Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:- This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 03/12/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.389/2008, Tuljapark Sahakari Gruh Rachana Sanstha V/s shri Baapusaheb Mahadev Badade by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). Undisputed facts are that appellants/org.opp.parties are developer-builder and they have developed a property and sold the flats on ownership basis to each of the respondent/ Tuljapark Sahakari Gruh Rachana Sanstha/ Co-operative Society. The Co-operative society was registered on 04/02/2008. Thereafter in spite of notice dated 04/10/2008 the appellant-builder failed to execute the conveyance deed, erection of compound wall around the building providing gate and about not arranging water supply consumer complaint was filed. Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/opponent to execute the conveyance within four months and further directed to construct the compound wall. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is filed by the org.opp.party. We heard Adv.Mr.Walimbe for appellant and Adv. Mr Mahendra L.Chavan for respondent. Admit and heard forthwith with the consent of parties. In the instant case it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that they are willing to execute the conveyance as directed but there is a hurdle since there is a direction given by the investigation agency (of a crime) to the Sub-Registrar to not to register the sale deed and one of the original owners property in question of which development is yet to be taken place, namely, Malavati D.Tupe in respect of survey no. 94/2A/1//7 are 100 sq.mr. We are not convinced with the reasons given. There is no hurdle in executing the conveyance. Issue of registration will come thereafter. As far as direction the issue of construction of compound wall, with provision of gate is concerned, it is the case of the appellant as per his written version that said wall is to be constructed as a common compound wall but it is a issue between the appellant and adjoining property developer and thereafter, no deficiency of service against them could be alleged. This submission is not at all convincing. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:- :-ORDER-: 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. | 
