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