The entitlement of complainants to amend complaints under the Real Estate Act is upheld, but the issue of limitation may be addressed at the final adjudication.

EASWARAN S., J.

--------------------------

M.S.A. No. 56 of 2025 -------------------------

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2025 JUDGMENT Appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority in allowing an application for amendment approached the Appellate Tribunal in R.E.F.A No. 80 of 2025. The issue raised before the Appellate Tribunal was basically against the entitlement of the complainants to prefer amendment to the original complaints preferred under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short ‘the Act’). While allowing the application for amendment, the original authority found that by virtue of provisions of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 , the Act being a special enactment, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the original authority on the question of allowing amendment but, however, incorporated a rider that the question of limitation will be addressed at the final stage of adjudication. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the present appeal is preferred by the promoters.

2. Heard Sri. Babu Karukapadath, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that even if no period of limitation is provided under the Act, the residuary provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply and the time limit is three years from the date of arising of the cause of action. Admittedly, in the present case, the project was completed, and the flats were handed over way back in 2013 and that the complaint is preferred only in 2021. Still further, the amendment which is now sought to be incorporated were filed in the year 2025, well beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, there is no justification on the part of the original authority as well as on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to allow the amendment, dehors the period of limitation provided under the provisions of the . It is thus asserted that the substantial question of law arises for consideration in the appeal which requires to be examined by this Court.

3. On consideration of the arguments raised before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that it will not be appropriate to interdict the final adjudication of the complaint at the interlocutory stage. Though, the power of the High Court under Section 100 can be exercised in the case of a substantial question of law being raised, on the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that nothing prevents the appellants from raising their question regarding the sustainability of the claim which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment on the ground that the same is inadmissible in view of the law of limitation. It is in this perspective that, this Court must read the reservations ordered by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order. The Appellate Tribunal in the concluding portion of the impugned order has specifically said that the ‘question of limitation can be addressed at the final stage of adjudication’. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant can be permitted to raise the said issue as a preliminary issue before the Adjudicating Authority once the pleadings are complete and the adjudicating authority can be directed to consider the issue of limitation before it pronounces upon its view on the sustainability of the claim raised by the allottees.

Therefore, this appeal is disposed of by observing that the appellants will be at liberty to raise the ‘plea of the limitation’ as a ‘preliminary issue’ before the Adjudicating Authority and the Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same before final