Madras High Court Upholds Civil Court's Jurisdiction in Real Estate Dispute
Landmark Ruling Affirms Civil Court's Authority to Grant Permanent Injunctions Despite RERA Act Restrictions
In a significant judgment that could have wide-ranging implications for real estate litigation, the Madras High Court has ruled that civil courts retain the jurisdiction to entertain suits for permanent injunctions, despite the jurisdictional bar imposed by Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The judgment was delivered by Justice P.B. Balaji on August 29, 2025, in the case of Metrozone Apartment Owners Association v. M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited.
The case revolved around whether the Metrozone Apartment Owners Association could seek a permanent injunction from a civil court to prevent M/s. Ozone Projects Private Limited from interfering with its possession of certain properties. The petitioner contended that the suit was barred under Section 79 of the RERA Act, which restricts civil courts from entertaining matters that fall within the purview of RERA authorities.
In a detailed analysis, Justice Balaji clarified that the bar under Section 79 of the RERA Act applies only to matters that the RERA authorities are empowered to determine. The equitable remedy of a permanent injunction, however, is not provided for under the RERA Act. Sections 36, 37, and 40 of the Act, which deal with interim orders, directions, and enforcement of orders, do not empower the authority to grant permanent injunctions. Therefore, civil courts have the jurisdiction to entertain such claims.
The judgment also addressed the petitioner's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, which argues for rejection based on legal bars. The court held that the trial court had rightly dismissed this application, as the relief sought does not fall within the powers vested in the RERA authorities.
This ruling reinforces the jurisdiction of civil courts in granting equitable remedies like permanent injunctions, providing clarity in cases where jurisdictional conflicts with the RERA Act arise. Legal experts believe this judgment will play a crucial role in guiding similar disputes across the country.
Bottom Line:
A suit for permanent injunction filed before a Civil Court is not barred under Section 79 of the RERA Act, 2016, as the equitable remedy of permanent injunction is not available under the provisions of the RERA Act.
Statutory provision(s): Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Section 79, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rule 11(d), Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 Sections 36, 37, and 40
