2025 (3) TMI 113 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of the Civil Court in entertaining the suit having barred either expressly or by necessary implication - challenge to ex parte ad interim order of injunction passed by the Trial Court at the behest of the defendant/respondent who neither appeared in the said suit at the time of passing impugned order nor filed the pleading raising such issue - HELD THAT - The question often arises when the regulatory authority is not empowered to execute its order or direction as a decree of a Civil Court whether it can exercise such power vested upon the Appellate Tribunal under the said Act. It is no longer res integra that the authority exercises the powers and assumes jurisdiction on the basis of a statute enacted in this regard and cannot travel beyond the peripheral thereof. The moment the legislatures consciously did not incorporate specific provision conferring the power and the jurisdiction in such manner the regulatory authority cannot assume such jurisdiction. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court should not be inferred readily except when it is so excluded explicitly or by necessary implication and/or the statute in question provides adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party; in other words the ouster of Civil Court can only be assumed if the authority under the statute can exercise all powers vested upon the Civil Court. In the event the statute provides that the authority is vested with the power not only to adjudicate the dispute which is capable to be adjudicated by the Civil Court but also to execute the same in the manner as is done by the Civil Court the exclusion can be inferred by necessary implication in absence of any express provision. Inspiration in this regard can be drawn from a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Mandira Mookerjee vs. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ors. 2004 (12) TMI 737 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT where an identical issue arose whether the Consumer Forum is competent to pass an order for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property. It is held that under the Specific Relief Act which recognises the right of the specific performance of a contract available to a party agreed but it does not contain any express provision that it can only be done by the Civil Court and not otherwise. The reference was made to a hypothetical situation where the parties under an agreement agreed to resolve the dispute through private fora i.e. arbitration and the arbitrator was empowered to pass an order for specific performance. Section 79 of the Act has to be interpreted in such a manner and the moment the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted it cannot pass any order be it in a form of ex parte interim or temporary injunction. The Apex Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad Ors. 2006 (12) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT held that any order passed by an authority lacking the inherent jurisdiction would be regarded as nullity. Conclusion - RERA Act being a complete Code providing the exhaustive mechanism not only for the adjudication of the disputes adherence of an obligation of the respective parties but also to execute the same as if it is a decree passed by the Civil Court. It thus excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue addressed in this judgment is the jurisdiction and competence of the Civil Court to entertain a dispute for specific performance of a contract under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The question is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly or implicitly barred by RERA, which provides a specialized mechanism for redressal of grievances in real estate matters.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework revolves around the RERA Act, which aims to regulate the real estate sector, protect consumer interests, and establish a mechanism for speedy dispute resolution. Section 79 of RERA specifically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters that the Authority, Adjudicating Officer, or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. The judgment references Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows Civil Courts to try all suits of civil nature unless jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. The Court also relies on the precedent set by the Apex Court in Dhulabai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which states that Civil Court jurisdiction is excluded when a statute provides an adequate remedy and the tribunal acts in conformity with judicial principles.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The Court interprets Section 79 of RERA as providing an explicit exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction in matters covered by RERA. The Act is seen as a self-contained code with comprehensive provisions for addressing disputes related to real estate projects. The Court emphasizes that jurisdictional exclusion should not be readily inferred but can be determined by express statutory provisions or necessary implication. The Court also considers the legislative intent behind RERA, which is to provide an efficient and transparent mechanism for resolving real estate disputes.

Key Evidence and Findings

The evidence considered includes the plaint and the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent, which references proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Court notes that the plaintiff/respondent acknowledged the initiation of proceedings under RERA, which supports the defendant/appellant's argument for the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction. The Court finds that the RERA Act provides a complete mechanism for redressal, including the power to enforce orders as decrees of a Civil Court.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court applies the legal principles to the facts by examining whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction over the dispute for specific performance of a real estate agreement. It concludes that the jurisdiction is barred by RERA, as the Act provides an adequate remedy and mechanism for enforcement. The Court highlights that the presence of a complaint before the RERA Authority and the provisions of the Act indicate that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The Court addresses the arguments of both parties regarding the scope of RERA's jurisdiction. The appellant argues that RERA provides a complete remedy, including specific performance, while the respondent contends that Civil Courts retain jurisdiction for such relief. The Court resolves this by interpreting the provisions of RERA and the rules, concluding that the Act's comprehensive framework excludes Civil Court jurisdiction.

Conclusions

The Court concludes that the RERA Act excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters it covers, including disputes related to specific performance of real estate agreements. The order of the Trial Court granting an ex parte ad interim injunction is set aside as it was passed without jurisdiction.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court holds that RERA is a self-contained code that provides an exhaustive mechanism for resolving real estate disputes, including the power to enforce orders as decrees. It establishes that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is excluded by RERA in matters the Act empowers the Authority, Adjudicating Officer, or Appellate Tribunal to determine. The judgment quotes the Apex Court's decision in Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs. Usman Abbas Sayyad, emphasizing that orders passed by a court lacking jurisdiction are nullities.

The final determination is that the appeal is allowed, and the order of the Trial Court is set aside due to lack of jurisdiction. There are no orders as to costs, and the judgment is to be made available to the parties upon compliance with formalities.