Complaint no. - CC006000000195277


CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000195277

MOHAMMAD IRFAN HUSAIN KAZI


… COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. LXMI INFRA

2. LE CLASSIQUE REALTY PVT. LTD.
…RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project registration No. P99000006053

O R D E R
On Miscellaneous application filed by the Respondent no. 1

24. 03.2026
(Date of Hearing: 29.01.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Adv. Deepak Raut for the Complainant
Adv. Akshay Gajbhiye for the Respondent no. 1
Respondent no. 2 absent

1. The respondent no. 1 has filed an application to set aside no reply
order date 22.04.2024 and for taking on record the reply filed by the
respondent no. 1.

2. According to Respondent no. 1, on 24.01.2024, the matter was listed
before this Hon’ble Forum, and both the Respondent No. 1 and his
counsel appeared via virtual hearing. The Hon’ble Forum granted
two weeks’ time to file a written reply. However, due to the
Respondent No. 1 being out of station on urgent personal work, he
was unable to coordinate with his counsel for preparation of the
reply.

3. The Respondent No. 1 states that he subsequently lost his mobile
phone, resulting in loss of his advocate’s contact details, and was
therefore unable to establish communication. Thereafter, by Order
dated 22.04.2024, this Hon’ble Forum directed that the matter
proceed in the absence of the Respondent No. 1’s reply/written
statement. The Respondent No. 1 submits that the complainant has


Complaint no. - CC006000000195277

failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating the
alleged booking of the subject flats in the respondent’s project.

4. The Respondent No. 1 submits that he has a strong case on merits,
and if the Order dated 22.04.2024 is not set aside and to permit filing
of a written reply, it will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice. The
Respondent No. 1 submits that their written statement/reply is
prepared and annexed hereto.

5. The complainant has filed his reply to the application filed by the
respondent no. 1 and thereby stated that the application to set aside
the no reply order, purportedly dated 03/11/2025, was only sent to
the complainant via e-mail on 12/12/2025 at 20:32 hours;
accordingly, its maintainability is untenable. The respondents
received adequate notice under Order V, Rule 9(3) of the Civil
Procedure Code and were required to inform MahaRERA under
Section 148 CPC and seek an extension of time. Furthermore, the
notices issued by MahaRERA under Order V, Rule 9(3) are
accessible nationwide.

6. The complainant denied that Respondent No. 1 misplaced his
phone, noting that it had full knowledge of the Advocate’s address
i.e.—C2/25/01, Sector 16, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400614—and could
have contacted them directly.

7. The complainant categorically denied the allegations in Paragraphs
5–7 of Respondent No. 1’s application as baseless and unsupported.


Complaint no. - CC006000000195277

The complainant contended that the application to set aside the
Order dated 22/04/2024 is barred by inordinate delay, and in the
application Respondent No. 1 himself admitted that this is not an
ex-parte matter. Further, Respondent No. 1 failed to demonstrate a
strong prima facie case. He submitted that the application to set
aside the Order dated 24/04/2024, being based on deceit and
falsehood, be dismissed with costs under Sections 35A and 35B
CPC.

8. I have perused the roznama dated 07/08/2025, 04/11/2025, and
29/01/2026. It is observed that Adv. Ashay Gajbhije has appeared
on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in the last three consecutive hearings
and has actively participated in the proceedings of the present
complaint. Although the respondents have, on previous occasions,
failed to appear, in the interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate
that both parties be heard on the merits of the matter.

9. Considering the submissions and reasons given by the Respondent
no. 1 in the present application and reply by the complainant. In my
opinion, it is just and necessary to allow the application of the
Respondent no. 1 to set aside no reply order by imposing cost
payable to the Complainant. Considering the principle of natural
justice and to have fair trial, and to adjudicate dispute between the
parties on merits. The present application is allowed. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:
O R D E R

1. The application is allowed. The no reply order passed against
Respondent no. 1 on 22nd April 2024 is hereby set aside subject to


Complaint no. - CC006000000195277

payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) is
payable to the Complainant within 7 days of this order.

2. On payment of above said cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three
Thousand only), the reply uploaded by Respondents to be taken on
record.


Date – 24.03.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.24
14:29:36 +05'30'