Comp. CC12500848
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing held through Hybrid mode

COMPLAINT NO. : CC12500848

1. TYAGI KADIR BABU

2. NISHA BABU TYAGI …COMPLAINANT/S

Vs
A.H. CONSTRUCTIONS …RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800012784

O R D ER
(in interim application)

15. 06.2026

(Date of hearing – 13.05.2026)

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA

Adv. A. S. Sayyed for Complainant
Adv. Archana Maurya for Respondent

1. ​ The respondent has filed the present application along with reply on the main
complaint seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order passed by the authority
on 03.02.2026.

2. ​ The respondent submitted that the matter was initially referred to the
Conciliation Forum, and the Applicant remained present in all conciliation
proceedings. Upon failure of conciliation, the matter was referred back to
MahaRERA for adjudication.

3. ​ The respondent further submitted that it had appeared in the earlier
proceedings before the Authority. However, on 03.02.2026, due to technical
difficulties while attempting to join the virtual hearing, it could not attend the
proceedings, resulting in the passing of the ex-parte order.

4. ​ The respondent contended that its absence was neither intentional nor
deliberate and that it has a substantial defence to raise in the matter. It is
therefore prayed that, in the interest of justice and in compliance with the
principles of natural justice, the ex-parte order dated 03.02.2026 be set aside
and an opportunity be granted to contest the complaint on merits.
1 / 3

Comp. CC12500848

5. ​ The Complainants have filed the reply opposing the application for setting
aside the ex-parte order dated 03.02.2026. It is contended that the application
is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. The Complainants submitted
that the Applicant was fully aware of the proceedings and had actively
participated before the Conciliation Forum as well as before the Authority
through its representatives and advocates.

6. ​ It is submitted that after failure of conciliation, the matter was listed before
the Authority on 16.10.2025, when the respondent was granted a final
opportunity to file its reply. The Roznama specifically recorded that in case of
absence, the matter would proceed ex-parte. The Complainants contended
that despite due service of the hearing notice and virtual hearing link, the
Respondent neither filed its reply nor remained present on 03.02.2026,
resulting in the matter being heard and reserved for orders.

7. ​ It is further submitted that the Applicant has failed to produce any material to
substantiate its plea of technical difficulties. No document, communication,
screenshot or other evidence has been placed on record to establish sufficient
cause for its absence. According to the Complainants, repeated opportunities
were granted to the Respondent and the principles of natural justice were
duly complied with. The present application is stated to be an attempt to
delay the proceedings and reopen a matter already heard and reserved for
orders. The Complainants therefore pray that the application be rejected and
the ex-parte order dated 03.02.2026 be maintained.

8. ​ I have carefully considered the submissions of both parties and perused the
material available on record. It is not in dispute that the Respondent had
participated in the conciliation proceedings and had also appeared before the
Authority during the course of adjudication. The record therefore indicates
that the Respondent was actively contesting the matter and had not
abandoned the proceedings altogether.

9. ​ The Respondent has contended that due to technical difficulties he could not
join the virtual hearing on 03.02.2026, resulting in the passing of the ex-parte
order. Though no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate
the alleged technical issues, it is noted that the Respondent had participated
in the proceedings on earlier occasions and has expressed its willingness to
contest the complaint on merits.

10. ​The Authority is conscious of the fact that procedural rules are intended to
advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive rights. The
2 / 3

Comp. CC12500848
principles of natural justice require that, wherever possible, disputes should
be adjudicated after affording both parties a reasonable opportunity of being
heard. The object of the proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 is to ensure fair adjudication of disputes and not
merely to dispose of matters on technical grounds.

11. ​Though the conduct of the Respondent in remaining absent on the scheduled
date cannot be appreciated, denial of an opportunity to contest the matter
may result in prejudice, particularly when the Respondent claims to have a
defence on merits. In the interest of justice, a final opportunity deserves to be
granted to the Respondent subject to appropriate terms.

12. ​At the same time, the Complainants cannot be made to suffer on account of
the Respondent's absence. The Complainants were compelled to attend the
proceedings and contest the present application. The Respondent's failure to
remain present on the scheduled date has resulted in delay and unnecessary
litigation. Therefore, the Respondent deserves to be saddled with costs.

13. ​Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to
balance the principles of natural justice with the need for procedural
discipline, I am of the view that the ex-parte order dated 03.02.2026 deserves
to be set aside subject to payment of costs by the Respondent to the
Complainants.

O R D E R

1. ​ The application is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- payable to
the Complainants. After payment of the cost, the reply filed by the
respondent be taken on record.


Date- 15.06.2026​
​
​
​
​
​
Ravindra Deshpande,
Member II, MahaRERA

3 / 3
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.06.15 11:57:30
+05'30'