JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. — In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.2.2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bhubaneswar in M.S. No. 145/93/31 of 2002 allowing the application filed by the opposite party-defendant-Bank under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of its written statement including the counter-claim in respect of the loan taken by the plaintiff from it. 2.The facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner as plaintiff filed M.S. No. 145/93/31 of 2002 for recovery of arrear rent together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and cost. After receipt of the notice, defendant appeared and filed its written statement. The said suit was transferred to the Court of Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bhubaneswar. 3.During pendency of the suit, defendant fled an application on 15.12.1995 for amendment of the written statement with an intention to incorporate the claim, arrear loan amount and the over-draft drawn by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed his objection to the said application for amendment taking a specific stand that the proposed amendment sought by the defendant was barred by limitation and was intended to change the nature and character of the present suit. Further it was stated that the gold loan availed by the plaintiff had been liquidated putting the gold to auction by the defendant-Bank and the alleged over-draft stood liquidated on adjustment with balance amount payable to the plaintiff from the outstanding dues payable to him by the Main Branch of the State Bank of India on account of colour-washing, painting and other repair works undertaken by the plaintiff as a Contractor. The said claim is also the subject-matter in M.S. No. 614/88-III which is pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The question of recovery or adjustment of any alleged over-draft relating to the dispute raised by the Bank in 1988 being the subject-matter of M.S. No. 614/88-III, the alleged claim could not be taken to be a part-claim by way of set off. The question of recovery or adjustment of any alleged over-draft relating to the dispute raised by the Bank in 1988 being the subject-matter of M.S. No. 614/88-III, the alleged claim could not be taken to be a part-claim by way of set off. By the proposed amendment, the defendant intended to give a fresh calculation with regard to the gold-loan and over-draft current account loan availed by the plaintiff from the defendant-Bank and the proposed amendment was intended to completely change the nature and character of the suit. However, the trial Court allowed the application for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 4.Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the claim of the defendant is barred by limitation after amendment of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the defendant has to explain the delay in filing the amendment application at a later stage of the suit and the defendant intended to advance a set off with regard to the arrear house rent claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. As the defendant filed such an application at a belated stage of the suit, the same is liable to be rejected. Hence, the impugned order needs to be interfered with. 5.Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that the amendment of the written statement was necessary for just decision of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the impugned order need be interfered with. 6.On a consideration of rival submissions of the parties and after going through the amendment application and the objection thereto, it appears that the defendant mainly intended to set off the claim made by the plaintiff. Defendant also filed a fresh calculation by way of amendment specifically taking a stand that the claim of the defendant against the plaintiff is a sum of Rs.1,49,676.05 by way of set off from the amount payable to the plaintiff by the defendant. As neither the gold-loan accounts nor the over-draft account could be adjusted from out of rent and the defendant’s right of adjustment still subsists against the plaintiff towards the aforesaid dues, the plaintiff’s claim of rent may be set off. As neither the gold-loan accounts nor the over-draft account could be adjusted from out of rent and the defendant’s right of adjustment still subsists against the plaintiff towards the aforesaid dues, the plaintiff’s claim of rent may be set off. 7.Law is well settled that if the defendant sought to advance a claim as a set off, the said claim of set off shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the Court and the defendant’s claim is not barred by limitation and the same should be legally recoverable from the plaintiff and the set off is also different than a counter-claim as provided under Order 8 Rule 6 and 6-A of the Civil Procedure Code. 8.The trial Court allowed the amendment application without taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects. Therefore, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and remands the matter to the trial Court for consideration of the amendment application afresh i.e. whether the proposed amendment is to advance a claim of set off or a counter claim, as provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Since the suit is of the year 1993, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. It is made clear that the trial Court, while disposing of the amendment application, shall not influence any of the observations made by this Court in this judgment. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.