Interim Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Document.
Pdf Text: 6 C.C.No.545/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.29
9. Whatever stated by me in my evidence affidavit is true and
correct and in token thereof I have signed the affidavit.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 09.02.2026 Judicial Magistrate(First Class)
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
Cross examination of CW-01- Palakh Hemnani by advocate Mrs. Meena
Sharma for the accused :
10. I am staying at Mumbai. Currently I am housewife. Nasik is
my native place. Therefore, before purchasing flat I had visited. I had seen
the project under construction since year 2013. When I visited the
construction site, it was under construction. I am not aware about the
verification of documents of Title. It might have verified by my husband. I
was not aware about the builder prior to booking. My parental home
being at Nasik I am aware about the cost of flat within said vicinity and as
such I am deposing that amount of Rs.53,92,000/- was much more than
the actual market price of the flat. I paid said amount in a hope of
completing project by the accused. Builder did not force us to purchase
flat but he convinced about his project. It is correct to say that I purchased
flat for aforesaid amount for my own satisfaction.
11. It is true to say that since March, 2020 the COVID -19
Pandemic was declared. It is true to say that in entire 2020 there was no
progress in the project. It is not true to say that therefore I am deposing
false that accused neglected to hand over possession and execute final sale
deed of the flat. My statement in examination in chief, para 2 that I visited
the construction site twice, thrice but it was incomplete, was made
pertaining to my visits even in year 2022 when the lockdown was ended.
In the year 2022 every month I visited the site. My statement in para 2 of
my examination in chief pertaining to executing MOU by the accused on
-- 1 of 4 --
7 C.C.No.545/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.29
25.09.2019 is correct. I do not remember whether I have signed or not
said MOU. Myself, my husband was present at the time of executing MOU.
As the construction work was not in completing mode since 2017 despite
several assurances, we executed MOU in the year 2019 even though
accused was to deliver possession upto December, 2020. We were
expecting some kind of work to be happened but no work was going on.
12. I never visited house of any of accused at Nasik. I have visited
office of the accused alongwith members at once. It is not true to say that
I am deposing false that I never visited house of accused alongwith other
members. Witness volunteers that my husband might have visited. It is
not true to say that myself, my husband alongwith other members visited
the house of accused and threatened the ladies members of family of the
accused. I am not aware that my husband alongwith other members
visited house of accused and threatened the female members for issuing
cheques of compensation. I received possession of the flat in the year
2023. It is correct to say that in para 6 of my examination in chief I have
stated that till date I have not received possession of the flat. Entire
evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was read over and
explained to me and thereafter, I have signed it. It is true to say that I
understand Marathi language. It is not true to say that I have made false
statement on oath in my evidence affidavit that, “Till date accused have
not delivered possession of the flat to me.” The relevant portion in
evidence affidavit is marked as Portion mark ‘A’ for identification and
scrutiny of the evidence. It is not true to say that subject cheques Exh.31
and 32 are obtained by me under pressure and threatening the accused. It
is true to say that pending present complaint I have received possession
of the flat. We took possession paying extra Rs.11 lakhs to the accused on
his instance and promise to repay it later on. We have paid extra amount
-- 2 of 4 --
8 C.C.No.545/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.29
of Rs.11 lakhs than the agreed consideration. Total amount of
consideration was around Rs.63 lakhs. Right now I do not have copy of
Agreement with me. Initially as per Agreement I paid Rs.53,92,000/-. It is
correct to say that I have paid Rs.40,53,920/- on Agreement dated
24.05.2018. Thereafter, I had paid Rs.11 lakhs as per his promise. We have
not paid entire remaining amount of consideration of Rs.13,89,080/- as he
has not executed Sale Deed. It is not true to say that at the time of issuing
subject cheque accused have asked us not to deposit the cheques without
intimation. We have also not deposited cheques without intimating them.
It is not true to say that subject cheques were dishonored and returned
unpaid as we deposited them without intimating the accused. We were
time and again requesting accused to complete the construction and
deliver property but he flatly denied to act upon and as such we presented
the cheques. It is not true to say that I am deposing false. There had been
some settlement talks in between us. Accused have assured us to deliver
possession on paying Rs.11 lakhs with further promise to repay said
amount. Entire discussion whatever happened was not verbally only. One
MOU is executed for the same. I can produce said MOU dated 02.03.2023.
It is marked Exh.49. I can not assign any reason as to why all these facts
of making extra payment of Rs.11 lakhs, executing MOU on 02.03.2023
are not stated in my evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.
13. Now I am referred to MOU Exh.49. All contents of MOU are
true and correct. I admit MOU Exh.49. After 6 months of executing MOU
Exh.49 I have received Rs.5,44,000/- after deducting TDS from accused by
NEFT. It is true to say that I have received said amount during pending
complaint as full and final settlement of the dispute. Rs.5,50,000/- is still
remaining to be paid by the accused.
There is great possibility of compromise in between the
-- 3 of 4 --
9 C.C.No.545/SS/2021
CW-1 Exh.29
parties. Hence, matter referred to Mediation to Mr. A. B. Jadhav.
R.O.A.C.
(M. P. Saraf)
Date : 09.02.2026 Judicial Magistrate(First Class),
58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code :MH01362
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file evidence are same, word to word as per
the original evidence.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate(First Class), 58th Court, Bandra,
Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 09.02.2026.
Transcribed and Typed on : 09.02.2026.
Order printed and Signed on : 09.02.2026.
Order Uploaded on : 09.02.2026.
-- 4 of 4 --