1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 111 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 111 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 111 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLN. NO. 141 OF 2008 Model Construction & Anr. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS Maheshwari-1 Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. ... RESPONDENGTS Mr. A.R.Shaikh, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Z.A.Jariwala, Advocate, i/b. M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for respondent No.1. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. DATE : 6th February, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff and Co-operative Society of the persons who are occupying flats in Maheshwari-1 Building. The building was constructed in the year 1999. As per the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, the builder-developer was required to get the Society 2 registered within four months from the date of receiving occupation certificate and thereafter to execute conveyance deed in favour of the Society within four months. Even though the period of more than 8 years has passed thereafter the defendants/appellants have not executed the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiff-society. Therefore, the plaintiff-society filed the suit seeking direction to the defendants to execute conveyance and also they moved a Notice of Motion seeking direction to the defendants not to make any further development on the land and not to dispose of any such property. This Notice of Motion was resisted by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs are not entitled to whole of the land which is about 8636 sq. mtrs. because this plot has been divided in three parts. Sub-plot "C" admeasuring 2325 sq. mtrs. has already been used for the roads under the Development Plan. Sub-plot "A" admeasuring 2110 sq.. mtrs. is used for different buildings and Maheshwari-1 has been constructed on the Plot "B" which admeasures 4200 sq. mtrs. However, according to them, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the complete area. 3. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order restraining the 3 defendants/appellants Nos. 2 and 3, who are the builders from carrying out further construction without obtaining consent of the plaintiff-Society and without executing conveyance in favour of the plaintiff-Society in respect of Maheshwari-1 Building, the land below it together with necessary open spaces as per rules till the suit is decided on merit. This order has been challenged in the present Appeal. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order and agreement between the parties and the provisions of MOFA, it appears that there is dispute about interpretation of the terms of the contract between the parties. Further, admittedly, the Maheshwari-1 Building occupied by the plaintiff was constructed and occupied in the year 1999. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were required to get the Society registered within 4 months thereafter and to execute conveyance deed in their favour within 4 months thereafter. Failure to comply with the provisions of law, attracts the prosecution of the builder and he may be liable to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment also. It appears that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have not taken any steps during the last 8 years to follow the provisions of law and to execute conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs. 4 Not only this, they have commenced some further development on the open space of the said plot.If without executing the conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 succeed in completing the building and creating third party interest, the suit will become infructuous and the plaintiffs will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. To interfere in the impugned order would mean to encourage the unscrupulous builder in carrying on the activities against the specific provisions of law. In such circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Further, it is well-settled that the relief of temporary injunction is discretionary in nature and normally the appellate Court will not interfere in the discretion used by the trial Court unless there are strong reasons for the same. I do not find any such reasons. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. 6. In view of the order in Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for defendants/appellants makes a request to stay this order. The request is refused. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)