JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed in IA No.6107/2018 and Ext.P11 order passed in RP No.36/2022 in OS No.342/2015 by the Court of the IInd Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff.

2. The background facts, leading to the impugned orders, relevant for the determination of the original petition are:

(i) The respondent has instituted Ext.P1 plaint against the petitioner for a decree of prohibitory injunction. The suit is resisted by the petitioner through Ext.P2 written statement.

(ii) At the instance of the respondent, an Advocate Commissioner has filed Ext.P3 report on 28.05.2015. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 objection to the report.

(iii) Long thereafter, on 05.09.2018 (that is almost three years and six months after the filing of Ext.P3 report), the respondent filed I.A.No.6107/2018 (Ext.P5) seeking leave to amend the plaint, to incorporate an additional relief for a decree of mandatory injunction to remove the structures seen in plaint 'B' schedule property. The application was opposed by the petitioner through Ext.P6 counter affidavit.

(iv) Without hearing both sides and overlooking the contenti