Judgment : 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Appeal from Order filed by the Appellants-Original Plaintiffs being aggrieved by order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai pending Motion as well as Suit whereby refused to grant any ad-interim relief. 3. Appeal against Order was filed in this Court on 28.10.2013. As liberty was granted, the Appellants moved the matter and the learned Vacation Judge has passed the following Order on 31.10.2013: “1. The fact that Civil Suit for specific performance of contract is pending, claims and counter-claims made before me at this stage cannot be considered when trial court is hearing the suit finally on 13 November 2013. 2. As this stage, respondent would not create third party interest in respect of the suit flat. 3. S.O. to 11 November 2013.” 4. The matter is listed before the Regular Court today. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the interim order so passed in Vacation to continue pending disposal of the motion at least, as the same is fixed tomorrow i.e. 13.11.2013. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent contended that this interim order passed in vacation amounts to granting final relief so far as the motion is concerned, as the learned Judge has directed the Respondent not to create third party interest in the suit property by observing that the hearing itself is fixed on 13.11.2013. Admittedly, the Notice of Motion is fixed on 13.11.2013 and not the suit itself. 5. The present Appeal from Order filed against the ad-interim order. As the motion itself is fixed on 13.11.2013, normally there is no reason to disturb the order already passed in vacation. Considering the effect and the order so passed though at ad-interim stage on 31.10.2013, it would amount to granting final relief so far as the motion is concerned. The Trial Judge refused to grant ad-interim relief. The learned Vacation Judge has granted the relief as recorded above. Therefore, the issue is that in such circumstances at the final stage of the hearing of the Appeal in question whether the Appellate Court can consider and/or reconsider the rival submissions so made by the parties. Admittedly, the suit as well as motion are pending for hearing. 6. The learned Vacation Judge has granted the relief as recorded above. Therefore, the issue is that in such circumstances at the final stage of the hearing of the Appeal in question whether the Appellate Court can consider and/or reconsider the rival submissions so made by the parties. Admittedly, the suit as well as motion are pending for hearing. 6. It is difficult to overlook that the learned Judge of the Trial Court in this background would be in a dilemma and/or difficulty to pass final order on the pending motion. Therefore, at this stage itself I am inclined to consider the basic case which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the ad-interim relief and/or injunction in a suit for specific performance, as prayed in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though detail events are not necessary, but admittedly the suit is filed for specific performance of the contract, basically revolving around the provisions of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (for short “MOFA Act') and the specific performance of the contract. Therefore, the prayers are made for injunction/interim protection, as contemplated under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 7. The basic requirement of any contract/agreement as contemplated under MOFA Act and/or any other Contract Act, is clearly description of the property/flat in question. The property description, the party and the price are normally the basic ingredients of such agreement and also necessary for granting such relief. However, at the same time it is relevant to note that the grant of specific performance and all related provisions are depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and specially at the end of the trial and/or at appropriate time of passing of decree. The learned Judge to exercise its discretion accordingly. 8. The Court, therefore, at this stage in a given facts and circumstances requires to consider whether the case is made out for grant of injunction in such a matter, based upon the agreement between the parties. In the present case, it is very clear that there is dispute with regard to the description of the property in question. Whatever may be the effect of such dispute, but this in my view goes to the root of the matter. In the present case, it is very clear that there is dispute with regard to the description of the property in question. Whatever may be the effect of such dispute, but this in my view goes to the root of the matter. If there is a dispute with regard to the actual area of the contract/agreement, the Plaintiffs themselves after discussion and correspondences elected/asked the Respondent-Builder to refund the amount. The existence of specific performance of contract is a matter of detail trial. The demanded amount was also refunded by deducting amount on the basis of terms of the agreement between the parties. Whether the deduction was right or wrong is again a matter of trial, but the effect in totality, at this stage is that the agreement itself is subject to the trial and evidence, required to be considered by the Court while granting discretionary relief of specific performance. 9. Both the parties are not willing to accept the basic terms and conditions of the contract in view of admitted correspondence referring to the refund of the amount and the related dispute. The Court still needs to consider the case of the Plaintiffs, in view of the provisions of MOFA Act. Mere agreement itself is not sufficient unless the description of the property is clearly mentioned and all other ingredients are also available. The property description, if not clear, merely because such agreement falls within the ambit of MOFA Act and more than 20% of the amount was deposited, that itself is not sufficient. 10. In this background, therefore, I see no case is made out by the Appellants for grant of ad-interim relief. These observations are made only to give an opportunity to both the parties as on 31.10.2013 the learned vacation Judge has passed order whereby directed not to create third party interest in the suit flat pending motion as well as suit. Now as the Notice of Motion is fixed on 13.11.2013 for hearing, I am inclined to observe that the learned Trial Judge to pass an order in accordance with law and record, uninfluenced by the order passed by the Vacation Judge and the observations made in this order. The interim order passed on 31.10.2013 stands vacated for the reasons recorded in above paragraphs. 11. Appeal from Order as well as Civil Application are disposed of. No costs. The interim order passed on 31.10.2013 stands vacated for the reasons recorded in above paragraphs. 11. Appeal from Order as well as Civil Application are disposed of. No costs. The Notice of Motion be heard and decided, preferably within four weeks. 12. At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants seeks stay of this order. Considering the observations made above, I see no case is made out for stay of this order. The request is therefore rejected.