Shri Avinash Pandey Vs Parthivi Construction Private Limited

Parthivi Construction Private Limited Through Its Director Shri Sanjay Baghel Address- Parthivi Pacific, Commercial Complex, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Tatibandh, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

...Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate. For Respondent : None, despite service of notice.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

23.06.2025

¶17

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following

¶18

prayers:-

¶19

“a. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the present case for the kind perusal.

¶20

2

¶21

b. That, this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh passed in Appeal No. 184 of 2023.

¶22

c. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶23

Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant (Avinash Pandey) before this Court on 26/03/2025. However, today Mr. Amit Soni Advocate, appears and submits that since recently Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate has been empanelled for for RERA, he has filed his memo of appearance today to argue the case on behalf of the appellant.

¶24

It transpires from the order sheet that notice was issued to the respondent on 08/08/2024, but despite service of notice, sole respondent has not put his appearance, hence, this Court proceed to hear the matter ex-party.

¶25

The case of the appellant herein is that the respondent is developing a colony in the named & styled as “Prithivi Province”. On 13/12/2010, an agreement for sale was executed between the appellant and the respondent for House No.PP-14 super built-up area 1624 square feet

¶26

3

¶27

for consideration of Rs.25,58,400/- to which, the appellant has paid amount of Rs.25,50,000/-. Further case of the appellant is that the respondent failed to give the possession of the aforesaid house within a stipulated period of 18 months from 13/12/2010 and as such, s per the Clause 16 of the agreement, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 10/- per square feet per month till handing over the possession of the house. However, the case of the respondent is that he has already handed over the possession to the appellant in the month of June, 2013. According to the respondent, as per Clause 33 of the agreement, the dispute was to be resolved by the arbitrator and as such, the complaint raised by the appellant is not maintainable. After hearing both the parties, the Real State Regulatory Authority (RERA) dismissed the case filed by the appellant vide order dated 11/03/2022 passed in Case No.M-PRO-2021-01520. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the C.G. Real State Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal bearing No.184/2023. The said appeal has been considered by the Tribunal and vide order dated 15/01/2024, dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant himself has executed an agreement with the non-applicant and paid 95% of the amount which was required to be paid by the complainant and thereafter there are certain functions and duties of a promoter in which it is particularly mentioned as per the Act of 2016 that the promoter shall be responsible for all obligations

¶29

4

¶30

responsibilities and functions under the provisions of the Act of 2016 but in the present case regardless of the fact that the complainant has paid the amount for getting the possession and delivery of the home for which the agreement of sale was executed but after a lapse of more than 10 years the complainant is not able to reap the fruits out of the property which he purchased and the learned tribunal below without considering the ground raised by the complainant has decided the case of the appellant/complainant on its own merits and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the pleadings and the record of the Tribunal.

¶32

From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent in the year 2010 for sale of house No.PP-14 built up area 1624 sq.ft. for a consideration of Rs. 25,50,000/-. In pursuant to the said agreement, the respondent constructed the house and hand over the possession to the appellant in the month of June, 2013. However, as per Clause 33 of the agreement, a dispute was raised which was resolved by the Arbitrator. Thereafter, the appellant approached the RERA who by order dated 11/03/2022 dismissed the appeal of the appellant and thereagainst, the appellant approached the Tribunal, who also dismissed the case of the petitioner holding that as per the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the appellant could have filed the complaint within 3 years from 13/06/2012, whereas he has filed the complaint in tye

¶33

5

¶34

year 2021 and as such, it is barred by Limitation.

¶35

It is the trite law that the Court cannot grant any relief to a person who has slept over his rights for a long period. In the case at hand, the appellant raised a dispute after about a decade. The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶36

As a sequel, the instant appeal, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

SD/SD/-

¶38

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶39

Amardeep/ Sourabh

Shri Avinash Pandey v. Parthivi Construction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Avinash Pandey v. Parthivi Construction Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramnath Rajak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suyash Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithun Kumar @ Prince Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nikhil Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Prasad Sahu Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh