IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

***

RERA-APPL-236-2025(O&M)

Date of decision : 22.12.2025

Sushma Jain …Appellant

Versus

Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal and others

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate

for the appellant.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

CM-16053-C-2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation

of delay of 14 days in refiling the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 14 days in refiling the

appeal is condoned. CM-16054-C-2025

1. Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 58 of the Real Estate Regulation Act, 2016 for

condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the present appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, present application is allowed and the delay of 6

days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned.

Main case

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 03.12.2024 vide which the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram had observed that the complaint filed by the present appellant was not maintainable and had further directed the builder to revalidate the cheque(s) already issued for the refund of the amount paid by the complainant within 60 days. Challenge is also to the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal who after noticing the fact that the allotment letter in favour of the appellant had been cancelled on 27.04.2012 prior to the enactment of the RERA Act which came into force in the year 2017 and thus, the complainant had invoked the jurisdiction of the authority knowing that the matter would not fall within the ambit of the RERA Act and had instituted the complaint in the year 2022, accordingly had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, after arguing for some time and seeing that this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, has made a limited prayer. It is submitted that since the claimant is an allottee, thus, the costs of Rs.10,000/- be not imposed on the claimant/allottee and the appellant be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to the appellant to pursue an appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law.

3. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and in view of the limited prayer, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Appellate Tribunal is set aside.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the alternate proceedings which the appellant proposes to pursue and in case any such proceedings are instituted, the same would be considered independently, in accordance with law.

(VIKAS BAHL)

JUDGE December 22, 2025.

Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No