M/S Swami Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Himanshu Agarwal vs M/S Madhusudan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Rama Shankar Agarwal

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

RERA APPEAL No. - 43 of 2026

¶3

M/S Swami Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Himanshu Agarwal

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus M/S Madhusudan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Rama Shankar Agarwal .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Inder Preet Singh Chadha Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aprajita Bansal, Anilesh Tewari, Surabhi Rawat

¶6

Court No. - 19

¶7

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶8

Case called out. Sri D.K. Pathak, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Inter Preet Singh Chaddha, is present for the appellant, and Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Aparajita Bansal, is present for the respondent.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

By means of the present appeal the appellant has assailed the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, in First Appeal No. D/431/2022, In Re: M/s Madhusudan Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Swami Nirman Pvt. Ltd. For convenience, the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 is reproduced hereunder:

¶11

"1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that appeal is barred by latches. Office report also indicates that appeal is barred by 183 days. In the memo of appeal in the limitation column appellant has not prayed for condonation of delay, though, a plausible explanation has been furnished.

¶12

2. On being confronted, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted 03 days' time to file a separate delay condonation application and advance copy shall be supplied to

¶13

RERA No. 43 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

the counsel for the respondent, who shall file objections within 07 days thereafter.

¶16

3. List this appeal on 17.04.2026."

¶17

At the very outset, Sri D.K. Pathak, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has very fairly stated that now, when the learned Appellate Tribunal is seized with the matter, the case is fixed for disposal of the application for condonation of delay, and the objection against the same has also been filed by the appellant herein; at this stage, the instant appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the learned Appellate Tribunal to firstly decide the controversy on the delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, also agreed to the said proposal made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, being the correct legal position.

¶19

As per the record available before this court, the objections against the application for condonation of delay was filed by the appellant herein on 16.04.2026 pursuant to the order dated 23.10.2021 by means of which the learned Appellate Tribunal, on the request of the respondent/appellant herein, permitted them to file the application for condonation of delay; as 16.07.2026 is fixed for disposal of the application for condonation of delay, this court, with the consent of the parties, proceeds to dispose of the instant appeal with the directions, as proposed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant herein.

¶20

Accordingly, without adverting on the merits of the aforementioned application for condonation of delay or on the merits of the case, the instant appeal preferred against the order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow, in appeal No. D/431/2022 is disposed of with a direction to the learned Appellate Tribunal to, firstly, consider the maintainability of the application for condonation of delay, and, if satisfied, may decide the question of delay, if any.

¶21

It is made clear that the learned Appellate Tribunal shall proceed to

¶22

RERA No. 43 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

pass any order on the appeal only after disposal of the aforesaid pending application for condonation of delay.

¶25

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of .

¶26

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶27

May 25, 2026

¶28

A.Nigam

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Swami Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Himanshu Agarwal v. M/S Madhusudan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Rama Shankar Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Swami Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Himanshu Agarwal v. M/S Madhusudan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Rama Shankar Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajeshwari Mishra vs Gyanesh Mishra

Ganga Ram vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru.. Judicial Member and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Kanchan Verma vs Ashok Kumar Verma

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. vs Ramesh Kumar and Another

Lucknow Development Authority Thru. Its Secy. Vipin Khand Gomti Nagar Lko. vs Ram Khelawan and Another