COMPLAINT NO.CC12400943

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC12400943


Anil Agarwal & Anr. ...COMPLAINANT
V/s
Shiv Shakti Builders and Developers …RESPONDENT


MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800028777


INTERIM ORDER


(In Amendment Application)

16. 03.2026
(Date of Hearing: 16.03 .2026)


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, Maha RERA


Advocate Pranav Khatkhul for the Complainant

Advocate Abir Patel for the Respondent

1. The present Amendment Application has been filed by the Applicants/Complainants,
seeking to amend the original Complaint filed on 28th November 2024. The Applicants
seek to add new averments, grounds, and additional reliefs, including interest for
delayed possession under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 ("the Act").

2. The Complainant has uploaded the present Amendment Application on 06/12/2025
on MahaRERA website.
The Complainant submissions in the Amendment Application are summarized as
follows:


COMPLAINT NO.CC12400943

3. The Complainant, in his amendment application submits that he had booked Flat No.
1602 in Wing 'F' of the project "Tower 28" for total consideration of Rs. 69,74,000/- and
have paid Rs. 12,50,000/-.

4. As per the Allotment Letter dated 25th February 2023, the agreed date for possession
was 30th June 2025.

5. Further the Complainant submits that at the time of filing the original complaint in
2024, the possession date had not yet lapsed, so the relief for delayed interest was not
then available.

6. Since the possession date (30.06.2025) has now passed without the Respondent handing
over the premises, the amendment is necessary to include claims under Sections 11, 18,
and 19 of the Act to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

7. The summarized submission of the Respondent filed an Affidavit in Reply opposing
the amendment application on the following grounds:
a. The Respondent argues that the present amendment application is a "belated after-
thought" filed nearly a year after the original complaint.
b. He further argues that the said application has proposed amendment introduces a new
cause of action and changes the nature of the complaint from a claim for registration
under Section 13 to a claim for interest under Section 18(1), which is inconsistent with the
original case.
c. The Respondent alleges that the Allotment Letter dated 25th February 2023 is forged
and is currently the subject of a criminal investigation at Dindoshi Police Station.
d. The Respondent mentioned that the Reliance is placed on an order dated 10th July 2025
in a similar complaint (CC12400941) where the Authority allegedly rejected similar reliefs
for the same Applicants.


COMPLAINT NO.CC12400943

8. I have perused the application, the reply, and the documents on record. The primary
issue is whether the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in
controversy between the parties.

9. It is a well-settled principle of law that courts and authorities should be liberal in
granting amendments to pleadings at a pre-trial stage if they are necessary for a just and
fair adjudication. The purpose of such amendments is to ensure that all relevant facts and
reliefs are before the Authority to provide a conclusive determination and prevent a
multiplicity of legal proceedings.

10. The Respondent submits that Regarding the Respondent's contention that the
amendment changes the nature of the suit, I find that the core of the dispute remains the
same: the transaction regarding Flat No. 1602. The lapse of the possession date
(30.06.2025) during the pendency of the complaint is a subsequent event that creates a
legitimate ground for the Applicants to seek additional relief under Section 18 of the Act.
Adding a claim for interest due to the passage of time does not fundamentally alter the
nature of the dispute; it merely updates the relief sought based on the current factual,
status of the project.

11. The Respondent's allegation of "forgery" regarding the Allotment Letter is a matter of
merit and evidence to be decided during the final hearing of the complaint. An
amendment application is not the stage to conduct a mini trial join the veracity of
documents. Similarly, the previous order cited by the Respondent (CC12400941) will be
considered at the final stage of adjudication on its own merits.

12. The delay of one year in filing the amendment is explained by the fact that the cause
of action for interest (the possession date) only matured on 30th June 2025. Therefore, the
application cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of delay.



COMPLAINT NO.CC12400943

13. Hence, for the proper adjudication of this present complaint as per section 31 (1) of
the RERA Act, this present Amendment Application deserved to be allowed, in the
interest of justice, as no prejudice will be caused to both parties and the present
amendment will not change the nature of the Complaint. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order:
ORDER

1. The Amendment Application is allowed.

2. The Complainant is hereby permitted to amend the Complaint as per the Schedule of
Amendment.

3. The Complainant is directed to carry out the amendment within 15 days from the date
of passing of this order and upload the copy of the Amended Complaint on the
MahaRERA website.

4. The Respondent is at liberty to file an additional Affidavit in Reply to the amended
portions of the Complaint within 15 days thereafter.


Date: 16.03.2026 Ravindra Deshpande
Member-II, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.16 16:41:04
+05'30'