RERA Orders Not Civil Decrees Under Section 2(2) CPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Civil Court Execution Proceedings, Directs Recovery Only Through RERA Statutory Mechanism
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna has held that directions issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot be treated as civil court decrees and therefore are not enforceable through execution petitions before civil courts, but only through the recovery machinery specifically provided in the real estate statute. Deciding writ petitions filed by a real estate developer against homebuyers who had sought execution of favourable RERA orders in a civil court, the Court concluded that the regulatory framework operates as a self-contained code and that its determinations do not satisfy the elements of a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court set aside the executing court’s order and terminated the execution proceedings.
The petitions were filed by a real estate developer who was the judgment debtor before the executing court in multiple execution proceedings initiated by homebuyers. The homebuyers had approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) seeking relief, and RERA passed orders granting benefits to them in June and August 2023. To enforce these orders, the homebuyers filed execution petitions before the civil court.
The developer filed applications under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to execute RERA orders. The developer argued that the RERA Act, 2016, is a self-contained code with its own enforcement mechanism, and relied on Section 79 of the Act, which bars civil court jurisdiction, and Rule 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules, 2017, which prescribes the manner of implementation.
The respondents opposed the applications, asserting that RERA orders are equivalent to decrees and can be executed by civil courts. They relied on judgments of coordinate benches to support the maintainability of execution petitions. The trial court rejected the developer’s applications, leading to the present petitions before the High Court.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded: “The issue lies in a narrow compass of statutory interpretation. The issue is, ‘Whether the order passed by the RERA or the RERA Appellate Tribunal can be executed by a competent Civil Court by filing an execution petition?’” The Court noted Section 40 of the Act: “If a promoter or an allottee or a real estate agent, as the case may be, fails to pay any interest or penalty or compensation imposed on him… it shall be recoverable… as an arrears of land revenue.”
On Section 79, the Court stated: “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Authority or the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine.” Rule 26 was highlighted: “Every order passed by the adjudicating officer, regulatory authority or Appellate Tribunal… shall be enforced… as if it were a decree… and it shall be lawful… to send such order to the principal civil court… to execute such order.”
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters: “The scheme of the Act, 2016 provides an in-built mechanism and any order passed on a complaint by the Authority under Section 31 is appealable before the Tribunal… and further in appeal to the High Court.” It also cited: “The amount which has been determined and refundable to the allottees/homebuyers either by the Authority or the adjudicating officer in terms of the order is recoverable within the ambit of Section 40(1) of the Act.”
The Court recorded the Calcutta High Court’s view: “The cumulative effect of the aforementioned provisions lead to an inescapable conclusion that the said Act is a self-contained code containing an exhaustive provision relating to a real estate project.” On the definition of decree, the Court stated: “An order passed by RERA however, cannot by any stretch of legal interpretation be equated with a decree, so as to invite execution created under the machinery of Order XXI.”
The Court cited the Allahabad High Court: “The decision or the order of the Appellate Tribunal or that of R.E.R.A. do not conform to any of the above requirements of a decree as defined in Section 2(2) C.P.C.” It further noted: “The mere description of the decision of the Tribunal to be a decree for the limited purpose would not make the decision a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the CPC.”
The Court directed: “An order passed by RERA however, cannot by any stretch of legal interpretation be equated with a decree, so as to invite execution created under the machinery of Order XXI. The Act itself prescribes a distinct and self contained mode of enforcement - the recovery be effected as, arrears of land revenue from the defaulting promoter or allottee.”
“It is only when there is complete failure after all the efforts taken by the aggrieved party to get it executed before the Tahsildar as arrears of land revenue, the aggrieved can knock at the doors of the executing Courts, but those would be only on exceptional circumstances.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Vandana P. L., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Srinivas V., Advocate for C/R
Case Title: Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 17821 of 2025 (GM-CPC) C/W Writ Petition No. 18348 of 2025 (GM-CPC) Writ Petition No. 19184 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
