The valuable right to appeal should not be defeated by technical delays where no malafide intent is evident.

1. The applicant/allottee has filed the Miscellaneous Application No. 906 of 2024 for condonation of delay in filing the captioned appeal before this Tribunal, whereby the applicant ^has challenged, ["AuthorityJ in Complaint No.CC005000000106646 on the] impugned order dated t9.06.2024 ^{passed by the} (for

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority ^shoft grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. By the said impugned order the complaint is ^partly allowed, ^and the ^non- applicant/promoter is directed to ^{refund the entlre amount paid}

,\

ltr-',"' ( Paqe 1/8 by ^the applicant towards consideration of ^{the subject flat along} with interest from the date of respective payments till the actual realization of the said amount to the applicant, 2. Aggrieved by the direction to refund the amount after ^obtaining full occupation ceftificate and that ^{promoter is held} to ^be entitled to claim the benefit of ^{moratorium period as mentioned} in the notifications/orders nos.13 and 14 dated ^02.04.2020, 18.05.2020 and 06,08.2021 issued by the ^{MahaRERA, the} applicant has preferred the captioned ^appeal.

3. The learned Advocate ^{for the applicant has submitted that the} impugned order was ^passed on 19.06,2024 and the ^applicant applied for certified copy on the online ^{system of previous} version of the website of MahaRERA. However, ^{the applicant} could not find such tab to file the ^{application on the earlier} version of ^the website of MahaRERA ^{as well as the new version} of MahaRERA. The learned ^{Advocate further submitted that it} also took some time for the applicant ^{to change the existing} lawyer for filing the apPeal.

4. The learned Advocate submitted ^{that the applicant tried several} times to file the appeal online on the ^{Appellate Tribunal's} website. However, due to technical glitches in ^{the website, the} applicant could not file the appeal. ^{The applicant also tried} several times ^to create a new account, however ^{due to technical} glitches of the website those attempts also failed. ^As a ^last resoft the applicant called ^the contact number mentioned ^{on the} website to inquire about ^the technical ^{glitches and the support} team ^{of the} Tribunal confirmed ^{the persistence of those} technical glitches and advised the ^{applicant to file the appeal} Lri*,'4 Page 218

after two weeks. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the delay of 73 days caused in filing the appeal is on account of aforesaid reasons. The learned Advocate submitted that the delay is not deliberate and application ^may be allowed, and the delay may be condoned in the ^interest of

justice.

5. The non-applicant remonstrated the application by filing ^reply

contending therein that the application is misconceived ^{both in} law and facts and there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal, The applicant has failed to provide any sufficient cause ^{for delay}

6. The learned Advocate for the ^{non-applicant has submitted that}

the application is vague/ incomplete, and lacks ^{in material} particulars and therefore deserves to be rejected at the threshold itself. The learned Advocate submitted that, [in filing the appeal.] applicant has contended that he applied ^for ceftified ^copies through a tab available on the ^previous version of ^the MahaRERA website, then upon successful submission of ^such application an automated confirmation e-mail would ^{have been} address acknowledging receipt of the said request. ^However, the applicant has failed to annex any ^{such confirmation}, [generated and delivered to the applicant's registered e-mail]

or any other documentary evidence in support of this ^claim.

7. The learned Advocate submitted that the averments made