SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

1. This is one of the rare appeals that has had to be heard and dealt with without reference to the respondents since the respondents had no right of audience at the stage that the order impugned was passed on July 24, 2017 in course of the trial court considering the appellants' prayer for granting leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The leave sought was declined on the ground that the court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the suit; not on the ground of territoriality but in view of an express prohibition on civil courts by a statute.

2. The appellants or their predecessor-in-interest had obtained credit facilities from a bank or financial institution. Pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the appellants and the concerned financial institution or its successor-in-interest, the respondent Trust, a substantial payment is said to have been made by the appellants to the Trust. According to the case made out in the plaint, in lieu of the balance amount due, the appellants agreed to issue shares in one or more of them in favour of the Trust together with a buy-back agreement simultaneously executed as the issuance of the shares. It i