JUDGMENT :

These three appeals are filed under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”) challenging the order of the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“Appellate Tribunal”) in M.A. No.698 of 2022 with M.A. No.657 of 2022 in Appeal No. AT00600000010806 (Second Appeal No.301 of 2023), M.A. No.699 of 2022 with M.A. No.658 of 2022 in Appeal No. AT00600000010807 (Second Appeal No.303 of 2023) and M.A. No.700 of 2022 with M.A. No.659 of 2022 in Appeal No. AT00600000010808 (Second Appeal No.301 of 2023). All the three appeals raises common issue and, therefore, is disposed of by common order.

2. The appeals are admitted on following reframed question of law :

“Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground that the Appellant has failed to file the hard copies of the appeal memos and further the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the restoration application filed by the Appellant for seeking permission to file the hard copies and restore the appeals ?”

3. Brief facts are as under:

(i) The Appellant is a developer/promoter and Respondents are allottees of a residential project. The Respondents allottees filed complaint against the Appellant before the Regulatory Authority for various reliefs. The Regulatory Authority passed an order against the Appellant.

(ii) Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed Appeal Nos.301 of 2023, 303 of 2023 and 311 of 2023 online within time provided under section 44(2) of the RERA Act, challenging the common order dated 28th February 2018, passed by the learned Member and Adjudicating Officer of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority. However, the Appellant did not file the hard copies of the appeals along with attachments within prescribed time after having filed the appeal online. On 13th May 2019, the Appellate Tribunal observed that since the hard copies of appeals are not submitted nor the Appellant attended any hearing, it is evident that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeals and, therefore, the appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution.

(iii) On 30th June 2022, Miscellaneous Application for restoration of the above appeals was made to the Appellate Tribunal by the Appellant. The said restoration application was filed after a delay of 1088 days. The reason given in the restoration application was that the Advocate was not aware that after having filed the appeals online, hard copies also had to be filed with the office of the Appellate Tribunal.

(iv) On 16th January 2023, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay for considering the maintainability of application for restoring the appeals. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Appellant did not exercise due care and diligence to pursue his own appeals and slept over for a period of almost 1000 days. The Appellate Tribunal also rejected the explanation for delay that the delay was on account of the Advocate being not aware of having to file hard copies of the appeals.

(v) It is on the above backdrop, that the above appeals were filed against the Appellate Tribunal’s order refusing to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and restoration of the appeals.

4. Submission of the Appellant : The Appellant submitted that he had filed the appeals online and the delay was only in filing the hard copies of the appeals with the Tribunal. The Appellant submits that delay in compliance of procedural formalities should not come in the way of a litigant to seek substantial justice. The Appellant reiterated the contention raised before the Appellate Tribunal in seeking condonation in filing the restoration application and consequently prayed for restoration of the appeals. The Appellant also submitted that he may be given one more opportunity to pursue his appeal remedy on the terms and conditions deemed fit by the Court, including imposition of cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to each Respondent.

5.