SM 1 915.sa.144.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 349 OF 2011 IN SECND APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2011 M/s. Ganakshi Builders & Developers through its proprietor Kishor Kashinath Shilkar ....Appellant. Versus Om Rajmata Co.op. Housing Society ....Respondent. ____________ Mr. R. S. Datar for the Appellant. Mr.T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 7, 2011. P.C.: Heard both the counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The appellant is raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the trail court. The suit presented by the respondent claiming a direction to the developer and the owner to execute the registered conveyance of the suit property, i.e., the building known as Om Rajmata standing on Survey No. 132, Hissa No. 12 situated behind Sayaba Hotel, Station Road, Kalwa, Thane, has been decreed by the trial court in view of judgment and decree passed on 27th November, 2009. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court while dealing with the civil Appeal No. 20 of 2010. It cannot be disputed that the property was taken up for development by the developer in the year 1983 and the construction was completed in SM 2 915.sa.144.11 the year 1988. The construction is raised on the property as per the sanctioned plan. It is the defence of the developer that there is some balance FSI available and he is entitled to utilize it. He for some other unavoidable reasons, could not execute the Conveyance Deed. It is to be noted that as provided under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963, the conveyance is to be executed within the stipulated period from the date of completion of construction. It is not disputed in the instant matter that completion certificate has been obtained by the developer long back. The court below have directed the defendants to execute and register conveyance of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff society and enforce the statutory obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. 3. On consideration of concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below, I do not deem it necessary to cause interference in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of appeal. The appeal is devoid of substance and stands dismissed. 4. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)