Comp. No.CC006000000395536
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

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


Complaint No. CC006000000395536


Shilpa Mitesh Nagori
..Complainant/s

Vs

CCI Projects Private Limited

..Respondent/s

MahaRERA Project Registration No. P51800002287

O R D E R
(18.09.2025)
(Date of Hearing:29.07.2025)
Order on amendment application filed by the complainants

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

In person for Complainant/s
Adv. Abir Patel for Respondent/s

1. ​ The complainants have filed the present application seeking amendment in the
original complaint.

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

3. ​ It is the contention of the complainant that the present complaint is filed to
rectify the defects in construction / workmanship being cracks and holes in the
outer walls of the flat and terrace area of the subject flat purchased by the
complainants from the respondent mentioned in the complaint or alternatively
pay the complainants to rectify the defects in the exterior wall of the building
for the flat alongwith compensation for financial loss suffered due to the
damage caused.

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536

4. ​ The complainants states that this was 5th monsoon appearing after the
complainants have moved into the said flat and 3rd monsoon after the
complaint was filed before MahaRERA Authority. The conditions of the inside
flat was deteriorating in each monsoon season. The outer walls of the flat
containing cracks and holes have now been rectified and therefore, the only
prayer
in the complaint
is the compensation on loss suffered by the
complainants because of the lack on the part of the respondents to rectify the
defects alongwith compensation for mental agony, legal cost etc.

5. ​ That as the Adjudicating Officer has sole jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for
compensation, under the provisions of the Act. The applicants / original
complainants hereby have filed form B. Application to allow them to amend
the present
complaint as per Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulations and
Development)(Recovery of Interest, penalty, compensation, fine payable, forms
of complaints and Appeal), 2017 thereby transferring the present complaint,
all pleadings filed in the above complaint before the Adjudicating Officer. The
complainants are neither amending
nor relying on the additional facts,
annexures, grounds and reliefs while making this application to amend the
present
complaint nor
any other pleadings are filed by the complainants.

6. ​ The complainants have requested to carry out following amendments:
​
(i) to replace the word Authority with Adjudicating Officer
​
(ii) to replace the word complaint with Application
​
(iii) to replace the word complainants with Applicants
​
(iv) to replace the word relief sought with compensation sought
​
in the entire complaint and delete the word directs the respondents to
rectify the defects in workmanship of the said flat No. 19D B wing holes and
cracks
in kitchen and bedroom walls
or alternatively
from 5(g) of the
compensation clause.

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536

7. ​ The application before the Adjudicating Officer is prepared in format in Form B
mentioned under the Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
(Recovery
of interest, penalty, compensation, fine payable, forms of the
complaint
and appealable), Rules 2017.
Hence, the complainants have
requested that complainants be allowed to amend the complaint as per Ex.A
annexed and thereby transfer the complaint and pleadings relied upon by the
parties to the Adjudicating Officer.

8. ​ The respondent has filed a reply and contested the application. According to the
respondent, the application filed by the complainants is illegal against the
provisions of law and same is not tenable, therefore, it deserves to be rejected.
The application is an after thought cannot be allowed when the complaint has
been reached such an advanced stage and matter has already been taken up by
the Authority for final hearing and has been partly heard on 17th April, 2025.

9. ​ The complainants want their
complaint now
to be heard by the Adjudicating
Officer
of the Authority and the reliefs have been modified to seeking
compensation from the respondent rather than any reliefs which Authority has
power
to grant under the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 such an amendment is simply not possible at this stage
of the complaint.

10. ​Section 71 of the RERA clearly provides that any claim for compensation under
Section 14 of the RERA must be made before the Adjudicating Officer of the
Authority. The complainants have filed the captioned complaint for alleged
violation of Section 14 of the RERA. Therefore, they were always aware that
their claims had to be made before Adjudicating Officer unless they are
agreeing to ignore of law, which is still not in an excuse for seeking such belated
amendment.

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536

11. ​According to the respondent, in the term of proviso to order VI Rule 17 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, an amendment application ought not to be allowed
after the commencement of the trial, unless the court comes to a conclusion
that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of
trial despite due diligence. This is not the case in the present dispute, since the
applicants were well aware at the time of filing complaint that any claims for
compensation are to be made before the Adjudicating Officer under section 71
of RERA.

12. ​It is not the case where the issue raised in the said application could not be
placed before the court at any time before filing the application. The applicants
have slept over their rights and the respondent cannot be made to suffer on
account of the same. The amendment cannot go beyond the original case of the
party and setup entirely new case.

13. ​The original complaint of the applicants was filed seeking rectifications in
alleged defects of the subject flat and now they are seeking compensation for
these alleged defects; The amendment of pleadings after commencement of Trial
cannot be done as a matter of right and the same is left over the decision of the
Court which has to be exercised judiciously. The applicants have failed to make
out any case for seeking an amendment which essentially change the nature of
the complaint, at such belated stage and the same out not be allowed.

14. ​Heard advocates of both the parties. It is submitted by the advocates of the
complainants that no extra prayer is added in the application and merely
deleting one prayer for the rectification is no more now. It is submitted that
no single prayer has been changed in the applications and that the completion
of the rectification work has been done recently. However, advocate of the
respondent submitted that the application for amendment was filed when the
matter was partly heard. It is submitted that the amendment can happen in
furtherance of the earlier case, under which it is submitted, it is not mentioned

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536
in which section of RERA the application has been filed. The amendment
application can be allowed in consonance with RERA. It is also submitted that
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, the court can grant an amendment after the
trial has started only if the court is satisfied that amendment could not have
been filed before the trial started. The matter has been listed for the 8th time and
pleadings are completed. It is submitted by the complainant’s advocate that the
respondent has not submitted in reply that under which section of RERA, the
present application has been filed by the complainants.

15. ​The Advocate of the complainants relied upon the case Mountmerry Enterprises
Vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd. MANU / SC / 0085 / 2015 in the said case. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in para no. 9 has given reference of PIRGONDA Honda
Patil Vs. Kalgonda Sidhagonda Patil and others (1957)1SCR 595 in which it is
observed that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy two conditions
(a) of not working injustice to other side and (b) of being necessary for the
purpose of determining of the real questions in controversy between the parties.
Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in
the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the
amendment would cause him an injury which cannot be compensated in cost.

16. ​For the same purpose, advocate of the complainants relied upon the case G.
Nagamma and others vs. Siromenamma and others MANU/SC/1067/1996. I
have gone through the same. In my opinion the facts of the reported case and
present application are not identical hence with due respect to the said
Authority I have to state that the same is not applicable.

17. ​The advocate of the respondent relied upon the case Life Insurance of India Vs.
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and. Anr. 2022/SCC/online SC/1128. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536
“all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real
questions in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other
side. One of the cardinal principles of law in allowing or rejecting an application for
amendment of the pleading is that the Courts generally, as a rule, decline to allow
amendments, if a fresh suit on amended claim would be barred by limitation on the
date of filing of the application. However, that would be a factor to be taken into
account in the exercise of the discretion as to whether the amendment should be
order, and does not affect the power of the court to order it, if that is require in the
interest of justice. Further, delay in applying the amendment alone is not a ground
to disallow the prayer and where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for
amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for
decision. In a case, every case and every application for amendment has to be tested
in the applicable facts and circumstances of the case.

18. ​I have gone through the complaint and relief clause, it shows that the
complainants have filed present complaint against the respondent to rectify the
defects in workmanship of the said flat being flat no. 19D, B wing being holes
and cracks in kitchen and bedroom walls or alternatively pay a sum of Rs.10
lakhs to rectify the defects in the exterior wall of the building, to pass an order
against the respondent developer for non-compliance of Section 14(3) for
rectification of defects within period of 30 days and therefore, be pleased to
order and direct the respondent developer to pay complainants Rs.15 lakhs
towards financial loss suffered due to damage caused to the walls, fall ceiling,
furniture and fixtures. Further, direction may be given to the respondent to pay
complainants Rs.5 lakhs towards mental agony and mental torture which the
complainants have gone through.

19. ​Now it is contention of the complainants that the complainants’ outer walls
containing cracks and holes have now been rectified and the only prayer in the
complaint is for compensation and losses suffered by the complainants because

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

Comp. No.CC006000000395536
of lack on the part of the respondent to rectify the defects alongwith
compensation for mental agony, legal cost etc. No doubt the complainants have
filed present application at late stage, but it is contention of the complainant in
the present application that the complainants rectified cracks and holes from the
walls and now the complainants not requesting for calling upon the respondent
to rectify the defect in construction, workmanship being cracks and holes in the
outer wall of the flat and terrace. Now only prayer remains for compensation on
losses suffered by the complainants because of lack on the part of the respondent
to rectify the defects.
The complainants now only seeking prayer for
compensation. Admittedly,
this Authority is not having jurisdiction to
determine the compensation and Adjudicating Officer is only having power to
adjudicate the compensation. In such circumstances, in my considered view,
when Adjudicating officer is only having power to determine the compensation
then, considering changed circumstances as mentioned above, after filing of the
present complaint and in order to adjudicate the dispute on merits effectively at
once for all, to avoid multiplicity of the litigation, the present amendment
application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass following order :
O R D E R

1. ​ The application is allowed.

2. ​ The complainants are permitted to amend the complaint within four
corners of the present application and thereafter matter be transferred
towards the Adjudicating Officer for adjudicating the compensation.


Ravindra Deshpande
MEMBER II, MahaRERA
Date : 18.09.2025

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

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARA
O DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.09.18 14:59:53
+05'30'