ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Leaned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent No.3.

2. By way of preferring this petition, present petitioner who is the original plaintiff before the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.26 of 2011, has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned 7th Additional Civil Judge, Palanpur below application Exh.41 preferred by the present petitioner under Order 26 Rule 9 as well as Order 39 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Short facts of the present case may be referred as under: The plaintiff purchased the suit property through power of attorney holder of Mr. Kantilal Jangamal Vaghela and Ms. Valiben Kantilal Vaghela by registered sale deed No.23 on 02.01.2002. Name of the plaintiff was recorded in revenue records vide M.E. No.16895 and since year- 2002, he was in peaceful possession of the suit land. In the year-2003, plaintiff filed a Regular Civil Suit No.324 of 2003 against Mr. Kantilal Jangamal Vaghela and Ms. Valiben Kantilal Vaghela before the Civil Court, Palanpur for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff filed an application for interim injunction below Exh.5 praying to restrain the defendants from putting up any construction on the suit land and to demolish the constructions of Ordi put up by the defendants over the suit land. Learned Civil Judge, Palanpr, vide order dated 15.12.2004, was pleased to allow the application Exh.5 directing the defendants therein from putting up any construction in the suit land. The suit was decided by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur vide order dated 13.08.2007 in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner directing the defendants not to put up any construction on the suit land and to demolish the wall constructed on the suit land. The court observed that power of attorney dated 01.01.2002 executed by Mr. Kantilal Jangamal Vaghela and Ms. Valiben Kantilal Vaghela in favour of Mr. Bhikhabhai Virchandbhai Panchal was neither challenged nor any evidence was produced to establish that the said power of attorney was forged, and therefore, the power of attorney dated 01.01.2002 was genuine one. However, suit land was already sold in favour of the plaintiff and decree was passed in his favour, They said Mr. Kantilal Jangamal Vaghela and Ms. Valiben Kantilal Vaghela sold the suit property in favour of the respondent No.1 by registered sale deed No.3645, which was entered in the revenue record on 15.10.2009. Again on 07.01.2010, respondent No.1 sold the suit property to respondent No.2 by registered sale deed No.138 and entry was made in the revenue record on 16.01.2010. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid entry before the learned Deputy Collector in R.T.S. Appeal No.228 of 2010. Again on 05.02.2011, the suit property was sold to respondent No.3 by respondent No.2 by executing registered sale deed No.731. On 09.02.2011, plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.26 of 2011 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 restraining for demolition of construction, permanent injunction and not to disturb the possession of the plaintiff by defendants. Plaintiff also filed an application below Exh.6 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for appointment of Court Commissioner and for drawing panchnama of the suit land. The learned trial court was pleased to allow the application Exh. 6 vide order dated 21.02.2011 and court commissioner carried out the panchnama on 26.02.2011.Court Commissioner also submitted his report on 28.02.2011 stating that there is construction of walls and pillars in the suit land and construction activity is going on. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Palanpur was pleased to pass an order to maintain status quo of the suit land as existed at the time of drawing the panchnama on 31.03.2011. The plaintiff filed a