Shimla, 22.12.2025 : The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has held that a complaint which discloses a prima facie cause of action under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be dismissed at the threshold by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. The authority clarified that RERA proceedings are summary in nature and that factual disputes arising from actionable claims must be examined on merits rather than being shut out at the initial stage.
The ruling was delivered on December 22, 2025 by a coram comprising Chairperson R D Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta.
The complaint was filed by Bithu Indrajit Basu against Rajdeep and Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited in relation to a residential project at Shimla. Basu alleged that after making substantial payments and being assured possession of a flat in Tower D by June 2024, the developers failed to hand over possession. According to her, the respondents had projected themselves as promoters, collected consideration for construction, and did not complete the project within the promised timeline.
During the proceedings, the developers sought rejection of the complaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. They argued that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant, claiming that the flat had been purchased from a third party, Smt. Shakuntala Sharma. It was also contended that the project was not required to be registered under RERA and that the first applicant had merely acted as a GPA holder, with all approvals and ownership vesting in the third party.
Opposing the application, the complainant submitted that the plea was raised belatedly to delay the proceedings. She pointed out that payments were made directly to the respondents and that possession was assured by them in their capacity as promoters. It was argued that the complaint and documents clearly disclosed delayed possession, receipt of consideration, and failure to complete construction within the stipulated time.
The authority held that a plain reading of the complaint showed categorical pleadings regarding delayed possession, payment of consideration, and failure to complete construction. These averments, it observed, “clearly disclose a valid, substantive, and actionable cause of action” under Sections 11, 12, 18, and 19 of the RERA Act.
The bench noted that disputes about whether the respondents acted as promoters, whether they received money, and whether they undertook to deliver possession are disputed questions of fact. Such issues cannot be decided at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Reiterating settled law, the authority observed that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must be considered only at the initial stage and strictly on the basis of the complaint, assuming all averments to be true. Applying this principle, it held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie cause of action and could not be rejected at the threshold.
On the applicability of the CPC, the authority examined Section 35 of the RERA Act, which specifies the CPC provisions applicable to RERA proceedings. It held that only those provisions expressly mentioned apply, and all others stand excluded. Since Order VII Rule 11 CPC is not included, it was held to be inapplicable to RERA proceedings.
The authority concluded that the promoters’ application did not satisfy any of the grounds under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and, in any case, had no application to proceedings before RERA. The application was dismissed, and the complaint was directed to proceed for adjudication on merits.
Appearances: Sameer Thakur for the complainant; Shakti Bhardwaj for the respondents
Cause Title: Bithu Indrajit Basu v. Rajdeep & Anr.
Case No.: HPERA2024012 / CMA No. 1-R2/32-2024
Coram: R D Dhiman (Chairperson), Amit Kashyap (Member), Vidur Mehta (Member)
