
complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Karnataka1 claiming interest under Section 18 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 20162. The appeal
filed by the Promoter was rejected, whereafter an appeal under
Section 58 of the Act was filed by the Promoter before this
Court. It is stated that the Promoter thereafter submitted a
complaint in the office of the RERA seeking interest under the
provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 19 of the Act.
However, during scrutiny of the complaint, the Registrar of the
RERA passed the order of 19.08.2023 stating that, in respect of
the same complaint between the same parties, the order has
been passed and, therefore, the complaint was not registered.
2. In the appeal filed by the appellant-Promoter, the
impugned order of 30.01.2025 was passed on the ground that
RERA
Act
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
the complaint of the appellant-Promoter bearing
No.01267/2023 was justifiably closed.
3. The short contention is that the order is wholly illegal and
it was not open for the Registrar of the RERA to pass the order
of 19.08.2023.
4. It is stated that whether the complaint ought to be
rejected, is the matter of judicial scrutiny and not a clerical
scrutiny and, therefore, the Registry had no jurisdiction to pass
the order of 19.08.2023 and the Appellate Tribunal has
misdirected itself in holding that the compliant was justifiably
dismissed by the order of the Registry of 19.08.2023.
5. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of
learned Single Judge of this Court passed in
W.P.No.34471/2024 (GM-RES), on 25.03.2025.
6. The appeal under Section 58 of the Act would lie against
any order or decision of the Appellate Tribunal within sixty (60)
days on any one or more grounds specified in Section 100 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 19083.
CPC
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
7. The second appeal under Section 100 of CPC would lie
against every decree passed in appeal by any Court sub-
ordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the
case involves a substantial question of law.
8. In the case of Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala4, the
Supreme Court, upturned the judgment of the High Court
passed in a second appeal. Inter alia, it considered the maxim
"possession follows title" and held that the presumption that
possession must be deemed to follow title, arises only where
there is no definite proof of possession by anyone else. Very
importantly, it dealt in detail with the term "substantial
question of law" as appearing in Section 100 of the CPC and
what constitutes that term. Certain paragraphs of that
judgment are extracted below:-
"26. The principles for deciding when a question of law
becomes a substantial question of law, have been
enunciated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg.
Co. Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 1314] , where this Court held :
"6. ... The proper test for determining whether a
question of law raised in the case is substantial
would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general
(2020) 19 SCC 57
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
public importance or whether it directly and
substantially affects the rights of the parties and
if so whether it is either an open question in the
sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or
by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is
not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of
alternative views. If the question is settled by
the highest court or the general principles to
be applied in determining the question are
well settled and there is a mere question of
applying those principles or that the plea
raised is palpably absurd the question would
not be a substantial question of law."
27. In Hero Vinoth v. Seshammal [(2006) 5 SCC 545] ,
this Court referred to and relied upon Chunilal V. Mehta
and Sons Ltd. and other judgments and summarised the
tests to find out whether a given set of questions of law
were mere questions of law or substantial questions of
law. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of this
Court in Hero Vinoth are set out hereinbelow : (SCC p.
554, para 21)
"21. The phrase "substantial question of law", as
occurring in the amended Section 100 CPC is not
defined in the Code. The word substantial, as
qualifying "question of law", means-- of
having substance, essential, real, of sound
worth, important or considerable. It is to be
understood as something in
contradistinction with--technical, of no
substance or consequence, or academic
merely. ....................................................................."
28. To be "substantial", a question of law must be
debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land
or any binding precedent, and must have a material
bearing on the decision of the case and/or the rights of
the parties before it, if answered either way.
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
29. To be a question of law "involved in the case", there
must be first, a foundation for it laid in the pleadings,
and the question should emerge from the sustainable
findings of fact, arrived at by courts of facts, and it must
be necessary to decide that question of law for a just
and proper decision of the case.
30. Where no such question of law, nor even a mixed
question of law and fact was urged before the trial court
or the first appellate court, as in this case, a second
appeal cannot be entertained, as held by this Court in
Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami [(1997)
4 SCC 713] .
31. Whether a question of law is a substantial one and
whether such question is involved in the case or not,
would depend on the facts and circumstances of each
case. The paramount overall consideration is the need
for striking a judicious balance between the
indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and
the impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the
life of any lis. This proposition finds support from
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC
179] .
32. In a second appeal, the jurisdiction of the High
Court being confined to substantial question of law, a
finding of fact is not open to challenge in second appeal,
even if the appreciation of evidence is palpably
erroneous and the finding of fact incorrect as held in V.
Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chettiar [AIR 1963
SC 302] . An entirely new point, raised for the first
time, before the High Court, is not a question involved
in the case, unless it goes to the root of the matter.
33. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relevant
for this case may be summarised thus:
33.1. An inference of fact from the recitals or contents
of a document is a question of fact, but the legal effect
of the terms of a document is a question of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
Construction of a document, involving the application of
any principle of law, is also a question of law. Therefore,
when there is misconstruction of a document or wrong
application of a principle of law in construing a
document, it gives rise to a question of law.
33.2. The High Court should be satisfied that the case
involves a substantial question of law, and not a mere
question of law. A question of law having a material
bearing on the decision of the case (that is, a question,
answer to which affects the rights of parties to the suit)
will be a substantial question of law, if it is not covered
by any specific provisions of law or settled legal
principle emerging from binding precedents, and,
involves a debatable legal issue.
33.3. A substantial question of law will also arise in a
contrary situation, where the legal position is clear,
either on account of express provisions of law or binding
precedents, but the court below has decided the matter,
either ignoring or acting contrary to such legal principle.
In the second type of cases, the substantial question of
law arises not because the law is still debatable, but
because the decision rendered on a material question,
violates the settled position of law.
33.4. The general rule is, that the High Court will not
interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts
below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well-
recognised exceptions are where : (i) the courts below
have ignored material evidence or acted on no
evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences
from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or
(iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. A
decision based on no evidence, does not refer only to
cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also
refers to case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is
not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
NC: 2025:KHC:43676-DB
HC-KAR
9. Given the enunciation of law by the Supreme Court and
the observations of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the
aforesaid W.P.No.34471/2024 (GM-RES), in our opinion, no
substantial question of law is made out. This appeal, therefore,
would not be maintainable. However, the right of the Promoter
can be redressed by seeking such other remedy, as may be
advised.
10. The appeal is therefore disposed of, with liberty to the
Promoter-appellant to avail any other remedy, as may be
advised.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MV
