Geronimo the alpaca will live to see another day as a High Court hearing where fresh evidence was to be heard has been postponed.
The alpaca has tested positive twice for bovine tuberculosis and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) ordered that he should be euthanised.
However, a top judge has agreed to listen to fresh evidence that he should be allowed to live.
Geronimo's owner Helen MacDonald, 50, has fought hard to overturn the ruling and the case has been in the spotlight with even celebrities fighting Geronimo's corner.
Protesters also demonstrated outside Downing Street last week after the Government said it was in the interests of preventing the spread of the disease that Geronimo should be put down.
On Tuesday, an urgent application for a temporary injunction to stop the enforcement of the destruction order was considered by Mrs Justice Stacey at the High Court.
However, the judge said she would need further information from Ms MacDonald and government lawyers before she could make her decision and said she will resume the hearing on Wednesday.
Ms MacDonald's lawyers told the court Geronimo first tested positive for bovine tuberculosis in September 2017 and has been in isolation since.
Catrin McGahey QC told the court that, although Defra argued in previous hearings that there was a "residual risk" to other animals, the agency also agreed that Ms MacDonald's bio-security arrangements are "impeccable."
She said it had come to light following the publicity for Geronimo's cause that other animals who have been subjected to the same testing regime as the alpaca had later showed no signs of the disease after being euthanised.
Ms McGahey said: "The only issue is whether the defendants should have disclosed the fact that they had in their possession evidence that other camelids who had been subjected to repeated priming had gone on to test positive in Enferplex tests, and that there had been no sign of bovine tuberculosis on post-mortem examination."
She said publicity had helped find owners of nine other camelids who were tested under the same regime, but who had showed no signs of the disease after they had been euthanised.
Ms McGahey said: "That information should have been before the two (previous) judges. We don't know if there are more than nine caemlids...what we do know is that Defra holds this information.
Ned Westaway for Defra and the Animal and Plant Health Agency said this was based on "speculation" in a newspaper article.
The judge said she would like Ms MacDonald's lawyers to decide what evidence they wish Defra to produce and a time estimate of how long that make take before she reaches her decision on whether to grant the injunction.
She said her decision will be made after another hearing on Wednesday afternoon.
