Procedural Precision Over Terminology Confusion: Jharkhand High Court Holds RERA Appeals Cannot Be Treated as Second Appeals and Must Be Filed Under Proper A.C. (Single Bench) Classification
M. A. No.448 of 2024
By Navya Tiwari
A Technical Objection with Practical Consequences: Jharkhand High Court on the Form of RERA Appeals
The courtroom was not grappling with the merits of a builder-buyer dispute that day. Instead, the focus shifted to something far more procedural, yet equally decisive. Before the Jharkhand High Court, in a matter between Katyani Developers & Construction and Rajesh Kumar, the central question was not who was right, but whether the appeal itself had been correctly framed.
The appellant, a builder, had approached the High Court under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, challenging an order of the Jharkhand Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. On the surface, the filing appeared routine. But the respondent raised a preliminary objection that went to the root of the case’s maintainability. According to the respondent, Section 58 restricts appeals to the High Court only on grounds similar to those in Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which governs second appeals. If that were so, the present case, styled as a miscellaneous appeal, was fundamentally misplaced.
This objection reframed the entire discussion. Was this, in substance, a second appeal requiring the framing of substantial questions of law? Or was it something distinct, owing to the unique scheme of the RERA Act?
Counsel for the appellant pushed back firmly. The argument was simple but precise. The foundation of a second appeal under the CPC lies in the existence of a “decree.” Yet, the original order passed by the RERA adjudicating authority, it was argued, does not qualify as a decree under Section 2(2) of the CPC. If the starting point itself is not a decree, the appellate chain cannot be forced into the mould of first and second appeals as understood in civil procedure. The Tribunal’s order, though executable as a decree, does not transform into one in character.
To strengthen this position, reliance was placed on a consistent line of reasoning adopted by several High Courts, including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Allahabad. These courts had previously declined to treat such appeals as second appeals in the strict procedural sense.
When the matter came before the bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, the Court engaged with this distinction carefully. It acknowledged that while the RERA framework borrows certain procedural aspects from civil law, it does not fully replicate the CPC structure. The Court observed that the mere fact that an order is executable as a decree does not make it one. Execution is a matter of enforcement, not classification.
The analysis then turned to the Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2001. Here, the Court found a practical answer to the procedural confusion. The rules clearly categorize different types of appeals, and miscellaneous appeals are narrowly defined, largely confined to specific statutory contexts like motor accident claims or workmen compensation matters. Appeals arising from tribunals, where no specific category is prescribed, fall under a different classification, namely A.C. (Single Bench).
This clarification proved decisive. The Court concluded that the present appeal was not maintainable as a miscellaneous appeal. However, instead of dismissing it outright, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach. The appellant was granted liberty to correct the nomenclature and reclassify the appeal under the appropriate category within a week.
What might seem like a minor technical correction carries broader implications. The decision reinforces that procedural law is not merely about rigid labels but about correctly situating a case within the legal framework. At the same time, it signals that courts are willing to prioritize substantive justice by allowing rectification where possible, rather than shutting the door on technical grounds.
In the end, the case serves as a quiet reminder to practitioners that in appellate litigation, how you frame your case can be just as important as the arguments you make.
