BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Complaint No. CC006000000251805


ZONE PROPERTIES PVT.LTD ... COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. J P INFRA AND SALASAR
BUILDCON LLP & ANR.

2. SEVEN ELEVEN CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
THROUGH IT’S DIRECTOR SHIR. RAKESH R. JAIN ... RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51700030151


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member – II /MahaRERA.

None for the Complainant
Adv. Abir Patel for the Respondents.


INTERIM ORDER


(20.03.2025)

1. The Respondent No.1 has filed the present application requesting to take its reply
on record. The facts of the application are as follows -

2. According to Respondent No. 1, the Complaint was listed on 21st March 2024, and
on that day, directions were given to file a reply by 10th April 2024.

3. On 21st March 2024 Respondent No.1 had to assign a new advocate in the present
matter. The roznama dated 21st March 2024 clearly shows that some other
advocate had been appearing on behalf of the new advocate and prepared the said
reply before it could be filed. After the said reply was prepared the legal
department and management of the Respondent No.1 company had to peruse the
same before it could be finalized. The same took some time and therefore said
reply could not be filed within the time period specified by this Authority.

4. No prejudice will be caused to the complainant if the present application is
allowed. The Complainant has raised no objection at the time of last hearing when
the Respondent No.1 sought time to file the said reply.

5. The Respondent No.1 will suffer grave harm if the present application is not
allowed, as it will not get an opportunity to put forth the case before this
Authority. The Respondent No.1 has filed the said reply as soon as practically

possible and deserves a chance to defend itself against the allegations contained
in the present complaint.

6. The Complainant has filed its reply and denied the content of the said Application
filed by Respondent No 1. According to the Complainant, the Application is not
maintainable, the same is filed without any sufficient cause and unknown to law.
Therefore, it should be rejected. The Respondent No.1 has not uploaded a
complete application on record before this Authority.

7. It is contended in the reply that the present matter was earlier posted on

21. 03.2024, wherein the link and email of the hearing was duly served upon
Respondent No. l. However, Respondent No. 1 did not remain present and sought
permission to file its Say to the main Complaint, which can be seen from para no.
2 & 3 of the purported Application, where Respondent No. 1 itself admitted that,
the present matter was posted on 21.03.2024, but Respondent No. 1 required some
time to appoint advocate on its behalf and therefore it could not upload the reply.
Respondent No. 1 ought to have remained present on 2l.03.2024 and seek
permission from this Hon'ble Authority to its Say to the main Complaint but
miserably failed to do so.

8. Upon consideration of the matter and the submissions made by the parties, it is
observed that, the Respondent no-1 filed the present application seeking
permission to file a reply on record on 18.06.2024. It is further observed that the
Complainant has filed its reply to the present application on 16.09.2024, wherein
it is submitted by the Complainant that the application filed by the Respondent is
not maintainable. It is also observed that the Application filed on the MahaRERA
website is incomplete.

9. The respondent No.1 wanted to assign a new advocate to represent them in the
case, which caused a delay in preparing and filing the necessary reply. The new
advocate was appointed on 03.06.2024, and they needed time before the new
advocate could familiarize themselves with the case and draft the appropriate
response. Also it is contended by the Complainant that Respondent No.1 was
absent on 21.03.2024 and does not hold any grounds as Respondent No.1 is
marked present in the roznama dated 21.03.2024.

10. The Respondent No.1’s previous advocate did not complete the necessary
documentation required for the reply, resulting in additional time needed to
gather all relevant documents and prepare a comprehensive response. The delay
in filing the reply is also attributable to respondent no-1 and desires to ensure that
the case is presented thoroughly and fairly.

11. Considering the principle of natural justice and to have a fair trial and to decide
the present complaint on merits at once and for all, in my opinion, the present
application deserves to be allowed by imposing the cost of Rs. 3,000/- upon the
Respondent. Hence I proceed to pass following order


ORDER

1. The Application is allowed.

2. The Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant within 15
days from this order on payment of cost the reply of Respondent will be
taken on record.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member II, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.03.21
22:06:57 +05'30'