JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.1995 passed by Smt. Renu Sharma, Second A.D.J. Morena. Briefly narrated the facts are that a suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 69,057.40 with interest against the petitioner and respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioner was the partner of respondent No.2 and had borrowed a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. An agreement was executed in that regard on 12.2.88. Written statement was submitted contesting the claim. The pleas raised in the written statement are not very much relevant for the disposal of the present petition except paragraph 16 to which reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and which shall be mentioned hereinafter. Evidence of the plaintiff had started and during the evidence of the plaintiff an application under 0.6 R. 17 C.P.C. was moved by the defendant whereby he claimed that the plaintiff owed a sum of Rs. 82,390/- to the defendant which was recoverable from the plaintiff. He, therefore, wanted to add paragraphs 18 and 19 in his written statement. That application has been rejected by the impugned order. The parties have been heard on merits of the revision petition at this initial stage. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the defendant/revisionist had already mentioned about the facts relating to the amendment in paragraph 16 of the written statement. The defendant now wants to take the plea of set off as he can raise this plea under the law. The learned trial Court has thus acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. He placed reliance on AIR 1963 Punjab 479 (Amar Nath v. Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd.) and AIR 1952 Patna 73 (Sheobachan Pandey v. Madho Saran Choubey). The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand contended, that the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction. He drew my attention to the provisions of O. 8 R. 6 CPC and contended that it requires three conditions to be fulfilled before a plea of set off is raised. He urged none of the three conditions were fulfilled in this case. The learned counsel claimed that the plea which has been raised is barred by time and· as such amendment cannot be allowed. He urged none of the three conditions were fulfilled in this case. The learned counsel claimed that the plea which has been raised is barred by time and· as such amendment cannot be allowed. A perusal of O. 8 R. 6 CPC clearly shows that in a suit for the recovery of money the defendant can claim set off against the plaintiff's demand any sum of money legally recoverable by him from the plaintiff. The learned counsel's contention is that in any case the amount is not legally recoverable as it is barred by time. A perusal of this provision also shows that both the parties must fill the same character as they fill in the plaintiff's suit. In the present case it is also not fulfilled. The plea should be raised at the first hearing of the suit, but not afterwards unless permitted by the Court. The plea alleged to have been raised in paragraph 16 of the written statement does not show that it is a plea of set off, rather it slows the reason for filing suit for loan given. I find myself in full agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the conditions mentioned in O. 8 R. 6 CPC have not been fulfilled. I do not find any material irregularity in the impugned order. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on facts. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs. The petitioner may bring a fresh suit with respect to his claim provided it is within time if he is so advised.