:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.1323 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3513 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3513 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3513 OF 2008 Monocast Engineering Services & Anr. ...Appellants. v. Golden Heights ’B’ Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.P.R.Kadam i/by M.M.Vaidya & M.A.Narvekar , advs. for the Appellants. Mr.Anil Singh i/by Mr.D.R.Shah , advs. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 17th July, 2008. DATE: 17th July, 2008. DATE: 17th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The appeal is filed by the original defendants, who are the builders. They had entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs, who are the respondents before this court to construct a building known as ’B’ Wing on the plot no.707, City Survey No.332, TPS IV of Mahim Division, Dadar. The agreement for sale had taken place between the builders and the individual purchasers of the flats in the said building. Initially MOU had taken place in the year 1990 and subsequent individual agreements were executed in 1996. Accordingly, building was constructed and according to the plaintiffs, defendant/builder had left the building incomplete in :2: certain respects and they were required to complete the finishing work. The builders also harassed them in several respects and were avoiding to execute conveyance as required under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA). Therefore, the plaintiff filed Short Cause Suit No.2662 of 2001 in the Mumbai City Civil Court seeking several reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendants/builders. The main contention of the defendants was that on a portion of the said plot, another building marked as ’A’ wing consisting of 22 flats was constructed for the Church of Lady of Salvation. According to them, plot has not been demarked and partitioned and, therefore, conveyance deed could not be executed. They also contended that out of the members of the society, atleast three persons were yet to pay certain amounts to the builders. Besides that, certain additional work was done for which the amount has to be recovered from the society and its members, who are the flat owners and, therefore, conveyance deed could not be executed. 3. After hearing the evidence of the parties, the trial Court passed the decree in respect of some of the prayers by the judgment dated 11th April, 2008. The trial Court directed defendants to hand over possession of every part and parcel of the building, constructed, as per the plan sanctioned by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, to the plaintiff/society in order to have :3: occupation certificate from the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The trial Court also directed the defendants to execute regular conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs within three months and to hand over documents of title of the property under the conveyance. The trial Court also directed that the parties shall be at liberty to enforce their claims for the costs incurred in completing the alleged work or construction of the building. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. According to the defendants, only three persons have to pay certain amounts to him and besides this, certain additional work, which was done by them, has not been fully compensated. For that purpose, even though he made a plea before the trial Court, he did not file any suit or counter claim. The society or its members have also not filed any separate suit for recovery of the amount against the defendants in respect of additional cost of completing construction, which was allegedly left incomplete by the builders. That aspect has been left open by the trial Court and both the parties are at liberty to file suit against each other. 5. Proforma agreement for sale has been filed before the trial Court and a copy of the same is also submitted by the defendants/appellants before this Court in compilation. As per Clause (i) of that agreement, a :4: building of 22 flat owners as Wing A was constructed for Church of Lady of Salvation and the land was earmarked for that building and it was to be within orange colour boundary. The construction of ’B’ wing was to be made on the remaining portion of the said plot no.707. In view of this, there appears no dispute about the de-markation of the plot. Therefore, the contention of the defendant/appellant that because the property has not been partitioned, conveyance deed can not be executed is unacceptable. The terms of the contract are already mentioned in the agreement and the conveyance deed has to be executed and registered as per the said terms and as per the sanctioned plan in respect of building. Taking into consideration these circumstances, the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants could not point out any issue of fact or law on which this appeal may be admitted. 6. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed summarily. As the appeal itself is dismissed, civil application no.3513 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the defendant/appellant seeks stay to the impugned decree for a further period of 4 weeks. As the trial court had granted stay to the same for sometime, in the interest of justice, the stay shall continue for a further period :5: of 4 weeks. It shall be subject to all the interim reliefs, which were granted by the trial Court during pendency of the suit. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)