Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hearing is held through hybrid mode as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025


Complaint No. CC006000000100259


Omkar Ravindra Tulaskar
...Complainant

Vs

Sai Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

...Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800007441

O R D E R

21. 01.2026
(Date of Hearing: 28.08.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member-II, MahaRERA

Adv. S. V. Darveshi for Complainant
Adv. Makarand Raut- proposed Respondent No.2
Ravi Developers, Absent-Respondent No.1 for Respondent/s

1. The complainant Omkar Ravindra Tulaskar has filed present application for
amendment in order to add proposed respondent as party to the complaint.

2. In short, the facts of the application are as follows:
According to the complainant, he is filing present application seeking to amend
the complaint mentioned in the cause title and add proposed respondent as
respondent to the aforesaid complaint. The proposed respondent is promoter as
defined u/s 2(zk) of the concerned project viz. Meridian Court 1. There is a direct
and complete valid contractual relationship between the complainant and the
proposed respondent qua Allotment Letter and present amendment application
is preferred by the Applicant since proposed respondent is promoter of the
concerned project on the RERA portal. The complainant / allottee has paid

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Rs.5,00,000/- to the proposed respondent and has valid receipts / bank
statements to corroborate the same. During the pendency of the complaint the
matter was referred to the Conciliation Bench, under the MahaRERA Authority.
The respondent promoter Vijay Kamal Properties Pvt. Ltd. was signatory and
signed the Consent Terms dt. 23.01.2020. The proposed respondent no. 2 had
refunded a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 03.09.2019 and after signing the Consent Terms
dt. 23.01.2020 refunded Rs.10,000/- on 09.10.2020, Rs.10,000/- on 13.10.2020 and
Rs.1,00,000/- on 23.11.2020. Till date the proposed respondent no. 2 had only
refunded sum of Rs.2.70 lakhs out of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by the complainant
towards the said flat and promised to refund Rs.4.40 lakhs to the complainant.
The proposed respondent has already accepted his obligation and duties as
promoter in the said complaint vide Consent Terms dt. 23.01.2020 and also taken
steps in the direction of settling the complaint with the complainant. In order to
recover balance amount of Rs.2.30 lakhs the complainant allottee prefers this
application to implead proposed respondent no. 2 as legitimate party to the
complaint as respondent no. 2.

3. As per Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, The court may at any
stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such
manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in
controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment
shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have raised the
matter before the commencement of trial.

4. In the light of aforesaid, it is imperative and in the interest of justice, this
Authority be pleased to permit the applicant to amend his complaint as per
schedule attached and to impledge proposed respondent are necessary party to

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the aforesaid complaint. In the absence of the proposed respondent in the
aforesaid complaint, the complainant’s claim / relief prayed for in the complaint
shall be jeopardized.

5. The proposed respondent has already accepted his obligations and duties as
promoter in the said complaint vide the Consent Terms dt. 23.01.2020. Hence, no
prejudice or loss would cause the respondent no. 1 and the proposed respondent
no. 2 as he has accepted his obligations and step into the shoes as party to the
complaint. Hence, the complainant requested that present application may be
allowed, and applicant may be permitted to carry out the amendment by adding
proposed respondent no. 2.

6. The proposed respondent no. 2 uploaded a reply on MahaRERA website and
opposed this application contending that amendment application filed for the
amendment of the complaint for joining the proposed respondent no. 2 i.e.
Vijaykamal Properties Pvt. Ltd. is misconceived and not maintainable in law. The
complainant has filed the above-mentioned complaint against the respondent no.
1 i.e. Sai Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vide order dt. 23.01.2020 the said complaint
came to be disposed of, in wake of Consent Terms dt. 23.01.2020 filed in the
complaint. In the wake of non-receipt of entire consideration amount in terms of
the Consent Terms, the complainant filed non-compliance application. Vide order
dt. 15th February the said non-compliance application came to be allowed
whereby, the Authority has directed to take action under Section 40(1) of the
RERA Act, against the respondent no.1 i.e. Sai Estate Consultants Pvt. Ltd. The
orders dated 23.01.2020 and 15th February 2024 passed in the complaint has
attained finality. The complaint has been disposed off and thus authority has
become functus officio and Authority has no jurisdiction to try and entertain any
application.

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

7. The respondent no. 2 has relied upon the Order passed in SBI & ors Vs. S. N. Goyal
(2008(8)SCC92) and also relied upon Supreme Court

JUDGEMENT

from Sunita Jain
vs. Pawan Kumar Jain and ors. and lastly requested for rejection of the
application.

8. The complainant has uploaded rejoinder on MahaRERA website and contended
that the proposed respondent no. 2 is the necessary party in the complaint. The
proposed respondent is having entire liability to return the agreed amount to the
complainant and the said Consent Terms was filed by the proposed respondent
no. 2 with the signature of the authorized person of the Promoter. The proposed
respondent no. 2 has paid Rs.2.10 lakhs, but he is not ready to pay remaining
balance amount of Rs.2.30 lakhs. The said act of the proposed respondent no. 2
comes under the contempt of the Court. Point no. 8 of the Consent Terms dt.

23. 01.2020 states that the proposed respondent no. 2 agreed and allow the
complainant to approach the Hon’ble Authority, if any terms of the consent terms
are violated by the proposed respondent no.2 but now proposed respondent no.
2 is not ready to face the non-compliance action and trying to hide themselves
under the name of technical issue. If the respondent no. 2 are not a party, or they
do not have any liability towards this complaint, then why did they filed Consent
Terms and returned 40% of the amount to the complainant. But now their
intention is changed and even not ready to pay remaining amount and even not
ready to be part of the complaint due to malafide intention. The proposed
respondent no. 2 is promoter in the said project hence, by default they are
respondent in the complaint. Hence, their name must be added in the complaint
which was inadvertently forgotten by the applicant / complainant to mention
specific name of the promoter as a respondent as promoter’s name was already in
the project details so he got confused and did not add the promoter’s name again
in the respondent column.

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

9. The provisions u/s 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
allows the Authority to amend /rectify the order within two years from the date
of the order and order was passed on the 15th of February 2024 in the non-
compliance application. Hence, lastly the complainant submitted that statements
made in the reply by the proposed respondent are false and untrue, hence, the
complainant denied the same. The attached case laws are not applicable in this
complaint. Lastly the complainant requested that application for amendment may
be allowed.

10. The matter was last listed on 28.08.2025. The advocate of complainant and
advocate for the proposed respondent no. 2 were present. None was present on
behalf of respondent no. 1. The advocate of the proposed respondent no.2
submitted that present application is not maintainable as complaint is already
disposed of. However, the advocate of the complainant submitted that complaint
was disposed of on consent terms. The said consent terms were signed by the
proposed respondent no. 2 Ravi Developer. The pleading in respect of the
application is completed by both the parties.

11. I have gone through the application, reply and rejoinder of proposed respondent
no. 2. I have also gone through the consent terms uploaded at Exh.A which
shows that consent terms recorded between the complainant and M/s.
Vijaykamal Properties Pvt. Ltd. I have also gone through

FINAL ORDER

dated

23. 01.2020 in which M/s. Sai Estate Consultant Pvt. Ltd. is a respondent. The
name of the M/s. Vijaykamal Properties Pvt. Ltd. i.e. proposed respondent no.2
is not mentioned in the

FINAL ORDER

as a respondent, though the in the consent
terms the name of proposed respondent mentioned as a respondent. The
complainant now filed present application to impede M/s. Vijaykamal Properties
Pvt. Ltd. as respondent no. 2 in
complaint no. CC006000000100259
.

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 7
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

12. I have gone through Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code which states that
the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend
his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining
the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application
for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court
comes to the conclusion that in spite of the due diligence, the party could not have
raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

13. The advocate of the complainant in support of application relied upon the order
of Hon’ble Supreme Court, from Special Leave Petition No. 27549/2025
Mohammad Hanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & ors. V/s. Pallaviben Rajendra
Kumar Patel & ors. I have gone through the same in the reported case the
appellant challenged the legality and the validity of two consent decrees passed
by the civil court on the grounds of fraud by instituting two civil suits. In the
appeal the appellants preferred an exhibit 5 application, praying that pending the
final disposal of the first appeal, the original defendants may be directed to
maintain status quo. The appellate court declined to grant the relief as prayed for
saying that the suit had stood dismissed thereby declining to grant the declaration
as prayed for therein, no question of seeking any interim relief in the first appeal
in the form of status quo till its final disposal could arise. The appellants went
before the High Court and prayed for the necessary relief. The High Court also
took the same view, saying that since the suit itself had been dismissed, no
question thereafter would arise for the grant of any interim relief in the appeal
preferred by the appellants. The Hon’ble Supreme court in para no. 14 observed
that “just because the original suit came to be dismissed that does not mean that
in the pending appeal, the appellate court cannot grant appropriate relief as
prayed for”.

Comp. No.CC006000000100259

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

14. The facts of the reported case as mentioned above and facts of the present
application are not identical, the present application is not before appellate
authority, hence with due respect to the ratio with the above authority, I have to
state that the same is not applicable as the facts are not identical.

15. It is seen that the present complaint is disposed of in terms of consent terms on

23. 01.2020. When the complaint is already disposed of, then no question arises to
amend the same, hence, in my opinion, the application filed by the complainant
to implead the proposed respondent no. 2 in the complaint does not arise as the
complaint is already disposed off . Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
Hence, I pass following order:
O R D E R

1. The application is rejected.


(Ravindra Deshpande)


Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: 21.01.2026


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.01.21 16:54:36
+05'30'