impugned order is primarily on two grounds, firstly, that no specific finding has been recorded by the Learned Judge whether the agreement dated 27th October, 1994 is an agreement for development or is an agreement for sale. This finding was essential particularly in view of the fact that another Bench of the Court vide its order dated 25th February, 2008 had recorded a finding that it was an agreement for sale. Thus, the findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge are unsustainable and liable for interference. Secondly, it is contended that the statement made should have been continued and in face of that statement the Appellants were entitled to grant of interim orders. Meeting these two submissions, Counsel appearing for the Respondents contended that a prima facie view has been taken, that the Learned Judge has not recorded any finding or prima facie finding in relation to the breaches stated to have been committed by the Appellant as alleged by the Respondent and the mere delay of nine years was sufficient to decline the interim order. Further it is stated while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. - 1990 (Suppp) SCC 727 that the discretion exercised by the Learned Judge should not be
