BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per MahaRERA Circular No.:
27/2020

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO. : CC006000000374972

MOHD ASHRAFALI MOHAMMAD YUSUF SHAH …COMPLAINANT
Vs

1. MOONSHINE REALTORS PVT. LTD

2. IIFL HOME FINANCE LIMITED …RESPONDENTS

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51700008927

(Date of hearing 20.05.2025)
(Date of

INTERIM ORDER

16. 07.2025)
Adv. Shakila Mulla for Complainant
Adv. Adiba Khan for Respondent No. 1
None for Respondent No. 2

1. ​
The Complainant has filed the present application to amend the complaint
copy. The brief facts of the amendment application filed by the Complainant are as
follows:

2. ​
It is the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant always intended
to seek the possession of the flat No. 404 B wing on the 4th floor, in the project
"Saniya Heights along with interest for possession in delay, however, due to
inadvertence the relief as per the prayer clauses was wrongly sought as refund of the
flat consideration with interest instead of possession of the flat with interest.

3. ​
It is the contentions of the Complainant that subsequent to the filing of
Complaint, the Complainant has made further payments towards subvention
interest which was the liability of the Respondent No.1. Furthermore, there were
certain errors in calculation of total payment made in the original complaint.
Accordingly, the Complainant has preferred the Present Application seeking the
Amendment of prayer clause 5 (i) of the complaint and Exhibit D to the complaint.

4. ​
The Complainant has mentioned the schedule in the amendment application
and according to the schedule the Complainant wish to carry out the amendment in
the complaint.

5. ​
The Respondent has filed the reply to the amendment application and
opposed the same. The contents of the reply of the Respondent are as follows:

6. ​
It is the contention of the Respondent that the present application is nothing
but the gross abuse of due process of law against the Respondent herein.

7. ​
It is the contention of the Respondent that the reasons given for seeking relief
of amendment sought to change the prayer clause and exhibit-D towards calculation
of the total payment, is afterthought and with intent to defraud the Respondent by
taking shelter of law against the Respondent as the Complainant have taken refund
of most of the consideration as paid under the said agreement for sale dated

08. 02.2017. Therefore, the application filed seeking amendment in the prayer clause
as suitable to the whims and fancies of the Complainant is not permissible under the
law.

8. ​
It is the contention of the Respondent that the Complainant has not
approached this Authority with clean hands and therefore, the above application is
liable to be and should be rejected.

9. ​
It is the contention of the Respondent that the Complainant has accepted the
money towards the refund of the consideration paid under the agreement for sale
and on other hand is seeking relief of possession alongwith interest.

10. ​
Further, the Respondent states that if the amendment is allowed, then there
will be an outstanding balance of Rs. 54,24,447/- to be paid as consideration under
the agreement for sale dated 08.02.2027.

11. ​
The Respondent states that as the Complainant has received the refund of Rs.
15,50,000/- and now amending the prayer is malicious and deserves to be rejected.

12. ​
The Complainant has filed the rejoinder to the reply of the Respondent, and it
is the contention of the Complainant that the Respondent has failed to provide any
specific rebuttal or explanation for the facts and claims raised in the said
Amendment Application. It is a settled principle of law that a blanket denial without
specifics lacks evidentiary value.

13. ​
It is stated that the Order VI Rule 17 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 questions in controversy between
the parties.

14. ​
It is stated that in the present scenario the said Amendment Application was
filed before the trial of the said Complaint therefore, the contentions of the
Respondent No.1 that the said Amendment Application is against the principle of
law is a bogus and false statement and ought to be dismissed.

15. ​
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has rightly held in the matter of "Rajesh
Kumar Agarwal Vs. K.K Modi & Ors." that the purpose and object of Order VI Rule
17 is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings is wide and can be
exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interest of justice on the basis of
guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this Court. Hereto annexed and
marked as "Exhibit A" is the copy of Supreme Court Order.

16. ​
It is denied that the Complainant has approached this Hon'ble Court with
unclean hands and has withheld material facts. It is further denied that the
Complainant is liable to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.39,24,447/- towards the
total consideration of the said flat as the Complainant had already paid Rs.
81,54,798.13/- to the Respondent the proofs of which are attached to the complaint.
The Complainant reiterate whatever is stated in the Rejoinder filed by the
Complainant with respect to the false accusations made by the Respondent that the
Complainant have accepted refund from the Respondent.

17. ​
It is further absolutely denied that Complainant with an intention to defraud
the Respondent No.1 tried to claim the refunded amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- which
was validly returned to the person and the Respondent No.1 is put to strict proof
thereof. Complainant has not received any such amount from the Respondent.

18. ​
I have gone through the original complaint. It is seen that the Complainants in
the original complaint claimed that the respondent may be directed to refund the
amount paid by the Complainants, along with interest for delayed possession. Now
the Complainants, through this amendment application, wants to amend the prayer
that the Complainants seeking additional relief and seeking interest for every month
delay on the additional amount paid by the Complainants to the Respondent as per
MahaRERA provisions.

19. ​
Considering the nature of the amendment, in my considered opinion, due to
the proposed amendment, the nature of the complaint is not going to be changed.
Moreover, the Respondent has the opportunity to file the additional reply before this
Authority. Hence, in order to adjudicate the matter effectively and to avoid
multiplication of the litigations, it is just and necessary to allow the Complainants to
amend the complaint and to allow the Complainants to make of consequential
amendments to the body of the complaint. Hence, in my opinion amendment
application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order

ORDER

1. ​ The amendment application is allowed.

2. ​ The Complainants are permitted to amend the complaint within four corners
of the schedule - A attached to the amendment application.

3. ​ The Complainants are directed to upload the amended complaint copy on the
MahaRERA website within 15 days.


(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-II, MahaRERA
Date: 16.07.2025


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.07.16 14:44:15
+05'30'