Amendment applications in civil proceedings must be substantiated by clear evidence, and courts will dismiss appeals lacking significant legal grounds.

This original petition is filed to set aside Ext.P11 order in I.A.14/2023, amendment petition, in O.S.No. 322/2010, in the files of Munsiff Court, Aluva, to the extent it permitted the reduction of the plaint schedule property and to dismiss Ext.P8 amendment application to that extent.

2. The petitioner is the 1^st defendant and the respondents are the first and second plaintiffs in O.S. 322 of 2020 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva. Ext.P1 suit was filed for injunction and partition of the plaint schedule property.

3. I.A. No. 1/2020, an application for ad-interim injunction, filed along with the suit which was allowed by the learned Munsiff, by order dated 30/9/2020, wherein the petitioner herein, who is the 1^st defendant, was restrained from making any obstruction, committing any waste and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties. Further, the petitioner was also restrained from destroying the cultivations in the plaint A schedule property.

4. The order of injunction was challenged and reversed in C.M.A. No. 28/2020 preferred by the 1^st defendant/petitioner, by Ext.P3 judgment, dated 1/01/2021, by the Additional District Court, North Paravur. Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiff’s challenged Ext.P3 before this Hon’ble Court by O.P.(C). No. 611/2021 wherein an interim order, Ext.P4 was passed, by which the parties were restrained from committing any waste in the property and the petitioner herein, was directed neither to take pits in the plaint C schedule property nor to damage its existing condition.

5. The 1^st respondent herein, then violated Ext.p4 order of this hon’ble court, and subsequently, the petitioner was constrained to file a commission application before this court as I.A.8/2021, which was allowed and the advocate commissioner had visited the property and by report dated 28.09.2021, it was made clear that the 1st respondent had violated Ext. p4 order, demolishing a motor shed in the property. It is stated that the respondent himself had admitted the same to the commissioner. Hence, a prosecution petition, Ext.P5 was filed by the petitioner against the violation of Ext.P4 order, by the first respondent herein, as I.A.1 of 2022 in O.P.(C) 611 of 2021, before this hon’ble court.

6. This Hon’ble court disposed of O.P.(C) 611 of 2021, by Ext.p6 judgment, setting aside Ext.P3 judgment, but by modifying the order of injunction passed by the learned Munsiff to the extent that, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the plaint schedule properties as reported in the commission report, dated 28.09.2021, and not to commit any waste therein. Also, Ext.P5 prosecution petition was relegated to the trial court to be disposed of on merits.

7. Thereafter, another commissioner was appointed along with a surveyor to conduct measurements of the property with the aid of title deeds and survey records. The commissioner filed a detailed report, Ext.P7 with sketches of the property. Before filing of Ext.P7, the respondents had filed a petition to get the plaint amended, as I.A.14 of 2023, as Ext.P8. It is the order in this I.A, Ext.p11, that is being challenged in this present O.P.(C), before this Hon’ble court.

8. Heard the counsels appearing for both sides.

9. According to the petitioner, since there was a violation of Ext.p4 Order and Ext.P5 is under consideration, the respondents have come up with the amendment application in order to make it appear that the violation had taken place outside the plaint schedule property and to wriggle out from the prosecution petition. The respondents filed Ext.P8, to get the plaint amended by reducing the extent of the plaint schedule property. The advocate commissioner has also found that the place where the motor shed