JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P12 order passed in I.A No.7/2022 in O.S No.64/2022 by the Court of the Munsiff, Peermade, the third defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit.

2. The relevant antecedent facts leading to Ext.P12 order are:

(i) The first respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3, seeking a decree of injunction, to restrain them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property and destroying any boundary marks and obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of the property.

(ii) Along with the suit, the first respondent filed I.A No.2/2022 and Ext.P2 order of temporary injunction was passed.

(iii) Ext.P3 is the commission report and sketch filed in the suit.

(iv) The petitioner has also filed O.S No.56/2022 before the same court, against the first respondent, for a decree of injunction. The first respondent has resisted the suit through Ext.P5 written statement.

(v) The first respondent amended the plaint by incorporating an averment that the plaint schedule property is situated in Manjumala village instead of Peermade village.

(vi) I