Order VII Rule 11 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Reject RERA Complaints Disclosing Prima Facie Cause Of Action: HP RERA
Pranav B Prem
The Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HP RERA) has held that a complaint disclosing a prima facie cause of action under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 cannot be rejected at the threshold by invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which deals with rejection of plaints. The authority clarified that RERA proceedings are summary in nature and factual disputes arising from actionable claims must be adjudicated on merits rather than being dismissed at the initial stage.
The order was passed by a coram comprising Chairperson R D Dhiman and Members Amit Kashyap and Vidur Mehta on December 22, 2025. The authority emphasised that Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be invoked only when, on the face of the complaint itself, no cause of action is disclosed or the complaint is barred by law. Where the pleadings disclose actionable facts under RERA, the complaint cannot be rejected at the threshold.
The complaint was filed by Bithu Indrajit Basu against developers Rajdeep and Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Private Limited in relation to a residential project at Shimla. Basu alleged that despite making substantial payments and being assured possession of a flat in Tower D by June 2024, the flat was never handed over. According to her, the respondents had projected themselves as promoters of the project, collected money for construction, and failed to complete the construction within the promised time.
During the proceedings, the developers moved an application seeking rejection of the complaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. They contended that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and them, asserting that the flat had been purchased from a third party, Smt. Shakuntala Sharma. It was also argued that HP RERA lacked jurisdiction as the project was allegedly not required to be registered under the RERA Act. The developers further claimed that applicant No.1 had acted only as a GPA holder of the third party and that all approvals and ownership for the construction rested with her.
Opposing the application, the complainant submitted that the plea was raised at a highly belated stage only 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 supporting documents clearly disclosed delayed possession, receipt of consideration by the respondents, and failure to complete construction within the stipulated time.
After considering the rival submissions, the authority held that a bare reading of the complaint showed that the complainant had categorically pleaded delayed possession, payment of consideration, and failure of the respondents to complete construction within the prescribed time. These averments, the authority observed, “clearly disclose a valid, substantive, and actionable cause of action” under Sections 11, 12, 18, and 19 of the RERA Act. The bench further noted that disputes as to whether the respondents acted as promoters, whether they received money, and whether they undertook to deliver possession are disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The authority reiterated the settled legal position that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must be considered only at the initial stage of proceedings and that, while deciding such an application, the adjudicating authority can look only at the statements made in the complaint, assuming them to be true in their entirety. Relying on this principle, HP RERA held that the complaint in the present case disclosed a prima facie cause of action and therefore could not be rejected at the threshold.
On the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to RERA proceedings, the authority examined Section 35 of the RERA Act, which specifically enumerates the CPC provisions applicable to proceedings before the authority. It held that only those provisions expressly mentioned in the Act apply, and the remaining provisions of the CPC stand excluded. In this context, the authority observed that Order VII Rule 11 CPC does not find mention among the applicable provisions and is therefore excluded from application to RERA proceedings.
Referring to settled principles of law and judicial precedents, the authority concluded that the application filed by the promoters failed to satisfy any of the grounds prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and, in any event, had no applicability to proceedings before RERA. Consequently, the application seeking rejection of the complaint was dismissed, and the complaint was directed to proceed for adjudication on merits.
Appearance
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)
