Temporary injunction in specific performance disputes depends on a concluded contract, delay, and third-party prejudice.

Temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance requires a strong prima facie case of a concluded contract on undisputed material, and equitable relief may be refused where correspondence shows only ongoing negotiations and consensus ad idem remains for trial. Delay in approaching the court, coupled with changed positions by the defendants and the creation of third-party rights, can also defeat balance of convenience and irreparable injury. On these facts, the interlocutory injunction was set aside and the matter was left for trial on its merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the material available at the interlocutory stage, the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of a concluded contract justifying temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance. (ii) Whether the plaintiff's delay, conduct, and the intervening creation of third-party rights made the grant of injunction unsustainable on the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Issue (i): Whether, on the material available at the interlocutory stage, the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of a concluded contract justifying temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance.

Analysis: Temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance is a discretionary equitable relief. The plaintiff must establish a strong prima facie case on undisputed facts. The e-mails and WhatsApp communications showed prolonged negotiations, repeated drafts, and ongoing corrections, which indicated that the matter was still at an embryonic stage. The expression used in correspondence, including reference to a draft or final draft MoU, was not by itself decisive. On the materials then available, the question whether the parties had reached consensus ad idem was left for trial.

Conclusion: The plaintiff had not established a sufficient prima facie case of a concluded contract for grant of temporary injunction.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's delay, conduct, and the intervening creation of third-party rights made the grant of injunction unsustainable on the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Analysis: In deciding interlocutory injunction, the Court must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the conduct of the party seeking equity. The suit was filed after a substantial delay, during which the defendants and the subsequent purchaser changed their position, made substantial payments, and third-party interests arose. The plaintiff's inaction, coupled with the intervening transactions, weighed against grant of equitable relief. The High Court and the trial court had not adequately addressed the issue of delay and its consequences. Balance of convenience was therefore not in favour of preserving the injunction.

Conclusion: The injunction was unsustainable because the delay and intervening developments defeated the plaintiff's equitable claim.

Final Conclusion: The interlocutory injunction was set aside, and the suit was left to be decided on its own merits at trial without any expression of opinion on the ultimate issues in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: In a suit for specific performance, temporary injunction will be refused where the plaintiff fails to show a strong prima facie case of a concluded contract and the equitable factors of delay, conduct, and third-party prejudice make the balance of convenience fall against interference.

---