CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

HEARING HELD THROUGH HYBRID MODE AS PER
MAHARERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12500382


KRISHNAKUMAR DEONARAYAN PANDEY …. APPLICANT/ORIGINAL
COMPLAINANT
Vs
TRUEARTH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800024328

Order
(order on Amendment Application filed by Complainant)

06. 04.2026
(Date of Hearing: .17.12.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Abhishek Kulkarni for Complainant
Advocate Jinay Jain for the Respondent

1. The complainant has filed present application for amendment in the
complaint.

2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:
A. It is the contention of the Complainant that the initial complaint uploaded
by the complainant on the website of the Maharashtra Real Estate
Regulatory Authority on 26.04.2025 was drafted by him in person without
legal assistance and was therefore not in the prescribed format.
B. It is further submitted that as the matter proceeded, the complainant
realized that he did not possess the requisite legal acumen required to
effectively present the matter before this Authority and therefore engaged
legal representation.
C. The complainant seeks amendment of the complaint by impleading Mr.
Vinay Gopal Chawla and Mr. Purnendu Roy, promoters of the project, as
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

D. The addition of such promoters is essential for proper, complete, and
effective adjudication of the dispute and does not cause any prejudice to the
Respondents.
E. The complainant submits that the proposed amendment is purely formal
and clarificatory in nature and does not alter the cause of action, facts, or
reliefs sought in the original complaint.
F. It is submitted that the present amendment application has been filed
without any undue delay or mala fide intention. The Complainant therefore
prays that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to allow the amendment
application, take the revised complaint on record as a properly formatted
version of the original complaint, treat it as a continuation of the original
complaint without any change in facts or reliefs, and pass such other order
as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

3. The Respondent has filed reply, opposed the contentions of the Complainant
as follows.
a. The Respondent denies all the contents, submissions, and allegations made
in the Amendment Application, save and except those specifically
admitted.
b. It is submitted that the Amendment Application is procedurally defective
as it does not annex a schedule specifying the proposed insertions,
deletions, or substitutions in the original complaint, thereby attempting to
substitute the complaint in its entirety.
c. The Respondent further submits that the proposed addition of the
promoters as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their personal capacity is legally
untenable, as the Agreement for Sale was executed between the
Complainant and Truearth Developers Pvt. Ltd., and there is no privity of
contract between the Complainant and the promoters individually.
d. It is contended that the amendment application is an abuse of process and
has been filed with the intention of harassing the Respondent by
introducing a substantially altered complaint.
e. The Respondent submits that an amendment cannot be permitted if it alters

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the fundamental nature and character of the complaint.
f. It is further contended that the amendment is an afterthought aimed at
changing the nature of the complaint and therefore deserves to be rejected.
g. The Respondent submits that the plea of lack of legal assistance in filing the
original complaint is merely an attempt to justify substantive alterations
rather than a mere reformatting of the complaint.
h. The Respondent further contends that the revised complaint introduces
substantial changes, including impleading promoters as additional
respondents, deletion of earlier allegations relating to defects, alteration of
the monetary claim from rupees 5,88,000 to rupees 6,55,000 without
explanation, and introduction of additional reliefs such as interest and
execution of a sale deed.

4. The Respondent has further contended that the promoters have been wrongly
impleaded as Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their personal capacity despite there
being no privity of contract between the Complainant and the said
individuals. It is also submitted that Respondent No. 3 has no relation with
the transaction forming the subject matter of the present complaint and
therefore his impleadment is unwarranted.

5. The Respondent has further submitted that the revised complaint introduces
several material changes including deletion of certain earlier allegations and
alteration of the monetary claim, and therefore the amendment application
deserves to be rejected.

6. The Complainant has filed the rejoinder on reply filed by the Complainant
and contested the same.

7. It is submissions of the Complainant denies each and every allegation,
statement, submission and contention made in the Affidavit in Reply filed by
the Respondent except those which are specifically admitted herein and

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

further submitted that the Reply filed by the Respondent is misleading,
misconceived and intended solely to delay the adjudication of the present
complaint before this Hon'ble Authority constituted under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

8. It is contention of the Complainant that to paragraph 1 and 2 of the Reply, the
contents therein are matters of record and therefore require no specific
response. However, the Complainant denies any interpretation placed by the
Respondent which attempts to mischaracterize the Amendment Application
or the nature of the complaint.

9. It is contention of the Complainant to paragraph 3 of the Reply, the
Respondent's contention. The Respondent has failed to demonstrate how any
prejudice is caused to it by the proposed amendment. The objection raised is
purely technical and intended to obstruct the adjudication of the substantive
dispute.

10. It is contention of the Complainant that in reply to paragraph 4, the
Complainant submits that the Respondent's allegation that the amendment is
vague or omnibus is incorrect. The amendment application clearly explains
the proposed changes and the purpose for which the amendment is sought. It
is a settled principle that amendments which help in determining the real (1
controversy between the parties should be allowed. The Respondent's attempt
to portray the amendment as substitution of the entire complaint is a
deliberate misrepresentation.

11. It is contention of the Respondent that reference to paragraph 5 of the Reply,
the promoters cannot be impleaded in their personal capacity is strongly
denied. Under the definition of "Promoter" provided in Section 2(zk) and
other relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, the persons responsible for the development and marketing of the
real estate project are accountable for the obligations arising under the Act.

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

The promoters who control and direct the affairs of the project are therefore
necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. The doctrine of separate
corporate identity cannot be used as a shield to evade statutory liabilities
imposed under RERA. Where the promoters are directly involved in the
development, management and representations relating to the project, they
can be impleaded to ensure effective adjudication of the dispute.

12. It is contention of the Complainant that to paragraph 6 of the Reply, the
allegation that the Amendment Application is filed with malicious intent or
amounts to abuse of process is emphatically denied. The Complainant has
approached this Hon'ble Authority bona fide to seek relief for violations
committed by the Respondent in relation to the real estate project. The
allegations of harassment and unjust enrichment are baseless and made
without any supporting evidence. On the contrary, it is the Respondent who is
attempting to divert the attention of this Hon'ble Authority from the
substantive violations committed under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 by raising frivolous and technical objections.

13. It is contention of the Respondent that to paragraph 7 of the Reply, the
Complainant submits that the amendment does not alter the fundamental
nature or character of the complaint. The cause of action continues to arise
from the same Agreement for Sale and the obligations of the Respondent in
relation to the project. The amendment only clarifies facts and brings
additional necessary parties on record for complete and effective adjudication.

14. It is contention of the Complainant that the Respondent has failed to address
the substantive grievances raised by the Complainant relating to the
obligations of the promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, including the statutory duties imposed under
Sections 11, 18 and other provisions of the Act. Instead of addressing these

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

issues, the Respondent has chosen to rely upon procedural objections which
do not affect the merits of the dispute.

15. It is contention of the Complainant that the amendments sought are
necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that all relevant
facts and responsible parties are before this Hon'ble Authority. Allowing the
amendment would facilitate a 2 comprehensive adjudication of the dispute
rather than cause any prejudice to the Respondent.

16. It is further submitted that the amendment complaint is an attempt from the
side of complainant to deal with the exact issue in question for resolution of
dispute by this Hon'ble authority. It would be relevant to mention a para from
LIC, India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. (Civil appeal no. 5909 of
2022) 2022 Livelaw SC 729 : Para 70 (vi) : Where the amendment would enable
the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a
more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

17. It is contention of the Complainant that, the allegations made by the
Respondent that the Complainant has approached this Hon'ble Authority
with "unclean hands" are denied. The Complainant has approached this
Hon'ble Authority in good faith seeking protection of the rights of a
homebuyer under the statutory framework established by the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Complainant respectfully
prays that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to: a) Reject the objections
raised by the Respondent in the Affidavit in Reply; b) Allow the Amendment
Application filed by the Complainant; c) Pass such further orders as this
Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

19. It is further observed from the record that the Complainants had uploaded
the amended complaint on the MahaRERA portal prior to obtaining

CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 7 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

permission of this Authority, as noted in the Roznama dated 17.12.2025.
Thereafter, the present amendment application has been filed seeking leave of
this Authority to amend the complaint.

20. Upon perusal of the amendment application and the proposed amendments,
it is observed that the Complainant seeks to implead the promoters of the
project as additional respondents and to clarify and streamline the pleadings.
The Respondent has contended that the proposed amendment alters the
nature of the complaint and introduces new reliefs.

21. This Authority has examined the nature of the proposed amendments. It is
observed that the cause of action arises from the same Agreement for Sale and
the grievances of the Complainant remain substantially the same. The
amendment primarily seeks to bring on record additional parties and to
clarify the pleadings. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amendment changes
the fundamental nature of the complaint.

22. Insofar as the impleadment of promoters is concerned, Section 2(zk) of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 defines “Promoter” in a
broad manner so as to include persons who are responsible for development
and marketing of the project. In view of the said definition, the persons sought
to be impleaded are necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of
the dispute.

23. Accordingly, this Authority is of the view that the amendment, to the extent
of impleading the promoters and clarifying the pleadings, deserves to be
allowed, subject to the condition that the nature of the original complaint is
not fundamentally altered.


CC12500382

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 8 of 8
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

O R D E R

1. Amendment application is partly allowed to impleded the Respondent no.2
and 3.

2. The Complainant is permitted to carry out amendments in the complaint in
terms of the Schedule annexed to the application, without altering the
fundamental nature of the original complaint.

3. No order as to costs.


Date:06.04.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.04.06 15:35:04
+05'30'