CC005000000371041

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hybrid Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No
49/2025

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO. CC005000000371041


KAVERI DHONDIRAM PATIL …COMPLAINANT

VS

MAHINDRA LIFESPACE DEVELOPERS LIMITED …RESPONDENT


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P52100019407

Order
On Amendment Application of The Complainant
(27.03.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 12.01.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Adv. Makarand Paradkar for Complainant
Advocate Subhashree Chatterjee for Respondent

1. ​ The Complainants have filed present application requesting to implead Mr.
Prathamesh Dilip Kankhar as Respondent no. 2 in the present complaint
and direct the promoter i.e. Respondent no. 1 to produce on record, the
entire chain of registered document relating to said flat along with payment
receipt with Respondent no. 2.

2. ​ In short facts of the application are as follows:

3. ​ According to the Complainant, the Complainant recently search through
Records at Inspector General office of Pune and found that Respondent no.
1 has sold the said flat i.e. Flat no. 503 to Mr. Prathamesh Dilip Kankhar
while registered Agreement for Sale dated. 13.03.2021 without registering
any Cancellation Deed of earlier Agreement for Sale executed with the
Complainant.

4. ​ The said act of the promoter is illegal as per Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49
of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and it violated Rule No. 9 of

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

CC005000000371041
Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules 2017 and the
order no. 38 of MahaRERA.

5. ​ On the other side i.e. Respondent no. 1 filed reply and opposed this
application contending that the application for impleadment of proposed
Respondent no. 2 is beyond jurisdiction of this authority. The Complainant
has no locus standi to implead the proposed Respondent no. 2 has he is
neither promoter nor Real Estate Agent for the project in question. The
Complainants allotment has been cancelled hence, they have no privity to
implead another allottee of the project, the said application is nothing but a
vexatious and malicious attempt by the Complainants to embroil, the
Respondent as well as the proposed Respondent no. 2 in frivolous litigation
and hence, the application is not maintainable liable to be dismissed.

6. ​ This authority is having jurisdiction to determine the rights and obligations
arising between a promoter, an allottee or a real estate agent under the
RERA Act. The Complainants are not privity to the Agreement for Sale
executed between the Respondent and proposed Respondent no. 2.
Therefore, the Complainants have no right to seek to implead the proposed
Respondent no. 2 in the caption complaint. The Complainants seeking relief
of cancellation of registered Agreement for Sale dt. 31.05.2019 executed
between Complainants and Respondent also seeking refund of forfeited
amount upon termination of the said agreement by the Respondent and
payment of compensation. The only issue that have been agitated by the
Complainants in the complaint is that the cancellation should not have been
unilateral, and the Complainants are entitled to refund the paid amount.
The Complainants under the guise of impleadment of proposed
Respondent no. 2 cannot widen the cause of action of the present complaint
and on the above ground alone the present complaint is liable to be rejected
with cost.

7. ​ The application is silent on the reason why the impleadment of the
proposed Respondent no. 2 is essential to cause action raised in the present
complaint or relief sought therein. The present application though styled as
one for impleadment, in substance, seeks to compel this authority to
examine the legality and effect of a subsequent agreement for sale executed
in favor of a third party i.e. proposed Respondent no. 2. Entertaining such
application would necessarily involve adjudication of third-party rights
which is expressly beyond the jurisdiction of this authority under the
provision of RERA. Therefore, the present application is liable to be rejected.

8. ​ The present application is misconceived as it seeks to alter very nature of
the proceedings pending before the authority. The law is well settled that a
person can be impleaded in proceedings only if such person is either a

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 3
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

CC005000000371041
necessary party, without whom no effective adjudication is possible, or a
proper party whose present is required to complete and final adjudication
of the issues arising in the proceeding and for grant of appropriate relief as
sought in the proceeding. The proposed Respondent no. 2 is not a party to
the said agreement executed between the Complainant and Respondent.
The proposed respondent no. 2 has no privy to the said agreement. In
absence of any privy, the proposed Respondent no. 2 cannot be compelled
to participate in the proceeding of the caption complaint. Therefore, present
application is liable to be rejected.

9. ​ I have gone through the complaint filed by the Complainant and
particularly prayers of the Complainants, the prayer no. 8.2 shows that the
Complainants are seeking the prayer that this authority may be pleased to
direct the respondent to execute and registered deed of cancellation and
refund amount paid by the Complainants alongwith interest as prescribed
in Act and Rules and Regulation made there under (registration of Real
Estate Project, Registration of Real Estate Agent, Rate of Interest and
Disclosures on website) Rules 2017. The Complainants are also seeking
prayer that this authority may be pleased to direct the Respondent to pay
Rs. 35,000/- towards cost and expenses of filling this complaint and Rs.
50,000/- towards mental agony this Complainant has gone through order to
that effect may kindly be passed.

10. ​Considering the prayers of the Complainants, in the present complaint
particularly prayer in clause 8.2 of the prayer clause. In my opinion, there is
no necessity to implead the proposed Respondent no.2 in the present
complaint. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R

1. ​ The application is rejected.


Date: 27.03.2026 Ravindra Deshpande
Member2, MahaRERA

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.03.27 17:07:02
+05'30'