Complaint No. CC12500552


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing in Hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No 49/2025

Complaint No. CC12500552

NIKHIL SHRIRAM RANE

...COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. PATHARE FAMILY,

2. SUKUMAR ENVIRO FARMS PVT LTD,

3. MR PANDHARINATH TUKARAM PATHARE ,

4. MRS VIMAL PANDHARINATH PATHARE,

5. MR RAJENDRA PANDHARINATH PATHARE ,

6. MR MAHENDRA PANDHARINATH PATHARE ,

7. MRS SUNITA SAMBHAJI UMAP ,

8. MR BAPUSAHEB TUKARAM PATHARE ,

9. MRS SANJILA BAPUSAHEB PATHARE ,

10. MR RAVINDRA BAPUSAHEB PATHARE ,

11. MR SURENDRA BAPUSAHEB PATHARE,

12. MRS DEEPALI RAHUL GAVHANE,

13. MISS RUPALI BAPUSAHEB PATHARE ,

14. BAPUSAHEB TUKARAM PATHARE HUF,

15. PANDHARINATH TUKARAM PATHARE HUF ...RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100005825

INTERIM O R D E R
(26/02/2026)
(Date of Hearing: 31/12/2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2, MahaRERA

Adv. Amit Patil is present for Complainant
Adv. Yash Patil is present for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 15
None for the Respondent No.2

1. The Respondent No. 1 & 3 to 15 have filed an application for deletion of
Respondent No. 3 to 13.
In short facts of the application are as follows:


Complaint No. CC12500552


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

2. The Respondent No. 1 & 3 to 15, contended that the Respondent No.3 to 13 are
not promoter and real estate agent so they cannot be made a party to the present
complaint. It is further contended that the Complainant has not pleaded or
prayed any allegation/grievance against the Respondent No. 3 to 13. Hence,
Respondent No. 3 to 13 are not required for adjudication of the present
complaint and requested to delete names of Respondent No. 3 to 13 from the
present complaint.

3. The Complainant has not uploaded his reply to the present application, as per
last roznama dated 31/12/2025 time till 13/01/2026 was granted to the
Complainant. Therefore, the application is proceeded without the reply of the
Complainant.

4. I have gone through application filed by Respondents and complaint. On
perusal of the main complaint clause no. 4.(d) of the complaint, the
Complainant stated that, on the representations and warranties made by
Respondent No. 2 to 13, had entered into a registered Articles of Agreement
dated 26/03/2013 with the Respondent No. 2 to 13 with respect to the purchase
of Flat no. 704, and clause no. 4.(e) of the complaint further states that the out
of total consideration amount, the Complainant has paid to the Respondent No.
2 to 13 a total amount of Rs. 26,49,991/-. On perusal of Articles of Agreement,
it is seen that the first part wherein the names of Respondent No. 2 to 12 and
the names mention in the application Respondent No. 3 to 13 are therein
referred to as “Developer”.

5. Considering the above facts, in my opinion, at this stage of hearing, it is not
desirable to delete the names of the Respondent No. 3 to 13 from the present
complaint. Hence, in my considered view, the application filed by the
Respondents, for deletion of party Respondent No. 3 to 13 from the present
complaint, it deserves to be rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.

O R D E R

1. The application is rejected.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date: 26/02/2026
RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.02.26
16:57:15 +05'30'