: 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.171 OF 2009 M/s.Butala Dadhe & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. Shrinivas Ramchandra Deo & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.P. Sawant for Appellants Mr.R.S. Apte with Mahendra Agarekar for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 24th JULY, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the appellant in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2006 which confirms a decree passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune on 10.2.2006. The defendants i.e. the appellants herein have been directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit flat alongwith the completion certificate from the Pune Municipal Corporation. The defendants are also directed to execute the necessary documents conveying the clear marketable title in respect of the suit flats. Further, the liquidated damages have been directed to be paid by the Court. 2. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract for executing the agreement of sale of the suit property bearing flat No.202 and 202A. The Courts have found that the appellant defendants were not ready and willing to execute the sale deed inasmuch as the completion certificate was not available with the appellant within the time specified in the agreement of sale. 3. Mr.Sawant, appearing for the appellant, has raised three issues, namely, (i) : 2 : that the suit has been undervalued; (ii) that the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation; (iii) the liquidated damages have been awarded which have been adjusted by the Court. 4. As regards the under valuation of the suit, the trial Court has held that since the suit has essentially been filed in order to enforce the plaintiff’s right under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act. The suit has been properly valued. This order had not been challenged by the defendants in the appellate Court immediately after the order was passed. However, the appellate Court has held that that challenge was not available to the appellants after so many years. 5. As regards the issue of limitation both the Courts below have found that it was only in 1998 that the defendant No.1 called upon the plaintiffs to make complete payment and to accept the suit flat. However, on that date, the completion certificate was not available with the appellant as was required under the agreement of sale. The completion certificate was available only on 8.6.2000 and, therefore, the suit filed in 2000 can hardly be said to be beyond limitation. Both the Courts below have rightly held that the suit has been filed within the limitation. 6. As regards the liquidated damages which have been awarded to the plaintiff, both the Courts below have found that the delay in conveying the property was due to the appellant-defendants. The agreement of sale itself provided for payment of liquidated damages. The Courts have, therefore directed adjustment of the liquidated damages against the consideration payable for the flat. 7. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed since no substantial questions of law arise for being decided in the present second appeal. On facts, the Courts below have concurrently held that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 8. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, nothing remains in Civil Application No. 844 of 2009 and the same is dismissed accordingly.