JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 14.8.1989 passed by the trial court rejecting application of the petitioners for amendment of the written statement, filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The plaintiff non- petitioner filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioners. The petitioners filed written statement and submitted that the rate of rent was initially Rs. 300/- per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 415/-. It was further stated that on 1.12.1979 by agreement, the rent was to be reduced to ⅕th as the petitioners had handed over the garage portion of the property to the land lord plaintiff but the plaintiff did not reduce the rent by Rs. 83/. The petitioners along with the written statement also submitted a court fee of Rs. 10/- which was affixed and meant for determination of the standard rent but by inadvertence, a specific plea of standard rent could not be taken in the written statement though the court fees had been submitted. By way of application for amendment and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. the defendants want to take the plea that the standard rent of the disputed premises could be fixed in this very suit as they had already paid the required court fees and certain other amendments are not relevant for the purpose of this order as learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed those amendments on other aspects. Learned trial court dismissed the application for amendment of written statement because in the original written statement there was no mention about fixation of standard rent and also for the reason that the amendment does not arise out of some new evidence or subsequent cent and it amounts to putting up a new case and that the amendment is not necessary for the proper disposal of the suit. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed. Plaintiff non-petitioner had filed a Caveat, copy of the revision petition was supplied to him and arguments have been heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners his played reliance on A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd v. Damodar Volley Corporation ( AIR 1967 SC 96 ) and Haridas Aildas Thadani & ors. Plaintiff non-petitioner had filed a Caveat, copy of the revision petition was supplied to him and arguments have been heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners his played reliance on A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd v. Damodar Volley Corporation ( AIR 1967 SC 96 ) and Haridas Aildas Thadani & ors. v. Godrej Rustom Kermani (AIR 1981 SC 319) and has submitted that the courts should be lenient while allowing amendment sought for does not amount to putting up a new case. He has further submitted that the amendment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits and further that if the suit is decided without allowing the amendment sought for by the defendants, they will not be entitled to file a flesh suit for fixation of standard rent and it would be of no avail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that the present application for amendment is not bona fide and has been filed at a very belated stage and the case is already fixed for arguments. Moreover, the petitioners can file a separate suit for fixation of standard rent. 4. I have carefully gone through the order of the lower court and have considered the submissions made at bar. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially that the petitioners had submitted court fees of Rs. 10/- along with the written statement which is sufficient for making a prayer for fixation of standard rent; that the facts which are necessary for fixation of standard rent have also been mentioned, and it was by inadvertence that they failed to take a specific plea regarding fixation of standard rent, the amendment deserves to be allowed. The parties should not be penalised and punished for the mistake of their counsel. If the amendment sought for is refused, the defendants will have no remedy and it will be futile to file a separate suit for fixation of standard rent once the present suit is decided. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits to allow the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. 5. Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice and to avoid multiplicity of suits to allow the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. 5. In the result, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 14.8.1989 passed by the trial court is set aside and the defendants are allowed to amend their written statement by adding the specific plea for fixation of standard rent. The defendants are allowed time upto 30.9.1989 to file the amended written statement. Since the suit is pending for a long time, the trial court is directed to expedite the hearing.No order as to costs.Revision allowed. *******