JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Ghazipur dated 6.12.2001? whereby the amendment application of the respondent no.2 has been allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.2 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge for restraining the petitioner from interfering in their possession. They also filed an application? 6-C under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC. The application 6-C of the plaintiff was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.4.1990. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial court the respondent no.2 filed a Misc. Appeal before the learned District Judge which was registered as Appeal No. 85 of 1990. In the said Misc. Appeal the respondent no.2 moved an application under order Order VI Rule 17 for amendment in the memo of appeal wherein the word 12 C which was an application for appointment of a receiver was omitted. The petitioner had filed an objection against the amendment application under order VI Rule 17 CPC inter alia on the ground that the amendment was beyond time and it would change the nature of the suit. 3. Learned District Judge after considering the application and objection by means of impugned order allowed the amendment application in favour of respondent no.2 with cost of Rs. 50/- . Dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment application was wholly misconceived and it was beyond time prescribed under the Limitation Act as there was a delay of eleven years and could change the nature of the suit . He submits that 12 C application for appointment of receiver was already rejected by the trial court and that order was not challenged by the respondent no.1, therefore the application for amendment was misconceived. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha submits that the application 6-C and 12-C both were disposed of by the trial court by a common judgment as such the appeal was filed against the said order. He further submits that in the application (12-C) inadvertantly word 12-C was omitted from the ground of appeal and as such it necessitated to file an amendment application to add 12-C in the memo of appeal and a ground also. 6. He further submits that in the application (12-C) inadvertantly word 12-C was omitted from the ground of appeal and as such it necessitated to file an amendment application to add 12-C in the memo of appeal and a ground also. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 7. Before the appellate court the plaintiff had moved application for amendment only in respect of adding a ground of appeal. I have perused the amendment application and the ground which the respondent no.2 intended to incorporate in the ground of appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy the Court that what prejudice would be caused to the defendant in case the ground of appeal is amended. A bare perusal of the amendment application would indicate that neither it was changing the nature of the suit nor it was beyond time as the plaintiff had separately moved an application 12-C for appointment of a receiver in the trial court itself. 8. It is trite law that appointment of the receiver can be made by the court below on the principles of order XL CPC by the said amendment no prejudice would be caused as the court will consider the matter on the merit of the case. 9. In any view of the matter this writ petition is pending for the last more than ten years and the suit is also pending before the trial court. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case it is expected from the trial court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible but not later than one year from the date of communciation of this order. Both the parties agree that they will only seek only unavoidable adjournments. The trial court shall also keep in mind the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249 at pg. 268. 11. With the aforesaid observations and order, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 12. No order as to costs.