IMPORTANT POINT
When the amendment sought changes the character of the case, such amendments cannot be allowed.

Challenge in these Revision Petitions bearing No. 927 to 939 & 951-52 of 2018 under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the “Act”) is to the orders dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Pune (for short “the State Commission.”) in RPs No. 17/86, 17/87,17/88, 17/89, 17/90, 17/91, 17/92, 17/93, 17/94, 17/95, 17/96, 17/97, 17/100, 17/98 and 17/99 respectively.

2. By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the Revision Petitioner after observing thus:-

“There cannot be any dispute that the amendment can be allowed even at appellate stage. The question is whether the amendment can be allowed or not? For that purpose we have to see what is the nature of amendment. After considering the amendment application it is clear that the opposite party wants to withdraw the admission given in the written version about the payment made by the complainant and the amount due. As per written version Rs.2,51,660/- are due. By way of amendment the opposite party wants to contend that Rs.6,51,660/- are due. Such amendment cannot be allowed. That will amount to allow the opposite party to withdraw the previous admission about amount paid and amount due. Thus we find that the amendment application cannot be allowed and the district forum has rightly rejected the amendment application. Thus we find that the order under revision cannot be said to be incorrect illegal or improper this. Hence we answer point number one accordingly.”

3. Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner vehemently argued that both the Fora below have erred in dismissing their Applications to amend their Written Versions filed in different Consumer Complaints on the ground that the Amendment Applications were filed after a period of 3 years and also that the proposed Amendment was not required for adjudicating the cases. She submitted that the District Forum has observed that the Consent Letter was executed one or two days prior to the execution of the Possession Letter but it is nowhere mentioned in the Possession Letter regarding the Consent Letter or its terms and that the correctness or otherwise of the proposed Amendments can be dealt with at the time of final hearing. She submitted that it was only a clerical error that the amounts mentioned in the Written Statement were different from the amounts mentioned in the Consent Letter and, therefore, the amounts mentioned in the Consent Letter needed to be incorporated in the Written Statement which is sought to be amended. Ld. Counsel also contended that in two cases i.e. RP No. 932/2018 and 951/2018 the amounts mentioned in the Written Statement and also the amounts sought to be amended in the Written Statement were the same.

4. This Bench vide Order dated 28.08.2018 had directed the Counsel for the Petitioner to file the offer of possession of flat given to each of the flat purchasers and also the date of the alleged Consent Letter and the stage of the proceedings before the District Forum when the Amendment Application was filed. In compliance of the said Order, Ld. Counsel has given a table of the relevant amounts and the dates which is detailed as hereunder:-

S. No.	R.P. No.	Amount mentioned in the Written Statement	Amount Sought to be amended vide the Amendment Applications	Date of Agreement to Sale	Date of Consent	Possession Given on
1.	RP/927/18	2,51,660/	6,51,660/-	20/3/10	31/1/11	1/4/11
2.	RP/928/18	1,00,900/-	10,65,069/-	31/8/09	18/4/11	19/4/12
3.	RP/929/18	15,57,400/-	14,97,400/-	8/6/10	12/10/11	14/10/11
4.	RP/930/18	6,01,350/-	6,08,648	19/3/10	26/3/11	26/6/11
5.	RP/931/18	3,77,706/-	3,65,660/-	23/3/10	4/8/11	16/6/11
6.	RP/932/18	7,13,050/	7,13,050/-