Bombay High Court
NARIMAN SAPAL PATEL AND ANRversusRARE TOWNSHIP PVT LTD
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Tribunal correctly excluded the period from 28 March to 16 April 2025 in computing the limitation, and the second appeal is dismissed as an abuse of process.
Summary
The appellants, Nariman Sapal Patel & Anr., filed a second appeal challenging an order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dated 1 August 2025, which held that their earlier appeal was filed within the statutory limitation period. They argued that under Section 44(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the 60‑day limitation should commence from the date they received the order (17 March 2025) and that the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be applied. The court examined Regulation 10 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, which requires a certified copy of the impugned order to be filed with the memorandum, and held that the Tribunal correctly excluded the period from 28 March to 16 April 2025 in computing the limitation. Consequently, the appeal was deemed a gross abuse of process and was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000 imposed on the appellants, and the related interim application was also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 60‑day limitation period under Section 44(2) of RERA begins from the date the order is received by the aggrieved party.
- Whether provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be imported into the RERA framework.
- Whether Regulation 10 of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019, requiring a certified copy of the order, affects the computation of the limitation period.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 12
- Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 — s. 44(2)
Subjects
- RERA
- limitation period
- real estate tribunal
- abuse of process
- Section 44
- Regulation 10
- Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37754
k 1/3 45 sa 569.25 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.569 OF 2025
Nariman Sapal Patel & Anr. ....Appellants
V/S
Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.12372 OF 2025
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.569 OF 2025
Nariman Sapal Patel & Anr. ....Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Nariman Sapal Patel & Anr. ....Appellants
V/S
Rare Township Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent
_________
Mr. Rahul Soman a/w Ms. Jenisha Gala i/b Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi for the
Appellants.
Ms. Ayushi Anandpara a/w Mr. Sama Khan i/b SNG & Partners for
Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1. It must be observed at the outset that filing of present Appeal is
gross abuse of process of law. The Appeal challenges order dated 1
August 2025 passed by the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai (Appellate Tribunal) holding that the Appeal
No.AT006/000475 of 2025 is filed within the period of limitation and that
katkam Page No. 1 of 3
k 2/3 45 sa 569.25 as.doc
there is no delay in filing the same. The Appeal is filed contending that
under provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Appeal needs to be
filed within a period of 60 days from the date on which copy of the
direction or order or decision made by the authority is received by the
aggrieved person. Inviting my attention to the Application for
condonation of delay it is sought to be contended on behalf of the
Appellant that the Respondent was intimated regarding order passed by
the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai (MahaRERA)
on 17 March 2025 and that therefore the period of 60 days provided for
in Section 44(2) of the RERA commenced from 17 March 2025. It is
further sought to be contended that provisions of Section 12 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be imported within the statutory frame work
of RERA.
2. However, under Regulation 10 of Maharashtra Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 2019 (Regulations of 2019), every
Memorandum of Appeal needs to be accompanied alongwith certified
copy of the impugned order. Thus in absence of a certified copy, Appeal
cannot be lodged before the Appellate Tribunal. Provisions of Section 44
of RERA are required to be read in conjunction with Regulation 10 of the
Regulations of 2019. In that view of the matter, the Appellate Tribunal
has rightly excluded the period from 28 March 2025 to 16 April 2025
while computing the period of limitation. No interference is warranted
in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Filing of the
Appeal is gross abuse of process of law. Valuable judicial time is wasted
katkam Page No. 2 of 3
k 3/3 45 sa 569.25 as.doc
in hearing and deciding the Appeal, filing of which ought to have been
avoided. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed by imposing costs
of Rs.10,000/- on the Appellants. Costs shall be paid to the Respondent
within a period of four weeks.
3. In view of disposal of the Second Appeal nothing would survive in
the Interim Application and the same is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Page No. 3 of 3
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/09/2026 13:17:42
Checking your session…