The court upheld the principle that a mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction and can be granted even if it results in granting the relief claimed in the suit.

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. 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 th