MHREAT Rejects Homebuyers' Plea To Condon 266-Day Delay, Says Litigant Can't Blame Advocate Entirely

The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MHREAT) on 10 September dismissed a homebuyers' application seeking condonation of a 266-day delay in filing an appeal against a MahaRERA order concerning a flat purchased from Larsen & Toubro.

A Bench comprising Chairperson Justice S.S. Shinde and Member Shrikant M. Deshpande observed that a litigant cannot seek condonation of delay by placing the entire blame on their advocate. Further, that negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence cannot constitute sufficient cause for condoning an inordinate delay. It noted:

“...we are of the view that the applicants cannot throw entire blame on the Advocate and therefore, it cannot be taken as a ground for condonation of delay.”

The homebuyers had purchased a flat from Larsen & Toubro under an agreement for sale dated 7 December 2016. Possession was handed over to them on 20 July 2018. They subsequently approached MahaRERA seeking interest on account of delay in possession. MahaRERA dismissed their complaint on 3 April 2025.

The limitation period for filing the appeal expired on 2 June 2025. However, the homebuyers filed the appeal on 23 February 2026, resulting in a delay of 266 days. They therefore sought condonation of the delay.

They submitted that they had not received the email informing them about the MahaRERA order. They claimed that they came to know about the order only on 17 February 2026, when they met their advocate after returning to India. They also relied on their age and residence outside India for considerable periods. They further submitted that their earlier advocate had failed to follow up with MahaRERA.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not satisfactorily explain the 266-day delay. It held that residing outside India and facing difficulties in communicating with the advocate could not explain such an inordinate delay.

Relying on Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, the it rejected the homebuyers' attempt to place the entire blame on their earlier advocate. It observed that a litigant cannot shift the entire responsibility for a case to their advocate and is expected to remain vigilant about proceedings initiated by them.

The Bench also relied on S.R. Vediappan v. S.P. Ramalingam, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary and Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector to reiterate that delay can be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown. A liberal approach to condonation cannot be used to overlook negligence, inaction or lack of due diligence. It concluded that the homebuyers had failed to provide a convincing explanation for the delay or demonstrate that they had acted with reasonable diligence.

Accordingly, the MHREAT rejected the application seeking condonation of the 266-day delay.