ANIRUDHA ABHYANKAR Vs. FOUR WALLS DEVELOPERS PROMOTERS BUILDINGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to notice under section 13 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the opposite party filed its written version in the form of preliminary objection. The opposite party in its reply raised some technical objections. The first objection is about the amalgamation of the claims of four complainants. However, the opposite party did not dispute the payments made by the four complainants towards the booking of the flats. The other objection raised by the opposite party is that complaints are barred by limitation.

(2.) We have heard Mrs. Padolay, advocate for the complainants. However, none appeared for the opposite party.

(3.) On going through the allegations made by the complainants and the documents on record, the following points arise for our consideration.