SRJ 1 wp-2791-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2791 OF 2010 Mohan M. Pankar .. Petitioner. V/s. Prabhakar P. Thakur & Others .. Respondents. Mr. A.S.Khandeparkar i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates for Petitioner. CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE :12th APRIL,2010 P.C.:- 1] Petitioner in this Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is the 1st Defendant/ Judgment Debtor. The Petitioners and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents as developers constructed a building. The purchasers of the flats in the said building have formed a Co-operative Society which is the 4th Respondent. The 1st Respondent who is one of the flat purchasers, filed a suit for enforcing statutory obligation of the Petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd Respondent (2nd and 3rd Defendants) to execute conveyance in favour of the 4th Respondent Co-operative Society. The SRJ 2 wp-2791-10.sxw suit was decreed on 30th December, 2002. The relevant part of the decree reads thus:- Suit of the Plaintiff is decreed. The Defendant No.1 or Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 jointly are hereby directed to get their title to the land in question perfected by obtaining appropriate Sale Deed from the original owner or their heirs at their own costs and in turn execute a complete Deed of Conveyance of complete title to the land in question alongwith the building thereon in favour of Defendant No.4 and they are so directed to get their title so perfected and executed a registered Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.4 within a period of six months from the date of this Order. By way of caution Defendant No.4 is also directed to complete its part of agreement if remained uncomplied amply in time to facilitate execution of the Sale Deed before the expiry of time limit prescribed above. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the said decree has been dismissed by order of this Court on 13th February, 2006. In the execution application preferred by the original Plaintiff-1st Respondent in the year 2007, a draft of the Conveyance to be executed by the Petitioner and the 2nd and 3rd Respondents was submitted by the 1st SRJ 3 wp-2791-10.sxw Respondent  decree holder. The notice under rule 34 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was issued to the Petitioner on the basis of the said draft conveyance. On the service of the said notice, the Petitioner appeared and filed objections. One of the objections raised by the Petitioner is that he has no title in respect of the property to enable him to execute the Conveyance. The other objection raised by the Petitioner was that the 1st Respondent has not impleaded the original owner as a party to the Execution Application. By the impugned order, the draft of Conveyance has been approved and a direction was issued to send the draft to the Registrar. 2] The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that it is impossible for the Petitioner to execute a Conveyance as the Petitioner has not obtained title to the property from the original owner. He submitted that 1st Respondent ought to have impleaded the original owner as a party to the suit and to the execution application. He submitted that the Petitioner is unable to execute the Conveyance as he has no title. He submitted that the owner has not executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner authorizing him to execute the Conveyance. The learned Counsel lastly submitted that longer time may be granted to the Petitioner to enable him to file a suit against original owner and obtain a title. 3] I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner SRJ 4 wp-2791-10.sxw alongwith 2nd and 3rd Respondents acting as developers/builders developed the property and sold the flats in the building constructed by them to various purchasers. The flat purchasers have formed a Co-operative Society which is the 4th Defendant to the suit. It is the statutory obligation of the Petitioner under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (herein after referred to as the said Act) to execute a Conveyance in respect of the developed property in favour of the 4th Defendant Society. The suit was filed by the 1st Respondent way back in the year 1983 for enforcing the statutory obligation of the Petitioner under the said Act. The suit was decreed on 30th December, 2002. The First Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against said decree was dismissed on 13th February, 2006. Even assuming that the submission made that the Petitioner is not holding a Power of Attorney of the owner to execute the sale deed is correct, the Petitioner had an opportunity available from the year 1983 to take appropriate steps. The Petitioner did not take any steps from the year 1983. Even after the decree was passed on 30th December, 2002 the Petitioner failed to take any steps. This Court confirmed the decree more than four years back by dismissing appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The decree of the trial Court became final on 13th February, 2006. SRJ 5 wp-2791-10.sxw 4] At the instance of such litigant, interference cannot be made in Writ Jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The effect of the impugned order is that in execution of the decree passed in the suit of the year 1983, the Petitioner-developer has been compelled to perform his statutory obligation under the said Act. No case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA,J.)