CC12401024

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

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

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC12401024

HOME RISING CONSTRUCTION LLP ... COMPLAINANT

Versus

1. SNEHA PIYUSH GUGALE

2. BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED ... RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project Registration No. P52100028131




INTERIM ORDER


(08/05/2026)


(Date of hearing: 24.02.2026)

Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Hon’ble Member – II /MahaRERA.

Adv. Shital Kumar Deshpande for the Complainant.
None present for Respondent Nos 1 and 2.

1. The complainant has filed an amendment application seeking to
incorporate an additional prayer for appointment of a fit and proper
person, including an officer of MahaRERA, to execute and register a Deed
of Cancellation, and for directions to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar to
effect necessary entries in respect thereof.

2. The Complainant has further filed an Additional Amendment Application
dated 29.12.2025, seeking directions against Respondent No. 2 – Bajaj
Housing Finance Limited, to execute a Release Deed and remove its charge
over the subject flat, and further to restrain Respondent No. 2 from
initiating or continuing any coercive action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002,
during the pendency of the present complaint.

CC12401024

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

3. The Complainant has submitted that the Agreement for Sale dated

18. 09.2021, executed between the parties for Flat No. T-4- 3105, for a total
consideration of Rs. 59,79,718/-, has been substantially breached by
Respondent No. 1, who has paid only Rs. 40,36,818/- and has failed to pay
the balance consideration along with interest and statutory dues. It is
contended that the dispute has reached the stage of written arguments, and
effective adjudication necessitates the addition of the proposed reliefs.

4. The Complainant has further contended that in similar matters, this
Authority has granted relief relating to the cancellation of agreements;
however, in practice, the concerned registration authorities have not acted
upon such directions, thereby rendering the orders ineffective. In support
of this contention, reliance is placed upon the

JUDGMENT

of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Macrotech Developers Ltd. vs Joint Sub-Registrar
& Ors., which clarifies the scope of powers of this Authority and the
corresponding duties of registration authorities.

5. It is the case of the Complainant that unless the amendment is allowed and
appropriate directions are incorporated, any

FINAL ORDER

passed in the
complaint may become infructuous and incapable of effective
implementation. This Authority has perused the record. It is noted that the
Amendment Application was taken on record and an opportunity was
granted to the Respondents to file their reply. As per the Roznama dated

24. 02.2026, time was granted till 11.03.2026 to Respondent No. 1 and
Respondent No. 2 to file their reply to the Amendment Application.

6. It is further noted that despite sufficient opportunity being granted, no
reply has been filed by either of the Respondents till date. The conduct of

CC12401024

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 4
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

the Respondents shows a lack of diligence in prosecuting their defence.
Hence, this Authority is constrained to proceed with the present
Amendment Application in the absence of any reply, in accordance with
the principles of natural justice.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to examine whether the proposed amendments
are necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. It
is a settled principle of law that amendments which are necessary for
effective adjudication and which do not change the nature of the original
proceedings ought to be allowed.

8. Upon consideration, this Authority finds that the reliefs sought by way of
amendment are consequential and ancillary to the primary relief already
sought in the complaint. The proposed amendment does not introduce a
new cause of action but seeks to ensure effective enforcement of the
eventual order, particularly in light of practical difficulties highlighted by
the Complainant. Further, the prayer seeking directions against
Respondent No. 2 – State Bank of India is also found to be connected with
the subject matter of the complaint, as the existence of a charge on the said
flat directly impacts the relief of cancellation and restoration of title.

9. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, equity, and fair trial,
this Authority is of the opinion that the Amendment Application and
Additional Amendment Application deserve to be allowed.

O R D E R

1. The applications filed by the complainant are allowed.


CC12401024

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

2. The Complainant is allowed to amend the complaint within the four
corners of the Application.

3. The Complainant is directed to upload the amended complaint on the
MahaRERA website within 15 days from this order.

Date: 08.05.2026

Ravindra Deshpande
Member -II -MahaRERA

RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by
RAVINDRA PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.05.08 15:08:09
+05'30'