COMPLAINT NO. - CC006000000209443


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000209443

NISHANT SINGH


…COMPLAINANT
Vs
LUCY ROYCHOUDHARY


…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800001296


INTERIM ORDER


(In Amendment Application)
(02.03.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 02 .02.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA

Complainant in person present
Advocate Kaizin Irani for the Respondent

1. The Present Amendment Application has been filed by the Complainant, Mr.
Nishant Singh for deleting the name of the Ankitha Palissery as well as Lucy
Roychoudhary from the present Complaint and add the name of Evie Real Estate
Private Limited as an only party Respondent in the present Complaint.

2. The Complainant has uploaded the present Amendment Application on 24th
October 2024 on MahaRERA Website.
The Complainant submissions in the Amendment Application are summarized as
below: -

3. The Complainant in his amendment application submits that he had initially made
Ankitha Palissery as a Respondent in the present complaint as she was the one who


COMPLAINT NO. - CC006000000209443


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

was coordinating with him for money under the “Runwal Price Assurance Plan” on
behalf of Runwal Group. Later on, he uploaded the Complaint in Form-A on

03. 03.2024, naming Lucy Roychoudhary as the Respondent, under the understanding
that a CEO may also be regarded as a promoter of the project.

4. The Complainant by way of this amendment application made request to approve
amendment of the Respondent details under this Complaint thereby adding and
deleting the name of Respondent as per the details below: -
a. Request to delete the following two parties as Respondent
• Ankitha Palissery: Respondent as per my initial application on the MahaRERA
portal
• Lucy Roychoudhary: Respondent as per the form-A, I had uploaded on the
MahaRERA portal
b. Request to add the following party as Respondent
• Evie Real Estate Private Limited: Promoter of Project bearing no. P51800001296

5. The Respondent No. 2 i.e. Lucy Roychoudhary has filed reply on Amendment
Application through his Authorized Signatory Mr. Ashutosh Arvind Navare on

05. 06.2025 on MahaRERA website thereby opposed the Amendment Application.
The summarized submissions of the Respondent No. 2 in his reply to the Amendment
Application are as below: -

6. The Respondent No. 2 argues that the present amendment application is belatedly
filed in the captioned complaint after a Miscellaneous Application dated 22nd October
2024 seeking dismissal of captioned Complaint was filed. The said Application is
neither verified nor notarized and is not a legal document.

7. He further argues that the said Application does not meet the strict requirements of
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which is the law on amendment
of civil court proceedings. The said Application does not even meet the requirements


COMPLAINT NO. - CC006000000209443


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

of regulation 42 of the Maharashtra Real Estate (General) Regulations, 2017, which
gives litigant the right to seek amendment.

8. Additionally, the said Application does not even specify at all, under which
provision it has been filed. The said Application does not have any schedule indicating
which portions of the complaint are needed to be amended.

9. It seems from the submission, application and reply of both the parties that he made
the present Respondent a party, presuming her to be the promoter of the said project,
which clearly indicates a misjoinder on his part. He had initially raised a complaint on
the MahaRERA portal on 23.12.2021, naming Ankitha Palissery as the Respondent, as
she was coordinating with him regarding the payments. Subsequently, during the
hearing on 28.02.2024, Advocate Abir Patel submitted that Ankitha Palissery is neither
the builder nor the promoter and that the complaint required amendment. Pursuant
to the directions of this Hon’ble Authority, he uploaded the Complaint in Form-A on

03. 03.2024, naming Lucy Roychoudhary as the Respondent, under the understanding
that a CEO may also be regarded as a promoter of the project. And hence, afterthought
the complainant has filed amendment application for deleting the name of the Present
Respondent and adding promotor as a Respondent after when the present
Respondent moved Miscellaneous Application for seeking dismissal of the present
complaint on the basis of misjoinder of the party.

10. The authority has seen from the project registration records that the project
"P51800001296" is promoted by Evie Real Estate Private Limited who is not made
party by the Complainant and for which the Complainant has taken out this
Amendment application to add the Evie Real Estate Private Limited as a party
defendant in place of existing Respondents. And further, this authority states that, as
far as existing Respondents is concerned, individual employee or director of a
promoter company cannot be held personally liable for the corporate obligations of
the promotor unless specific evidence of personal liability or fraud is established,
which is not the case here and therefore, it is necessary to delete their name from the
present Complaint.


COMPLAINT NO. - CC006000000209443


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

11. Considering the above facts as observed hereinabove, I states that the complaint
will suffers fundamental misjoinder of parties, if the present amendment application
is not allowed, as the existing Respondents are not the promotor of the subject project
and Evie Real Estate Private Limited who is the actual promotor in the subject project
is not made party and hence, for the proper adjudication of this present complaint as
per section 31 (1) of the RERA Act, this present Amendment Application deserved to
be allow, in the interest of justice as no prejudice will caused to both the parties and
the present amendment will not change the nature of the Complaint. Hence, I proceed
to pass following order:
O R D E R

1. The Amendment Application is allowed.

2. The Complainant is hereby permitted to add Evie Real Estate Private Limited as a
Party Respondent in place of existing Respondents in the present complaint and delete
the name of Ankitha Palissery and Lucy Roychoudhary from the Complaint.

3. The Complainant is directed to carry out the amendment within 15 days from the
date of passing of this order and upload the copy of Amended Complaint on the
MahaRERA website.

Ravindra Deshpande


Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: 02.03.2026


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.02 13:54:42
+05'30'


COMPLAINT NO. – CC006000000209443

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000209443

NISHANT SINGH


…COMPLAINANT
Vs
LUCY ROYCHOUDHARY


…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800001296


INTERIM ORDER


(In Miscellaneous Application)
(02.03.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 02 .02.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA

Complainant in person present
Advocate Kaizin Irani for the Respondent

1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Respondent, Ms. Lucy
Roychoudhary, challenging the maintainability of the captioned complaint. The
Respondent seeks dismissal of the complaint in limine on the grounds of misjoinder
of parties and lack of jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RERA”).
The Respondent Arguments in the Miscellaneous Application on maintainability of
the Complaint are summarized as below: -

2. The Respondent has contended that she is an office bearer designation Director in
the promoter company i.e. Evie Real Estate Private Limited, and not the "Promoter" as


COMPLAINT NO. – CC006000000209443

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

defined under Section 2 (zk) of RERA. And also, in her personal capacity, she has not
entered into any transaction or agreement with the Complainant.

3. The Respondent further stated that, as per Section 31 of RERA, a complaint can only
be filed against a "promoter, allottee, or real estate agent" and the Respondent does
not fall into any of these categories.

4. The Respondent also state that the project is registered by the promoter company
i.e. Evie Real Estate Private Limited. The Respondent is neither the Developer of the
subject project nor constructing the same or causing to construct the same.

5. The Respondent further submits that the complainant has privity of contract only
with the promotor of the subject project. Despite of that, the complainant has made
the Respondents as a party without making party to the actual Promotor in the subject
project. The Respondent is wholly unconnected party to the captioned complaint. And
further submits that the Respondent is not in any way concerned with the inter se
disputes between the Complainant and the promotor and she has been unnecessarily
impleaded in the complaint and is being subjected to litigation and its associated costs.

The Complainant summarized submissions in response to the Maintainability
Application are as follows: -

6. The Complainant contends that the Respondent being the Director of the Promotor
Company is responsible for the affairs and decision of the promotor and therefore, the
Respondent cannot escape liability by claiming lack of privity and involvement.

7. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has actively participated in the
booking and allotment process, represented the promotor in communication with the
Complainant, received and dealt with amounts paid by the Complainant and played
a role in project marketing, managerial decisions and etc.

8. I have gone through the record and seen that the complainant has filed amendment
application for deleting the name of the Ankitha Palissery as well as Lucy
Roychoudhary from the present Complaint and add the name of Evie Real Estate


COMPLAINT NO. – CC006000000209443

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Private Limited as an only party Respondent in the present Complaint and the same
application has been allowed by this Authority on 25.02.2026. And hence, in view of
the order passed in the Amendment Application, the present Miscellaneous
application is hereby disposed off. Therefore, the order on Miscellaneous Application
shall be read along with the order on Amendment Application.

O R D E R

1. The Miscellaneous Application is hereby disposed off in view of the order
passed in the Amendment Application for impleading Evie Real Estate Private
Limited as party to the Complaint. Hence, the names of Ankitha Palissery as
well as Lucy Roychoudhary is deleted.

2. No Order as to cost.


Ravindra Deshpande


Member-II, MahaRERA

Date: 02.03.2026
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.02 13:55:10
+05'30'