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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO. : CC12503741

1. PRABAL JAIN

2. KAUSHIK AGRAWAL

3. NARESH RAMOLA

4. JASMINE ZAILWALLA

5. RAJESH SINGH

6. SAMEER CHHABRA

7. AKSHAY SOMANI

8. SHUBHAM SINGH

9. VAIBHAV KUMBHAR

10. AMIT PARSHETTI

11. PANKAJ HOUR …COMPLAINANT/S
Vs
MANJARI HOUSING PROJECTS LLP …RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P52100028310

Order

01. 07.2026
Date of hearing - 13/05/2026

1. The respondent has filed application seeking dismissal of the complaint filed
by the complainants who are allottees in the project "Godrej Parkridge" situated
at Manjari, Pune.

2. The Respondent submitted that the complaint pertains to compensation for
alleged delay in handing over possession of the flats. The Respondent has
raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint.
It is contended that neither the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 nor the Rules framed thereunder permit filing of a
group complaint for individual grievances.

3. The Respondent has further submitted that he has relied upon MahaRERA
Order No. 11 of 2019 dated 23.10.2019 and that group complaints are
maintainable only in respect of common reliefs under Sections 7 and 8 of the
Act or issues concerning common amenities. According to the Respondent,
claims for compensation arising from delayed possession are individual in
nature and therefore require separate complaints by each allottee.

4. It is submitted by the respondent that the present complaint suffers from
misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties and is therefore liable
to be rejected. The Respondent contends that the reliefs sought by the
Complainants do not fall within the categories for which a group complaint is
permissible under MahaRERA Order No. 11 of 2019.

5. The Respondent submitted that a such an objection is raised at the threshold. It
is contended that liberty was granted to the Complainants to file individual
complaints and the Complainants had undertaken to do so. However, despite
such undertaking, no individual complaints have been filed. In view of the
above, the Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with
exemplary costs and penalty, award of costs in favour of the Respondent, and
liberty to amend its written statement and produce additional documents, if
required.

6. The complainant has not filed reply on the application challenging the
maintainability of the complaint.

7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. The present
complaint has been filed jointly by multiple allottees seeking compensation on
delayed possession. Such claims arise from separate Agreements for Sale and
require examination of individual facts, contractual obligations and entitlement
of each allottee.

8. MahaRERA Order No. 11 of 2019 provides that group complaints are
maintainable only in respect of common reliefs under Sections 7 and 8 of the
Act or issues relating to common amenities. Claims for compensation for
delayed possession are individual in nature and are required to be pursued
through separate complaints. In the present case, the relief sought by the
Complainants is compensation for delayed possession. Such relief neither
pertains to revocation of registration under Section 7 of the Act nor to the
obligations arising under Section 8 of the Act. Equally, the dispute does not

concern any common amenity affecting all allottees collectively. The complaint
therefore suffers from misjoinder of causes of action.

9. I further note that the objection regarding maintainability was raised by the
Respondent at the threshold stage and was recorded by this Authority in the
roznama dated 21/01/2026. The Complainants were granted liberty to pursue
their remedies by filing individual complaints. Despite such liberty and
undertaking, no separate complaints have been filed. The Complainants have
continued with the present proceedings notwithstanding the clear position
emerging from MahaRERA Order No. 11 of 2019.

10. In view of the above, the present complaint suffers misjoinder of causes of
action. Accordingly, the present complaint is held to be not maintainable and
is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the Complainants to file separate
complaints in accordance with law.

O R D E R

1. The application filed by the respondent is allowed, the present complaint is
not maintainable and is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.


Date- 01.07.2026


Ravindra Deshpande
Member II, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKAR
AO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.07.01
14:36:37 +05'30'