JUDGMENT 1. Present petition has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below, by which, both the learned Courts below have been pleased to allow the application exh. 19 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011 by the respondent herein – original defendant directing the petitioner herein – original plaintiff to remove the compound wall and/or obstruction for passing and repassing and using the road. 2. Rule. Mr. Mokaria, learned advocate for the respondent, waives service of process of Rule. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein – original plaintiff is a trust, duly registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, running many educational institutions with hostel facilities. It is the case of the petitioner – plaintiff that the respondent – defendant has purchased the land bearing Block No. 1763, which is situated adjacent to the lands of the petitioner and the respondent has a general way to have access to his land, and not through the lands of the petitioner. The petitioner, to ensure safety and security, erected fencing in his lands against which, the respondent – defendant moved application before the Mamlatdar, praying for mandatory injunction against the petitioner for removing the fencing, which was granted. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Collector, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioner – plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction. In the said suit, the respondent – defendant filed application exh. 19 for counter injunction, which came to be allowed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara. Being aggrieved, the petitioner – plaintiff preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012, which also came to be rejected by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner – plaintiff has preferred the present petition challenging both the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Courts below. 4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. A. J. Patel, assisted by learned advocate Mr. A. B. Munshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. L. R. Mokaria for the respondent. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased his lands prior to 2003 whereas, the respondent has purchased his land in the year 2006 i.e. after the petitioner. A. J. Patel, assisted by learned advocate Mr. A. B. Munshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. L. R. Mokaria for the respondent. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has purchased his lands prior to 2003 whereas, the respondent has purchased his land in the year 2006 i.e. after the petitioner. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a trust, pioneer in the educational field and running hostels. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has put fencing in his land only with a view to provide better security and safety of the girl students, accommodated in the hostel as there is Naliya passing through nearby the said block number owned by the petitioner only. The said Naliya road ends midway of the land of the petitioner and does not approach the lands owned by the respondent. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the respondent has been, with some ulterior motive, harassing the petitioner institution demanding removal of the fencing erected by the petitioner alleging that the fencing is creating obstacle to the respondent to have access to his land in Block No. 1763, despite the fact that the respondent has no way to access from the lands of the petitioner and despite the fact that the respondent has purchased Block No. 1763 in the year 2006 knowingfully well that there is only a general way to access his block. 5.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that both the learned Courts below have erred in appreciating the principles governing grant of interim mandatory injunction. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not altered the position of its land. As per the Sale Deed, the respondent has a general way to access his land and hence, there is no substance in the say of the respondent of closing of access to his Block No. 1763. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not altered the position of its land. As per the Sale Deed, the respondent has a general way to access his land and hence, there is no substance in the say of the respondent of closing of access to his Block No. 1763. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that having purchased the land knowingfully well that he would have no access to the said land through the land of the petitioner and hence, he has no right to approach the Mamlatdar contending that fencing of the petitioner needs to be removed to have access to his land and facts and circumstances did not warrant issuance of mandatory interim injunction by the Mamlatdar. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate the documents viz. Hissa Form No. 4 as well as the Map prepared by DILR, so also the photographs showing the position of the lands. He submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that there is no prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the respondent nor would the respondent have suffered the irreparable loss if the mandatory injunction is not granted. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Others Vs. Khushunma Ibrahim & Others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 1099 . Eventually, the learned advocate for the petitioner has requested that the present petition may be allowed and the orders impugned in the present petition be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mokaria for the respondent has submitted that the respondent herein is an agriculturist, engaged in agricultural work. The learned advocate for the respondent herein has submitted that there are concurrent findings of Mamlatdar, confirmed by the Deputy Collector as well as both the learned Courts below and considering the said fact only, present petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that predecessor-in-title of the respondent, so also the respondents are having the right to access since more than 20 years and only with a view to harass the respondent, the petitioner herein has built the wall to restrain the access of the respondent. The learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that predecessor-in-title of the respondent, so also the respondents are having the right to access since more than 20 years and only with a view to harass the respondent, the petitioner herein has built the wall to restrain the access of the respondent. The learned advocate for the respondent has also submitted that the petitioner herein is a rich and influential institution whereas, the respondent is the poor agriculturist and though at every level, the plea of the petitioner herein has been turned down, only with a view to harass the respondent, the petitioner herein, is going on filing the frivolous litigations. The said fact is substantiated by the fact of application of the petitioner herein for withdrawal of the suit filed by it, after filing of Reply and putting on some facts on record by the respondent herein. Moreover, he submitted that the petitioner herein has suppressed this material fact of withdrawal of the suit. The learned advocate for the respondent herein has submitted that from this way, there is access to the Bhaily Road, which is the public road and by erecting wall, the petitioner herein has tried to take away the right of access to the said public road. Moreover, the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner is the rich and influential Trust and by filing such litigations and harassing the respondent herein, they want to get the land of the respondent herein sold out to the petitioner for their purpose. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the respondent relied upon decisions in Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati and Others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2180 and in Indian Cable Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, reported in AIR 1985 CALCUTTA 248. Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the respondent requested that this petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material produced on record. I have perused the orders impugned in the present petition. The learned trail Judge, in his order dated 29/10/2012, in Para 19 and 20, has observed that, ‘...there appears no alternative road to go to Block No. 1763. 7. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties and also perused the material produced on record. I have perused the orders impugned in the present petition. The learned trail Judge, in his order dated 29/10/2012, in Para 19 and 20, has observed that, ‘...there appears no alternative road to go to Block No. 1763. The plaintiff has, in the Reply to the counter claim filed by the defendant, averred that the defendant has alternative way, however, there does not appear any facts to the effect, from which side the said road is. Moreover, vide List, Mark 18 affidavits of Arvindbhai Kalidas Parmar, Dalpatbhai Karsanbhai, Dinesh Mohanbhai, Mikesh Manubhai, whose lands have been situated on the said ‘Naliya’, have been produced. Considering those affidavits, they substantiate the fact of there being a way, as said by the defendant and there is a way exist for more than 20 years and the owners of Block No. 1763 were using that way and there is no other way’. It is further observed in the said paragraph that, ‘...In the revenue record, the fact of having access to the lands of others to our land is being noted, however, the plaintiff has not produced any such material to show such a fact’. The learned trial Judge has further observed in the said paragraph that, ‘...Considering the Panchnama prepared by the Court Commissioner in the present case, it is specifically shown that, “opposite to the canteen of Navrachna School, on southern side, leaving the road, there exists a compound wall, in which, in the middle, there appears a new wall of approx 12 feet of east – west constructed of bricks on which, there is a plaster made by Sand and Cement...’. 7.1 I have also referred the said panchnama carried out by the Court Commissioner dated 26/11/2011, a copy of which has been supplied during the course of submissions and referring to the same, it is specifically observed while carrying out the said commission work that, there is no way existing to enter into the agricultural land of respondent – original defendant, more particularly, Block No. 1763. Referring to the order passed by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara dated 29/10/2012 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011, it also appears that the petitioner herein has applied with the Government to allot Naliya land to the petitioner which is situated on the southern side of Block No. 1758 and as the Revenue Department has informed the Collector that on the said Naliya land, the petitioner herein has illegally constructed the compound wall and closed the way over the said Naliya land, which is shown in the Map at page No. 29. Thus, it is clear that so far as the Government Naliya land situated on the southern side of Block No. 1758 is concerned, the same is not under dispute but the main submission of learned advocate for the petitioner is that referring to the Map at page No. 29, the said Government Naliya land situated in between Block No. 1762 and Block No. 1758 stops half way and does not go up to Block No. 1763 and hence, the respondent herein has no right at all, more particularly, because in Para 2 and 9 of the Registered Sale Deed related to Block No. 1763, executed between the respondent herein and the earlier owner of Block No. 1763, it is simply mentioned that the petitioner has purchased the said entire land of Block No. 1763 along with the rights attached to it and the same does not give any clue regarding specific right and hence, the respondent herein is not entitled to get any relief, more particularly, mandatory relief which has been sought for and granted by both the Courts below without recording the evidence and without considering the facts to be brought on record by the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to note that though it is the case of the petitioner herein that he has purchased the entire chunk of lands i.e. Block Nos. It is pertinent to note that though it is the case of the petitioner herein that he has purchased the entire chunk of lands i.e. Block Nos. 1762, 1758, 1759, 1756, 1755, 1757, 1764, 1774, 1745, 1724, shown in the Map at page No. 29 in the year 2003 and subsequently, the respondent – original defendant herein has purchased the land i.e. Block No. 1763 in the year 2006, in spite of that, the petitioner herein has not produced any Registered Sale Deed which has been executed in the year 2003, while purchasing the abovereferred lands by the petitioner and this omission on the part of the petitioner, as such, in my view, is against the petitioner and adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Moreover, as referred herein above, the petitioner has applied for allotment of Naliya land situated in between Block Nos. 1762 and 1758 and though the same has not been allotted, the petitioner has covered the said land and also blocked the said land as if the same has been granted/allotted to the petitioner and this action on the part of the petitioner appears highly deprecated more particularly because, according to the petitioner, it is a public trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and conducting Navrachna Education Society and as such, this conduct gives wrong signal to the students for whose benefit this education society is claiming that they are working for the welfare of the students. As discussed herein above, the petitioner has also filed the proceedings under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act and thereafter the said order has been challenged by the petitioner herein before the Deputy Collector who has confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar and in spite of that, suppressing the said material fact, the petitioner herein has preferred the civil suit in which the respondent – original defendant has filed counter injunction application in which the detailed order has been passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara dated 29/10/2012 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011 and I have carefully gone through the same and it appears that learned trial Judge has taken all pains while passing the said order and after examining at all fours, balanced order appears to have been passed which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court vide its order dated 25/03/2013, passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that while referring to the order dated 25/03/2013, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012 by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that learned Appellate Court has not discussed any issue and simply adopted the order passed by learned trial Court and thus, the Appellate Court has failed to discharge its duty. I find no force and substance in the said submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner. I have carefully gone through the order dated 25/03/2013, passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012 by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Vadodara and it appears that he has touched most of the relevant aspects and satisfied himself that the order passed by learned trial Court is not perverse and arbitrary and after getting the said satisfaction, he has passed the said order. It is well settled legal position that the appellate court while passing the order is not required to rewrite each and every aspect which has been referred by learned trial Court, but he has to consider the same and get satisfied by minutely perusing the same as to whether the said order is arbitrary or perverse or the same is just and proper, in accordance with law. 7.2 As referred hereinabove, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on a reported decision in Mohd. 7.2 As referred hereinabove, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on a reported decision in Mohd. Mehtab Khan & Others (supra). The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on Head Note [D] of the same, which reads as under: “Civil P. C. (5 of 1998), O. 39, R. 1 – Mandatory interim relief – Grant of – Requires highest degree of satisfaction of Court – Much higher than case involving grant of prohibitory injunction (para 14).” 7.3 I have carefully gone through the abovereferred decision and I am of the view that while passing the order dated 29/10/2012, by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below exh. 19 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011, the Court concerned has taken all the care and also received the highest degree of satisfaction and accordingly, the learned Judge has passed the mandatory order, as referred herein above and in my view, the trial Court has passed just and proper order, which has been confirmed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara by passing the order dated 25/03/2013 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012. Under the circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the above decision on which the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance, is as such, not helpful to the petitioner. 7.4 The learned advocate for the respondent – original defendant has placed reliance on a decision in Indian Cable Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sumitra Chakraborty, reported in AIR 1985 Calcutta 248. Head note [B] of the same reads as under. “(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 39, R.1 and R.2 INJUNCTION Mandatory injunction on interlocutory application Can be granted even if it results in granting relief claimed in suit. If a court is called upon to grant any relief on any interlocutory application which when granted would mean granting substantially the relief claimed in the suit, the court will be very slow and circumspect in the matter of granting any such prayer. It is indeed true that such a relief should be granted only in exceptional cases. Though exercise of such a discretion should be limited to rare and exceptional cases, still at the same time no court should think that in law there is any absolute bar to the court granting such a relief. It is indeed true that such a relief should be granted only in exceptional cases. Though exercise of such a discretion should be limited to rare and exceptional cases, still at the same time no court should think that in law there is any absolute bar to the court granting such a relief. In deserving cases, the court should not hesitate to come in aid of a litigant and uphold the cause of justice by granting such a relief. Case law discussed.” 7.5 Moreover, learned advocate for the respondent – original defendant has also placed reliance upon a decision in Jaskirat Datwani Vs. Vidyavati and Others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2180 . Head Note [B] of the same reads as under. “(B) Easements Act (5 of 1882), S. 35 EASEMENT DECLARATION OF TITLE Suit for declaration of title to suit property together with easementary rights and passages Construction of wall by defendants blocking right of ingress and egress to specified portion of property Appointment of Commissioner Suggestion made by him to provide passage for ingress and egress to disputed portion Interim order passed directing defendants to remove wall forthwith and permit access to plaintiff through main gate of property.” 7.6 I have carefully gone through the abovereferred legal position on which learned advocate for the respondent has placed reliance and in my view, the facts and ratio laid down in both the citations are squarely applicable to the case on hand, wherein it is observed that mandatory injunction on interlocutory application can be granted even if it results in granting the relief claimed in the suit and while exercising such powers, the Court should take care to the effect that said discretion should be exercised in exceptional case and in my view, the case on hand also falls in said exceptional category and accordingly, in my view, the trial Court has passed the balanced order, considering all fours, as discussed above. 7.7 As referred herein above, much has been argued by learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent herein has alternative way and as Naliya stopped half way and does not go up to Block No. 1763 of the defendant, mandatory injunction should not be granted. 7.7 As referred herein above, much has been argued by learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent herein has alternative way and as Naliya stopped half way and does not go up to Block No. 1763 of the defendant, mandatory injunction should not be granted. I find no force and substance in the above referred submission because as discussed herein above, initial burden of the petitioner to show that the respondent – original defendant has any other way except Naliya land has not been proved by the petitioner by producing cogent evidence to that effect. Moreover, referring to the Court Commissioner’s Report, it is clear that Naliya land referred herein above appears to have been closed by constructing new wall as narrated in the said Court Commissioner’s Report and the learned trial Court appears to have rightly observed that in spite of the fact that referring to Map at page No. 29 it can be said that said Naliya has not reached up to Block No. 1763, but then also, it cannot be said that from the dead end of that Naliya, there was no way to reach to Block No. 1763. 8. In the above backdrop, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below i.e. order dated 29/10/2012, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 1041 of 2011 and the order dated 25/03/2013, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2012. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Adinterim relief, if any, shall stand discharged forthwith. Further order: After pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. A. B. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the stay, which has been granted by this Court in this petition on 08/04/2013, may be extended for a further period of 08 weeks so that the petitioners herein can approach the higher forum. Mr. Lalji R. Mokaria, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has objected for the same. Considering the peculiar facts involved in the present petition, I do not find any reason to grant the request made by the learned advocate for the petitioners and hence, the said request is rejected.