D. RAJU, C.J. (Oral).- The above revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Jogindenagar, District Mandi dated 29.4.1999 in Civil Suit No. 202/91, where under the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint came to be rejected. The reason, which seems to have weighed with the learned judge of the Court below to reject the application was that the parties have adduced evidence in the case and it is only in order to counter the evidence adduced by the defendants, the present application has been filed and that in the view of the court below, this would amount to filling of the lacuna in the case of the plaintiff and, therefore, it should not be allowed. Equally, the court below appears to have been of the view that if the amendment is to be allowed, prejudice would be caused to the case of the defendants in their reference that the suit claim is barred by limitation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons assigned by the court below are not tenable in law to deny the amendment, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner became necessitated in view of the evidence adduced by the defendants during the course of the trial and that in as much as there was no such information forthcoming in the written statement, the claim for amendment could not have been rejected for the reasons assigned by the court below. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the stand taken before the court below and drawing inspiration from the reasons assigned in the order of the learned judge contended that the rejection of the claim has already been sufficiently and duly intimated to the plaintiff and, therefore, it goes to the root of the claim and the question as to whether, viewed thus, the claim would be within the period of limitation is a relevant one and consequently the amendment has rightly been refused to be allowed. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In my view, the reasons assigned by the court below are not sufficient in law to deny the claim of the plaintiff to have the plaint amended in the light of some material coming on record during the course of evidence, particularly, when it is relevant and necessary to deal h with such material also. The question as to whether the suit claim is barred has to be decided inspite of the amendment being allowed, as prayed for, objectively in the light of the plea of the defendants that already such H intimation rejecting the claim has been given and merely because they amendment is allowed, the defendants could not be said to have lost their | right to pursue the plea based on the period of limitation. As an when the amendment is allowed, the defendants would be entitled always to file an additional written statement in which they can take all objections and the court below also may give a fresh opportunity to lead further evidence by both the parties in the light of the amended pleadings. On the other hand, if the amendment is to be dis-allowed and ultimately it is found to be necessary, the suit would have been mis-tried only and this would only result in unnecessary duplication of trial. Further, the amendment if allowed as prayed for in this case, could not be said to result in altering the character of the suit and cannot also be said to have suffered any serious infirmity to deny the request. 4. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the court below has taken a mere technical view of the matter instead of appreciating the substantial benefit to both the parties that may result by allowing the amendment to have an effective adjudication of the claim once and for all, finally. The order of the Court below is, therefore, set aside and the amendment, as prayed for, shall stand allowed. The defendants will have time for filing additional written statement. The Court below is directed to grant appropriate time in this regard to the respondents as and when the proceedings are restored to its file. Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed in the above said terms.