This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the order passed by the Honorable High Court affirming the order passed by the Civil Judge against the appellant in the matter of injunction against the appellant.

The then plaintiff filed a complaint against the sister concern of the defendant company for declaration and specific performance regarding a land area of 19,685 square meter in the village of wadi Subhanpura District, Vadodara in Gujarat. The plaintiff made its submission that there was a legit contract between the plaintiff and defendant for the sale of the property amounting to 31,81,73,076/- and other for 58,26,86,984/- they also made the contention that the defendant agreed and there was a communication affirming the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on date 30/03/2016. The plaintiff herein also transmitted the amount of 2.16 crore to the defendant; there was just a mere formality that was supposed to be completed for a contract to be complete.

The Civil judge states that after the arrangement was affirmed by the party the appellant herein transmitted such amount and any creation and acknowledgement would further lead into futile litigation, and such length process will be impeded to the working of the arrangement. The parties to the transaction has already being into an oral contract about affirming such transaction. The defendant superstitiously entered into a contract with other company and registered the agreement for sale on 31/03/2018 and proceeded with. The Civil Judge herein confirmed and affirmed that the finding in the matter result in proceeding with the providing an injunction with due consideration some matter needed more consideration so it would be unfair to order a permanent injunction, therefore, a temporary injunction was provided whereby the parties to such suit was stopped from executing any documents here from the date of injunction. The documents herein also include the aforesaid sale deed and restrain further to create any charges, interests or to conduct commit with the land involved in the suit with any manner as expressed or implied by the court.

1. Whether the injunction ordered by the court valid?

2. Is the agreement to sale valid?

The Honorable Supreme Court in its observation and after hearing the arguments by the counsel appearing for both the parties and considering the facts presented by such counsels and the precedents submitted to support the pleadings, it states that it is of vital importance to be concluded that whether the contract that has been agreed to is a valid contract or not, whether the sale deed has been any validity by the law should be considered by the evidence that has been provided in the trail. The counsel appearing for the matter provided the documentary evidence in the form of WhatsApp messages and all the thread of emails exchanged between the parties to the matter above. The Court is also of the opinion that the injunction provided by the Civil Judge at the earliest stage of the matter has done nothing in support of the legal application but has stalled the suit from further elaboration.

The Court at this appeal is of the opinion that it will be time-consuming unnecessary or futile to recover the facts for any angle or findings with respect to the evidence provided so it will be in the best interest of all the parties to decide the matter on the question of law. If that the situation mentioned in the case is where the contract is left to be reduced down to written document as mere formality then it becomes of prior importance and burden of this is upon on the plaintiff to prove the validity of the oral contract and any obligation that has been fulfilled towards the completion of the contract. The plaintiff in the above case failed to make any submission to prove the facts. The draft Memorandum of Understanding submitted has a clause C in it which says that there arises a sum of amount to paid as tax consideration to Income Tax Authority whereby payment of such sums will thereby reflect upon the validity of the contract.

If this amount that has arisen and if was being paid by the plaintiff an altogether a different consideration with regard to the execution of the contract in written form would remain a mere formality. The defendant in the above case has a complete balance of favour by the intervening development because of the duration of delay that plaintiff took for filing of a suit against the defendant in the matter. The plaintiff, in this case, almost took seven months to file the case where raised the suspicion against the plaintiff. The Court stated that there is no question to be considered or arise stating the irreparable damage to the plaintiff due to breach of contract there is the various way in which a plaintiff can repudiate the contract mentioned in contract law. The High Court, in its judgment, mentioned that there was rough weather between the parties to the contract but did not consider it. The Honorable Supreme Court also mentioned that the 2^nd Civil Judge did not consider the issue regarding the delayed suit, the High Court considered it but failed to deal with it.  The Honorable Court further deciding the matter was helped with the interpretation in the precedents of M.P Mathur v/s   DTC and Gujarat Bottling Co. v/s Coco-Cola Co. and decided the matter in this behave.

After due consideration to the appeal and arguments, it can fairly be decided that the injunction cannot be sustained sand orders passed by the 2^nd Civil Judge and Honorable High Court in favour providing injunction will have to be set aside. Nothing in the present case shall be construed as or should be interpreted as suggestion or opinions but it should appear in the court for the final hearing of the mater, and that should be done on its own merits. The honourable Supreme Court agrees, acknowledges and reiterates the suggestion provided by the Honorable High Court to expedite the process. The Honorable Supreme Court heard the counsel and read the earlier order and decides to allow the appeal.