RERA Orders Not Directly Executable as Civil Court Decrees: Commentary on Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. (Karnataka High Court, 31 October 2025)

RERA Orders Not Directly Executable as Civil Court Decrees: Commentary on Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors., Karnataka High Court (31 October 2025)

I. Introduction

The decision of the Karnataka High Court in the batch of writ petitions led by Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil (W.P. Nos. 17821, 18348 & 19184 of 2025, decided on 31 October 2025 by Justice M. Nagaprasanna) lays down an important precedent on the enforcement of orders passed under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”).

The core issue was whether homebuyers, having obtained favourable orders from the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), could directly approach a civil court with execution petitions and have those orders enforced as if they were decrees under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The High Court held that they cannot. Instead, it concluded that:

  • The RERA Act and the Karnataka RERA Rules constitute a self-contained code for both adjudication and enforcement.
  • Orders passed by the RERA Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the RERA Appellate Tribunal are not “decrees” within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC.
  • Such orders must be enforced through the mechanisms specifically provided under the RERA Act and Rules, primarily as arrears of land revenue, and only in limited, structured ways may they reach the civil courts.

This ruling has significant consequences for homebuyers, promoters, and the functioning of the RERA framework in Karnataka, and aligns Karnataka with a growing body of High Court authority (affirmed by the Supreme Court) that emphasises the self-contained nature of the RERA regime.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

1. Parties

  • Petitioner in all writ petitions: Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd., a real estate developer (judgment debtor before the executing court).
  • Respondents: Different individual allottees/homebuyers:
    • Mr. Snil Pathiyam Veetil – W.P. No. 17821 of 2025
    • Indi Vivekananda – W.P. No. 18348 of 2025
    • Mr. Mudit Saxena – W.P. No. 19184 of 2025

2. Chronology of Events

  1. The respondents, as homebuyers, approached the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“RERA”) seeking relief against the promoter, Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd.
  2. RERA passed orders in favour of the allottees on 30.06.2023 and 03.08.2023, granting them certain monetary and/or other benefits.
  3. To enforce these RERA orders, the allottees did not approach the RERA Authority for enforcement under Section 40 of the Act and Rule 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules. Instead, they:
    • Filed execution petitions (Ex. P. Nos. 227/2024, 228/2024 and 231/2024) directly before the XVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, describing themselves as “decree-holders” and the promoter as “judgment-debtor”.
  4. The promoter (Mantri) filed applications under Section 47 CPC in the executing court, contending that:
    • The civil court had no jurisdiction to execute RERA orders.
    • The RERA Act is a self-contained code providing its own enforcement mechanisms.
    • Section 79 RERA bars civil court jurisdiction in matters which the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer, or Appellate Tribunal are empowered to determine.
  5. The executing court rejected these Section 47 applications on 17.04.2025, holding that it had jurisdiction to execute the RERA orders.
  6. Aggrieved, the promoter invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, resulting in these writ petitions.

3. The Key Legal Question

The High Court identified a single, narrow, but fundamental issue:

“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?”

III. Summary of the Judgment

The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the executing court’s orders. The Court held:

  1. Orders passed by the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal are not “decrees” under Section 2(2) CPC because:
    • They are not adjudications in a “suit” commenced by a “plaint”.
    • They are rendered by a specialised tribunal/authority, not by a civil “court” in the CPC sense.
  2. The RERA Act and the Karnataka RERA Rules provide a complete and self-contained enforcement mechanism:
    • Section 40(1) mandates recovery of money (interest, penalty, compensation, and, as per Supreme Court, principal refund) as arrears of land revenue.
    • Rule 26 of the Karnataka RERA Rules requires that orders be enforced by the RERA Authority/Adjudicating Officer/Appellate Tribunal itself “as if” they were decrees and only in case of its inability may the order be sent to the principal civil court for execution.
  3. In light of Section 79 (bar of civil court jurisdiction) and the specific enforcement provisions, civil courts cannot entertain direct execution petitions filed by allottees to enforce RERA orders.
  4. The executing court’s assumption of jurisdiction and rejection of the developer’s Section 47 CPC applications was a jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 227; the execution proceedings stood effectively “obliterated”.
  5. However, the Court explicitly left it open to the homebuyers to pursue such other remedies as are available in law, i.e., to invoke the enforcement mechanisms provided under the RERA Act and Rules (including revenue recovery and, where applicable, transmission of orders to civil courts by the RERA Authority itself).

IV. Statutory Framework Considered

1. Section 40 RERA – Recovery & Enforcement

Section 40(1) provides that if a promoter, allottee, or real estate agent fails to pay any interest, penalty, or compensation imposed under the Act, it shall be recoverable “in such manner as may be prescribed as arrears of land revenue”.

Section 40(2) states that if the Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Authority or Appellate Tribunal issues an order or direction requiring a person to do or refrain from doing an act, failure to comply shall result in enforcement “in such manner as may be prescribed”.

2. Section 79 RERA – Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction

Section 79 declares that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of matters which the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the Act; nor shall any injunction be granted in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the Act.

3. Rule 26, Karnataka RERA Rules – Manner of Implementation

Rule 26 of the Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 is central. It provides that:

  • Every order passed by the Adjudicating Officer, Regulatory Authority or Appellate Tribunal shall be enforced by them “as if it were a decree or order” of the principal civil court in a pending suit.
  • If they are unable to execute the order, they may send the order to the principal civil court having jurisdiction:
    • where the real estate project is located; or
    • where the person against whom the order is issued resides, carries on business, or works for gain.

Thus, Rule 26 creates a carefully structured interface between RERA authorities and civil courts. It is not left to parties unilaterally to invoke civil court execution procedure.

4. CPC: Section 2(2), Order XXI & Section 47

  • Section 2(2) CPC (“decree”): A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication by a court which conclusively determines the rights of parties in a suit.
  • Order XXI CPC: Provides the procedure for execution of decrees and orders of civil courts.
  • Section 47 CPC: All questions arising between parties relating to execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree must be determined by the executing court and not by a separate suit. The promoter invoked this provision to question the very jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain execution of RERA orders.

V. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. NEWTECH PROMOTERS and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 1

The Supreme Court in NEWTECH PROMOTERS undertook a comprehensive analysis of the RERA scheme. Two aspects were particularly relied upon:

  • Delegation Powers (Section 81): The Court held that RERA’s quasi-judicial powers (e.g., under Section 31) can be delegated to a single member under Section 81, but the adjudicating officer’s powers under Section 71 are non-delegable. This underscored the structured and complete adjudicatory mechanism under the Act.
  • Question 5 – Scope of Section 40(1):
    • Developers argued that only “interest or penalty” can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, not the principal amount.
    • The Supreme Court harmonised Section 18 (refund of principal) with Section 40(1), holding that:
      • The principal amount plus interest determined by the Authority or Adjudicating Officer is a composite sum.
      • This composite sum is recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 40(1).
      • A restrictive reading that excludes principal would defeat the purpose of the Act and the remedial scheme.

In the present case, the Karnataka High Court draws from Newtech to reinforce that:

  • RERA incorporates a complete remedial and enforcement mechanism, particularly for monetary reliefs.
  • Monetary directions of RERA are meant to be enforced through revenue recovery, not through general civil execution, unless the statute itself so allows.

2. DEEPAK MAWANDIA V. SHREE RSH Projects Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta High Court (FMAT 97 of 2024, decided 07.02.2025)

The Calcutta High Court held that:

  • The RERA Act is a self-contained code with exhaustive provisions governing the obligations and liabilities of promoters, allottees, and agents.
  • It provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances, not only for allottees but also for promoters and agents, creating an equilibrium of rights and obligations.

The Karnataka High Court relies on this articulation to support the proposition that:

  • Where a statute is a self-contained code, external procedural regimes (such as the CPC) cannot be freely imported to create additional or parallel enforcement mechanisms unless the statute expressly provides.

3. Supertech Ltd. v. Subrat Sen, 2018 SCC OnLine All 5629 (Allahabad High Court)

This seminal decision examined whether orders of the RERA Appellate Tribunal are “decrees” for purposes such as court fee and appeals. The Court held:

  • A “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC requires:
    1. Adjudication in a suit;
    2. Suit commenced by a plaint and ending in a decree;
    3. Adjudication by a court.
  • Proceedings before RERA are complaint-based, not suits commenced by plaints.
  • RERA and the Appellate Tribunal are tribunals, not civil courts, and their decisions are not “decrees” under Section 2(2) CPC.
  • Even where the Act (e.g., Section 57) creates a legal fiction treating Tribunal orders as “decrees” for execution, that fiction is limited to execution and does not convert the order into a decree for all CPC purposes (including appeals or court fees).

The Karnataka High Court adopts this analytical framework to hold that:

  • RERA orders are not decrees for purposes of resorting to Order XXI CPC through a party-initiated execution petition.

4. Khilla Colonizers v. Subhash Jain, 2021 SCC OnLine MP 6044 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The Madhya Pradesh High Court agreed with Supertech, holding that:

  • RERA Appellate Tribunal is not a “court subordinate to the High Court”.
  • Its orders are not “decrees” within Section 2(2) CPC.
  • Section 57 RERA, which makes Tribunal orders executable as decrees, does so by a limited legal fiction confined to execution.

This reinforced the limited nature of the “as a decree” phrase in RERA, a point the Karnataka High Court echoes in its refusal to allow full-scale application of CPC execution machinery at the instance of RERA claimants.

5. PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, LKO, 2021 SCC OnLine All 215 (Allahabad High Court)

Again affirming Supertech, the Allahabad High Court reiterated:

  • RERA is a special, beneficial legislation for investors/purchasers, with a summary procedure distinct from civil suits.
  • Orders of RERA/Tribunal are:
    • Not decrees under Section 2(2) CPC;
    • Only deemed decrees for the limited purpose of execution.
  • Legal fictions must be strictly confined to the purpose for which they are created.

The Karnataka High Court notes that this position has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4664, thereby lending binding authority to the line of reasoning that RERA orders do not metamorphose into full-fledged CPC decrees.

6. Trehan Apna Ghar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Munish Ranjan Sahay, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 3257 (Rajasthan High Court)

The Rajasthan High Court similarly held:

  • Tribunals under special Acts (like RERA) are not “civil courts”.
  • Proceedings under RERA are initiated by complaints, not plaints; CPC does not strictly apply.
  • Final RERA orders may, in substance, determine rights similar to a decree, but the statute only treats them as decrees for limited enforcement purposes (e.g., under Section 57).

The Karnataka High Court cites this to show a consistent national jurisprudence: RERA orders are distinct from civil court decrees, and their relationship with civil courts is carefully structured by the Act and Rules.

VI. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. RERA as a Self-Contained Code

The Court emphasises, drawing from Newtech and Deepak Mawandia, that the RERA Act and the Karnataka RERA Rules:

  • Provide an integrated framework for:
    • Regulation of real estate projects;
    • Adjudication of disputes involving promoters, allottees and agents; and
    • Enforcement and recovery of monetary and non-monetary relief.
  • Contain specific provisions (Section 40 and Rule 26) for enforcement of RERA orders.

Once such a self-contained scheme exists, resort to the general civil law machinery (CPC) is permissible only where the statute expressly allows it (such as via Rule 26) and in the manner it prescribes. Otherwise, importing CPC execution provisions would undermine the legislative intent and structure.

2. Why RERA Orders Are Not “Decrees” Under Section 2(2) CPC

The High Court adopts the reasoning advanced by the Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan High Courts:

  • A “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC presupposes:
    • An adjudication;
    • By a civil court;
    • In a suit commenced by a plaint; and
    • Conclusive determination of rights of parties in that suit.
  • By contrast:
    • RERA proceedings are instituted by complaints, not plaints;
    • RERA, the Adjudicating Officer and the Appellate Tribunal are tribunals/authorities, not “courts” in the CPC sense;
    • The proceedings are summary, guided by principles of natural justice and specialised statutory provisions, rather than the full rigour of CPC.

Therefore, an order of RERA or its Appellate Tribunal “cannot by any stretch of legal interpretation be equated with a decree” for purposes of Order XXI CPC.

3. Statutory Enforcement: Revenue Recovery and Rule 26

The Court places strong reliance on:

  • Section 40(1) RERA – Monetary directions of RERA (interest, penalty, compensation, and, as per Newtech, principal refund) are:
    • Recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and
    • Enforced through the mechanism prescribed in the Rules, which typically involves the jurisdictional Revenue Authority (e.g., Tahsildar).
  • Rule 26 Karnataka RERA Rules – Non-monetary orders or directions (e.g., to do or refrain from doing an act) are:
    • To be enforced by the RERA Authority/Adjudicating Officer/Appellate Tribunal itself “as if” they were decrees of the principal civil court.
    • Only upon inability to execute may the RERA Authority send the order to the principal civil court for execution.

The Court underscores a key procedural principle: “recovery of land revenue cannot be pursued through an execution petition before a civil court; it lies within the province of the Revenue Authority, ordinarily the Tahsildar.” Thus:

  • For monetary reliefs, the primary enforcement mechanism is revenue recovery.
  • For other orders, the primary enforcing agency is the RERA Authority/Tribunal itself, with recourse to civil courts only via transmission under Rule 26.

4. Limited Role of Civil Courts and Exceptional Circumstances

The Court recognises that:

  • Civil courts are not altogether excluded from the enforcement landscape. Their jurisdiction can arise where:
    • The RERA Authority/Tribunal expressly sends the order to the principal civil court under Rule 26; or
    • There is complete failure, despite efforts, to secure enforcement through revenue recovery mechanisms, in which case an aggrieved party might approach executing courts in “exceptional circumstances”.

However, these are structured and exceptional routes. They do not translate into a general right of an allottee to file an independent execution petition in a civil court directly on the basis of a RERA order, as though it were a civil court decree.

5. Application to the Present Case (Section 47 CPC and Article 227)

Against this legal background, the Court examined the execution proceedings:

  • The homebuyers had:
    • Not pursued enforcement before the RERA Authority under Section 40 and Rule 26;
    • Not invoked revenue recovery through the prescribed administrative channel;
    • Directly approached the civil court with execution petitions treating RERA orders as decrees.
  • The developer’s Section 47 CPC applications raised a jurisdictional objection:
    • The civil court lacked competence to execute RERA orders in this manner.
  • The executing court rejected this objection, effectively assuming jurisdiction and proceeding with the execution petitions.

The High Court found that:

  • The executing court’s approach “runs foul of law” because it bypasses the specific statutory enforcement scheme.
  • The Section 47 applications were “in tune with law” in contending that the executing court had no jurisdiction.
  • Consequently, the impugned orders rejecting the Section 47 applications were quashed in exercise of the High Court’s supervisory power under Article 227.
  • This “leads to the obliteration” of the execution proceedings themselves.

At the same time, the Court carefully preserved the respondents’ substantive rights by clarifying that they remain free to pursue “such remedy as is available in law” — that is, through the enforcement avenues RERA provides.

VII. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

1. “Decree” and “Suit” under the CPC

  • A “suit” is a formal civil proceeding initiated by filing a plaint (a structured pleading in CPC form).
  • A “decree” (Section 2(2) CPC) is the final, formal expression of an adjudication by a civil court in such a suit, conclusively determining the rights of the parties.
  • Key ingredients:
    • There must be a plaint.
    • There must be a civil court exercising jurisdiction.
    • The decision must conclusively determine rights in that suit.

Because RERA proceedings are commenced by a complaint before a tribunal/authority, they fall outside this classical CPC framework. Hence their orders are not decrees in the strict CPC sense.

2. Execution Proceedings

  • “Execution” refers to the legal process through which a successful party enforces a decree or order, e.g., by attachment and sale of property, arrest, or other coercive measures.
  • Under CPC, Order XXI lays down detailed procedures for execution of decrees of civil courts.
  • However, when a special Act (like RERA) prescribes its own enforcement mechanism, that special mechanism generally prevails over the default CPC procedure.

3. Arrears of Land Revenue

  • “Arrears of land revenue” refers to unpaid amounts due to the State under land revenue laws.
  • Recovery of such arrears follows a separate administrative and legal process under revenue laws, usually handled by revenue officers such as the Tahsildar.
  • By deeming RERA recoveries as arrears of land revenue, Section 40(1) shifts enforcement to the revenue machinery, not the civil execution machinery.

4. Self-Contained Code and Bar of Jurisdiction

  • A statute is a self-contained code when it:
    • Defines rights and obligations;
    • Provides forums and procedures for adjudication; and
    • Supplies mechanisms for enforcement and appeal.
  • Section 79 RERA is a bar of jurisdiction provision: it prohibits civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings on matters that fall within RERA’s domain.
  • These two features together mean:
    • Parties cannot bypass RERA’s specialised machinery by resorting to ordinary civil suits or improper execution petitions.

5. Legal Fiction (“As If It Were a Decree”)

  • When a statute says an order shall be treated “as if it were a decree”, it creates a legal fiction.
  • Courts consistently hold that such fictions must be:
    • Strictly confined to the purpose for which they are enacted; and
    • Not extended to transform the nature of the order for all purposes under the CPC.
  • In RERA:
    • Orders are executable “as if” they were decrees (e.g., under Section 57 or Rule 26), but this does not make them decrees for all CPC purposes (appeals, court fees, or party-initiated execution petitions).

6. Article 227 and Section 47 CPC

  • Article 227 of the Constitution gives High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals in the State, enabling them to:
    • Correct jurisdictional errors;
    • Ensure that inferior courts act within the bounds of law.
  • Section 47 CPC allows the executing court to decide all questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree. It also implies that the executing court must verify whether:
    • The decree is executable at all; and
    • It has jurisdiction to execute it.

In this case, Section 47 was invoked to challenge jurisdiction to execute a non-decree, and Article 227 was invoked to correct the executing court’s erroneous assumption of such jurisdiction.

VIII. Impact and Implications of the Judgment

1. For Homebuyers / Allottees

  • Homebuyers holding favourable RERA orders in Karnataka can no longer file direct execution petitions in civil courts as if those orders were civil decrees.
  • They must:
    • Approach the RERA Authority/Adjudicating Officer/Appellate Tribunal for enforcement, which will:
      • Use the revenue recovery route for monetary reliefs (Section 40(1)); and/or
      • Enforce non-monetary orders using its powers and, where necessary, transmit orders to the principal civil court under Rule 26.
  • While this may appear to introduce additional procedural steps, it aligns with the specialised and expedited mechanisms that RERA was designed to deploy.

2. For Promoters / Developers

  • Developers gain clarity that:
    • They cannot be subjected to parallel enforcement in civil courts outside the statutory RERA scheme.
    • Any enforcement must adhere to the processes contemplated by the RERA Act and Rules.
  • However, this does not dilute the binding nature or enforceability of RERA orders; it only channels enforcement through the prescribed mechanisms.

3. For RERA Authorities and State Administration

  • RERA Authorities in Karnataka will face heightened expectations to:
    • Actively enforce their own orders (as Rule 26 mandates);
    • Coordinate efficiently with revenue authorities for recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 40(1);
    • Invoke the transmission mechanism to civil courts only when genuinely unable to execute orders themselves.
  • The State’s revenue machinery (e.g., Tahsildars) will play a critical role in the real-world effectiveness of RERA remedies, especially for monetary claims.

4. For Civil Courts

  • Civil courts in Karnataka must:
    • Decline direct execution petitions filed by allottees on the strength of RERA orders;
    • Entertain execution of RERA orders only when:
      • They are transmitted by the RERA Authority/Adjudicating Officer/Appellate Tribunal under Rule 26; or
      • Exceptional circumstances, recognised by law, justify resort to civil courts after failure of revenue recovery.
  • This prevents an uncontrolled expansion of civil court workload and respects the legislative intent to route real estate disputes through a specialised regime.

5. Doctrinal Coherence Across Jurisdictions

  • The Karnataka High Court’s decision brings its jurisprudence in line with that of the Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Calcutta High Courts, and with Supreme Court pronouncements in NEWTECH PROMOTERS and PSA Impex.
  • The rule emerging across jurisdictions is that:
    • RERA orders are not decrees under Section 2(2) CPC;
    • They are deemed decrees for limited execution purposes only to the extent and in the manner RERA itself prescribes;
    • Civil courts’ role is derived and limited, not primary or parallel.

IX. Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in Mantri Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors. represents a significant clarification of the enforcement architecture under the RERA Act. The core holding is that:

Orders of the RERA Authority, Adjudicating Officer or Appellate Tribunal are not “decrees” within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and, therefore, cannot be directly executed by civil courts through execution petitions filed by parties. Enforcement must proceed through the self-contained mechanisms of the RERA Act and Rules, primarily via revenue recovery and, where necessary, through orders transmitted by RERA to the principal civil court under Rule 26.

By quashing the executing court’s assumption of jurisdiction, the High Court has:

  • Reinforced the self-contained and specialised nature of the RERA framework;
  • Aligned Karnataka’s position with authoritative jurisprudence across India, now affirmed by the Supreme Court;
  • Ensured doctrinal coherence between the CPC and RERA, preventing the over-extension of legal fictions and preserving the integrity of both regimes.

For practitioners and stakeholders in the real estate sector, the judgment underscores the importance of:

  • Understanding the precise enforcement pathways under RERA;
  • Engaging the correct forum (RERA Authority and revenue authorities) for execution of orders;
  • Recognising that civil courts are not an alternative or parallel route for enforcing RERA determinations, save where the statute itself channels matters to them.

In the broader legal context, this decision contributes to a consistent national approach to tribunal-based adjudication and enforcement, respecting the autonomy of special statutes while ensuring that litigants remain protected through clear, predictable procedural pathways.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Karnataka High Court

Judge(s)

M.NAGAPRASANNA

Advocates

VANDANA P L

Comments