Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable

“UPREAT Has All The Trappings Of A Court” – Division Bench Applies Kamal Kumar Dutta To RERA Appeals In a decisive ruling clarifying the appellate structure under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that no Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules lies against a judgment of a Single Judge passed in an appeal under Section 58 of RERA.

On 18 February 2026, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, in Ratan Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar, dismissed the Special Appeal as not maintainable, holding that the bar contained in Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure squarely applies where a Single Judge decides an appeal arising from the original order of a Tribunal possessing “all the trappings of a court.”

The judgment is a significant reaffirmation that the RERA appellate framework culminates at the Single Judge stage and does not permit a further intra-court appeal.

The Dispute: From Adjudicating Officer To Division Bench

The litigation originated from a delayed real estate project. The allottee approached the Adjudicating Officer under RERA seeking compensation. The Adjudicating Officer granted relief on 10 February 2023. The promoter challenged the order before the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which modified the relief and directed payment of delayed interest.

The promoter then invoked Section 58 of RERA and filed an appeal before a Single Judge of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed on 4 September 2025. Thereafter, the promoter preferred a Special Appeal before the Division Bench under Chapter VIII Rule 5.

At the threshold, the respondent objected to the maintainability of the Special Appeal, citing Section 100-A CPC and the Full Bench decision in Sheet Gupta.

“No Further Appeal Shall Lie”: Section 100-A CPC Takes Centre Stage

The Division Bench examined the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd., where it was held that after the 2002 amendment to Section 100-A CPC, no Letters Patent Appeal lies where a Single Judge decides an appeal from an original order.

Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench emphasized:

“Where appeal has been decided from an original order by a Single Judge, no further appeal has been provided… the power which used to be there under the Letters Patent of the High Court has been subsequently withdrawn.”

The Supreme Court had further clarified that even if the original authority “may not be a court,” if it “has all the trappings of a court,” the bar under Section 100-A CPC applies.

The Allahabad High Court thus framed the pivotal question: Does the U.P. Real Estate Appellate Tribunal possess the trappings of a court?

“Proceedings Deemed Judicial… Tribunal Deemed Civil Court”: RERA’s Statutory Scheme Examined

The Bench undertook a close reading of Section 53 of RERA. It noted that the Appellate Tribunal is vested with powers akin to those of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, including summoning witnesses, receiving evidence on affidavits, reviewing its decisions, and issuing commissions.

More crucially, Section 53(5) declares that “all proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings” and that the Tribunal “shall be deemed to be civil court” for specified purposes.

Further, under Section 57, every order of the Appellate Tribunal is executable “as a decree of civil court.”

Drawing a comparison with Section 10E(4C) and (4D) of the Companies Act, 1956, which governed the Company Law Board in Kamal Kumar Dutta, the Bench observed that the statutory framework under RERA is “almost in identical terms.”

The Court concluded:

“It can safely be concluded that the UPREAT has trappings of the court similar to the CLB and therefore, the ratio of Kamal Kumar Dutta would apply with all force to the present case as well.”

Once this functional equivalence was established, the consequence was inevitable—an appeal under Section 58 RERA being an appeal from an original order, no further intra-court appeal could lie.

Delhi High Court’s Promoshirt Ruling Distinguished

The appellant relied heavily on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse, where a Letters Patent Appeal under the Trade Marks Act had been held maintainable.

The Division Bench distinguished that judgment, pointing out that the Delhi High Court had placed emphasis on the absence of a statutory deeming provision akin to Section 10E(4D) of the Companies Act.

In contrast, the RERA Act expressly contains deeming provisions declaring proceedings judicial and the Tribunal to be a civil court for specified purposes. Therefore, the distinguishing feature relied upon in Promoshirt was absent in the present case.

The Bench categorically held that the reasoning in Promoshirt was inapplicable to the RERA statutory scheme.

“Tribunals May Not Be Courts, Yet They Administer Justice”: Reaffirming The Functional Test

Relying on Kihoto Hollohan and State of Gujarat v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association, the Court reiterated that tribunals deciding disputes under special statutes, vested with adjudicatory powers and judicial attributes, may functionally resemble courts.

The real test, the Bench underscored, is not nomenclature but the nature of powers exercised and the statutory framework governing proceedings.

Where a tribunal decides a lis between parties, conducts judicial proceedings, exercises powers of a civil court, and passes orders executable as decrees, it possesses the essential “trappings of a court.”

The Final Word: “Special Appeal… Would Be Barred Under Section 100-A CPC”

In its concluding finding, the Division Bench held:

“We are firmly of the opinion that the present appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules, 1952 against order passed by learned Single Judge on an appeal under Section 58 of the Act, 2016, would be barred under Section 100-A CPC.”

The Special Appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

RERA Appellate Chain Ends At The Single Judge

The judgment decisively clarifies that under the RERA regime in Uttar Pradesh, the appellate process culminates at the Single Judge stage when exercising jurisdiction under Section 58. The legislative intent behind Section 100-A CPC—to curtail multiplicity of intra-court appeals—is given full effect.

For promoters and allottees alike, the message is clear: once the High Court, through a Single Judge, adjudicates an appeal from the RERA Appellate Tribunal, the doors of intra-court appeal stand closed.

Date of Decision: 18 February 2026