Refusal to condone delay in appeal under Real Estate Act is upheld absent evidence of procedural irregularity.

JUDGMENT

This appeal arises out of the order dated 15.01.2026 by the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in refusing to condone the delay of 571 days in filing an appeal under Section 43 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 .

2. From the records, it is clear that on a complaint filed under Sections 31 and 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 , the original authority had passed an order on 01.02.2021 directing the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.25 lakhs with 14.05% interest per annum. The said order was challenged before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in REFA Nos.20 & 44/2021, which by order dated 28.10.2022 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to recalculate the compensation and also decide on the quantum of interest which the builder is liable to pay. Accordingly, on 19.03.2024, the adjudicating authority ordered payment of the amount of Rs.25 lakhs in installments with interest on the installment amounts at 14.05%. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants preferred REFA No.120/2025 before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, with an application to condone the delay of 571 days in filing the appeal. The appellate tribunal by order dated 15.01.2026 refused to condone the delay and dismissed I.A.No.333/2025 and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed and hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard, Adv.S.Sreekumar - learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Adv.V.Premchand.

4. Adv.S.Sreekumar - learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate tribunal had failed to take into consideration an amount of Rs.12.8 lakhs deposited by the appellants during the first round of appeal and which has been received by the respondents. The said fact has been completely ignored by the adjudicating authority, which proceeded to pass an order directing the appellants to remit an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs along with interest. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the appellate tribunal also while refusing to condone the delay.

5. On considering the submissions raised across the Bar by the learned Senior Counsel, this Court finds that, what is now projected by the appellants is on the merits of the matter, which this Court is not obliged to consider, especially when the appellate tribunal has not considered the same. At any rate, this Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the appellate tribunal refusing to condone the delay of 571 days. 6. A reading of the impugned order shows that the appellate tribunal has refused to exercise its discretion while considering the application for condonation of delay. It is not shown before this Court that, the refusal on the part of the appellate tribunal to exercise its discretion, is vitiated by any perversity. That be so, this Court can only sustain the order passed by the appellate tribunal.

7. As regards the claim of the appellants that an amount of Rs.12.8 lakhs has been received by the complainants/respondents and the same has not been taken into consideration, this Court is of the view that the appellants have to workout their remedy by filing an appropriate application before the adjudicating authority, when the order is being put to execution. Therefore, the appellants shall be at liberty to raise the said plea through an appropriate application before the adjudicating authority in the execution, which is stated to be pending before it.

8. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the appellants will be given liberty to claim reworking of the interest for the amount already deposited. The appellants will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief befo