JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. – By a separate order passed today on the delay condonation application the delay in filing the revision has been condoned and the office has been directed to assign a regular number to this revision. 2. Heard Sri Abhijeet Saxena holding brief of Sri A.K. Saxena for the revisionists. 3. The instant revision has been filed against the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Fourth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar by which the application of the defendant-revisionists seeking amendment in the written statement for adding certain paragraphs in the written statement to take a plea that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff because the tenancy was granted by an H.U.F. of which the plaintiff was a Karta whereas the suit had been instituted by the plaintiff in his personal capacity and not as a Karta of an H.U.F. The amendment application has been rejected primarily on two grounds. 4. The first ground that has been taken is that the amendment is barred by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as inserted by Act No. 22 of 2002 with effect from 01.07.2002, which provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. A finding has been returned by the court below that in this case the trial has commenced and the statement of the landlord had been recorded and a date was fixed for cross examination of the landlord whereas no good reason had been disclosed to show that in spite of due diligence the amendment that was sought in the written statement could not have been made earlier. The second ground rejecting the amendment application is that in the first paragraph of the plaint the plaintiff had disclosed that he was the owner and landlord of the accommodation in dispute, which statement was admitted in the first paragraph of the written statement, therefore, any subsequent amendment resiling from the above position would amount to withdrawal of an admission, which cannot be permitted. 5. 5. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, the defendant-revisionists have stated that earlier a rent agreement dated 24.05.1992 was there in which the landlord disclosed himself as Karta of an HUF. Thereafter, on 23.04.2011, a subsequent rent agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants in which the plaintiff entered into an agreement in his personal capacity and not as a Karta of any HUF. It has been stated that from the rent Bills lying on record, it was discovered that the plaintiff was collecting rent as Karta of an HUF and not in his personal capacity. 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there had been an agreement which suggested the fact that the premises was let out by the H.U.F. and, therefore, the subsequent clarification of the stand in the written statement would not amount to resiling from an admission made earlier in the written statement. It has also been submitted that there has been sufficient explanation for the delay in moving the amendment application because though the documents were available with the defendants from before, but the counsel applied his mind much later to those documents. 7. The learned counsel for the revisionists has also quoted various judgments of the Apex Court to contend that clarificatory plea can always be taken by way of amendment and even contradictory pleas can be taken in a written statement and that amendments to elucidate real controversy in issue can be allowed. It has been thus submitted that the order of the court below is erroneous in law and deserve to be set aside. 8. There can be no dispute that clarificatory pleas can be added by way of an amendment. But in the instant case there is no good explanation as to why amendment could not be taken before commencement of the trial. Admittedly, as per paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, there was rent agreement dated 24.05.1992 between the Karta of the HUF and the revisionists and, thereafter, there was subsequent agreement dated 23.04.2011 between the plaintiff, as has been described in the plaint, and the defendant-revisionists in which there is no mention of HUF. Admittedly, as per paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the stay application, there was rent agreement dated 24.05.1992 between the Karta of the HUF and the revisionists and, thereafter, there was subsequent agreement dated 23.04.2011 between the plaintiff, as has been described in the plaint, and the defendant-revisionists in which there is no mention of HUF. As to what would be effect of the subsequent agreement on the merits of the plea taken now in the amendment application need not be gone into at this stage, keeping in mind that it has not been adjudicated by the court below, but, from the own showing of the revisionists they were having full material under their control to enable them to take any such plea earlier before the commencement of trial. Under the circumstances, there appears no good reason to allow the amendment after commencement of trial. The amendment application is, therefore, hit by the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. I find no illegality in the order impugned. The revision is dismissed. Manoj Misra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicants/revisionists. 2. By this delay condonation application, the applicants have prayed for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the S.C.C. Revision, under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/Fourth Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. Various reasons have been given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application for condoning the delay and in addition to those reasons, it has been submitted that the question whether the period of limitation for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is 90 days or 30 days has been referred for adjudication by a Single Judge of the Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Agrawal v. Sachin Agrawal reported in 2015 (1) ARC 27 and while referring the question, the delay was condoned keeping in mind the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Udai Bhan Gupta v. Hari Shanker Prasad AIR 1984 SC 1469 . 3. 3. It has been submitted that in view of the aforesaid position, it would be travesty of justice if the delay of 29 days as reported by the office of stamp reporter is not condoned because the revision has been presented within a period of 90 days from the date of the order. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as also the averment made in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed. 5. Office is directed to assign a regular number to the revision.