JUDGMENT Narayan Shukla,J. - Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. P.V.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.P.Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has raised objection against the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad is revisable under section 115 of the CPC, whereas in the light of the decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prem Bakshi and others Vs. Dharma Dev and others 2002 (20) LCD 529 and keeping in view the facts of the present case I am of the view that the said order is not revisable. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is hereby over ruled and I proceed to decide the case on merit. 4. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad i.e. opposite party no.1, whereby the application for amendment moved by the opposite party no.2/plaintiff has been allowed at the costs of Rs. 1000/-. 5. The opposite party no.2 filed a suit for possession over the house in question, which has been registered as Original Suit No. 40/1981, whereas the petitioner claims his forceful possession over the same since 1979. He also filed a written statement in 1982 in the suit. The opposite party no.2 claims that the plaintiff purchased that very house from one Maheshchandra through execution of sale deed dated 4th December, 1978, but since the house was in dilapidated condition, the petitioner/defendant took forceful possession of the same. He further claims that one Abdulgani who was the owner of the portion of land/house in dispute which lies in Nazul land (plot no. 4046) claim his right over whole area of that very plot but the the plaintiff included some portion of Nazul land (plot no. 4046) in his land whereas subsequently the defendant purchased the same and got it declared free hold in his favour. 4046) claim his right over whole area of that very plot but the the plaintiff included some portion of Nazul land (plot no. 4046) in his land whereas subsequently the defendant purchased the same and got it declared free hold in his favour. The opposite party no.2 was very well aware with the proceeding of the nazul land to declare free hold as he hotly contested the said application, his objection did not sustain and the land in dispute was declared free hold in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the sale deed was also executed in his favour on 28.6.1999 by the Nazool Department. Thus it has been submitted by the petitioner that being well aware of the proceedings of free hold since before 1981 itself the opposite party no.2 did not come forward to make necessary amendment in the present suit pending since 1981 but now in 2010 i.e. after ten years as much belated stage of suit he has moved the said application which is barred by time. Though there is no specific prayer for cancellation of the order for declaration of the free hold land but in the pleadings of the plaint, it is stated that the same is void as it does not specify the boundary and area of free hold land, the trial court even has observed that opposite party no.2 was well aware with the proceeding of declaration of free hold land in favour of the petitioner. It has also been observed that since the amendment does not change the nature of suit, the trial court has allowed the application for amendment with costs. 6. Through the counter affidavit the opposite party no.2 has submitted that it is delaying tactics of the petitioner as in 1997 the suit was decreed ex parte but later on, the decree was set aside on the request of the petitioner. 6. Through the counter affidavit the opposite party no.2 has submitted that it is delaying tactics of the petitioner as in 1997 the suit was decreed ex parte but later on, the decree was set aside on the request of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the suit is pending since 1981 and the opposite party no.2 was well aware with the order passed in favour of the petitioner declaring the land in dispute as free hold, in which he had filed objection but did not succeed in 1997, accordingly the application for amendment has been moved by him after 11 years even if it does not change the nature of the suit may be explanatory in nature but on the point of limitation, the opposite party no.2 has failed to reasonably explain the delay in filing the said application. 7. Therefore , I am of the view that the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faizabad suffers from error and is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.