CAV ORDER

The petitioner, in the batch of these petitions, is common and the respondents are different. The issue that is projected in these petitions is also common. It is therefore these petitions are taken up together and are considered by this common order.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner is the judgment debtor before the Executing Court in different execution petitions pending before the concerned Court. The Execution Petition reaches the Executing Court on a particular circumstance. The respondents, in all these cases, are homebuyers. They approach the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘RERA’ for short) seeking certain relief. The RERA passes an order granting certain benefits to the respondents on 30-06-2023 and 03-08-2023 respectively. In order to enforce the orders, the respondents would approach the Civil Court seeking execution of the said order by registering different execution petitions. Before the Executing Court, the petitioner files an application invoking Section 47 of the CPC to terminate the execution proceedings on the score of lack of jurisdiction to execute the decree or the order passed by RERA. The said applications comes to be rejected by the concerned Court, which has led the petitioner to this Court, in all these petitions.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri M.S.Shyamsundar appearing for petitioner and Sri Srinivas V, learned counsel appearing for respondents in all these petitions.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri M.S.Shyamsundar appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to execute an order that is passed by RERA through an execution petition preferred by the beneficiaries of the order who call themselves decree holders. It is his contention that Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (‘RERA Act’ for short) is a self contained code and has within itself provisions for enforcement of an order. He would further contend that Section 79 of the RERA Act bars any civil Court to have jurisdiction to entertain any petition concerning RERA. The learned counsel would also rely on Rule 26 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (‘RERA Rules’ for short) to contend that manner of implementation is also depicted under the Rules and therefore, the civil Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings of an order of RERA. The learned senior counsel places reliance upon certain judgments of the Apex Court, which would all bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents, in all these cases, would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in contending that the execution petition is undoubtedly maintainable, as an order passed by RERA is a decree and a decree can be executed by the competent civil Court of the jurisdiction. He would seek to place reliance upon certain judgments of the coordinate bench of this Court to buttress his submission that the execution petition is maintainable.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass of statutory interpretation. The issue is, “Whether the order passed by the RERA or the RERA Appellate Tribunal can be executed by a competent Civil Court by filing an execution petition?”

8. To consider the said issue, it becomes necessary to notice certain statutory provisions of the Act. Section 40 of the RERA Act reads as follows:

“40. Recovery of interest or penalty or compensation and enforcement of order, etc.—(1) If a promoter or an allottee or a real estate agent, as the case may be, fails to pay any interest or penalty or compensation imposed on him, by the adjudicating officer or the Regulatory Authority or the Appellate Authority, as the cas