The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MREAT) has given homebuyers another chance to revive their legal challenge against Macrotech Developers Ltd after their appeal was dismissed for non-appearance and their subsequent restoration application was filed 37 days beyond the prescribed limitation period.
In an order pronounced on September 29, 2026, the Tribunal condoned the 37-day delay, holding that the homebuyers had taken reasonably prompt steps after learning that their appeal had been dismissed and that there was no material to show that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or intended to gain any advantage.
The case concerns an appeal filed by Vijendrasingh and another against an order passed by the real estate regulator on November 18, 2020. The appeal had subsequently been dismissed by MREAT on January 15, 2025, for want of prosecution.
The latest order does not finally restore the appeal. Instead, it removes the limitation hurdle facing the homebuyers’ restoration application, allowing their plea seeking restoration of the appeal to be considered.
Homebuyers Say Advocate Did Not Inform Them About Hearings
According to the submissions recorded in the Tribunal’s order, the homebuyers claimed that their advocate had neither informed them about the hearing dates nor kept them updated about the status of their appeal.
The Tribunal had directed the applicants to remain present with their advocate. However, neither the applicants nor their advocate appeared on November 22, 2024, or December 6, 2024.
The Tribunal then gave them a last opportunity to appear and argue the matter, subject to costs of ₹2,000. They still did not appear.
With no one appearing on their behalf, MREAT dismissed the appeal on January 15, 2025, for want of prosecution.
This meant that the homebuyers’ challenge was not rejected after examination of the underlying dispute on merits. The appeal was effectively shut out because it was not being prosecuted before the Tribunal.
Homebuyers Learn of Dismissal and Approach Another Advocate
The applicants told the Tribunal that they came to know about the dismissal order on January 17, 2025.
They said they immediately tried to contact their erstwhile advocate but were unable to establish contact. On January 22, they approached another advocate for an opinion on the matter.
According to their explanation, the new advocate advised them to seek restoration of the dismissed appeal.
The applicants said that documents and information had to be collected from the erstwhile advocate, following which the restoration application was prepared.
The application was notarised on April 21, 2025, and filed before the Tribunal on April 22, 2025.
The Dispute Over the Delay: 37 Days or 416 Days?
The calculation of delay became a major issue before the Tribunal.
The applicants maintained that the restoration application had to be filed within 30 days and that the delay beyond this period was 37 days.
Macrotech Developers, however, argued that the delay was much longer — 416 days — and contended that the applicants had failed to provide a sufficient or bona fide explanation for not filing the restoration application within the limitation period.
The Tribunal rejected this calculation.
It noted that the dismissal order was passed on January 15, 2025, and that the 30-day limitation period expired on February 14, 2025.
Since the restoration application was actually filed on April 22, 2025, the Tribunal held that the relevant delay was 37 days beyond the limitation period.
The Tribunal specifically described the promoter’s contention of 416 days’ delay as misconceived.
Tribunal Accepts That Applicants Took Steps After Learning About Dismissal
While considering whether the delay should be condoned, MREAT noted that the applicants claimed to have learnt about the dismissal only on January 17, 2025.
The Tribunal found that they subsequently attempted to contact their earlier advocate, approached another advocate within days, collected documents and information, prepared the restoration application and filed it.
On this basis, the Tribunal observed that the applicants were reasonably vigilant and had taken prompt steps to pursue restoration.
Importantly, the Tribunal also found no material showing that the applicants had gained any undue advantage by filing the restoration application after the limitation period.
Tribunal Rejects a Hyper-Technical Approach to Limitation
Macrotech had argued that the applicants could not simply blame their advocate and that there was no documentary evidence supporting their allegation that the advocate had failed to inform them about the proceedings.
The Tribunal acknowledged the issue but ultimately took a broader view of the circumstances.
It relied on the Supreme Court’s principles concerning condonation of delay, including the principle that “sufficient cause” should be considered in a manner that advances substantial justice when the delay is not the result of deliberate tactics, lack of bona fides or negligence.
The Tribunal also noted that there is no presumption that every delay is deliberate.
It specifically acknowledged that the applicants had not explained every single day of the delay. However, it held that the application had to be considered in its entirety and that there was no material showing that the applicants had deliberately delayed the proceedings.
Why This Matters for the Homebuyers
The significance of the order is that the homebuyers have not been permanently shut out of their legal challenge merely because their restoration application crossed the limitation period.
Their original appeal had already been dismissed because of repeated non-appearance. The applicants attributed that failure to their advocate’s failure to keep them informed.
The latest MREAT order does not decide whether that explanation will ultimately succeed on the merits of the restoration application. What it does is remove the separate limitation barrier that stood in the way of that restoration plea.
The Tribunal held that the applicants should not lose their statutory remedy on a hyper-technical ground when there was no material indicating deliberate delay or mala fide conduct and when they had not gained any undue advantage from the delay.
What Happens Next?
The Tribunal has allowed M.A. No. 850 of 2026 and condoned the delay.
This means the 37-day delay in filing the restoration application has been excused.
The crucial next question is whether the separate restoration application will succeed and whether the Tribunal will recall its January 15, 2025 order dismissing the original appeal for want of prosecution.
If restoration is granted, the homebuyers would get an opportunity to pursue their appeal against the underlying MahaRERA order.
For now, the September 29 order does not decide that underlying dispute. It simply ensures that the homebuyers’ restoration plea is not rejected solely because it was filed 37 days late.
Also Read: Bombay HC upholds Goregaon Pearl society’s termination of developer, orders FSI cost refund
