Judgment : Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The Appellant-Original Plaintiff No.1 has challenged order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai, thereby dismissed the Notice of Motion. The Appellant along with Respondent No.3 filed the suit sometime in September 2013 along with Notice of Motion in question thereby prayed and sought declaration that the work of construction carried out by the Defendants is in contravention of Section 7 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (MOFA Act). They also prayed for interim protection/injunction thereby prayed to restrain the Respondent-Society as well as Builder-Developer to carry out any further work or construction activity on the suit plot of the Society. 3. The averments so made in the plaint and the supporting affidavit itself show that the Appellants were fully aware of the development agreement/permission to develop the suit property wide agreement dated 9 October 2010. Admittedly, 38 members of the Society have already vacated the premises. The adjacent premises/flats and those structure were demolished also. The construction is already commenced which is up to the plinth level. The Developer, admittedly have been paying the necessary charges and incurring expenses by providing the compensation, in lieu of alternate accommodation since November 2012. 4. Admittedly, the Society-Respondent No.1 formed/registered in the year 1992-93 covering the total land including the land below the two bungalows in question. Though there is a specific Clause No.13, the Appellant/bungalow owners not become member of the Society, as contemplated under MOFA Act. No steps have been taken to become member of the Society. The bungalows though owned by the Appellant, is admittedly on the plot in question of the Society. No justifiable reason and/or averred by the Appellant-Plaintiff No.1 for filing such suit and/or injunction 5. The plain reading of the plaint and the affidavit, itself shows that there was no challenge whatsoever was raised with regard to the agreement/conveyance. The Developer of the Society and its members have proceeded on the basis of necessary clauses/permissions obtained from the authorities since 2010. 6. The rights of the Appellant, even if any, though not member of the Society as of today need to be tested by the competent Court. The Developer of the Society and its members have proceeded on the basis of necessary clauses/permissions obtained from the authorities since 2010. 6. The rights of the Appellant, even if any, though not member of the Society as of today need to be tested by the competent Court. The status as of today not being a member of the Society though bungalow in question is on the plot of the Society, is again a matter of discussion, basically when the present suit as filed is for the decision revolving around the MOFA Act. The person who is not a member of the Society to what extent can file such suit for declaration that the Defendants have carried out the construction in contravention of the MOFA Act, is again a matter of detail material. Unless that declaration is sought by invoking appropriate remedy by the Appellant, and the Society recognizes and/or accepts the members, the suit so filed and the injunction so sought in view of above facts and circumstances apart from the delay in invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the Court, in my view, is a matter which goes against the Appellant. The grievances of the Appellant just cannot therefore be decided at this stage, in view of the above situation to deny the development of the property, admittedly owned by the Society and its members. 7. All have already acted upon. The Society and its members require their flats to be constructed at the earliest. The Developer is under obligation to complete the construction as agreed within the prescribed period. Therefore, halting of such project by the Appellant, in my view, is in not in the interest of the majority of the members and so also the Society. The balance of convenience and equity also lies in favour of the members of the Society and the Society and certainly not in favour of the Appellant. The irreparable injury, in view of above, also not the case made out by the Appellant. 8. The bungalow was damaged therefore police complaint was lodged. The Appellant thereafter took steps and file the suit. That itself, in my view, cannot be the reason as this itself means there was no steps taken by the Appellant at the earliest based upon alleged ownership of the plot, being the owner of the bungalow. 8. The bungalow was damaged therefore police complaint was lodged. The Appellant thereafter took steps and file the suit. That itself, in my view, cannot be the reason as this itself means there was no steps taken by the Appellant at the earliest based upon alleged ownership of the plot, being the owner of the bungalow. Any right with regard to the F.S.I., as alleged and/or sought to be contended need to be tested subject to the final decision in the trial, Appellant is not the member, at least at this stage, the entitlement of share of F.S.I of the Society and/or its members in the present facts and circumstances can be compensated in terms of money. The F.S.I even any, as contended, the Appellant wants to use for his own purpose, in view of present averments in the plaint and/or supporting affidavit cannot be accepted. The remedy is elsewhere. 9. The submission that the Appellant wants to amend the plaint and/or wants to place on record the material which they sought/brought after filing of the suit after filing of the present Appeal, in no way can be the reason to halt the development of the property when majority of the members are waiting of their house/premises since long. 10. The aspect of delay and/or latches in taking steps as the deed of confirmation obtained in June 2013 that itself cannot be the reason to overlook the basic agreement of the year 2010, as that was the foundation of development of such property. 11. The learned Judge by impugned order by considering various aspects and points so referred above including the judgment cited by the parties, not granted or continue with the interim relief and disposed of the Notice of Motion. The status-quo was continued for six weeks on 22.10.2013. In vacation the same was extended by the Vacation Judge and thereafter by this Court also. That itself cannot be the reason in view of above to continue the status quo order which is nothing but to stay of development of the property at the instance of the Appellant. 12. The damages to the bungalow even if any, and the cost incurred for repairing of the same, the Appellant is entitled to recover from the Developer. The learned Counsel appearing for the Developer also offers reasonable amount for the same. The Appellant is not accepting the same. 12. The damages to the bungalow even if any, and the cost incurred for repairing of the same, the Appellant is entitled to recover from the Developer. The learned Counsel appearing for the Developer also offers reasonable amount for the same. The Appellant is not accepting the same. The reason for non occupation of the bungalow as it was damaged as averred is again a matter of damage and/or compensation. 13. The Developer and/or Society not obtained no objection from the bungalow owner is again a matter which only to be and/or can be tried in appropriate proceedings. The effect of development of any property in contravention of terms and conditions of the competent authority, just cannot be overlooked. The consequences are known to all. In the present facts and circumstances, therefore, no case is made out by the Appellant to continue the status-quo order as passed by this Court during vacation on 5.11.2013 and lastly on 18.11.2013. However, I am inclined to observe that the parties are still at liberty to settle the disputes/differences even if any. 14. In the result, the Appeal from Order is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks stay of this order. For the above reasons itself no case is made out for stay of the order as even otherwise no prejudice will be caused to the Appellant if the construction is continued in accordance with law. The stay refused.