S.H. Vora, J.

1. The present Appeal from Order under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is preferred by the defendant No. 2 challenging the order dated 3-11-2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patan below application Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 2012 restraining the defendant No. 2 to erect any additional construction in addition to construction already been done and further, directed both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo position qua the suit property pending final disposal of the suit. No doubt, the present Appeal from Order is filed under the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code and challenge in this appeal is a discretionary order passed by the learned trial Judge under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. In case of Matrix Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2011(3) GLR 1951, this Court, in Paras 6 and 6.1, observed as under:

"6. 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 re-assess 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."

2. Similarly, in the case of Wonder Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1990 (Supp.) SCC 727, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 9 of the said decision, after considering the scope of Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code in an appeal wherein, the discretionary order passed by the learned trial Court is under challenge, observed as under:

"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 me corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented 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 inte