Common Order (2022)

What the proceedings concerned

The Common Order in Miscellaneous Application Nos. 17 to 20 of 2022 arose in Appeal Nos. 83, 84, 90 and 99 of 2021 before the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The applicants were the Army Welfare Housing Organization and the Project Director of its Raman Vihar project in Coimbatore. The respondents were home buyers who were appellants in the connected appeals.

The miscellaneous applications asked the Tribunal to receive additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Project Director stated in an affidavit that the 18 documents were important, disproved the home buyers' case and falsified their allegations.

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal considered whether the promoters should be permitted to introduce the documents during the appellate proceedings.

Key findings were:

• A party seeking to produce additional evidence must explain why, despite due diligence, the evidence was not known or could not be produced before the Regulatory Authority when the proof affidavit was filed.
• The promoters did not give a reason for failing to produce the documents earlier.
• Although the Tribunal stated that it was not bound by the procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure, the promoters still ought to have explained the earlier nonproduction.
• The home buyers' counter affidavits did not state that the documents were unnecessary, irrelevant or produced too late, but they requested dismissal of the applications.
• The Tribunal found that the additional documents were not necessary for deciding the issue at the appellate stage.

Result and practical effect

The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed Miscellaneous Application Nos. 17 to 20 of 2022 without costs. It stated that the matter was to be remanded for fresh disposal along with C.No.226/2021, which was pending before the Regulatory Authority.

The promoters and home buyers would therefore have an opportunity to produce further documents before the Regulatory Authority during the hearing. The promoters were expressly given liberty to file the additional documents there if necessary. The ruling addresses whether the 18 documents could be received at the appellate stage and does not set out a final decision on the underlying home buyer claims.