Pankaj Mithal,J.:- Heard Sri Dharmendra Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.S. Rai, who has appeared for the respondent no.1. 2. The application of the plaintiff-respondents for amending the plaint was allowed by the court of first instance and the revision against the same has been dismissed. 3. The two orders have been impugned in this writ petition. 4. The order allowing the amendment in the plaint can be attacked by the petitioner, if necessary, after the decision of the suit if the occasion arises for filing an appeal. 5. Allowing the amendment causes no prejudice to the petitioner in as much as he has right to file additional written statement to controvert the allegations added by means of amendment. 6. In view of the above, at this interlocutory stage I do not consider it a fit to exercise any jurisdiction in the mater. 7. The writ petition is dismissed with the expectation that the court concern shall proceed and decide the suit which is pending since 1993 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. ______________