The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership and possession of the disputed land, as well as the claim of adverse possession, were crucial factors in determining the propriety of the injunction and the refusal to join the Collector, Rajkot as a party defendant.

ORDER :

1. Since both these petitions arise out of different orders passed by the Court in the same suit, they are proposed to be disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Special Civil Application No.15508 of 2013 is filed by the petitioners-defendants challenging an order passed below Exh.5 and 23 in Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2013 by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur dated 30.7.2013 whereby, Exh. 5 application came to be allowed and mandatory injunction was granted directing petitioners – defendants to remove the disputed constructed wall at their own cost and risk and to file affidavit to that effect before the Court and if they fail to do so, the plaintiff is authorized to remove the same at his cost and recover the same from the defendants. At the same time, by specific injunction order, petitioners – defendants were restrained from making any construction or creating any wall at the disputed site. At the same time, since the said order is also confirmed by the appellate Court rejecting Misc. Civil Appeal No.3 of 2013 by the Additional District Judge, Jetpur, petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging both the orders passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court.

3. By filing Special Civil Application No.15571 of 2013, the petitioners – defendants have challenged the order passed below Exh.16 in aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.21 of 2013 by Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur dated 30.7.2013 whereby request made by them to join the Collector, Rajkot as defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) as also under Section 151 of ‘the Code’, which came to be rejected.

4. Respondent – original plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Jetpur against the petitioners- defendants seeking declaration to the effect that, the defendants have no right, title or interest in erecting poles in their land in between the Court building and shopping center and they are obliged to remove the same. Plaintiff has further sought for a declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that, neither the defendants nor their servants, agents, etc. have any right to construct a wall on the northern side of a Court building and southern side of plaintiff's shopping center and to permanently restrain them putting up such construction, perpetual injunction thereof was claimed in the suit. At the time of filing the suit, the respondent – plaintiff applied for injunction vide Exh.5 application restraining defendants, their servants, agents, etc. not to construct or create any wall in between northern side of Court building and southern side of shopping center of the plaintiff. However, Court issued urgent show cause notice making it returnable after 3 days thereof i.e. 18.5.2013. On the day of filing of the suit and injunction application, respondent – plaintiff requested the Court to appoint the Court Commissioner to draw a panchnama and rough sketch of the suit property for the judicious disposal of the dispute between the parties vide an application Exh.6 on 15.5.2013 itself. The said application came to be granted and pursuant thereto, the Court Commissioner was appointed and he drew a panchnama on 16.5.2013, which bears signature of not only the plaintiff but of the defendant No.2 in the suit who appears to be one of the trustees of the family trust, which administers hospital entrusted by the State Government. The said panchnama drawn by the Court Commissioner along with map was produced vide Mark 9/1 and 9/2 before the Court. However, despite notice for the hearing of Exh.5 and drawing a panchnama is served and petitioners-defendants were aware of the suit, it is alleged that they constructed wall overnight obstructing easy ingress and outgress for the use of properties of the plaintiff, which they owned and possessed. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff had to apply again on