Short Note : It is no doubt true that in the written statement a plea about limitation has been raised but it appears that no issue about this plea was raised in the Court below and there is nothing to indicate that the appellants pressed for an issue on this question either in the trial Court or in the lower appellate Court. It is only for the first time before this Court that the question has been raised. It is also clear that this question has not been even raised specifically in the memo of appeal filed to this Court. Apparently, the issue involves determination of questions of fact which may need evidence by both the parties. Such an issue not having been pressed in the trial Court or in the lower appellate Court, it could not be disputed that it could not be raised for the first time specifically when that question having not been raised as a specific ground in the memo of appeal. Consequently, this contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. The appellants in this Court have submitted an application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By this application the appellants seek to amend their written statement by raising a further plea that they were in possession under a sale for an amount of Rs. 1,500 and therefore, want to set up a plea to defend their possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. They have also submitted a document purporting to be a document which shows that consideration of Rs. 1,500 was received by the vendor Nathu. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that this plea being raised after undue delay and is inconsistent with the original plea set up by the appellant-defendants which was a plea of sub-tenancy. A perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant-appellants goes to show that they had not only raised a plea of sub-tenancy but in the alternative have also raised a plea about adverse possession. What is sought by this amendment is that they entered into possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It could not be disputed that no question of limitation is involved. It also cannot be disputed that this would be a necessary question to be determined before a decree is passed against the appellants. What is sought by this amendment is that they entered into possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. It could not be disputed that no question of limitation is involved. It also cannot be disputed that this would be a necessary question to be determined before a decree is passed against the appellants. It is, no doubt, true that a plea precisely of the kind which is sought to be raised now was not raised in the trial Court initially. But it also cannot be said that this plea is absolutely inconsistent with the plea raised in the trial Court originally. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that amendments could not be allowed. At best it is delayed and the other side could be compensated by Cost. Appeal allowed.