State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kk Construction vs Javed Khan on 20 November, 2025
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/960/2025
(Against the Order dated 11th July 2025 in Appeal SC/27/CC/16/739 of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra)
M/S K K CONSTRUCTION
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
MOHAMMAD YAKUB KHAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIEND CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIEND CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/966/2025
K K CONSTRUCTIONS
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
SAHEB ALI CHAUDHARY
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR W
MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/962/2025
KK CONSTRUCTIONS
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASHAB ALI
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/963/2025
KK CONSTRUCTION
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
TAJ MOHAMMAD
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/968/2025
KK CONSTRUCTIONS
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
RIZWAN AYUB ANSARI
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/964/2025
KK CONSTRUCTION
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
MANSOOR KHAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/965/2025
KK CONSTRUCTION
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
JAVED KHAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/967/2025
KK CONSTRUCTIONS
PRESENT ADDRESS - FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS 2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES
NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES BANDRA W , FLAT NO 12 MIRA BELLE CHS
2ND FLOOR LINKING ROAD BESIDES NATIONAL COLLEGE ABOVE SCANDAL SHOES
BANDRA WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Petitioner(s)
Versus
HAFIZUR REHMAN
PRESENT ADDRESS - B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR
GHATKOPAR W , B 415 NEW FRIENDS CO-OP HSG SOCIETY AZAD NAGAR GHATKOPAR
WMUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER:
MR. VARUN VARMA, ADVOCATE
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MR. SAHIL ANSARI, ADVOCATE
DATED: 20/11/2025
ORDER
JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT
1. The dispute in the present revision petitions arises out of a challenge to the common order dated 31.07.2024, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai allowing the amendments in the complaints filed before it, which is essentially a builder-buyer dispute. Undoubtedly, the complaints were filed in 2016-2017. The amendment application was prepared on 17.12.2023 and was registered in 2024. The amendment application essentially introduced averments regarding cash payments as contained in paragraph 3 and 4 of the said application that are reproduced herein under:
"3. That the complainant states that complainant has made payments through cash dated on 26-02-2011 to the opposite party amount of Rs 50,000/-, thereafter made the payment through cash dated on 11-06-2010 amount of Rs 1,50,000/-, thereafter also made the payment through cash dated on 26-05-2011 amount of Rs 1,00,000/- also Dated on 15-04-2012 amount of Rs 1,50,000/- through cash and thereafter also made the payment dated on 16-04-2012 through canh amount of Rs 50,000/- and thereafter also made payment on 15-01-2012 through cash amount of 1,00,000/- and thereafter also made the payment through cash dated on 21/03/2013 amount of Rs 5,00,0000/- and thereafter also made the payment through cash dated on 15/04/2013 amount of Rs 1,50,000/- The complainant further states that complainant has paid total cash of Rs 12,50,000/- to the opposite party.
4. That the complainant states that at the time of filing of the present complaint due to the oversight of the learned advocate who drafted the complaint, the payments which were made by the complainant by way of CASH to the opposite party were not mentioned in the pleadings of the said complaint. However, the same were enclosed to the annexures at the time of filing the complaint itself."
2. The contention on behalf of the respondents/ complainants is that this averment does not in any way change the nature of the dispute, nor does it cause any prejudice to the adjudication of the controversy or to the petitioners.
3. The amendment applications have been vehemently opposed and the present revision petitions have been filed contending that the amendment has been filed at the tail end of the litigation at the stage of final hearing. It is highly belated and inordinately delayed. It is further submitted that the filing of the amendment applications after exchange of the pleadings should not be permitted to fill any lacuna, in as much as, the payments through cash has not been pleaded at all. It is further submitted that the delay is almost of 2369 days and the excuse given that the deficit in pleading was realised only after change of counsel is also unacceptable, in as much as, the counsel changed in 2018 and the applications for amendment have been moved with a delay thereafter of 1529 days. The delay is similar in all the complaints and there being no plausible explanation, the amendment deserves rejection. It is further submitted that the amendment applications, nowhere give any explanation as to why such pleadings, in spite of exercise of due diligence had not been made earlier or in the complaints itself when the complainants allege to have relied on certain cash receipts that are stated to have been filed along with the complaint.
4. No reply was filed to the amendment within 45 days and the learned counsel has also produced the order sheets to that effect.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the amendment was moved realising the fact that the cash receipts had already been filed with the original complaint and therefore the pleadings should be set right and further a complaint, in respect of a similarly situated complainant, has been allowed by the State Commission on 04.03.2024, where cash payments have been accepted.
6. The arguments had been noted by us while, passing the order on 19.05.2025 to the following effect:
"Mr. Varun Varma, learned counsel while advancing his submissions has urged that the amendment applications were moved on 17.02.2023, whereas all the complaints giving rise to these proceedings have been filed way back in the year 2016 and 2017. He submits that the nature of amendments which were proposed are to introduce certain cash payments receipts which the complainants allege are evidence in support of their allegations of payments made in lieu of the bookings made by them.
Mr. Varma urges that such an amendment which has been allowed under the impugned order by the SCDRC after more than six and a half years is an exercise of discretion, which amounts to a material irregularity, in as much as, the said receipts of cash payments are dated prior to the filing of the complaints, and therefore the presumption is that if they existed they must have been available to the complainants at the time of the filing of the complaints. He submits that there is no explanation worth the name as to why such receipts had not been filed when the complaints had been instituted by the complainants, and in the absence of any such explanation the amendments should not have been allowed on the drop of a hat.
The submission is that this has been done when the cases have almost reached the stage of final hearing and the parties have already exchanged their evidence. Hence allowing of such an amendment seriously prejudices the cause of the petitioners.
Mr. Varma has invited the attention of the Bench to paragraph 3 of the complaint and has compared it with the averments made in paragraph 1 to 5 of the amendment application filed as annexure P-5 (Page 81). The submission is that the original claim of payment of Rs.16.5 lakhs out of the total sale consideration of 21.9 lakhs has now swelled far above the amount as referred to in the complaint and new receipts as indicated above are sought to be introduced after six and a half years of the filing of the complaint at the stage when the complaint is about to be heard finally after exchange of pleadings and entire evidence.
Even though we are not inclined to grant any interim stay of the proceedings, yet in order to assess these allegations made in the light of the impugned order dated 31.07.2024, we call upon the respondents in all these revision petitions to answer the aforesaid submissions raised by Mr. Varma by filing a response and we make it clear that the matters in all probability are likely to be disposed of on the next date fixed.
We have addressed ourselves to the office report and the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Diary No. 3096 of 2025 and we accordingly admit this revision petition, which shall be registered accordingly under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Learned counsel for petitioner may also take out dasti services for personal service on the respondents and file proof of service by the next date fixed.
A copy of this order shall be placed before the State Commission to enable the complainants to be made aware about the pendency of these petitions.
List on 04.08.2025. "
7. The second set of arguments were also noticed on 04.08.2024, which are extracted herein under:
"One of the main contentions that has been raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as was noted in the previous order also, is regarding the highly belated manner of filing of the amendment application when the case had reached the stage of final hearing. For this, Learned Counsel has cited the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs and Others (2005) 12 SCC1 (Para 134-136). He has emphasized para-135 on delay and has urged with the help of a chart handed over today during the course of the hearing to indicate that the delay is spread over to 2369 days and even after the change of the counsel, to 1529 days. This is almost similar in relation to all the Petitions.
The contention therefore, is that such inordinate delay without any explanation or reason should not have been entertained by the State Commission and it is pointed out that even while recording findings, the State Commission, even though has accepted the amendment, as not causing any prejudice to the Petitioners, yet, it has not recited any opinion on the issue of the attempt of amendment being made at the fag end of the proceedings when the Complaint had been finally proceeded for hearing. The submission is that the Apex Court judgment referred to above coupled with the case of Vijay Hathising Shah & Anr. vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi & Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 360 (Para-9), urges that the delay should not be condoned. Even though it has been argued that there is a failure to carry out the amendments, yet there are other facts also which are pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents may produce the order sheets of the State Commission relevant to the issues raised that the matter has been allowed to proceed for final hearing in the background that the Petitioners herein have not filed any reply to the amendment within 45 days. In case any such application is moved for obtaining the certified copy of the order sheets, the State Commission shall supply the same immediately.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents prays for and is granted four weeks to produce the order sheets of the State Commission.
List the matters on 15.10.2025."
8. We finally heard the matter on 15.10.2025, when the learned counsel advanced their submissions, with the help of their pleadings and the submissions already raised earlier, and have relied on certain decisions in respect of the contentions raised. Learned counsel has also produced the order sheet dated 11.07.2025, passed in two of the complaints and the orders dated 17.02.2025 and 30.04.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also filed written submissions in all the revision petitions reiterating their contentions already urged along with the copies of the judgments relied on by them.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Basavaraj Vs. Indira and Ors., (2024) 3 SCC 705 to urge that the amendments should not be permitted. It is urged that the principles referred to therein also demonstrate that certain facts left out to be recited due to oversight have not been accepted as a ground to allow any amendment. Reference has been made to paragraph 10 of the judgment which is extracted herein under:
"10. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17CPC provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the case in hand, this is not even the pleaded case of Respondents 1 and 2 before the trial court in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of Respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs."
10. The said decision turned on the facts of that case and the amendment was not permitted in view of the findings recorded in paragraph 16 and 17 that are extracted herein under:
"16. In the case in hand, the compromise decree was passed on 14-10-2004 in which the plaintiffs were party. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed on 8-2- 2010 i.e. 5 years and 03 months after passing of the compromise decree, which is sought to be challenged by way of amendment. The limitation for challenging any decree is three years (reference can be made to Article 59 in Part IV of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963). A fresh suit to challenge the same may not be maintainable. Meaning thereby, the relief sought by way of amendment was time- barred. As with the passage of time, right had accrued in favour of the appellant with reference to challenge to the compromise decree, the same cannot be taken away. In case the amendment in the plaint is allowed, this will certainly cause prejudice to the appellant. What cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.
17. Further, a perusal of the memo of parties in the suit in question and in the compromise decree shows that the plaintiffs i.e. Sharnamma alias Mahananda wife of Basvaraj and Mahadevi wife of Shivsharnappa Nasi in Original Suit No. 401 of 2003 are not party to the present litigation. Even if on any ground the amendment could be permitted, still no relief could be claimed with reference to setting aside of the compromise decree as all the parties thereto were not before the Court in the suit in question."
11. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615.
12. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that on the facts of the present case, the cash receipts about which reference has been made in the amendment application, had already been filed along with the complaint. There is no explanation or any reason given as to why the same was not specifically pleaded in the complaint. There may be myriad reasons, in as much as, at times cash payments are not effectively disclosed for multifarious secret reasons, but the fact remains that the receipts had been filed along with the complaint. The complainants therefore for reasons best known to them did not specifically plead the contents of those cash receipt documents even though they had been filed filed along with the complaint.
13. The present is thus a case where in effect the evidence is stated to have been filed along with the complaint and the pleadings are now sought to be introduced through an amendment. The fact of payment of consideration by cash was therefore in the knowledge of the complainants, when they had filed the complaint. Thus, the complainants cannot contend that they had no knowledge about the same.
14. The plea taken in the amendment is that such a pleading had been left out due to oversight while drafting the complaints. This oversight is sought to be corrected by moving an application in the year 2023, which is at the fag end, when the case has been taken up for final hearing. It seems to have been done in the background that in the event the complaint succeeds an adjustment of the said payment would be necessary, the receipts whereof had been filed along with the complaint.
15. However, there is yet another factor which cannot be overlooked and that is the delay in the moving of the amendment applications. The applications have been moved with delays that have been clearly indicated above, that is not disputed. The contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents/ complainants is that delays should not impede the amendment, more so when the amendment sought does not change the nature of the litigation and does not deprive the petitioner from taking any objection to the same.
16. The petitioner has not filed any written statement or amended written statement challenging the amendment which has been allowed. This argument is not tenable, in as much as, the petitioners have challenged the very same order which has allowed the amendment therefore the question of filing any written statement or otherwise would arise on the outcome of the present proceedings.
17. It is the nature of the amendment which has to be also looked into as to whether such an amendment is necessary for adjudicating the controversy. The controversy remains the same except for the quantum of the payments. The quantum of the payments may be necessary for any adjustment in case the complainants succeed or otherwise to assess the delay in payments, and therefore may be a matter to be considered during the proceedings later on, in case a decree intervenes in favour of the complainants. Since the receipts are already on record, the same can be looked into at the time of final hearing as they had already been filed along with the complaint. However, the question of allowing the amendment at this stage of final hearing has to be considered in the light of the fact that the issue of any quantum of payment is not very essential to the core nature of the controversy of the deficiency alleged. In case it is found that after the payments the complainants were entitled to the property, it is only then the issue of any adjustment of payments or delay in payments may arise. The amendment has been filed very belatedly, but any allegation should not cause any prejudice either to the complainants or to the other side, and therefore the petitioner has every right to contest the allegation of the payments made by cash.
18. We therefore dispose off these revision petitions by modifying the impugned order to the extent that the amendments sought will be subject to any objections to be filed by the petitioner, that will be filed within one month from the date of passing of this order, and such objections shall be liable to be considered by the Commission below while proceeding to finally hear the matter. However, in case the petitioners choose to lead any evidence in this regard, they shall be permitted to do so before the final hearing commences. The petitioners shall however confine to the time limits to be fixed by the State Commission in this regard and the matter shall thereafter proceed accordingly. The revision petitions stand disposed off on the said terms.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER