BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Hearing held through Hybrid mode

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12500397

RIDDHISHA KHAMESRA

…COMPLAINANT
Vs
S D CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED

…RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800019624


INTERIM ORDER

05. 08.2026
Advocate Ritika Yadav for complainant
Advocate Abir Patel for respondent

1. The Complainant has filed the present application seeking an extension of time
to file the amended complaint.

2. The complainant submitted that pursuant to the Authority's order dated

18. 03.2026 permitting amendment of the complaint. It is submitted that the
amended complaint could not be filed within the stipulated period due to an
inadvertent administrative oversight. The Complainant submitted that the
delay is bona fide and unintentional and that no prejudice would be caused to
the Respondent if the short extension is granted. The Complainant has,
therefore, prayed for extension of two days' time to file the amended complaint
and for such further orders as the Authority may deem fit in the interest of
justice.

3. The Respondent has opposed the Miscellaneous Application seeking extension
of time for filing the amended complaint. It is submitted by the respondent that,
by order dated 18.03.2026, the Complainant was granted time till 02.04.2026 to
upload the amended complaint. However, the amended complaint was
uploaded only on 16.06.2026, after a delay of 104 days, and the application for
extension was itself filed belatedly.

4. The Respondent has contended that the application does not disclose any
sufficient or bona fide reason for the delay and is unsupported by any
documentary evidence. It is further submitted that the Complainant failed to

explain the alleged administrative oversight or the steps taken during the
intervening period. According to the Respondent, the amended complaint was
uploaded without obtaining prior leave of the Authority, demonstrating
disregard for the Authority's directions. Accordingly, the Respondent has
prayed for dismissal of the application for extension of time.

5. I have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the material
on record. It is not disputed that, by order dated 18.03.2026, the Complainant
was permitted to amend the complaint. However, the amended complaint was
filed after the time granted by the Authority i.e. 16/06/2026.

6. The Complainant has submitted that the delay occurred due to an inadvertent
administrative oversight and has sought extension of time. Though the delay
was not properly explained, the same relates only to a procedural requirement
and not to the merits of the complaint.

7. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a beneficial
legislation. The principles of natural justice require that parties should be given
a fair opportunity to place their case before the Authority. Rejecting the
amended complaint on a technical ground would deprive the Complainant of
such opportunity.

8. The Respondent will have full opportunity to file its reply to the amended
complaint and contest the amended pleadings on merits. Therefore, no serious
prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if the delay is condoned. On the
other hand, allowing the amendment will enable effective and complete
adjudication of the dispute.

9. In the interest of justice and to ensure a fair trial, the delay deserves to be
condoned. Accordingly, the application deserves to be allowed. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:

O R D E R

1. The miscellaneous application filed by the complainant is allowed and
the amended complaint is taken on record.

2. No order as to cost.


Date: 05.08.2026


Ravindra Deshpande


Member 2, MahaRERA
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.08.05
11:16:15 +05'30'