A.P. Sahl President

1. All the Appellants are Complainants before the SCDRC, Maharashtra (Circuit Bench at Nagpur) where these Complaints were filed way back in the year 2017.

2. The OPs/Respondents had moved applications before the State Commission way back in the year 2017 praying for amendment in their written version/reply and for introducing documents. The said applications were taken up and the request for amendment was rejected vide order dated 01.11.2017. The order dated 01.11.2017, that is relevant for the present purpose, is extracted herein under:

                          "9. On 31/08/2017 opposite parties filed these two applications. One for amendment in reply and another for filing documents. Thus it is seen that these two applications are made at the stage of final hearing of all these complaints.

                          10. Careful perusal of amendment application shows the reason for amendment to the effect that subsequent events and developments have taken place which is very important and to be placed on record for adjudication of the dispute. However para Nos.2-A, 2-B and 2-C all these applications are relating to events which are relating to time period prior to filing of reply/written version of all the complaints by the opposite parties. In those para Nos.2-A, 2-B and 2-C of the application, reasons are given as to why opposite parties are unable to hand over possession of the respective tenements to the respective complainants. Those reasons were therefore well within the knowledge of the opposite parties when they tiled reply in these complaints. Therefore we find that propose amendment as per para Nos.2- A, 2-B and 2-C of these applications cannot be said to be relating to subsequent development and events and as they were within the knowledge of opposite parties, the proposed amendment about same as per those pura Nos.2-A, 2-B and 2-C cannot be allowed in the reply of opposite parties.

                          11. The propose amendment as per rest of para Nos. 2-D, 2-E and 20-F is relating to acquittal of O.P. by Court of J.M.F.C. Nagpur in criminal case vide order dated 30/03/2017 of which copy is also filed on record. Furthermore in those para Nos. 2-D. 2- E and 2-F the O.Ps. have stated as to which steps have taken by them for obtaining "Occupancy Certificate" and "No Objection Certificate" from concerned authorities for handing over possession of the respective tenements to the respective claimant and how they could not obtain the same.

                          12. However in the reply/written version already filed by the O.Ps., they already stated that immediately after receiving the occupancy certificate from Nagpur Municipal Corporation, allotment and sale of the fiat would be governed under Area Development Regulation Act 1981. Thus it is seen that still the occupancy certificate is not received by the opposite parties In our view, it is question of evidence as to what steps were taken by the opposite parties for obtaining the occupancy certificate and other material documents as required under the scheme for allotment and sale of the plots and as to how they failed to obtain the same. IVe therefore hold that the matter of evidence cannot be pleaded by way of amendment in the reply that too very fag ending of hearing of these complaints.

                          13. It is also pertinent to note that the complainants are required to be disposed of Protection Act. 1986 and if such belated amendment in the reply/written version of the within period of 90 days as per provisions of Section 13(3-A) of the Consumer object of expeditious disposal of all these complaints and hence on this ground also the opposite parties are allowed at belated stage of final hearing it will defeated the very propose amendment about new facts cannot be allowed, at his belated stage

                          14. We also find that the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned advocate of the opposite parties are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as they are totally different from those of the said cases discussed above.

                          15. Hence for all these reasons all applications made in these complaints for amendment in the reply/written version of the opposite parties are rejected.

                          16. So far as the applications made for seeking permission for production of documents are concerned, we find that the production of said documents can be allowed at this stage since production of the said documents by way of evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of all these complaints. Their copies have been already supplied by the opposite parties to the complainants. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the complainants if their production is allowed at this stage. Hence applications for production of documents are allowed, in these complaints. "

3. The matter proceeded further and the State Commission directed the Complainants to carry out amendments for impleading the State Government of Maharashtra through the Department of Environment & Pollution Control as well as the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. This order of the State Commission dated 09.08.2018 was challenged before the National Commission through a Revision Petition and the order was set aside and the Revision Petition was allowed.

4. The dispute remained pending and once again on 07.04.2022, the Respondents, in all the Complaints, preferred an amendment application for modifying their written statement. The justification for moving such an application has been given in the reply filed by the Respondents before us alongwith IA/4296/2026 in the shape of a counter-affidavit vide diary no. 9067 dated 20.04.2026. The said reply has been filed by Mr. Samrat Krishna Rao Shinde, Advocate for the Respondents. Paragraphs-8 & 9 of the said affidavit are extracted herein under:

                          "8. I say that, the Respondents herein filed a common application (against all 8 complaints) dated 07.04.2022 for amendment of the Written Statement to bring on record documents/subsequent events that took place after the filing of the said complaint in 2017 and that they are a crucial element for the final adjudication of the complaint; and the Petitioner had objected to allowing the amendment application. The Respondents, through the amendment are seeking to add certain subsequent events and development that took place after the filing of the complaint against them, such as the prolonged and deliberate delay by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation in providing the Occupancy Certificate even after completion of the construction, among other relevant facts/circumstances. I say that by the aforesaid application, the Respondents sough to plead the maintainability of Complaint in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. I further say that the Respondents also sought to plead the subsequent development i.e occupancy certificate dated 09.09.2019 issued by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation for building constructed on building No. 5, which is admittedly after the filing of the Reply, Additional Affidavit filed by the Respondents before the Hon'ble SCDRC.

                          9. I say that, the Respondents herein had filed the amendment application for their Written Statement on 07.04.2022 to update the Hon'ble Court about the administrative hurdles and technical status of the said property, based on events that took place after 2017. I say that, it is pertinent for such pleadings and documents to come on record, so that the respondents have a fair opportunity to defend themselves and prove their stand."

5. With the aforesaid justification pleaded, the applications seem to have been allowed by the impugned order dated 15.10.2025 which is common in nature even though separately passed in all the Appeals. We are reproducing the order impugned in FA/117/2026 for ready reference:

                          "The present application for amendment of Written Statement filed by the respondent No. 3 namely Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing Board and others.

                          1. The present complaint has been filed by the above mentioned Complainants against the Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing Board and others alleging Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in Service because of enhancement in the price along with other contentions and allegations Respondent filed a detailed written submission and also filed affidavit to that effect on record.

                          2. We have heard Mr. Hitesh Verma, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. M. G. Burde, learned advocate for the non-applicant on the said application. Advocate for the applicant contended that during the pendency of the present complaint various subsequent events and development have taken place pertaining to the subject matter involved in the present complaint which are very much important to be placed on record for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, it has become necessary to amend the written submission filed on record by the respondent. Applicant further contended that the amendment to the written statement filed by the respondent has essential for the proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.

                          3. We are of the view that it is settled law that as per Order VI Rule, 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC)1908, a Court can allow either party to amend their written statement at any stage of a legal proceeding.

                          4. Respondent filed some case laws to support his contention.

                          In Andhra Bank Vs. ABW Amro Bank V. V. &Ors. (AIR 2007 Supreme Court 2511) Amendment of written statement, only question to be considered is whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in suit In Surinder Singh Vs. Kappor Singh (Dead) through LRs. (AIRONLINE 2005 SC 470), It was held that application can be filed at any stage of the proceeding Application even before the Supreme Court would be maintainable In Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami <& Ors., (AIR 2007 Supreme Court1663)ln amendment of written statement substitution of defence or taking of inconsistent plea through amendment is permissible.

                          5. In view of the reasons stated herein above, the prayer for amendment of the written Statement allowed, subject to the cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid in each case to the complainant within period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.

                          6. Application is hereby allowed.

                          7. Adjourned for final hearing to 04/11/2025. "

Similar orders have been passed in all the matters that have been challenged through the present Appeals. Learned counsel submits that the question of allowing an amendment did not arise inasmuch as it was highly belated and was absolutely unnecessary. It has also been urged that a general submission was made about subsequent events for justifying the prayer for amendment in the written submission without there being any need explained for the same or being essential for deciding the controversy.

6. We have perused the impugned orders and we find that the amendment application has been allowed without specifying as to the necessity of permitting the amendments after 8 years of the pendency of the Complaint. We find no justification given for any facts or any subsequent events that were necessary for the adjudication of the controversy that could not have been brought on record earlier. In the absence of any such findings, allowing of an amendment application, that too, in a written statement, after the affidavits pleadings and were exchanged and the matter was ripe for hearing, was absolutely unjust and caused serious prejudice to the Complainant as it unnecessarily prolongs the proceedings, that too, for no valid reason.

7. The justification given before us that there were subsequent events including the issuance of an Occupancy Certificate in 2019, does not qualify for an amendment at all and if the Occupancy Certificate had been obtained in the year 2019, the same could have been brought forth as an evidence with the permission of the Commission for which no amendment is required. The introduction of a subsequent document, could have been examined by the State Commission which could have been introduced by way of an evidence instead of an amendment application with only general observations in the impugned order. Nonetheless, the impact of the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate can be looked into by the State Commission while assessing the evidence already on record inasmuch as the State Commission, in terms of Section-13(4) of the 1986 Act, has the power to direct discovery and production of any document or any material object produceable as evidence. We therefore, find no legal impediment in the Occupancy Certificate being assessed by the State Commission for which no amendment was required in the written statement.

8. The allowing of amendment in the written statement is therefore, not in accordance with the principles applicable in respect of written statements that too, in a summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act, after 8 years of the pendency of the Complaint when it had reached the stage of final hearing. The discretion exercised by the State Commission is therefore, not justified.

9. As noted above, the reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondents but no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents to contest this Appeal. We had indicated that the matter requires consideration and keeping that in view, orders were passed on 21.01.2026, calling upon the Respondents to file their replies that has already been done as indicated above. However, no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

10. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, the amendment sought in the written statement belatedly and in the background of the earlier amendment having been rejected, the order of the State Commission cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 15.10.2025 in all the Appeals are set aside and the Appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The State Commission shall proceed to decide the matter expeditiously with an opportunity to the parties before it.