Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 17 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Macrotech Developers Limited (Defendant No.1 in the trial court).
  • Respondent No.1: Saint Andrews Co‑op. Housing Society Ltd. (Plaintiff in the trial court).
  • Respondent No.2: The sanctioning authority (unnamed) that approved multiple development plans for the Lodha Belmondo project.
  • The dispute stems from the Lodha Belmondo development (registration numbers P52100020156, P52100000182, P52100000283) covering 4,90,730 sq m in Village Gahunje, Taluka Maval, District Pune.
  • The Society, formed on 18 March 2021 under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, represents flat owners in Towers B, C, D, E, F and Villas 1‑28, collectively termed “The Reserve”.
  • Between 2012‑2021, seven sanction plans were approved by the planning authority, the seventh (dated 20 September 2021) proposing demolition of the existing clubhouse located behind Tower 26 and construction of a new structure.
  • Members obtained possession of their flats in 2017 after an Occupation Certificate was issued; the clubhouse, approved in the fifth sanction plan (22 June 2018), was in use by Society members.
  • In October 2022, Macrotech’s workers barred Society members from the clubhouse, citing the seventh sanction plan’s demolition provision.
  • The Society filed Regular Suit No. 528 of 2022 (filed 11 November 2022) seeking a declaration that the clubhouse is integral to “The Reserve”, a permanent injunction against demolition, and a declaration that the seventh sanction plan is illegal and void.
  • Macrotech filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground of jurisdictional bar under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) and Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act.
  • The Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune dismissed Macrotech’s application on 4 January 2023; Macrotech then filed the present Civil Revision Application No. 442 of 2023.
  • Arguments: Macrotech contended that RERA exclusively bars civil courts from adjudicating the matter and that the suit is barred by res judicata. The Society argued that as a cooperative housing society it is not an “allottee” under RERA, that RERA’s bar does not extend to declaratory and injunctive relief, and that the trial court correctly exercised jurisdiction.
  • The Court examined relevant statutes (Section 79, 88, 89 of RERA; Section 9 CPC) and Supreme Court precedents (New Tech Promoters, Imperia Structures, State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam, etc.) to determine whether civil court jurisdiction was ousted.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that Section 79 RERA does not bar the civil court from granting declaratory and injunction relief in this case because RERA tribunals lack power to grant such reliefs.
  • The Court affirmed that the Society, as a cooperative housing society, is a separate legal entity and not an “allottee” within the meaning of RERA; therefore, the suit is maintainable.
  • The trial court’s order dated 4 January 2023 rejecting Macrotech’s Order VII Rule 11(d) application is upheld and confirmed.
  • The Civil Revision Application is dismissed with costs; parties may pursue other legal remedies, but the present order remains unaffected.

Topics: Civil Court Jurisdiction, Real Estate Regulation (RERA), Cooperative Housing Society Rights