━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

HEARING HELD THROUGH HYBRID MODE AS PER
MAHARERA CIRCULAR NO.: 48/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000395464


SHASHIKANT KUMAR …APPLICANT/ORIGINAL
COMPLAINANT
Vs

AGILE REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51700000732

Order

15. 10.2025
(Date of Hearing: 13.08.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Adv. Pooja Idgar for the Complainant
Adv. Aniket Deshmukh for the Respondent

1. The Applicant is the original Complainant in the captioned matter filed before
MahaRERA under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (“the Act”) seeking refund, interest, and compensation for delayed
possession.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
A. The present application is filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the prayers in the Complaint, and
the relevant provision is reproduced herein for ready reference.
"The Court may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or
amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all
such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of
determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that
no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced,
unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
B. It is the contention of the Applicant that he originally sought refund.
However, since the Respondent has obtained part Occupation Certificate
covering the Applicant’s flat and offered possession vide letter dated

16. 05.2025, the Applicant now wishes to seek possession along with interest
and compensation for delay, in terms of Schedule– “A”. The Applicant has
already complied with the demand raised and taken possession on

22. 08.2025.

C. It is the contention of the Applicant that, as per Order VI Rule 17 CPC,
amendment of pleadings is permissible at any stage of proceedings where
necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Since trial has
not commenced, the present amendment is maintainable. Courts have
consistently held that such amendments should be allowed in the interest of
justice. Moreover, the authority has, in similar cases, permitted
amendments of pleadings.

D. It is the contention of the Applicant that allowing the amendment will not
cause prejudice to the Respondent, whereas refusal would gravely
prejudice the Applicant, who has already suffered due to the delay in
possession. The amendment does not alter the cause of action but merely
aligns the reliefs sought with the subsequent developments.

E. Therefore, the complainant is seeking for amendment of the prayer sought.

3. Brief submission of the Respondents are as follows:
A. The Respondent contends that the present application is not maintainable
in law and ought to be dismissed, as the Complainant is attempting to
introduce an entirely new case by altering the original nature of the
Complaint.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

B. It is contention of the Respondent that Complainant alleging delay in
possession has himself failed to timely pay each installment due and the
accrued interest payable by the Complainant is Rs.55,337/-(calculated till

31. 01.2025). Furthermore, the Complainant has failed to pay installment of
Rs.2,98,974/- due and payable (on completion of tiling) to the Respondent.
The Complainant therefore has not only flouted the terms of agreement
dated 07.02.2018 but acted in contravention to the provisions of 19(6), 19(7)
of the Act.

C. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant now seeks to insert
prayers which were available at the time of filing but were consciously
omitted, having confined the Complaint to refund with interest after
severing the contract. The matter has been listed multiple times, pleadings
are completed, and the Respondent has already filed its affidavit in reply
dated 31.01.2025. The case is presently at the stage of final hearing, and
such amendment at this belated stage is impermissible.

4. It is pertinent to note the observations are as hereunder:
A. The Complainant contends that during the pendency of the Complaint, on

21. 02.2025, the Respondent obtained Occupation Certificate for Wings D, E,
and F from the planning authority.

B. It is further contended that ordinarily a party cannot, by way of
amendment, introduce a wholly new case at a later stage, especially where
substantial pleadings are already filed. However, the amendment sought
here, though filed at a later stage, does not drastically alter the nature of
the
Complaint nor
prejudice the Respondent’s defense.

C. The Complainant has uploaded written submissions on 10.09.2025, while
the Respondent has not filed their written submissions.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

D. It is seen that the Respondent is relied on the

JUDGMENT

Revanna Vs
Anjanamma and Rajkumar Gurawara V/s S.K Sarwagi and Company
Private Limited and Another the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that:
E. Further, it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff for
declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and
sell the suit scheduled property and, in the petition, filed during the course
of arguments , he recovered the possession and damages from the and
defendant. It is settle law that the grant application for amendment for
amendment be subject to certain condition namely, I) When the nature of it
is changed by permitting amendment; ii)When the amendment would
result introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other
party. Iii)When the allowing the amendment application defeat the law of
limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed
in proviso to order 6 Rule17 but even on merit his claim is liable to be
rejected. All theses relevant aspect have been duly considered by the High
Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10.03.2004 of the Additional
district judge.

F. In my opinion the facts of the reported case and present application are
not identical hence with due respect to the said Authority I have to state
that the same is not applicable.

G. On perusal of the original Complaint, it is noted that the Complainant had
initially prayed for refund along with interest for delayed possession.
Through this amendment application, the Complainant now seeks to
amend the prayer to seek possession of the flat. In my considered opinion,
such an amendment does not change the fundamental nature of the
Complaint.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

H. Moreover, the Respondent will have the opportunity to file additional
reply, and allowing the amendment would enable effective adjudication
and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the amendment application
deserves to be allowed, along with consequential amendments to the body
of the Complaint. Accordingly, I passed the following order.

O R D E R

1. The Amendment Application is allowed.

2. The Complainants are permitted to amend the complaint strictly within the
scope of Schedule–A annexed to the amendment application.


Date:15.10.2025
Ravindra Deshpande


Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.10.15 17:14:49
+05'30'