Cross-Examination In Real Estate Proceedings Is An Exception, Not The Rule: Himachal Pradesh RERA

On 16 January 2026, the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) rejected a builder's request for cross-examination, ruling that it is an exception under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (The Act), and not a routine requirement.

The Authority observed that the primary objective of the Act is to provide expeditious relief to homebuyers, which cannot be delayed by civil court procedures. It emphasised that the authority is duty bound to observe principles of natural justice and application of evidence Act is therefore not necessitated at every stage of proceedings.

In the case at hand, a Bench comprising R.D. Dhiman (Chairperson) and Vidur Mehta (Member) was hearing a complaint by Mrs. Ranjana Chaturvedi, who had booked a residential flat in the "Mashobra Hills" project developed by M/s Rajdeep and Company Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The agreement which was signed in July 2019, promised possession by February 2020. However, even six years later, the builder failed to deliver the flat despite receiving 39.63 lakhs—nearly 75 percent of the total cost.

The homebuyer claimed she was entitled to a full refund with interest under Section 18 of the Act due to the prolonged delay.

The builder raised preliminary objections, arguing that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration and that a formal cross-examination was necessary to verify facts. They also sought to justify the delay by citing the Covid-19 pandemic and certain regulatory hurdles.

The Authority rejected these objections. On the arbitration issue, it clarified that per Section 31 of the Act, any aggrieved person can file a complaint before the Authority for any violation of the Act. It held:

“that per section 31 of the Act ibid, prescribes that any aggrieved person can file a Complaint before the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer as the case may be for any violation of the provisions of the Act.”

Regarding cross-examination, the Bench observed that there is no provision under the Act, Rules, or Regulations for cross-examination of the parties. It noted “cross examination is an exception, not the rule” and that if it were permitted routinely, “the entire purpose of the Act in providing expeditious relief to the allottees would be defeated”.

In this context, the Authority directed the builder to refund fully the amount paid along with interest under Section 18 of the Act.

For Complainant: Sh. Vikrant and Sh. Kartik Kumar

For Respondent: Sh. Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate