Case Analysis: Muktistar Realtors v. Priya Chorge - An Application for Restoration

In the case of Muktistar Realtors v. Priya Chorge, an application for restoration was filed before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The appeal in question, with the number AT006000000021456, had been dismissed earlier due to the absence of the applicant. The case revolves around a dispute between Muktistar Realtors, the promoter, and Mrs. Priya Chorge and Amol Chorge, the flat purchasers and complainants. The application for restoration seeks to set aside the previous order of dismissal and revive the appeal. The case was heard by the tribunal members Shri S. S. Shinde and Dr. K. Shivaji via video conference on 12th June 2023.

Background:

Case Name: Muktistar Realtors v. Priya

Date of Hearing: 12th June 2023

Muktistar Realtors is developing a project called "Navkar Devdatta" in Dahisar, Mumbai, while Priya Chorge and Amol Chorge are the complainants before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA). On 26th February 2021, the matter was listed for further hearing on 29th April 2021. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the tribunal's office was closed on the scheduled date. The hearing was rescheduled for 13th August 2021. Unfortunately, the applicant was not present on that day, leading to further rescheduling to 3rd September 2021. Again, the applicant failed to appear, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.

Chronology of Events:

• 26th February 2021: Case listed for further hearing on 29th April 2021.
• 29th April 2021: Hearing rescheduled due to closure of the tribunal's office caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• 13th August 2021: Hearing rescheduled, but the applicant (Muktistar Realtors) failed to appear.
• 3rd September 2021: Appeal dismissed due to the applicant's non-appearance.

Applicant's Arguments:

The applicant, Muktistar Realtors, presented several grounds for restoration of the appeal. They claimed that the absence on 13th August 2021 was due to an inadvertent error in noting down the next hearing date as 20th August 2021. They argued that their advocate had no knowledge of the actual date and that the complainants also failed to inform them. The applicant emphasized their consistent presence in previous hearings, their submission of an application for condonation of delay, and the extended limitation period due to the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic. They contended that their non-appearance was unintentional and not a deliberate tactic. They also highlighted the stage of completion of pleadings and the merits of their case.

Non-applicants' Response:

The non-applicants, Priya Chorge and Amol Chorge, countered the applicant's arguments. They refuted the claim of ignorance about the hearing dates, citing emails sent by the tribunal to inform all parties and advocates. They accused the applicant of willful negligence and delaying tactics. They asserted that the applicant should have made inquiries when the matter did not appear on the cause list on the alleged date of 20th August 2021. They also challenged the maintainability of the application and the absence of an explanation for the delay in filing it. The non-applicants urged the tribunal to dismiss the application and impose costs on the applicant.

Tribunal's Decision:

After considering the arguments from both parties, the tribunal evaluated whether the applicant had presented sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal and condoning the delay. Referring to legal principles, including the need for a bona fide explanation, reasonableness, and balancing justice, the tribunal arrived at a negative finding. It found that the applicant's grounds did not sufficiently justify the non-appearance and delay. The tribunal emphasized that a diligent and vigilant approach is expected from litigants. Therefore, it dismissed the application for restoration and upheld the previous order of dismissal.

Conclusion:

The case of Muktistar Realtors v. Priya Chorge involved an application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed due to the applicant's absence. While the applicant argued for restoration based on inadvertent errors, lack of knowledge, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the non-applicants accused the applicant of wilful negligence and delay tactics. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the applicant had not provided sufficient cause for restoration and dismissed the application. It is important for litigants to be diligent and aware of hearing dates to avoid such consequences.

Note: The information provided in this article about Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the APPEAL NO. AT006000000021456 before the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.

Explore the list of new RERA approved projects in Maharashtra.