As per case facts, a partnership firm was established, and CIDCO showed willingness to allot land to original owners. An agreement to transfer land was made, followed by an MOU ... in favor of the Plaintiffs' firm. Plaintiffs paid substantial amounts to defendants over several years. Later, original owners executed a tripartite agreement with CIDCO and other defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking specific performance and mandatory injunction. The Trial Court rejected the Plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction, stating a failure to prove rights. The question arose whether the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for interim injunction despite the Trial Court's findings and a subsequent tripartite agreement involving other parties. Finally, the High Court quashed the Trial Court's order, finding that the Plaintiffs had made out a clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, based on the substantial payments made and the questionable conduct of the defendants, thereby continuing the status quo order.