: 1 : 723-10-fa=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1840 OF 2010 Diwakar Vishwanath Surve .. Appellant v/s. Kishor Shyam Survey & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Mr. P.N. Joshi for the appellant Mr. G.N. Salunkhe i/b Mr. V.S. Kokilkar for respondent nos. 1 to 8 ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 8th DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. This first appeal is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 2010 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai in S.C. Suit No.1084 of 2007 directing the appellant defendant no.1 to execute the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Co-operative Society formed by the respondents and others in respect of the plot of land on which the building is constructed and in which the respondents and others have purchased flats. It is common ground that the respondents and others purchased 31 flats in two buildings constructed by the appellant. It is also common ground that the appellant had executed registered Agreements under Section 4 of the : 2 : 723-10-fa=.sxw Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. It is further common ground that the appellant has constructed two buildings in which at present there are 31 flats, which are fully occupied by the purchasers. It is further common ground that the appellant’s plan for construction of 7th floor on both the buildings is still pending approval before the Municipal Corporation. It is also likely that he may succeed in getting such plan sanctioned on fulfilling certain conditions. The respondents do not have any objection for construction of 7th floor on both the buildings even after the impugned decree is executed and complied with. 2. The appellant while opposing the suit, in the written statement clearly mentioned that he would abide by the obligations as the developer by conveying the property in favour of the Society. In view of this, there was practically no contest between parties when the case was before the lower Court. The defence of the appellant further suggests that he could not have file this appeal and in view of this there is no need to keep the appeal pending. There is no point for consideration arising in this appeal and so the appeal stands dismissed. In view of this, Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)