top of page

Maha RERA Order Details

Order Details:
Order - CC006000000171815
Order Type:
Order
Order Date:
Date not available
Complaint No.:
CC006000000171815
RERA No.:
P51800001903
Project:
Project name not available
Complainant:
Lubhit B Singhvi
Respondent:
Evie Real Estate Privated Limited
Heard by/Member:
Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member 2, MahaRERA
Subject:
Not available
Full extracted Order:
Comp. No. CC006000000171815

1 of 4

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020


Complaint No. CC006000000171815


Lubhit B Singhvi
..Complainant/s
Vs
Evie Real Estate Privated Limited

..Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800001903

O R D E R
(22.08.2024)
(Date of Hearing: 28.05.2024)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member 2, MahaRERA

Ld. Adv. Nilesh Gala for Complainant/s
Ld. Adv. Abir Patel for Respondent/s

1. The complainant has filed the present application for amendment in the
complaint. The facts of the application are as follows:

2. According to the complainants Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi is mother of complainant
no. 1 and original booking application form was signed by the complainant no.

1. The complainant no. 1 was duly authorised by Mrs. Lalila B. Singhvi to
represent her in respect of all the matters pertaining to the suit flat. According
to the complainant no. 1 payments were made jointly of the suit flat by
complainant no. 1 and Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi. The complainants and Mrs.
Lalita B. Singhvi are allottees under the definition of Section 2(d) of Real Estate
(Regulations and Development) Act, 2016. Accordingly, the complainants are
seeking to add Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi as complainant. The complainant no. 1
himself filed present complaint and not well versed in legal technical

Comp. No. CC006000000171815

2 of 4

compliances. The name of Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi was left out inadvertently
and due to oversight. Hence, the complainants filed present application to
implead the name of Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi as complainant no. 3 in the present
complaint.

3. According to the complainants, no harm or prejudice will be caused to any of
the partis, if Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi is added as complainant in the present
complaint, in order to determine real question and dispute between the parties,
it is just and necessary to allow present application. No any harm or prejudice
will be caused to the respondent, if application is allowed. On the contrary,
grave harm, prejudice and loss will be caused to the complainants, if the
present application is not allowed. Hence, the complainants requested that
application may be allowed and Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi may be impleaded as
complainant no. 3 in this complaint.

4. Other side has not filed reply, however, advocates of the respondent submitted
that the main reply filed by the respondent to the complaint be treated as reply
to this application. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that
complainants have filed present application after filing reply on behalf of the
respondent and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. In para
no. 4 of the reply, the respondent stated that Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi is
appropriate and necessary party to this complaint being one of the signatories
to the application form dated 11.10.2019. It is also contended in the reply that,
application form dated 11.10.2019 is signed by Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi and
Rahul Singhvi, where as captioned complaint filed by one Lubhit Singhvi
along with Rahul Singhvi. Lubhit Singhvi is not an allottee in the real estate
project and therefore, no locus standi to file present complaint.

Comp. No. CC006000000171815

3 of 4

5. Heard advocates appearing on behalf of both the parties. The advocate of
complainants submitted that complainant no.1’s mother, she is one of the
allottee and her name is not mentioned in the title of the complaint. It is
submitted that as a matter of precaution the complainant is joining Mrs. Lalita
B. Singhvi as complainant. It is submitted that it is pre trial application for
amendment and same may be allowed. The Adv. for Respondent submitted
that the present amendment application is filed after the reply filed by the
Respondent. The respondent uploaded a reply on 02.02.2024 and amendment
application was notarized on 01.03.2024. It is submitted that this case is of
misjoinder and nonjoinder, the flat is in the name of Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi and
Lubhit Singahvi has no title and there is a case of misjoinder with regards to
Lubhit Singahvi and he has no locus standi to file the complaint. There is a
circular of MahaRERA dated 17.07.2018 circular No. 18/2018 stating that the
complaint needs to be filed by the aggrieved person having interest in the
project. It is also submitted that ignorance of law in no excuse.

6. It is main contention of the advocate of the respondent that present amendment
application filed after the reply filed by the respondent.

7. No doubt present application is filed by the complainants after filing reply
by the respondent. The advocates of complainants contended that in the reply
the respondent contended that Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi is not impleaded as
complainant in the present complaint and Lubhit Singhvi is not an allottee. It
is submitted on behalf of the advocates of complainants that complainant
themselves filed present complaint and due to inadvertent and through over
sight, Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi not impleaded as complainant in this complaint.

Comp. No. CC006000000171815

4 of 4

8. It is seen that pleadings are completed in the present complaint, as the
complainants filed present application after uploading reply on behalf of the
respondent on that ground only present application cannot be rejected. It is
seen that yet parties have not submitted final arguments. Only pleadings are
completed. In my opinion, for fair trial and to adjudicate dispute between the
parties on merits, and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it is just and necessary
to allow the complainant to implead Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi as complainant in
the present case, Hence, amendment application filed by the complainants
deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order:
O R D E R

1. Amendment application is allowed.

2. The complainants are permitted to implead Mrs. Lalita B. Singhvi as
complainant in the present complaint.

3. The complainants are directed to upload the amended complaint on
MahaRERA website.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-2, MahaRERA
Date : 22.08.2024
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2024.08.22
14:41:00 +05'30'
MahaRERA order loaded successfully.

Disclaimer: 

We have tried to make this website as simplified tool for accessing contents of MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY's (महाराष्ट्र स्थावर संपदा नियामक प्राधिकरण) following websites https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in/ and https://maharerait.mahaonline.gov.in/. In addition to this, we have also tried to cover other contents, which may benefit to the Real Estate Industry and users.

www.mhrera.com is an independent professional resource portal and is not affiliated with or operated by MahaRERA. Official regulatory information should be verified on the MahaRERA portal.

Owner/Author/his team does not express any opinion or views on any of the contents. Readers are requested to verify original contents before making any decision. Owner/Author/his team does not take any responsibility and is/will not be responsible for any damages/losses caused to any party. 

Please refer detailed disclaimers.

In case of any objection, suggestion or feedback related to this website, you may please contact us at: feedback.mhrera@outlook.com

mhrera.com

MahaRERA Project Search & Information Platform
TERMS OF USE
PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER | COPYRIGHT & INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

-- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED --

©2026 by MHRERA

bottom of page