CC006000000303172

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

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hearing held through hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 48/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000303172

1. RAMKISHAN RAMRATAN GUPTA

2. RAJKUMAR GUPTA …COMPLAINANTS

1. RUSHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS

2. HIRJI NARAN BERA

3. DEEPAK HIRJI PATEL

4. RUPSHI RUDA PATEL

5. SUMIT SUNIL HEMANI

6. JATIN MANSHI FARIA

7. KARAMSHI JASA PATEL …RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800011156

ORDER

16. 10.2025
(On Miscellaneous Application of Respondent)
(Date of Hearing: 13.08.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Adv. Shushmita Chalke for Complainant
Adv. Pranav Khatkhulfor the Respondent

1. The Respondents preferred the present miscellaneous Application in the
captioned Complaint.

2. The brief facts of the Application are as under:
A. The Respondent in the captioned Complaint, contending that the non-
applicants had filed an application seeking amendment of the captioned
Complaint, inter-alia, praying for the incorporation of an additional relief,
namely, prayer 'N' in the relief clause. Vide order dated 06.06.2025, this
Hon'ble Authority was pleased to allow the said amendment application,
thereby permitting the insertion of the additional prayer as sought.

CC006000000303172

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

B. It is contention of the Respondent, upon perusal of the documents
uploaded on the e-filing portal of this Hon'ble Authority, has now become
aware that the non-applicants have, in a surreptitious and unilateral
manner, executed and notarized an entirely "fresh complaint" on 23.06.
2025, which appears to have been submitted for the Authority's
consideration without any leave or direction from this Hon'ble Authority.
C. Further it is submitted by the Respondent that the order dated 06.06.2025
clearly permits the amendment of the existing complaint to include an
additional relief. However, it does not grant permission for the non-
applicants to file a new complaint. The act of submitting a fresh complaint
is considered a serious violation of the explicit instructions outlined in the
order and is legally unacceptable.
D. It is contention of the Respondent that the consequence of allowing both
the "original Complaint" and the "fresh complaint" dated 23.06.2025 to
remain on record would be procedural chaos and judicial confusion, giving
rise to parallel proceedings on the same cause of action. Such duplicity is
not only prejudicial to the interests of the Applicant but also an avoidable
waste of the valuable time and resources of this Hon'ble Authority.
E. It is contention of the Respondent that the fresh complaint which filed by
the complainant on 23.06.2025 entirely new proceeding initiated without the
leave of this Hon'ble Authority is de no vo proceeding and the same is not
maintainable and ought to be dismissed with costs.
F. It is contention of the Respondent that the Hon'ble Authority be pleased to
disregard and strike off the fresh complaint dated 23.06. 2025 and direct the
Complainants to comply with order dated 06.06.2025 and to proceed to
adjudicate the matter exclusively on the basis of the original Complaint
without any further amendment thereto
G. The Respondent prays that

(a) That the Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to dismiss, disregard and strike off
the freshly executed and notarized complaint dated 23.06.2025 filed by the

CC006000000303172

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

Non-Applicants being in violation of the order dated 06.06.2025 passed by this
Hon'ble Authority; (b) That the Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to proceed
with adjudication of the Complaint exclusively on the basis of the originally
instituted Complaint without any further liberty to effect any further
amendments; (c) Ad interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (a)and (b) above
be granted d; (d) Any other relief or reliefs in the nature & circumstances of
case be granted as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit & proper;

3. The Complainant has not filed a reply on miscellaneous application filed by
the Respondent. but the Complainant has uploaded relief on MahaRERA
portal.

4. I have gone through the present application. I have also gone through the
amended copy of the complaint and the original complaint and scheduled- A
attached to the amendment application through the order dated 06.06.2025.
The amendment application was uploaded by the Complainant, and the
Complainant was permitted to amend the Complaint as per scheduled -A with
the amendment application. On perusal of the amended complaint, it is seen
that relief prayer (n) is included, which was not in the original complaint. The
amended complaint is uploaded correctly. Hence, in my opinion, there is no
substance in the application uploaded by the Respondent. Therefore, the
Application deserves to be dismissed. Therefore, I pass the following order.

ORDER

A. The application is rejected.
B. Cost in caused.


Date:16.10.2025
Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.10.16 16:56:17
+05'30'