J U D G M E N T

Notice to the 1st respondent is returned with the endorsement that the house is closed. Since it is seen from paragraph 3 of the order under challenge that only respondents 2 and 3/defendants 4 and 5 filed objection to the application for amendment, I do not find it necessary to repeat notice to the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 are served. The 3rd respondent has appeared through counsel.

2. Challenge is to Ext.P8, order dated 10.12.2012 on I.A.

No.2214 of 2012 in O.S. No.24 of 1997 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara.

3. Petitioner filed the suit for declaration of the title claimed by her over item No.1 of the plaint schedule and for recovery of possession of item No.2, described as one cent towards western portion of item No.1. Respondents and other defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The suit was dismissed against which petitioner filed appeal. The appeal was allowed by way of remand. After remand, petitioner took steps to identify the property. The Advocate Commissioner identified the property and submitted report and plan. Then it was reveled that the entire item No.1 is in the possession of the respondents and other defendants. Petitioner file