Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

Three plaintiffs who are respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the present appeal, filed a suit being C.S. No.24 of 2010 against the appellant and respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 praying for the following reliefs:

a) Decree for declaration that the notice dated 24th November, 2009 and the notice dated 1st January, 2010 are illegal, null and void;

b) Decree for delivery up and cancellation of the notice dated 24th November, 2009 and the notice dated 1st January, 2010 and for the same be adjudged null and void;

c) Decree for declaration that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties for adjudication of any disputes and differences by the defendant No. 4;

d) Decree for declaration that the defendants are not entitled to proceed in arbitration as against the plaintiff;

e) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them from proceeding any further with the arbitration on the basis of the notice dated 24th November, 2009 and 1st January, 2010;

f) Decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and each one of them from taking any step or any further steps on the basis of the purported notice dated 24th November, 2009 and the notice dated 1st January, 2010;

g) Attachment before judgment;

h) Receiver;

i) Injunction;

j) Cost;

k) Further or other reliefs.

As usual, the plaintiffs took out an interlocutory application being G.A. No.379 in aid of the reliefs in the suit. By the interlocutory application, the plaintiffs, inter alia, had prayed for an order of injunction restraining the defendants in the Suit from taking any step or further step on the basis of the notice dated November 24, 2010, an order of injunction restraining the defendants Nos. to 3 from proceeding with the purported arbitration before the defendant No.4, an order of injunction directing the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 to disclose the purported arbitration agreement dated March 15, 2007. Initially, by an ex parte order dated February 11, 2010, the defendants were restrained from proceeding any further with the purported reference before the defendant No.4 and the said order further directed the defendants to produce the arbitration agreement. The interim order was extended thereafter from time to time, directions for affidavit were given and the original Memorandum of Understanding was directed to be kept on the record. Ultimately, by judgment and order dated July 16, 2010 the learned Trial Judge allowed the interlocutory application being G. A. No.379 of 2010 by restraining the first three defendants from acting in pursuance of the purported arbitration agreement contained in the Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 15, 2007 in any manner whatsoever. This order has been impugned in the present appeal. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present suit is necessary to be appreciated. Respondent No.1 is a transporter company under the control of the members of the Baheti family. It is in fact a fight between the brothers of the Baheti family. A dispute between the brothers led to a proceeding before the Company Law Board which ultimately was settled and the terms thereof were filed before the Company Law Board. The appellant herein claims that at the time of settlement three Memoranda of Understanding were signed between the respective parties. The first two Memoranda of Understanding by themselves do not pose much problem for the present purpose. The 3rd memorandum according to the appellant contained an arbitration clause.

The plaintiffs’ case was that by a notice dated November 24, 2009 an Advocate representing the defendants brothers invoked the arbitration clause for the settlement of certain disputes and claimed that this clause was incorporated in the 3rd Memorandum of Understanding, dated March 15, 2007. In the said letter the learned Advocate had delineated the subject matter of dispute which were to be resolved through the process of arbitration in terms of the Memorandu