ORDER

Date : 07-11-2022 Heard Mr. S. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2) This revision has been filed under Section 115 CPC to assail the order dated 31.08.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 681/2022 arising out of T.S. No. 493/2019. By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 11(d)

CPC for rejection of plaint was dismissed.

3) The petitioner is the defendant no. 2 in the suit, which is filed by the respondent no. 1 as plaintiff. In brief, as per the plaint, the petitioner is the land-owner and she had entered into an agreement with the respondent no. 2 for development of land and for construction of multi-storied RCC building thereon vide registered deed no. 11696 dated 03.10.2015. The GMC issued a NOC dated 23.05.2016 for construction of basement floor, ground floor and two upper floors with a total of 6 units. Consequent to the said agreement dated 03.10.2015, vide registered General Power of Attorney bearing deed no. 3966 dated 03.10.2015, the petitioner had nominated, appointed and constituted the respondent no. 2 i.e. the developer as her attorney. Thereafter, vide registered deed no. 5513 dated 27.05.2016, the respondent no. 2 had entered into an agreement for sale of a flat with the respondent no. 1 and the proposed flat is described in Schedule-B to the said registered agreement. Although the respondent no. 1 had purportedly paid a sum of Rs.18,52,000/- to the respondent no. 2, the construction of the proposed flat was not completed and therefore, the suit was filed for specific performance of contract, and execution of the sale deed on receiving balance sale consideration and/or without any balance construction in the event construction is not completed, and for consequential reliefs of registration of sale deed by Court and alternative relief of refund of part consideration of Rs.18,52,000/- paid to the respondent no. 3.

4) The petitioner, i.e. the defendant no. 2 had contested the suit by filing her written statement, denying her liability and stating that the respondent no. 2 had abruptly stopped construction and it was also stated that there was no contract between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and that she was a stranger to the agreement and that as the respondent no. 2 had raised incomplete construction, the land of the petitioner was blocked, for which the petitioner was suffering in terms of money and mental agony and that the petitioner was not at fault and that the respondent no. 2 had cheated the petitioner. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5) It may also be mentioned that along with the suit an injunction petition was also filed by the respondent no. 1, which was contested by the petitioner.

6) During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred by the provision of Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act for short), which creates absolute bar for the civil court to adjudicate the subject matter of the suit as the Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Real Estate Appellate Tribunal had the power to adjudicate the issues raised in the plaint. The said petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 681/2022. The respondent no. 1 had filed his written objection to the said petition. The learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, by the impugned order dated 31.08.2022, had dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

7) The learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the grounds on which this revision has been presented, has submitted that the RERA Act was enacted for such eventualities, where the builders dupe the prospective flat buyers. It was submitted that the suit is pending for last 3 (three) years whereas, as per the RERA Act, the adjudication is expected to be completed within 6 (six) months and therefore, the respondent no. 1 would