1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. IA/2399/2024 has been filed by the complainants on 09.02.2024 for amendment to the complaint/ prayer clause of the complaint. As per the original complaint, the main prayer is for the refund of the amount paid by the complainants, along with interest and compensation etc. The prayers as contained in the original complaint are reproduced below:

1. “Direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.1,12,67,649.00 being the amount deposited by the complainant alongwith interest @ 24 % per annum, till date of actual payment.

2. Award a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 towards damages, mental agony & harassment as well as Rs.1,00,000.00 towards litigation expenses, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent along with costs and expenses.”

2. Vide said IA, it is prayed to add prayers, under which there is an additional prayer to alternatively direct the opposite party to hand over physical possession of the said plot. The additional prayer clauses as stated in the said IA are reproduced below:

“c) Alternatively Allow to make additional payer to direct the O/Party to hand over the physical possession of the subject plot residential plot No. OCE/446CG6 of area measuring 302.14 sq.yds./2526.63 sq. ft., Omaxe Chandigarh Extn., in Mallanpur LPA, Distt. SAS Nagar, Punjab within specified time limit of one month and

d) To execute sale deed in favour of Complainants and

e) To pay interest @24%PA on the amount deposited, after expiry of 24 months from the date of signing of the Allotment Letter i.e. 12.06.2013) being from 11.06.2015, till handing over of the physical possession of the subject residential plot".”

3.       The IA is opposed by the OP, who has also filed a written reply to the same on 28.06.2024, stating inter alia as follows:

(i)      The complaint was filed on 15.09.2017. Now after completion of pleadings, evidence and after filing of the written synopsis by the OP, at this stage, around more than 6 ½ years after filing of complaint, as an afterthought, the complainants have filed the application for amendment, proposing to introduce entirely new prayers of possession, constitutionally and fundamentally changing the basic nature and character of the original complaint. 

(ii)      The complainants are seeking amendment, virtually to the substitution of a new complaint and new cause of action in place of what was originally there, which is against the well settled law of the land.   It is the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “amendments which do not totally alter the character of an action should be readily granted while care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted on the opposite party under pretence of amendment, that one distinct cause of action should not be substituted for another and that the subject-matter of the suit should not be changed by amendment.”  If amendments are allowed, would materially alter the basic nature of the case and would cause prejudice of an irremediable character to the OP.  

 (iii)    The OP has also relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of their contention that amendment, at this stage be not allowed and application for amendment, filed by the complainant be dismissed.  The judgments relied upon by the OP are as follows:

(a)    Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand; (2008) 5 SCC 117.

(b)    Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. (2009) 2 SCC 409.

  (c)   Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others; (2006) 12 SCC 1.

  (d)   Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs. Usman Habib  Dhuka & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 485.

(iv)     The application seeking amendment is not bonafide and is filed only to seek possession due to the sharp upswing in the real estate market, to gain benefit from the enhanced market valuation of the residential unit. In view of the above submissions, the amendment application is liable to be dismissed.

4.       The complainants from their side have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal alias Pappu Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Ors.

5.       The learned counsel appearing for the OP categorically stated, on instructions, during the hearing, that his client i.e. the OP, is willing to refund the entire principal amount paid by the complainants along with a reasonable rate of interest as decided by this Commission, without any further objection to the original complaint. He further states that the said IA has been filed with an inordinate delay of about 7 years since the filing of the original complaint, when pleadings in the case, in terms of filing of evidence by both sides, are complete and even OP has filed their written synopsis as well and the case is ripe for final hearing and at this stage, if any amendment to the complaint is allowed, it amounts to reopening the entire pleadings.

6.       We have carefully gone through the original complaint, the amendments sought vide the said IA, the original prayers, and the amended prayers sought. It is seen that the prayer of possession as per the said IA is as an alternate prayer without dropping the main prayer of the original complaint, which is for the refund, which means that even if the IA is allowed, the main prayer will continue to be refund, with possession as an alternate prayer. After carefully going through the entire pleadings and oral arguments of the parties, we are of the considered view that at this stage, such an IA for amendment of the complaint and prayer clauses cannot be allowed, especially when the main prayer, even with the said IA, continues to be refund, which the OP is categorically undertaking to comply with. Hence, the said IA/2399/2024 is dismissed.

7.       Keeping in view the categorical undertaking of the learned counsel for the OP for refunding the entire principal amount paid by the complainants, along with a reasonable rate of interest as decided by this Commission, following orders are passed.

(a)     The opposite party is hereby directed to refund the entire principal amount of Rs.52,79,429/-, as mentioned in the original complaint (the amount is not disputed by the opposite party), along with compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum, within a maximum of 45 days from today, along with litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants. If the opposite party fails to pay the entire amount as per this order within 45 days, the amount payable at the end of 45 days shall carry interest @ 12% per annum with effect from expiry of 45 days till the date of actual payment.

8.       The CC/2755/2017 stands disposed of as per above orders.

9.       Pending other IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.