By Ms. Meeta Kadhi, Associate Partner
Overview:
The Karnataka High Court, vide its judgment dated 31 October 2025 in Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 17821 of 2025 and connected matters), held that an order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority) or the RERA Appellate Tribunal cannot be executed by a Civil Court as a “decree” under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court ruled that the machinery of civil execution under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to RERA Authority orders.
Brief Background and Facts:
The dispute arose when various homebuyers, who are the Respondents in this matter, approached the RERA Authority seeking relief against the Petitioner, Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. The RERA Authority passed orders in favour of the homebuyers on 30 June 2023, and 3 August 2023. In order to enforce these orders, the homebuyers directly filed Execution Petitions before the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, treating the RERA Authority orders as decrees. In response, the Developer filed applications contending that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to execute the orders passed by RERA Authority. The Civil Court rejected the Developer’s applications on 17 April 2025, holding that the execution petitions were maintainable. Aggrieved by this, the Developer approached the High Court seeking to quash the Civil Court’s order.
Contentions of the Parties:
The Petitioner (Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd.) argued that the RERA Act is a self-contained code and relied on Section 79 and Section 40 of the RERA Act to contend that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain execution proceedings with respect to RERA’s orders. The Respondents (Homebuyers) argued that an order passed by RERA Authority is effectively a “decree” and can be executed by a competent Civil Court, relying on the premise that the outcome of the RERA Authority adjudication determined their rights and should be enforceable via the standard civil execution machinery.
Court’s Findings:
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the following key observations while allowing the Writ Petitions:
- RERA Order is Not a Civil Decree: The Court analysed the definition of a “decree” under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, noting that a decree must be a formal expression of adjudication in a suit commencing with a plaint. RERA Authority proceedings are initiated via a complaint and are summary in nature. Therefore, a RERA Authority order does not assume the character of a decree.
- Specific Enforcement Mechanism: The Court examined Section 40(1) of the RERA Act and Rule 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules. It held that the statute provides a distinct mode of enforcement: recovery as arrears of land revenue. This falls within the province of the jurisdictional Revenue Authority, not the Civil Court. The Court also held that the Civil Court committed an error in assuming jurisdiction.
- Reliance on Precedents: The Court cited several cases from various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, to affirm that the “legal fiction” that treats a RERA Authority orders as a decree is limited to facilitating execution by the appropriate authority or the Tribunal itself, but it does not empower a Civil Court to entertain an execution petition under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Judgment: The Writ Petitions filed by the Developer were allowed. The High Court quashed the impugned order and clarified that while the execution proceedings before the Civil Court could not go on, the Respondents were at liberty to avail the correct remedy available in law, i.e., approaching the Revenue Authority for recovery as arrears of land revenue.
MHCO Comment:
This judgment settles a significant procedural ambiguity regarding the enforcement of RERA Authority orders in Karnataka. For homebuyers, this judgement means that the route to recovering funds awarded by RERA lies strictly through the Revenue Department rather than the Civil Courts. While this upholds the statutory framework, it also highlights the dependence of homebuyers on the often-overburdened revenue recovery machinery to receive the fruits of their litigation, an issue frequently encountered by any real estate lawyer in India advising clients on RERA enforcement challenges.
This article was released on 9 December 2025 by MHCO Law
The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice; please contact us for any assistance.