We are fighting a Court case with our Builder. The crux of the matter is that they are trying to build a building which was not there in the lay-out disclosed to the flat purchasers at the time of making the agreement. Like...there were only 15 buildings were shown in the lay-out & moreover the Brochure showed a Garden in the designated area.
We had got temporary stay (injunction) on the matter in the Appeal in District court. However the decision in the suit (for perpetual injunction) went against us.
We filed the first Appeal in the district Court ad filed an application for Temporary stay until the decision on the appeal. The court rejected our application. However High Court agreed to our point of view & allowed temporary stay. Eventually the First Appeal too went against us. We then filed second appeal in the HC. The matter was heard & we got temporary stay until the decision on the second appeal. The matter has not yet come up for final hearing although some initial hearing have been done.
Both the District courts judgements didnt take cognisance of the fact that the original lay-out plan was not showing the additional building. The fact was almost suppressed. However on two occasions the HC allowed our stay application obviously based on the lay-out plan.
As per multiple case laws it is settled position of the Law that, Consent of the Flat purchasers is required if the new construction was not part of the original lay-out disclosed to the flat purchaser at the time of making the agreements. For example Dosti Vihar against Sea Flama decided by Justice Dhanuka, Madhuvihar case decided by Justice Gavai.
Here is my question, In most of the case laws the cases have been filed by the Housing Society however in our case its filed by an individual. Is that going to make a difference ? We are trying to rope in the Societies but why should that matter as Law should be same irrepective of whether the case is filed by an individual or the Housing society
