CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

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

APPLICATION NO.: CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1
IN

COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000220728


MACQUIN JOHN DIAS &Anr ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. KUSUM ASSOCIATES

2. CAPITAL SOLUTIONS ORIGINAL RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800005568

Order on Amendment Application in Review Application.

26. 05.2026
(Date of Hearing: 02.03.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta for Complainant
Advocate Jitendra Jain for Respondents No.1
Advocate Vikramjit Garewal for Respondent no.2

1. The Review applicant i.e. Respondent no. 2 Capital Solution has filed present
amendment application to amend the review application filed by Original
Respondent no. 2.

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

3. According to the Review Applicant, the review applicant recently came across
new important evidence which was not within their knowledge and could not
be produced by them at the time when review application was filed. The
proposed amendment shows that Complainants have acted in furtherance of
Agreement for Sale executed by the Applicant in their favour even after filing
the complaint and thus, confirmed the existence and validity of the

CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Agreement for Sale. The Complainants have acted in furtherance with the
Agreement for Sale, the cause of action in the complaint has disappeared/lost
by their aforesaid actions. The Complainants unequivocally affirmed and
accepted the transaction, thereby abandoning and giving up relief of refund.

4. If these facts were brought to the notice of the tribunal, the tribunal would not
have passed the order dated 03.10.2024 directing the refund of the amount of
consideration to the Complainants.

5. The applicant therefore on 28.09.2025, sought amendment and uploaded
schedule of amendment on the website of this authority. However, an
application for amendment in their behalf remained to be filed and uploaded.
The applicant is thus filing the present formal application for amendment
along with schedule of amendment which is already uploaded on 28.09.2025
in the portal of the authority.

6. It is contended that proposed amendments are absolutely necessary for the
purpose of deciding the real issues arising in the present complaint, the
amendments do not change or alter the nature of the proceedings. No
prejudice of whatsoever nature would be caused to the Complainants if
proposed amendment is allowed as per schedule of amendment uploaded on

28. 09.2025, it is settled principal of law that the merits of the proposed
amendment need not be seen at the time of amending the application for
amendment. If the amendments are not permitted the applicant would suffer
grave injustice, hardship, and inconvenience and loss that cannot be
compensated in terms of money. On the other hand, if such amendments are
permitted the complainants would not suffer any injustice, hardship or
inconvenience.

7. Other side i.e. Applicant no. 2 Vidya Dias, has uploaded reply and opposed
this application contending that she never applied for membership of Rosalia
Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The photograph of the
name plate at the entrance of the society has been put up by the society itself
and the non-applicant i.e. Original Complainant no. 2 has nothing to do with
the same. since, the Original Complainant no. 2 have sought refund of the
investment including taxes in the said real estate project the question of
applying for membership of the Rosalia Apartment Cooperative Housing
Society Limited does not arise and it is merely conjecture and surmise of the
Applicant.


CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

8. According to Original Complainant no. 2 i.e. Review non-applicant, she has
not put her own locks on the door of the suit flat as alleged by the Review
Applicant. The Original Complainant is not aware as to whether the suit flat
is locked or not since she has never visited the premises in which the suit flat
is located for past several months. She has denied that she has taken forcibly
possession of the suit flat or become member of the corporative Housing
society or have for that matter put her name on display notice board of the
said society.

9. According to the Original Complainant i.e., Review Non-Applicant, the
review Applicant are trying to induct third-party in the suit flat and when the
said fact came to the notice of Original Complainants they immediately on

07. 03.2025 intimated the chairmen/secretary of the Rosalia Apartment
Cooperative Housing Society Limited.

10. The Original Complainant has denied that she has acted in furtherance of the
Agreement for Sale and taken control of the suit flat as suggested by the
Review Applicant. According to her, on 11.10.2024, she wrote to the Review
Applicant that they are ready and willing to execute the deed of cancellation
in respect of the suit flat at the cost of the Review Applicant provided, the
amount as stated in the said order dated 03.10.2024, passed by MahaRERA is
paid to them.

11. According to Original Complainant Review Application filed by the
Applicant is not maintainable as set out in her earlier affidavit in Reply dated

14. 08.2025 and as such the question of allowing proposed amendment to the
said application for review filed by the Review Applicant does not arise and
requested that Review Application filed by the Review Applicant is devoid of
merits and is required to be rejected.

12. Heard, advocates appearing on behalf of both the sides, I have gone through
record and proceedings it is seen that the complaint CC006000000220728 filed
by Original Complainants Macquin Dias and Ors. against the Kusum
Associates and Capital Solutions for refund of the amount was decided on
merits after full fledge trial on 03.10.2025. Thereafter, original Respondent no.
2 M/s. Capital Solution filed Review Application requesting to rectify the
order after excluding GST amount paid to GST department amounting to Rs.
7,24,682/- The original Respondent no. 2 also requested that the authority be
pleased to order to rectify the refundable amount after excluding covid-19
pandemic moratorium period as per order no. 21/2021 dated 06.08.2021 at

CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 5
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

least after the date of registration of AFS on 17.07.2020. Thereafter, Original
Complainant no. 2 Vidya Dias uploaded reply on MahaRERA website and
contested the Review Application. Thereafter, Original Respondent no. 2 i.e.
Review Applicant uploaded rejoinder cum written submissions on 24.09.2025
and thereafter, on 28.09.2025, the Original Respondent no.2 Capital Solutions
uploaded schedule of amendment without uploading any amendment
application. This authority brought to the notice the said fact to the Original
Respondent no. 2 that only schedule is uploaded no any amendment
application is uploaded on MahaRERA website and thereafter, the Original
Respondent no. 2 (Capital Solution) uploaded Amendment Application on

12. 02.2026 to which the other side i.e. Original Complainant filed reply on

10. 10.2025 when there was no application for amendment filed by the
Original Respondent no. 2 Capital Solutions which is uploaded later on i.e.

12. 02.2026.

13. It is seen that present application is filed for amending the Review
Application, there is no provision in RERA Act for review of the order and
there is only provision for rectification of order as per section 39 of RERA Act.
There is Rule 36 in respect of review of decision, direction and order as per
the
MAHARASHTRA
REAL
ESTATE
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
(GENERAL) REGULATIONS 2017.

14. Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Court deals with amendment in the
pleading. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the complaint filed by
Macquin Dias and Ors. bearing no. CC006000000220728 as per section 18 of
RERA for refund of the amount was decided after full fledge trial on

03. 10.2024 and thereafter, on 12.11.2024 review application was filed by the
Original Respondent no. 2 (Capital Solutions). Later on, the Original
Complainant no. 2 (Vidya Dias) uploaded reply on 17.08.2025 and thereafter,
Review Applicant i.e. Original Respondent no. 2 (Capital Solution) filed
rejoinder. The Review Application are not original pleadings Order 6 Rule 17
of CPC permits to amend the pleadings only. The contents Review application
are not pleadings and original complaint between the parties after full fledge
trial decided on 03.10.2024. In such circumstances, in my considered view the
present application for amendment in the review application cannot be
allowed. Hence, the application to amend the review application deserves to
be rejected. Hence, I passed following order.


CC006000000220728/APPL/RV/1

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

O R D E R

1. The application is rejected.


Date: - 26.05.2026
Ravindra Deshpande


Member II, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.05.26 17:34:02
+05'30'