JUDGMENT : A.J. SHASTRI, J. 1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar waives service of admission on behalf of the contesting respondents. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present Appeal from Order is filed under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013. 3. The facts in brief out of which present Appeal from Order arises are that appellants - original plaintiffs claiming to be illiterate senior citizens and legal heirs of original owner of the said land. The father of the appellants, late Shanabhai Lallubhai Bariya was the owner of the said agricultural land which came to be in the share of appellants to the extent of 1/7 share each in the said land, upon demise of their father. Whereas, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 4, who had fraudulently and dishonestly obtained the said land through an illegal sale dated 18.01.2012 and respondents have started construction over the land in question and tried to create third party rights, and thereby, made an attempt to frustrate the legitimate rights of the appellants. 3.1. It is further the case of the appellants that one Gunvatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and Rajubhai Vithalbhai Patel met the appellants and represented to them that if the appellants want to sell the said land, they will pay premium on behalf of the appellants for converting land into old tenure land. The said persons took advantage of the appellants being ill-iterate who trusted them and dishonestly induced the appellants to give their thumb impression on the papers which turned out to be of payment of premium of conversion land from new tenure to old tenure land, on 20.11.2010. The said persons gave a cheque of Rs. 36 lakhs in the name of the appellant No. 3 towards security for providing them with the sale deed, for the purpose of facilitating alleged conversion of land into old tenure land and further with an assurance that balance amount of sale consideration would be paid to them within a period of one year. 3.2. 36 lakhs in the name of the appellant No. 3 towards security for providing them with the sale deed, for the purpose of facilitating alleged conversion of land into old tenure land and further with an assurance that balance amount of sale consideration would be paid to them within a period of one year. 3.2. It is the case of the appellants that no amount was paid to the appellants and ultimately, the said persons after obtaining thumb impression of the appellants fraudulently obtained power of attorney in their favour, with respect to rights over the said land. The fraudulent practice is very much reflecting from the contents of Memorandum of Understanding and the fact that respondents did not allow the appellants even encash the said amount of Rs. 36 lakhs. 3.3. Subsequently, as per the case of the appellants, the aforesaid persons executed a registered sale document on 19.01.2012, on the basis of fraudulent power of attorney, whereby the said land was allegedly transferred to respondents herein. The appellants were unaware about the said sale transaction and it is only when they received the summons of Special Civil Suit No. 385 of 2012 came to know which was filed by one Laxmanbhai Gadhvi and Rajeshbhai Shah seeking enforcement of alleged agreement to sell dated 03.04.2010 and the development agreement allegedly entered into by the appellants in their favour. In response to the said suit proceedings, below Exh. 5, an injunction application was sought against construction being carried out by respondents herein. The learned Judge was pleased to grant an order of status quo in favour of plaintiffs therein and being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present respondents have filed Appeal from Order i.e. Appeal from Order No. 477 of 2013 before this Court and vide order dated 20.01.2014, the Court was pleased to modify the order of status quo to the effect that respondents were permitted to complete the construction of suit property upon filing of an undertaking that in case the decree of specific performance being allowed in favour of the plaintiffs therein, they will not claim any right or compensation in lieu of such construction and the appeal came to be disposed of. 3.4. 3.4. It is further the case of the appellants that they came to know about the fact that respondents herein had filed an application dated 13.01.2012 for conversion of the said land into old tenure land upon payment of premium of Rs. 1,73,95,200/- since, the land was valued at Rs. 4,34,88,000/- as per the jantri rates. The permission for conversion of land into old tenure land was granted on 17.01.2012 and immediately thereafter on 19.01.2012, the sale document came to be executed. Since this has happened surreptitiously, the appellants filed a criminal complaint against the respondents before the concerned police authorities but no steps have been taken by the police authorities which has resulted into filing of a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, wherein the process was issued under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to the said complaint, a cross complaint also frivolously filed by the respondents and the proceedings are pending. Simultaneously, the appellants also filed present suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 163 of 2013 alongwith an injunction application against the construction as well as creation of third party rights by the respondents. It is in view of the fact that respondents have illegally sold the land by virtue of sale deed dated 19.01.2012 executed by respondents, and therefore, for setting aside the same also a prayer was made in the suit. It is categorically mentioned that appellants have not received any sale consideration towards the transaction, and therefore also, the sale deed dated 19.01.2012 be set aside. During pendency of the present suit, it appears that the respondents filed their reply and have submitted that an amount of Rs. 62,12,572/- was very much credited in the accounts of the appellants vide cheques dated 19.01.2012. The appellants appear to have encashed the amount in the month of March 2012 and it is also stated that towards the value of land to the extent of Rs. 4,34,88,000/-, the appellants allegedly paid only Rs. 62,12,572/- though the appellants owned 4/7th share in the land. The appellants did file a rejoinder controverting the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, but the learned Judge without assigning any cogent reason, passed an order on 06.03.2014 below Exh. 5, whereby the application Exh. 4,34,88,000/-, the appellants allegedly paid only Rs. 62,12,572/- though the appellants owned 4/7th share in the land. The appellants did file a rejoinder controverting the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, but the learned Judge without assigning any cogent reason, passed an order on 06.03.2014 below Exh. 5, whereby the application Exh. 5 came to be rejected vide order dated 06.03.2014 and it is this order is made the subject matter of present Appeal from Order. 4. The present Appeal from Order was entertained by the Court initially by issuance of notice on 06.05.2014, and thereafter, after pretty long period, it appears that by recording the statement of learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Bhatt an opportunity was given to produce the relevant bank statement to substantiate the submission that the appellants have not received the amount towards sale consideration though cheques were issued and thereafter, from time to time, after several orders, it has come up for consideration before this Court and finally on 03.07.2019, the same was put up for hearing before this Court. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vipin R. Sharma appearing for the appellants has submitted that a serious error is committed by the court below in passing the order particularly when the sale consideration itself is not received by the appellants and the appellants have been duped. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order, the learned Judge has not assigned proper reasons nor has examined the material at length, and therefore, the impugned exercise being laconic in nature, the same may not be allowed to be sustained. It has further been submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants - original plaintiffs that undisputedly the valuation of the land as per jantri rates was Rs. 4,34,88,000/- whereas even as per the say of respondents, the appellants have been allegedly paid of Rs. 62,12,572/- only. Additionally, the cheques which are mentioned in the sale deed dated 19.01.2012 were only for the namesake, in fact no consideration is passed on to the appellants, the entries produced by the respondents also do not indicate the amount of any nature being paid or credited in the bank account of the appellants. The said cheques were encashed by unlawful power of attorney holder of the appellants and the same have never been received by the appellants. The said cheques were encashed by unlawful power of attorney holder of the appellants and the same have never been received by the appellants. Even, the respondents have not produced adequate material documentary in nature that any sale consideration has been credited in the bank account of the appellants with respect to the transaction. In fact as per the provisions of Income Tax Act any amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/- if being paid by way of cheque, the same shall have an adequate record. Resultantly, even the respondents have not made out any case to dislodge the stand of the appellants. Learned advocate for the appellants has further submitted that while bringing the suit, the appellants have not joined the other co-owners since those co-owners have received full consideration and all these issues having not gone into. The very exercise of jurisdiction is thoroughly uncalled for, resultantly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. According to the learned advocate for the appellants, on the contrary, disadvantage is taken by the respondents of the appellants being illiterate and got all signatures by taking undue advantage. These material facts have not been considered by the court below, as a result of this, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. After hearing of the parties to the proceedings, it appears that originally notice was issued on 06.05.2014 by the Court, and thereafter, from time to time, after several orders, it has come up for consideration before this Court wherein learned advocates have been heard at length. In between, it appears that on 04.05.2016, an opportunity was given to the appellants as well as the respondents to furnish necessary material with regard to the bank accounts where the cheques have been sent for encashment but then with this background, the present appeal has come up for consideration. It appears that during the course of pendency of this proceedings right from 2014, some pleadings have been submitted in the form of affidavit-in-rejoinder and then the matter appears to have been contested. 7. With the aforesaid contentions, which have been raised by the learned advocate Mr. Vipin R. Sharma for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar appearing for the contesting respondents has vehemently contended that there is no error committed of any nature which would call for any interference. 7. With the aforesaid contentions, which have been raised by the learned advocate Mr. Vipin R. Sharma for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar appearing for the contesting respondents has vehemently contended that there is no error committed of any nature which would call for any interference. On the contrary, only with a view to encash some more amount, this attempt has been made by the appellants and same may not be encouraged in the eye of law. It has been submitted that one Bhupatbhai Parshotambhai Vithani opponent No. 3 herein who filed affidavit-in-reply and attention is drawn to the fact that dispute which has been raised is sham and vague. On the contrary, bank statements and certificates, which are issued by the bank authorities have clearly indicated that cheques have been cleared and a false plea is taken that appellants have not secured the amount, there appears to be a categorical assertion made in paragraph No. 5 of affidavit-in-reply on page 142 of the petition compilation wherein to support this stand, the bank certificate is also attached. The said document, which is written by the Branch Manager, Abhikram Complex Branch of the State Bank of India has clearly indicated that three cheques have been debited in the account bearing No. 66018225448. Yet another letter came to be received and produced alongwith affidavit-in-reply indicated that pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the High Court, a certificate is issued by the State Bank of India and authorized signatory which clearly indicates that the cheques were debited on 02.03.2012 and further over the land in question multi-storeyed flats have already erected which photographs have also been made part of Appeal from Order compilation from page 140 onwards, and therefore, this is nothing but a clear attempt on the part of the appellants to apply armed twisting method. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar appearing for the contesting respondents has further contended that the appellants herein though were fully aware about the transaction in question, have not taken prompt steps for a considerable long time, rather they waited for a convenient time to seek an injunction and allow the construction in the meantime to go-on. It further appears that the power of attorney holder Gunvatbhai has also not been joined and other co-owners so as to see that no truth can come out from their testimony. It further appears that the power of attorney holder Gunvatbhai has also not been joined and other co-owners so as to see that no truth can come out from their testimony. It has further been submitted by learned advocate for the contesting respondents that all the plaintiffs were confirming party to the deed and execution of power of attorney was also erroneously agitated. In fact, the prayers are also not with regard to such challenge to power of attorney or a confirmation deed, the Court Commissioner's report which has been submitted also indicated clearly the factum of construction made over the land in question. It has been further submitted that after almost a period of one year, the appellants have waited to seek the equitable relief, in fact, the power of attorney was of November 2010, the suit appears to have been filed in the year 2012, the revenue record was also mutated in the year 2012, and thereafter, in the month of March 2013, the suit came to be filed. Though having confirmed the deed by way of submitting confirmation and several people are residing actually over the multi-storeyed buildings which have been constructed, there is hardly any reason now to grant any equitable relief of injunction. 7.2. Learned advocate Mr. Amit V. Thakkar appearing for the contesting respondents has further submitted that ultimately what has been claimed is the share in the property which can be compensatory in terms of money so in absence of any prima facie case of balance of convenience, the irreparable loss aspect is also not in favour of the appellants, resultantly, no case is made out to call for any interference. As a result of this, learned advocate for the respondents has requested the Court to dismiss the Appeal from Order and has shown willingness that in a controversy like this if the suit is also to be expedited there shall be no objection of any nature to the appellants. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by the Court while considering the challenge made to the order. 8. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material placed on record, few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by the Court while considering the challenge made to the order. First of all, a bare reading of the impugned order itself would make it clear that it has been passed after considering every circumstance which is brought before the Court, and therefore, while exercising discretion proper application of mind is very much reflecting and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is appearing to be based upon critical examination and analysis of material, and therefore, ex facie the order cannot be said to be perverse in any form. 9. Yet another circumstance, which is not possible to be unnoticed by this Court is that there is a delay in approaching the Court seeking equitable relief of injunction from the day of filing of the suit no protection was given to the appellants and it appears that even while dealing with Exh. 5 application also, the appellants have not shown any due diligence and during passage of time, the property which has been developed is multi-storeyed flats, photographs thereof are on page 150 onwards of Civil Application compilation. Therefore, now at this stage of the proceedings when such huge construction has come up, several family members are residing there is hardly any reason to grant any equitable relief at a much belated stage. 10. Apart from that, it is settled position of law that prima facie case and prima facie title cannot be confused inter se, prima facie case will have to be examined during the course of adjudication of the suit and that evidently appears to be here in the present case on hand, there are allegations and counter allegations about the use of power of attorney, about the factum of consideration whether credited or not and simultaneously about the amount which is yet to be received are the issues which are required to be gone into at the time of trial of the suit. Further, here is the case, in which, as against the clear assertion that no amount has been received by the appellants that fact appears to be not so succinctly supported by any evidence at this stage of the proceedings, and as against that, a clear assertion contained in affidavit-in-reply in paragraph No. 5 in Civil Application No. 4903 of 2014 that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the bank has issued certificate and has clearly indicated that three cheques which are the subject matter of controversy have been debited in the account of respondents, meaning thereby, the same might have been realized in favour of the appellant. Now, this assertion of the appellants that no amount is received at all is not so confidently found to be correct in view of the certificates and letter issued by the State Bank of India reflecting from page 147 of the petition compilation onwards. 11. Yet another circumstance which also appears to be worth taking note of is that present appellants have executed power of attorney in favour of one Gunvatbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and the same was registered in the office of sub-registrar on 20.11.2010 which is part of the record. The said Gunvatbhai is not joined as a party whereas other co-owners have not disputed the transaction or sale in favour of the present respondents - defendants nor have disputed the receipt of the payment. In such a situation, when the other co-owners have not come out with any such plea like appellants, the stand of the appellants requires more scrutiny which can take place during the course of trial and prima facie it appears that consideration is passed on. 12. A further fact which is also not possible to be unnoticed is that the appellants as well as co-owners have executed a confirmation deed also in the month of February 2012 confirming the execution of a registered sale documents and receipt of sale consideration and this deed of confirmation is also registered before the office of sub Registrar Akota at Vadodara. This confirmation deed in which the person has identified filed the executant being Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai one of the family members of the appellant himself and when such is the situation the story put up by the appellants deserves to be put to close scrutiny and till that it cannot be said that the appellants have so confidently made out the case for at least injunction especially when huge construction has already come up and the family members are actually residing. 13. So far as criminal case is concerned, it appears that the summon has been issued under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same is pending so criminal case has also not attained finality in view of that when the stand of the appellants are confronted against the register deed as well as confirmation deed hardly it is a case for grant of injunction. On the contrary, the construction is already over to the substantial extent, 10th floors of multi-storeyed buildings have come up and this cannot come up overnight, and therefore, it is the appellants who themselves appear to have taken no vigilant steps resultantly, it cannot be said that a case of injunction is made out by the appellants. The detail affidavit-in-reply is well supported by documentary evidence including the certificate of the State Bank of India as well as the Bank of Baroda dated 26.06.2014 which is reflecting on page 29 alongwith affidavit-in-reply dated 15.07.2014. Yet another certificate of the State Bank of India is also reflecting on page 30 of the said reply towards Civil Application all these documents and the conjoint effect thereof who lead to a situation that the stand of the appellants at present not possible to be so confidently accepted. When that be so, the prima facie case even if attempted to be made requires a close scrutiny during adjudicating process. 14. The time which has been taken place has to the extent appears to have been utilized by the respondents to put up the construction and that construction which is reflecting in photograph is well supported by even the Court Commissioner's report as well. 14. The time which has been taken place has to the extent appears to have been utilized by the respondents to put up the construction and that construction which is reflecting in photograph is well supported by even the Court Commissioner's report as well. Further, from the bare reading of the reasons which are assigned by the Court below are also indicating that it is this appellants original plaintiffs with other co-owners have executed document mark 17/1 and then executed further banakaht as well as development agreement which have resulted into filing of one another suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 1998 which fact is also reflecting from mark 17/4. Subsequent thereto, the compromise deed has taken place which is also produced at mark 17/5 and then it appears that one another suit in the form of Special Civil Suit No. 506 of 2010 is filed against the co-owners for the purpose of partition and permanent injunction. In that suit, a withdrawal process has also been given on 07.04.2011 and the case came to be disposed of which is very much reflected from mark 17/7. Apart from that one kaboliyatnama is also registered dated 24.01.2012 produced at mark 17/8. So all these documents are indicating the fact that the present appellants appears to have consumed more than enough time in approaching the Court and for seeking equitable relief and the said utilization of time is not that the appellants were completely unaware about the things which are going on. Additionally, it also appears that full and final consideration is paid to all the co-owners and the execution of registered banakaht is rather admitted by the plaintiffs and the power of attorney holder has executed the said banakaht and though completely well within the knowledge deliberately said power of attorney holder is also not joined. It may be that, power of attorney might have done something but for which keeping this circumstance at this stage the relief of injunction cannot be sought by the appellants. The learned Judge has thoroughly examined every aspect and the documents and has also examined the effect of several suits which have been the subject matter of submissions by both the sides. The learned Judge has thoroughly examined every aspect and the documents and has also examined the effect of several suits which have been the subject matter of submissions by both the sides. The conjoint reading of material is quite clear that this is not a fit case in which any order of injunction is possible to be granted especially when there are several disputed version coming out from the pleadings which aspect requires a long drawn adjudication by the Court and as such keeping in view the proposition of law laid down by series of decisions, it appears that the learned Judge has rightly refused the relief of injunction requested by the appellants. 15. These are the aforesaid circumstances, which are clearly reflecting from the record, which necessitated the Court to consider as to whether in such a peculiar set of circumstances whether any interference is possible in the appellate jurisdiction. Now, for that consideration first of all the Court would like to emphasis that there is a clear distinction between prima facie case and prima facie title, the same cannot be confused, and therefore, here is the case in which an attempt is made by the appellants to indicate a prima facie case but that prima facie case is not reflecting from the aforesaid circumstance and yet that onus to be discharged by proving, and as such, if ultimately the appellants original plaintiffs succeed, they can be compensatory in terms of money looking to the grievance which is tried to be projected. 16. Apart from this, it further appears that at the stage of considering the interim relief issue, the merit is not to be evaluated or adjudicated at length since the trial is awaiting and as such keeping in view the proposition of law laid down on this issue that at this stage of interim relief no merit to be adjudicated at length. One of the Apex Court decision in the case of Prasar Bharati versus Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 614 is quite clear on this issue and since the Court has considered, the same is reproduced hereinafter: "2. We have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the respondents. One of the Apex Court decision in the case of Prasar Bharati versus Board of Control for Cricket in India and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 614 is quite clear on this issue and since the Court has considered, the same is reproduced hereinafter: "2. We have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the respondents. The first suggestion is with regard to setting up of an extra/special channel which has been contended by Prasar Bharati to be unviable and technically unfeasible within any reasonable period of time. Though an offer has been made on behalf of Respondent 4 to make available its expertise and personnel to aid the Prasar Bharati, we are not inclined to consider the said officer made on behalf of Respondent 4. The first suggestion put forward therefore does not merit acceptance. 3. Insofar as the second suggestion i.e. putting up a scroll to the effect that "the channel displaying the sports event (ICC World Cup 2015 matches concerned) is meant only for Doordarshan" has received our consideration. Acceptance of the said suggestion would be understanding the provisions of Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and Section 8 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 in a particular manner which is not warranted at this stage of the proceedings. We, therefore, decline to accept the said second suggestion advanced on behalf of the respondents. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the interim order passed earlier to the effect that the impugned order dated 4-2-2015 of the High Court shall remain suspended should continue until further orders. We order accordingly. However, in view of the importance of the matter, we direct that the special leave petitions be heard at an early date. List on a Tuesday in the month of July 2015. The parties may exchange pleadings, if required, in the meantime." 17. In the light of the aforesaid observations, additionally the Court is also of the opinion that here is the case in which prima facie on the contrary, converse case is established as can be seen from pleadings against the appellants but even assuming without admitting that even there is a prima facie case then also that solitary circumstance cannot entitle the appellants to seek an interim relief which is purely equitable in nature. Here is the case in which the receipt of consideration is prima facie supported by the bank certificate which were issued pursuant to the order of the Court apart from that there appears to be a gross delay of more than one year in approaching the Court, and thereafter, also over the period of time 10 multi-storeyed buildings have already come up and large number of families are actually residing at present. When that be so, the ultimate claim of the appellants can be compensatory in terms of money if the relief of injunction is considered at this stage. In such a situation, the same is in considered opinion of this Court would be nothing but seriously prejudice in the stand of either side especially when the adjudication of the main suit is at large before the Court, and therefore, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Aditya Birla's case, this Court is of the opinion that irrespective of prima facie case the other aspects of irreparable loss and balance of convenience not being in favour of the appellants, no relief of injunction can be granted as has rightly not been granted by the Court below. 18. Additionally, it also appears to the Court that at this stage, the Court cannot undertake a mini trial while considering the interlocutory application of injunction since here is the case in which in paragraph No. 8 cogent reasons are assigned by the Court below which are sufficient enough to sustain the refusal of injunction at this stage of the proceedings, and therefore, the order in question is not possible to be construed in any manner as perverse or suffers from any material irregularity. When that be so, looking to the scope contained under appellant jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to substitute the finding even if another view is possible. In a matter of injunction at the appellate stage what would be the scope is well analysed by the decisions of coordinate Bench as well as by the Apex Court in which it has been stated that unless and until there appears to be any perversity or material irregularity ordinarily the view taken by the Court below cannot be disturbed. In a matter of injunction at the appellate stage what would be the scope is well analysed by the decisions of coordinate Bench as well as by the Apex Court in which it has been stated that unless and until there appears to be any perversity or material irregularity ordinarily the view taken by the Court below cannot be disturbed. Few decisions which are in the mind of this Court, which are as follow: (i) In the case of Wander Limited versus Antox India Private Limited reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, the relevant observations contained in paragraph 9 are reproduced hereinafter: "(9) Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated "--Is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented 732 from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience lies. "the interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience lies. "the interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different form those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted." (ii) In the case of Matrix Telecom Pvt. Ltd. versus Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1951 , the relevant observations contained in paragraphs 6 and 6.1 are reproduced hereinafter: "6.0. Before proceeding further it is required to be noted that the present appeal is against the rejection of interim relief and the main suit is still pending. If this court elaborately deals with the matter on merits it is likely that the same would prejudice the case of either side. Therefore, it is well settled law that this Court is not required to go into the merits of the entire matter at this stage and what is required to be seen is whether the appellant plaintiff has made out a prima facie case or not for grant of interim injunction. 6.1. It is required to be noted that it is well settled law that the Appellate Court may not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. The Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by the court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion." 19. In the wake of aforesaid situation which is prevailing on record and in view of the aforesaid proposition of law, without much dwelling into merit and demerit of the case and opining with specific conclusion, the Court would like to see that instead of granting an injunction, the suit proceedings which are of 2013 deserves to be dealt with at the earliest, and therefore, without much analysing the case on merit, this Court would like to expedite the suit proceedings instead of interfering with an order of refusal of injunction. In considered opinion of this Court, the reasons assigned by the learned Judge at this stage of the proceedings are sufficient enough to indicate that no error is committed nor any case is made out by the appellants to call any interference. Hence, the appeal lacks on merit, accordingly, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, without disturbing the impugned order dated 06.03.2014 passed below Exh. 5, the appellants are permitted to approach the learned court concerned where the suit proceedings are pending for expeditious disposal of the suit and as and when such request is made, it is expected that learned Judge shall consider the same in the light of present set of circumstances and in view of the fact that suit is of more than 5 years old. It is further made it clear while parting with the present order, it is clarified by the Court that main suit proceeding shall be disposed of by the learned trial Judge as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by the observations which are made in the interim stage and the suit shall be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the material and the evidence which may be laid before him. 20. With these observations, present Appeal from Order is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21. 20. With these observations, present Appeal from Order is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21. In view of the order passed in Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and stands dismissed accordingly.