The court reinforced the need for timely objections to tribunal orders and clarified the applicability of review provisions concerning the dismissal of applications for default.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

1. M.S.A.Nos.9/2026 and 11/2026 are directed against an order dated 07.01.2026 in I.A.Nos.257/2025 & 258/2025 in I.A.No.422/2024 in I.A.No.360/2024 in REFA No.141/2024 and M.S.A.No.12/2026 is against an order dated 04.03.2026 in REFA No.141/2024.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

The appeal, i.e. REFA No.141/2024, before the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, arises out of a dismissal of a complaint before the Adjudicating Officer attached to the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Adjudicating Officer of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority, upon the complaint, refused to accept the plea of the complainant on the ground that no oral evidence was adduced by him to substantiate the claim for compensation. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, REFA No.141/2024 was filed with an application for condoning the delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. The said application, i.e. I.A.No.360/2024, was not prosecuted properly and hence, it was dismissed for default and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed for default. Thereafter, I.A.No.422/2004 was filed to restore the delay condonation application and the said application was dismissed for default on 30.12.2024. Later, I.A.No.128/2025 to condone the delay of 64 days in filing an application for restoration and I.A.No.129/2025 seeking restoration of the earlier petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal (I.A.No.360/2024) were filed on 04.04.2025. Subsequently, these applications were not pressed on 04.06.2025. Later, fresh applications, as I.A.No.257/2025 seeking to restore the restoration petition (I.A.No.422/2024) & I.A.No.258/2025 seeking to condone the delay in filing I.A.No.257/2025 were filed. These applications were taken up for consideration together and by order dated 07.01.2026, the tribunal took a lenient view and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the appellant/respondent herein to be paid to the respondent/appellant herein. The respondent/appellant before the tribunal complied with the aforesaid direction, but then the appellant herein did not accept the above cost. Subsequently, the matter was posted to 11.02.2026, and thereafter to 04.03.2026. The tribunal finding that the appellant herein did not appear before the tribunal on 04.03.2026, proceeded to allow the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Officer for a fresh consideration of the complaint. The order passed in the appeal along with the order passed in the interlocutory applications are challenged in these appeals.

3. Heard, Adv.C.S.Manu – learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeal.

4. Adv.C.S.Manu - learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the tribunal erred egregiously in allowing the application for restoration. Even if the tribunal was inclined to allow the application for restoration, necessarily the appellant herein should have been put on notice and thereafter, the appeal should have been considered on merits. He further pointed out that, once an application is dismissed for default by the tribunal, there is no power to the tribunal to restore the said application unless otherwise specifically conferred with the power. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. v. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr. 2011 (9) SCC 541. According to the learned counsel, the divergent views prevailing were set at right by the Supreme Court and it was held that, in the case of a complaint ordered exparte, the District Forums and State Consumer Commissions does not have the power to review the said order or recall