JUDGMENT 1. THE defendant No. I used to take close from Bharat Coking Coal Limited and supply the same to the defendant No 5, Durgapore Project Limited. The defendant No.1 had a cash credit account with the plaintiff Bank who advanced money in that account to the defendant No.1 for this business. The plaintiff Bank instituted the suit for recovery of its outstanding dues in the said account with the allegations hat the defendant No.1 had assigned, hypothecated or charged in favour of the plaintiff, the bills raised by the defendant No.1 on the defendant No.1 in respect of the price of coal supplied. The Defendant No.1 filed its written statement denying inter alia the allegations of charge or assignment of the bills. It was alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff Bank was the collecting agent in respect of the said bills but in breach of its duties, the plaintiff Bank did not take any step for realization of the bill amounts from the defendant No. 5 for liquidating the liability of the defendant No.1 in the said account. Instead the plaintiff went on charging high rate of interest causing serious loss and damages to the defendant No.1. In paragraph 23 of the said written statement, the defendant No. I reserved its right to institute a separate suit for damages against the Bank for the above loss. There was no prayer under order 2 rule 2 of the civil Procedure Code. 2. THE suit was partly heard before this application for amendment of the said written statement was taken out by the defendant No. 1. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are interested in the defendant no. 1. At the opening of the case the defendants Nos. 1to 3 admitted that the plaintiff Bank was an assignee in respect of the said bilk and as such no issue was framed on that point. All the parties proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff Bank was an assignee as stated above. In the present application, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement by deleting the allegations in the written statement denying the assignment. This prayer for amendment was resisted by the plaintiff. Mr. All the parties proceeded on the basis that the plaintiff Bank was an assignee as stated above. In the present application, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement by deleting the allegations in the written statement denying the assignment. This prayer for amendment was resisted by the plaintiff. Mr. Sankar ghose, Barrister-at-law appearing for the plaintiff submitted that averments in the original written statement regarding assignment were in the nature of "admission" in the pleading by the defendant No. 1 and deletion of such allegations would amount to retraction of those admission by the defendant no. 1 to the prejudice of the plaintiff and such amendment should never be allowed. He relied on certain authorities in support of his contention. But in view of the facts of this present case: where the petitioner has already abandoned its challenge to the allegation of assignment and all the parties have been proceeding on the basis of admitted position that the plaintiff is an assignee in respect of the said bills, I cannot: accept the submission of Mr. Ghose, the cases cited by him on this point are: not applicable on the facts and circumstances of this case and I refrain from dealing with the same. In my view, if the allegations regarding denial of assignment in the written statement are: allowed to remain, that would create serious complications in future and as such the amendments asked for should be allowed in the interests of justice. 3. ANOTHER amendment prayed, for in the petition is a claim for set off: in respect of the damage alleged to have been suffered by the defendant no. 1 on account of Banks alleged negligence or breach of duty to take immediate steps for recovery of the bill amounts. Mr. B. N. Sen, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that at least the petitioners' prayer for set off should be allowed and. he relied on A.I.R. 1925 Mad 228 Abdul Khader Binsatein Bashrabil vs. Fargi bin Ale bane moon) in support of his contention. In this case, the plaintiff had instituted a suit against the defendant for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. In the written statement it was alleged that the goods were not delivered and that the defendant would file a separate suit for damages for non-delivery. In this case, the plaintiff had instituted a suit against the defendant for recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered. In the written statement it was alleged that the goods were not delivered and that the defendant would file a separate suit for damages for non-delivery. Subsequently the defendant prayed for amendment of the written statement by claiming set off in respect of the said damages in extinction or diminution of plaintiffs claim in the suit. This prayer for amendment was resisted by the plaintiff. The trial Court disallowed both prayers for counter claim and set off. On appeal, the amendment for set off was allowed. It was held at page 229 : - "the learned Judge refused to allow them in counter claim, in respect of the mast and so far, they having taken a definite attitude about a separate suit, we think he was quite justified in doing so, if he was so minded, but we do not chink he ought to have precluded the defendants from the lesser remedy of treating their damages in respect of transaction about the mast as a set off against and by way of defence to the plaintiff's claim. " 4. MR. Sankar Ghose, submitted that the defendants claim for alleged damage was without any basis whatsoever. According to him the plaintiff. Bank did not take any legal steps for recovery of money because the petitioners requested the Bank not to do so. He relied on several correspondences annexed to the affidavit of the plaintiff. This is not the stage when court would go into the question of merit of the proposed amendments. If the amendment is allowed. the plaintiff will get full opportunity to resist the said claim at the hearing. At this stage, I am not concerned with the genuineness or falsity of the proposed amendments. The claim for alleged damages has already been mentioned in the original written statement and it cannot be said that it is a new case or a mala fide case set up at a late stage. I am inclined to allow this amendment provided the question of limitation raised, by mr. Ghose and Mr. R. L. Sinha, does not stand in the way. 5. ACCORDING to Mr. Ghose major portion of petitioners' claims for damages was barred by limitation. I am inclined to allow this amendment provided the question of limitation raised, by mr. Ghose and Mr. R. L. Sinha, does not stand in the way. 5. ACCORDING to Mr. Ghose major portion of petitioners' claims for damages was barred by limitation. The application for amendment was taken out beyond the period of three years from the dates of assignments of the bills. The petitioner should have instituted a suit on the alleged claim by 1. 6. 78. The alleged claim being time barred the proposed amendment should not be allowed unless there is a special circumstance for allowing such amendment mr. B. N. Sen submitted that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for the interest of justice the amendments should be allowed so that all disputes between the parties could be decided once for all. the Court has full jurisdiction to allow amendment inspite of the question of limitation for the ends of justice. In support, he relied on A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 357 paragraph 16 (L. J. Leach and Co. vs. Messrs Jardine Skimer.) "it is no doubt true that Counts would, as a. rule, decline to allow amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the date of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affect the power of the Court to order if that is required in the interest of justice. " 6. MR. Sen also relied on 19 CWN 1183 (Ramdhari Singh vs. Permanand)in support of his contention that time barred debt can be claimed by way of equitable set off. The question of limitation would not stand in the way. At page 1186 of this report, the Division bench of this Court held: "it is contended, however, that as the government revenue was paid on the 28. 3. 1905 and this suit was not filed until the 6th February 1909, the claim on this bead was barred by limitation and could not be claimed by way of set off, as it was not legally recoverable. We are of opinion, however, that the amount paid can be claimed A time barred debt may be claimed by way of equitable set off. We are of opinion, however, that the amount paid can be claimed A time barred debt may be claimed by way of equitable set off. " The Division Bench in that case had relied on 2 M. H. C. R. 296 (Clerke vs. Ruthnavalee) as will appear from page 1187 of the report : - "that the right of set off exists not only in cases of mutual debits and credits, but also where cross demands arise out of the same transaction or are so connected in their nature and circumstances as to make it inequitable that the plaintiff should recover and the defendant be driven to a cross suit, and, which have been followed in numerous cases, should be followed in the present case. " 7. MR. Ghose submitted that 17 CWN 1060, kalanand. v. ghr is not a good law after the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code. In support he relied on order VIII rule 6 A of the amended Code. I have carefully compared the old and the amended Act. No change has been effected regarding set off. Amended sub-rule 6a relates to a counter claim and not to a claim for set off which is order VIII rule 6 sub-rule (2) and has not been amended at all. In view of this, I am unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Ghose on this point. I accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that it would be inequitable to allow the plaintiff to recover and drive the petitioners to a regular suit for recovery of their claims alleged in the original written statement and in the present petition. The plea of limitation is not a bar where the time barred debt is claimed by way of set off and as such this amendment should be allowed in the interest of justice. But the petitioners will not be entitled to make any counter claim in the present suit in respect of the alleged damages suffered by them. 8. THERE will be orders in term of prayer (a) of the petition save that the proposed amendments in paragraph 28 are disallowed. It is also directed that wherever the words "counter claims" appear in the amendments allowed, such words to be struck out while effecting the amendments. 8. THERE will be orders in term of prayer (a) of the petition save that the proposed amendments in paragraph 28 are disallowed. It is also directed that wherever the words "counter claims" appear in the amendments allowed, such words to be struck out while effecting the amendments. The amendments to be carried out within a fortnight from reopening after the Christmas Vacation and the amended written statement to be re-verified by the petitioners. The petitioners "are directed to pay the Court fees on the basis of claim for set off and such payment to be made within a fortnight from the date of reopening. A copy of the amended written statement to be served on the plaintiff within a week from the date of amendment and reverification which should be completed within a fortnight from the date of reopening. The plaintiff will be entitled to file additional written statement, if any, dealing with the amendments only, within 15 days from the date of service of the amended written statement. Cross order of discovery within 10 days from the date of filing of the additional written statement, inspection within a week thereafter and the suit is appear in the list as a part heard suits on 19th March 1979. The petitioner will pay- the costs of this application to the plaintiff and the appearing defendant.