Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard Sri Anjani Kumar Singh holding brief of Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri J. Nagar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prateek J. Nagar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. Present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge/Session Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasi in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2016 (Firm Swastik Plaza through its Parters v. Satyapal Singh and another).

3. By the impugned order the application paper No. 54-Ka filed by the revisionist under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected. Though the amendment application itself a counterclaim was also sought to be included by the defendant-revisionist (hereinafter referred to as the defendant). The counterclaim was rejected on the ground that it is a time barred claim and has been filed through the amendment application, which has been filed after the evidence of DW-1 is over. It was further observed that the amendment sought are not necessary for the disposal of the case.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the yardstick for allowing amendment in written statement is different and a more liberal approach is to be adopted while allowing amendment in the written statement; the amendment can be allowed at any stage and the amendment so sought only elaborates or explains the contents of the written statements only and therefore, is liable to be allowed; the lawyer was intimated about the pleadings that are sought to be included, however, the lawyer has committed fault in not including the same at the time of filing the written statement; by means of amendment a prayer for counterclaim is being sought to be added, which is based on the factual assertions already made in the written statement and such counterclaim is not being suddenly added and as a matter of fact the same is also existing in the written statement; the delay cannot be the ground for rejecting the amendment or the counterclaim; the counterclaim is as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6 A to G CPC and therefore, is liable to be allowed; the Court below has wrongly noted that the evidence is closed; the issues have not been framed and due to non-framing of the issues the issue of counterclaim could not be placed predominantly as an issue is to be decided in the said list; and lastly, it was submitted that the law as relied on by the Court below is not applicable in the present case.

5. In support of his argument learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on judgments in the cases of Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya and another v. Sunil Pannalal Agrawal and others, 2015 (1) AIR Bom R 427, Pankaja and others v. Yellappa (D) by Lrs. and others, 2004 (6) SCC 415, Sharad Dinkar Padalkar and others v. Sugandha Balasaheb Jadhav and others, 2014 (1) ABR 107, Usha Balashaheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 (5) SCC 602, Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and others, 2009 (10) SCC 434, Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and others, 2006 (6) SCC 498 and Vijay Prakash Jarath v. Tej Prakash Jarath, 2016 (11) SCC 800.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties has supported the impugned order and submitted that the rent is due from March, 2014 and the limitation has to be taken latest by March, 2014 on which date he got the possession and came to know about the alleged shortcoming of the buildings and allegedly carried out necessary changes; in paragraph 9 of the plaint it has been clearly stated that the provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable and no amendment has been sought in paragraph 9 of the written statement, wherein this fact has not been disputed; mistake of a counsel cannot be the ground for seeking time barred or belated amendment or seeking belated counterclaim; even in the counterclaim that is being sought by means of the amendment two dates have been given namely 4.3.2010 an