Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the refusal of an ad-interim prayer for injunction made by the plaintiffs/appellants in a suit for specific performance of a contract.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submits that although initially the agreed amount of consideration was Rs.7.5 crores, subsequently, the appellants found that there were certain defects in the title and as such, there was correspondence between the parties reflecting that the consideration amount should be decreased to Rs.4.5 crores.

3. However, it is candidly submitted that such pleadings are not yet there before the trial court and the plaintiffs/appellants seek to amend the plaint to that effect.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents disputes such contention of the appellants and contends that the appellants have filed the suit for specific performance for performance of the agreement in which the consideration was mentioned as Rs.7.5 crores and, as such, cannot resile from such position.

5. That apart, it is submitted that although there were attempts to have the matter mutually resolved, no such effort has been shown by the appellants, which is again disputed by the appellants.

6. Be that as it may, the appellants are ready to put in a demand draft to the tune of Rs.1 crore as per our previous direction, to show the readiness and willingness of the appellants to have the agreement performed. As such, we are of the opinion that in view of the appellants having shown prima facie their bona fides with regard to their readiness and willingness, in view of disputed questions of fact and law being involved in the suit, there ought to be an order of injunction; otherwise, the injunction application and the suit might be rendered infructuous.

7. Accordingly, FMAT No. 260 of 2025 is disposed of, along with the connected pending applications bearing CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025, by setting aside the impugned order and passing an order of ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from acting in breach of the MOU in question dated February 9, 2017 by dealing with, disposing of, alienating, encumbering, parting with possession or creating any third party interest in respect of the subject matter of the said MOU dated February 9, 2017 till disposal of the temporary injunction application pending in the trial court.

8. The above order shall be subject to the plaintiffs/appellants depositing a demand draft, for the amount depicted in the demand draft brought by the appellants before us today, in the trial court within a week from date. Since the demand draft has been prepared in the name of the respondent no. 1, on the prayer of the appellants, the appellants are granted liberty to make appropriate changes to the demand draft and/or furnish a fresh demand draft appropriately, to the credit of the suit in the trial court.

9. As and when deposited, the said amount shall be deposited in an interest-bearing short term deposit/account with any nationalized bank by the learned trial court and such amount shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit.

10. The defendants/respondents shall file their written objection to the injunction application in the trial court within three weeks from date.

11. It is expected that the injunction application shall be disposed of on merits upon giving opportunity of hearing to both parties by the end of February, 2026.

12. In view of the advanced age of the defendant/respondent no. 1, we expect that the learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit itself thereafter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year after the disposal of the injunction application.

13. We make it abundantly clear that this court has not entered into the merits of the matter conclusively and it will be open to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the injunction application as well as the suit independently, on their own merits, without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in this Court and/or the ad-interim injunction passed by us.

14. There will be no order as to costs.

15. The parties as well as the trial court shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

I agree.

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)