COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000354340


━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 2
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Hearing held through hybrid mode as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 48/2025


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000354340

UPASANA JANISH SURATWALA …INTERVENER/APPLICANT
BETWEEN

1. JANISH KAMLESH SURATWALA

2. UPASANA JANISH SURATWALA

3. NIKHIL KAMLESH SURATWALA …COMPLAINANTS

Vs

1. M/S PATEL ASSOCIATES A/C JAY SONAL

2. PURSHOTTAM K PATEL

3. HARSHAD P PATEL …RESPONDENTS


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P51800012832

Order

16. 09.2025
(Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Advocate Ritika Iyer for Complainant no.1
Advocate Minkashi Mishra for the Respondents

1. The Applicant preferred the present intervening Application to implead as
necessary party in the captioned Complaint hereinabove.

2. Brief facts of the application are as follows:

3. According to the Applicant, the flat in question is jointly owned by
Complainant No. 1, Applicant & Complainant No.3, the same is also
mentioned in the agreement for sale dated 05.11 2019. Respondent No. 1 has
received the majority of the payments from the bank account of Applicant. The
present complaint has been filed without the consent of the Applicant even
though she is a joint owner of the flat in question. It can be seen from the
complaint copy where name of the Applicant is mentioned as Complainant No.
2 and signature is not obtained by Complainant No. 1 while filing the present
complaint. The Applicant submits that she seek liberty to file additional
affidavit for the compilation of documents relied upon by the Complainant.

4. This matter was listed lastly for hearing on 25.06.2025, The advocate for
Complainant No.1 submitted that there is a divorce between Complainant No.
1 and Complainant No. 2. The Complainant No. 2 has relinquished her rights.
However, the Advocate for Complainant No. 1 submitted that one week’s time


COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000354340


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

may be granted to upload the reply to the intervener application uploaded by
Applicant. Considering the same, time till 03.07.2025 was granted to
Complainant No. 1 for the said purpose. The Advocate for the Respondent
submitted that one week's time may be granted to file a reply as a last chance.
Considering the submissions of the Advocate for the Respondent and the
averments in the last roznama dated 16.04.2025, time till 09.07.2025 was
granted to upload reply.

5. It is seen that even though sufficient time is given to Complainant no. 1 and the
Respondents to file reply to the intervention application, till the date
Complainant no. 1 and Respondents have failed to file their replies. I have gone
through the complaint copy. It is seen that signature of complainant no.2 i.e.
Intervener is not taken on the complaint copy. I have gone through the
agreement for sale, which discloses that complainant no.1, Applicant and
Complainant no. 3 are the joint owners of the flat in question.

6. To adjudicate disputes between the parties once and for all and to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and in the interest of natural justice and
considering the fact that intervener has filed present application and same is
not filed by the Complainants. Therefore, in my opinion, the Applicant, instead
of being impleaded as Complainant, is required to be impleaded as
Respondent in the present Complainant. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER

A. The Complainants are directed to implead the intervener as a Respondent
in the present Complaint and delete her name from the array of
Complainants.


Date: 16.09.2025 Ravindra Deshpande
Member 2, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.09.16 17:33:15
+05'30'