Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. BALAJI, J.
M/s. Sare Shelters Project Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Sare Sqruires Association - Respondent
CRP.No.5064 of 2025, CMP.No.25532 of 2025
Decided On : 30-01-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr.T.Gowthaman Senior Counsel For M/s.KNS Law Chambers
For the Respondent: Mrs.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel For Mr.R.Manimuthu
Discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 is unavailable where a statutory remedy exists; execution of orders under RERA can proceed unless properly challenged.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Section 44 - Execution Petition - The revision petition was dismissed as the executing court had not passed any final order but only an interim injunction restraining alienation of unsold apartments, which did not preclude the petitioner from pursuing their remedies under RERA. The lack of challenge to earlier orders rendered the present revision maintainable. (Paras 1, 4, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Not applicable where a statutory remedy exists - The court emphasized that discretionary jurisdiction could not intervene if a party has an effective alternate remedy under the law. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a promoter facing execution proceedings, contended that the interim order granting the respondent the ability to file for execution of unsold properties was improperly issued. The court established the order did not contradict the parties’ rights and was legally sound.
Findings of Court:
The interim order was validated through the Court’s observation of the conducting parties and the nature of assumed obligations within the execution petition process.
Issues: The primary matter was whether the executing court erred in issuing an interim injunction without prior notice or application by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that given the absence of challenge to earlier orders and the nature of interim protection, the executing court's actions were justified.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioner and respondent (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's argument on execution order (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent's defense and arguments (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's consideration of procedural aspects (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court's rationale on maintaining order (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. statutory remedies under rera (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. supervisory jurisdiction and dismissal rationale (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. final order dismissing the revision (Para 20) |
ORDER :
P.B. BALAJI, J.
The petitioner is the judgment debtor, who has suffered an order in E.P.No.27 of 2024, the execution petition arising out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
2.I have heard Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.KNS Law Chamber, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Manimuthu, learned counsel for the respondent Association of the flat owners.
3.Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner suffered an interim order in I.A.No.43 of 2021 before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Chennai on 05.01.2023. Insofar as I.A.No.43 of 2021, the directions issued in the said IA, learned Senior Counsel would invite my attention to the liberty granted by the Regulatory Authority, to the respondent to file an execution petition in the event of the promoter failing to comply with the the directions issued by the authority on or before 31.03.2023. The learned Senior Counsel would however contend that the said interim order dated 05.01.2023 is superseded by final orders dated 15.12.2023 in C.No.212 of 2019.
4.It is therefore the primordial submission of Mr.T.Gowthaman, learned Senior Counsel that the directions issued on 05.01.2023 by way of interim orders stood merged with the final orders which did not reserve any such right on the respondent/Association and in such circumstances, without even an application being taken out, seeking attachment of the immovable properties, the respondent could not have filed the execution petition for attachment of the unsold apartments and further contends that the executing Court ought not to have straight away allowed the prayer sought for, by granting an injunction restraining the promoter from dealing with 48 flats.
5.It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.Gowthaman that the 48 flats which remain unsold, even according to the respondent/Association, a charge has already been created in favour of a third party financier and therefore by passing such an order in the execution petition, the executing Court has committed a grave error which prejudices the interest of the petitioner as well as the third party financier. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.
6.Per contra, Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/Association would first and foremost contend that the revision petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of Constitution of India as an alternate and effective remedy is available under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is also the submission of Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel that neither the interim order dated 05.01.2023 nor the final order dated 15.12.2023 have been challenged in the manner known to law and therefore, there is absolutely no impediment for the respondent/Association to seek enforcement by way of filing the execution petition.
7.Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel would further contend that under Order XXI Rule 53 of CPC r/w Section 36 of RERA Act, 2016, the respondent has also sought for interim attachment and in fact, the petitioner was represented by a counsel in the said proceedings and despite several opportunities given to the petitioner, the petitioner was not ready to get along with the matter and was only bargaining for time on the ground that the promoter was
