In a significant ruling that strengthens the hands of homebuyers trapped in delayed real estate projects, the Bombay High Court has made it clear that the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal must properly consider powerful enforcement options available under civil procedure law when a promoter fails to honour its orders to complete construction.

The Stalled Dream in Kandivali

The case revolves around the “Shri Vallabh Residency” project at Shivaji Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, promoted by Swadhinta Builders LLP. Several allottees, including Rajan Chandiramani, Jagruti Parikh, Priyanka Waghela, Srichand Makhija and Jayesh Jagdish Thakkar, had booked flats way back in 2010. They paid substantial amounts — one allottee alone had paid ₹7.5 lakh against a total consideration of around ₹48.78 lakh — but the project never took off meaningfully. No commencement certificate was obtained for years, agreements for sale were not executed, and possession remained a distant dream.

From Complaint to Tribunal Victory

Frustrated by the inordinate delay, the allottees approached the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) in 2020. The Authority, however, disposed of the complaint on a technical ground — since no commencement certificate had been obtained, it expressed inability to issue directions under Section 13 of the RERA Act. It merely protected the allottees’ rights and said the promoter must fulfil its obligations whenever the project starts.

Aggrieved, the allottees appealed to the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal. On 30 June 2022, the Tribunal delivered a favourable order. It directed the promoter to execute agreements for sale within 30 days and complete construction of the project within 12 months after obtaining all necessary approvals. The promoter was also asked to pay interest on amounts received from allottees until possession. Crucially, the Tribunal gave the allottees liberty to take action under Sections 7 and 35 of RERA if the promoter failed to comply, and to claim compensation.

When the Builder Ignored the Order

Despite the clear directions, the promoter failed to comply. The allottees were forced to file execution applications (Nos. 13 to 17 of 2023) before the same Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted the continued non-compliance and, on 22 June 2024, issued warrants for recovery of dues and imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 per day of delay.

Still dissatisfied with the pace of enforcement, the allottees filed amendment applications in 2025. They sought to add specific prayers under Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). One part asked for detention of the promoter’s partners in civil prison and attachment of properties. The more significant prayer (sub-clause ii) sought that the Tribunal direct the construction of the project to be carried out by the decree-holders (the homebuyers) themselves or by any other person appointed by the Tribunal, at the cost of the judgment-debtor (the promoter), with expenses recoverable as if they formed part of the original decree.

The Battle Over Amendment at the Tribunal

On 10 July 2025, the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the amendment applications. It permitted the prayers for civil prison and attachment of properties. However, it rejected the prayer for getting the construction completed by the homebuyers or a Tribunal-appointed person.

The Tribunal reasoned that other allottees of the project were not before it. It observed that the 2022 order itself had granted liberty to approach under Section 7 of RERA, which empowers the Authority to revoke the promoter’s registration on a complaint or suo motu if the promoter defaults in obligations, violates terms of approvals, or indulges in unfair practices (after giving due notice). Once registration is revoked, Section 8 comes into play. It casts an obligation on the Authority to take measures for completing the remaining development works — by a competent authority, the association of allottees (who have the first right of refusal), or in any other manner determined by the Authority. This route is meant to ensure collective protection of all homebuyers in the project.

The Tribunal viewed the Rule 32(5) route as a last resort and felt it could not be invoked at that stage.

What Both Sides Argued Before the High Court

Aggrieved by the rejection, the allottees approached the Bombay High Court through second appeals. Senior Advocate Jay Chhabria, appearing for the homebuyers along with his team, argued that the Tribunal had wrongly delved into the merits of the proposed amendment while deciding whether to allow it. He submitted that while considering an amendment application, the court should only examine whether the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy and whether it causes prejudice that cannot be compensated. The Tribunal had instead gone into questions like whether there was wilful disobedience, whether Section 7 was the appropriate remedy, and whether Rule 32(5) was a last resort — all of which were matters to be decided later on merits.

Chhabria further contended that Section 57 of RERA empowers the Appellate Tribunal to execute its orders as decrees of a civil court and confers upon it all powers of a civil court for that purpose. Therefore, the Tribunal could legitimately invoke Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC as an additional mode of execution. The liberty granted in the 2022 order to take recourse to Section 7 did not bar other lawful execution remedies. He emphasised that the amendment was only seeking to add another tool for enforcement and did not expand the scope of the original decree.

On the other side, Advocate Rubin Vakil, representing Swadhinta Builders LLP, supported the Tribunal’s order. He argued that the power of an executing court to allow amendments is narrower than in original proceedings. An executing court cannot travel beyond the decree. He submitted that allowing the construction prayer would materially expand the scope of the 2022 order. Vakil stressed that Sections 7 and 8 of RERA form a special mechanism designed to protect the collective interest of all allottees through revocation of registration and subsequent steps by the Authority or association of allottees. Permitting individual allottees to invoke Rule 32(5) could jeopardise the interests of other buyers who were not parties to the proceedings. He also argued that the special provisions of RERA should prevail over general provisions of the CPC.

Bombay High Court’s Clear Verdict

Justice N.J. Jamadar, after hearing both sides, delivered the judgment on 24 June 2026. The High Court allowed all the second appeals, quashed the Tribunal’s order to the extent it rejected the amendment, and directed that the amendment applications be allowed in full.

The Court held that the Tribunal had committed an error by examining the merits and consequences of the proposed amendment at the stage of deciding whether to permit the amendment itself. It clarified that the proposed prayer was in exact consonance with sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of Order XXI CPC and was a legitimate mode of executing the specific performance part of the 2022 decree (direction to complete construction).

On the interplay between RERA and CPC, the High Court ruled that Section 57 of RERA creates a deeming fiction making Tribunal orders executable as civil court decrees and expressly confers all powers of a civil court on the Tribunal for execution. There is no conflict with Sections 7 and 8 of RERA. The liberty to approach under Section 7 does not foreclose other execution remedies. The remedy under Order XXI Rule 32(5) is independent and can be resorted to in addition to or in lieu of other modes like attachment and detention.

Importantly, the Court noted that the Tribunal retains full discretion while actually granting relief under Rule 32(5). It can consider the facts of the case, including the stage of the project and the interests of all allottees, and may appoint a receiver, a new developer, or even the association of allottees. The High Court directed the allottees to carry out the amendment within three weeks and asked the Tribunal to decide the execution applications on merits as expeditiously as possible.

What Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC Actually Means

Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC deals with execution of decrees for specific performance of a contract, restitution of conjugal rights, or injunction. Sub-rule (5) specifically provides that where such a decree has not been obeyed, the court may, in addition to or instead of attachment of property or detention in civil prison, direct that the act required to be done (here, completion of construction) may be performed, as far as practicable, by the decree-holder or some other person appointed by the court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor. The expenses incurred can then be ascertained and recovered as if they were included in the decree.

In simple terms, when a builder is ordered to complete a project but refuses, the court is not helpless. It can allow the homebuyers or a neutral agency appointed by the court to get the work done and recover the money spent from the builder’s pocket. This prevents the decree from becoming meaningless and protects homebuyers who have already paid their hard-earned money.

The High Court asked the Tribunal to implement this provision because the 2022 order directing completion of construction is in the nature of specific performance. Section 57 of RERA equips the Tribunal with exactly these civil court execution powers so that its orders do not remain paper decrees.

Why This Ruling Matters for Homebuyers

This judgment removes a major procedural hurdle that was being used to push homebuyers back into the Section 7 route even when they already had a favourable execution proceeding pending. It affirms that individual allottees (or groups) can seek strong, direct enforcement tools without being told to start fresh proceedings involving all buyers. At the same time, it preserves the Tribunal’s discretion to protect collective interests by choosing an appropriate agency for completion.

The matter now returns to the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal, which will hear the amended execution applications and decide, on the facts of this project, whether and how to invoke the Rule 32(5) mechanism.

For thousands of homebuyers waiting in stalled projects across Maharashtra, the message is clear: persistent legal follow-up can unlock additional enforcement avenues when promoters drag their feet despite losing at the Tribunal level.

Also Read: MahaRERA Told Homebuyers to Cooperate. Tribunal Tells Builder to Pay Up

The post MahaRERA Tribunal Bound to Hear Prayer to Change Developer in Stalled Projects: Bombay HC appeared first on Square Feat India.