JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission Mumbai dated 13.06.2016 whereby the State Commission confirmed the interim order of the District Forum dismissing the application of amendment of written statement filed by the petitioners opposite parties. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondents filed a consumer complaint against M/s India Bulls Real Estate Ltd. & Lucins Land Development Ltd. & Others alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in respect of apartment booked by the complainants in Tower No. 45 ( 45-707) in the development project “Greens Panvel” undertaken by opposite party no. 1 & 2 – development companies. Other opposite parties are stated to be directors). 3. The opposite parties on being served filed joint written statement denying the allegations on merits. At the stage of evidence, the opposite parties moved an application for amendment of written statement to add paragraph 3(a) and also to replace paragraph 4 and 8 (a). The details of amendment sought to be done are given in Schedule ‘A’ to the amendment application. The application was resisted by the respondents complainants. 4. The District Forum dismissed the application vide order dated 20.11.2015. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties approached the State Commission. The State Commission did not find merit in the revision petition filed by the opposite parties. Revision petition was accordingly dismissed and order of the District forum was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the opposite parties have approached this Commission in revision. 4. Counsel for the petitioners opposite parties has contended that amendment sought to be done by the opposite parties is necessary because it raises the legal issues regarding liability of M/s India Bulls Real Estate Limited as also the individual opposite parties, who allegedly were not the directors at the relevant time. It is contended that amendment if allowed will not cause any prejudice to the complainants because consumer complaint is still at the stage of evidence. 5. Respondent no.1 on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. On perusal of amendment application, we find that petitioners opposite parties is seeking to take a plea that opposite parties no. 3 to 6 who have been impleaded as directors of the opposite parties companies were not the directors of the company at the relevant time and as such, the Lis against them is not maintainable. The opposite parties have also sought to take a plea that opposite parties no. 1 & 2 are different entities and opposite party no.1 had no privity of contract with the complainants. 7. The proposed amendments in our view are relevant for deciding the issue of liability of opposite party No.1 as also opposite parties No.3 to 6. Thus, in interest of justice, subject to rights and pleas of the complainants we set aside the impugned order and allow the amendment of written statement by the opposite parties, subject to cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents/complainants in equal share by way of bank drafts for unnecessary delay caused. It is clarified that the complainants shall have right to file the rejoinder to rebut the pleas sought to be taken by amendment. 8. Revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. Parties to appear before the District Forum on the date already fixed before the District Forum. | 
