The central legal point established in the judgment is that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under RERA cannot be termed as a 'decree' under Section 2(2) of C.P.C., despite Section 57 of said Act making the order executable as a 'decree'.

ORDER :

Heard on the question of maintainability.

2. On perusal of Office Note dated 10.05.2021, it appears that the Registry of this High Court raised the objection of maintainability as Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. would be maintainable against the impugned order. As per office, instead of filing Second Appeal, the appellant has preferred this Misc. Appeal, challenging the order dated 17.03.2021, passed by Madhya Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Bhopal in Appeal No.A-144/2019.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant works as Developer & Architect whereas the respondent is a purchaser of two plots in a residential colony situated at village Barkheda Salam, District-Bhopal. The respondent has filed a complaint before RERA against the appellant regarding some development issues in the site. The adjudicating Officer of RERA has disposed of the case vide order dated 03.07.2019, directing the appellant to pay compensation to the respondent and also imposed some conditions upon the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.1 approached the Appellate Tribunal of RERA by filing Appeal No.A-144/2019. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 03.07.2019 and modified the amount of compensation and interest to be paid to the respondent. Hence, under Section 58 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as RERA), the appellant approached this High Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Registry of this High Court has wrongly pointed out the objection regarding maintainability of this appeal. The proceedings of RERA are of a summary nature to which the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable. The order of Appellate Tribunal may not be termed as a ‘decree’ under Section 2 (2) of C.P.C. and therefore, the instant appeal would be maintainable against the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. He also read the provision of Section 58 of RERA and submits that it provides for an appeal against the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal but here does not use the word ‘Second Appeal’ as used in Section 100 of the C.P.C. It only provides that the appeal can be preferred on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 100 of C.P.C. but it does not mean that only Second Appeal would lie. It is further argued by the counsel that for filing a Second Appeal, the condition precedent is the decree passed in appeal and that too by any Court Sub-ordinate to the High Court. The Appellate Tribunal of RERA is not a Sub-ordinate Court to the High Court and order passed by Appellate Tribunal is not a decree, therefore, Second Appeal would not lie against the said order. In support of his contention, he relied upon the order passed by Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Supertech Ltd. Vs. Subrat Sen reported in (2018) SCC OnLine All 5629. He prays for maintainability of this appeal.

5. Heard.

6. The appellant seeks maintainability of this appeal in lieu of Second Appeal on the grounds that the Appellate Tribunal is not a Sub-ordinate Court to the High Court and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be termed as ‘decree’. Before entering into the said question, I would prefer to read the relevant clause of M.P. High Court Rules.

7. In our High Court, the Second Appeal ordinarily registered for following civil appeals

1. An appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; or

2. Any other appeal of civil nature provided or permissible under any law, for the time being in force, against an appellate decree.

8. On careful reading of the aforesaid clause, it is manifest that there are two occasions for filing the second appeal before this High Court. First, under Section 100 of the C.P.C. and another against an appellate decree passed in appeal of civil nature.

9. As per Section 100 of C.P.C., an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every ‘decree’ passed in appeal by any Court Sub-ordinate to