JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. These petitions arise from an order pronounced in CMP No. 29-6 of 2015, comprising an application constituted by the defendant, before the learned trial Court, under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and from an order pronounced in CMA No. 30-6 of 2015, comprising an application constituted before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC. Though both the applications aforesaid stood dismissed by separate orders pronounced thereupon by the learned trial Court, yet when facts besides attendant material are common to both thereupon the validity of the orders recorded upon both can stand adjudicated upon, under a common verdict. 2. The impugned order recorded by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Theog, Himachal Pradesh upon CMA No. 29-6 of 2015, application whereof, comprises an application constituted before the learned trial Court by the defendant by his invoking the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC whereupon he concerted to with the leave of the Court add apposite pleadings in his written statement, for succoring his propagation qua his counter claim embodied in CMA No.30-6 of 2015. Before proceeding to dwell upon the efficacy of the pronouncements impugned hereat, it is imperative to allude to the factum of the suit constituted by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court echoing therein a relief qua a decree of damages, in a sum of Rs. 5,53,312/- comprising both the arrears of rent alongwith interest also the use and occupation charges qua the demised premises, hence standing pronounced upon the defendant. Qua the demised premises, a binding conclusive decree of eviction, of the defendant therefrom, arising from the plaintiff petitioner therein successfully establishing in his apposite rent petition constituted before the learned Rent Controller qua the defendant/petitioner herein falling into arrears of rent vis.a.vis the demised premises stood hence pronounced by the learned Rent Controller. The decree of eviction of the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein from the demised premise, has come to be satisfactorily executed, comprised in the aggrieved defendant handing over vacant possession of the demised premises, to the plaintiff. The decree of eviction of the aggrieved defendant/petitioner herein from the demised premise, has come to be satisfactorily executed, comprised in the aggrieved defendant handing over vacant possession of the demised premises, to the plaintiff. The aggrieved defendant petitioner herein during the course of the apposite petition for his eviction from the demised premises, eviction whereof stood anchored upon his falling into arrears of rent, omitted to make any espousal therein qua the amount of arrears of rent claimed from him qua the demised premises, arrears whereof he evidently failed to liquidate qua the landlord, being ordered to be adjusted from the damages encumbered upon him arising from his standing constrained to sell machinery worth Rs.4,34,759/-, sale whereof stood engendered by the plaintiff reneging from his promises, whereas the aforesaid stage comprised the apposite stage for resisting the petition for his eviction from the demised premises anchored upon the statutory grounds of his falling into arrears of rent, concomitantly his omission aforesaid to on the aforesaid anchorage hence resist his eviction from the demised premises on the ground of his falling into arrears of rent, thereupon visibly constitutes estoppel against the aggrieved defendant, to with utmost procrastination subsequent to his instituting a written statement to the suit of the plaintiff, hence belatedly seek through the applications constituted before the learned trial Court, its leave for incorporation in the apposite written statement qua apposite amendments, holding communications/pleadings therein qua thereupon his rearing a counter claim against the amounts claimed in the suit instituted by the plaintiff, amounts whereof comprised the arrears of rent, for thereupon his non-suiting the plaintiff, conspicuously when the decree of his eviction from the demised premises stands satisfactorily executed whereupon also he stands forestalled to rear qua the plaintiff any counter claim qua the amounts aforesaid qua the plaintiff. Moreover, no issue on the aforesaid factum stood struck by the learned trial Court. Moreover, no issue on the aforesaid factum stood struck by the learned trial Court. Dehors the aforesaid non-availment earlier by the aggrieved defendant of his remedy to seek adjustment of amounts on anchorage aforestated vis.a.vis the quantum of arrears of rent claimed against him by the plaintiff qua the demised premises, he could well have at the earliest also instituted a separate suit holding therewithin the aforesaid relief whereupon he may have constrained the Rent Controller, to not proceed to pronounce any adjudication upon the apposite petition for his eviction, petition whereof stood anchored upon, his falling into arrears of rent in respect thereto, till an adjudication stood pronounced upon his suit for damages instituted against the plaintiff. Significantly, he did not even avail the aforesaid remedy rather permitted the learned Rent Controller to make a pronouncement qua his eviction from the demised premises also he has handed over its vacant possession to the plaintiff respondent herein whereupon with his willfully waiving and abandoning all the available grounds for hence his resisting the apposite petition for his eviction from the demised premises renders his resistance, nowat, to the apposite suit of the plaintiff for arrears of rent besides his monetary claim for use and occupation charges qua the demised premises being hence prima facie construable to be contrived or invented, inference whereof stands supported by the factum of his subsequent to the institution of his written statement to the plaint, his belatedly through an application instituted under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC besides constituted before the learned trial Court concerting incorporation therein of his counter claim, incorporation whereof therein also for reasons hereinafter referred, warrants its standing discountenanced. 3. Be that as it may, the generation of the principle of estoppel whereupon the aggrieved defendant stands thwarted to belatedly espouse a counter claim against the suit of the plaintiff upsurges from the factum of the aggrieved defendant, through an application constituted under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter, seeking its apposite leave qua its propagation in his written statement wherefrom the workability of the aforesaid provisions of law stands concomitantly aroused:- “17. Amendment of Pleadings.- the Court may at any stage at the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided 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 trial.” The afore extracted provisions of CPC therewithin holding a mandate qua his holding a leverage to with the leave of the Court incorporate propagations for succoring his counter claim, comprised in a sum of Rs.5,53,312/- vis.a.vis. the plaintiff whereupon an allusion is enjoined to be made to the relevant material holding bespeakings qua the aggrieved defendant begetting compliance with its mandate. The trite principle embodied in the provisions engrafted in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, is though it not prohibiting any party to a lis to at any stage seek appropriate amendments qua his pleadings nonetheless any apposite motion thereunder of any party to the lis, stands enjoined to withstand the test of the rule embodied in proviso thereof, comprised in the factum of the party concerned to the lis establishing the factum of his despite exercising due diligence his yet standing constrained to not earlier rear the apposite factual matrix in his apposite pleadings whereupon satiation thereof standing begotten would constrain this Court to allow even the belatedly made concert of the aggrieved defendant. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle of law held in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is necessary to allude to the relevant pleadings constituted in the application at hand qua theirs thereupon falling within the ambit or within the domain of the aforesaid provisions. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle of law held in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is necessary to allude to the relevant pleadings constituted in the application at hand qua theirs thereupon falling within the ambit or within the domain of the aforesaid provisions. A perusal of the apposite applications, unveil qua the aggrieved defendant petitioner herein not making any underscorings therein qua the causes of action in consonance with the facts concerted to be with the leave of the Court incorporated in his pleadings being earlier unknown to him, unawareness whereof arising from his despite exercising due diligence his yet remaining unacquainted with them, contrarily averments stand constituted in the apposite applications, averments whereof hold unveilings qua the disability of the aggrieved defendant to earlier incorporate apposite pleadings in his earlier instituted written statement, pleadings whereof nowat stand concerted to be added, ensuing from his omission to collect the documents apposite to his rearing a counter claim in his previous written statement, wherefrom a concomitant deduction stems qua hence despite the aggrieved defendant evidently holding knowledge qua the facts relevant to his rearing an apposite counter claim in his written statement filed earlier to the apposite application constituted under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, his yet omitting to at the earliest rear a counter claim in his earliest instituted written statement to the plaint whereupon visibly his relevant omissions in respect thereto are construable to be both deliberate and intentional. Obviously thereupon the subtle nuance besides the import of the apposite proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC whereupon the aggrieved defendant though stood enjoined to firmly establish qua despite exercise of due diligence, his at a stage earlier to the apposite applications standing instituted not thereat holding their knowledge whereupon he would hold the empowerment to constrain the Court concerned, to permit him to incorporate the relevant pleadings in his written statement, has hence visibly remained unsatiated, thereupon with the mandate of the proviso to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC begetting non satiation, concomitantly renders his belated apposite endeavour to suffer rejection. 4. 4. Be that as it may, even when the documents relevant to the defendant rearing an apposite counter claim in his written statement instituted prior to his instituting before the learned trial Court an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC alongwith a counter claim constituted under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A CPC, were thereat unavailable with him yet the aforesaid non-availability thereat of the relevant documents, with the defendant, cannot be construed to be absolutely forestalling his rearing a counter claim in his written statement, written statement whereof stood instituted before the learned trial Court prior to his instituting therebefore the aforesaid CMAs, significantly when dehors their non availability thereat, he yet wielded the statutory leverage to depict them in the apposite list of documents relied upon him. However, he omitted to avail the aforesaid statutory leverage. Consequently, it appears qua his through the aforesaid applications hence belatedly concerting to seek leave of the Court to propagate his counter claim to the suit of the plaintiff being construable to be both pretextual besides flimsy. 5. Furthermore, the salient principles embodied under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC warrant also their application to the concert of the defendant, to nowat rear a counter claim, significantly when it constitutes ‘the suit’ of the defendant whereupon its clout holds its fullest sway qua even a counter claim, conspicuously when the facts apposite to the, nowat, concert of the defendant, remained alive earlier thereto also stood known to the defendant whereupon the omission of the defendant to incorporate in his earlier instituted written statement, any espousal apposite to his nowat propagated counter claim also spurs an inference qua his intentionally abandoning or relinquishing all claims with respect thereto hence nowat rendering him disempowered to subsequently institute a ‘suit’ in respect thereof. Even though the provisions incorporated in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC operate as an exception qua the principle of law held within the ambit of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter 2. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. Suit to include the whole claim.- (1) Every suit shall include the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any Court. (2) Relinquishment of part of claim—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. (3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs—A person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs, but if he omits except with the leave of the court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Explanation: For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a collateral security for its performance and successive claims arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to constitute but one cause of action. yet with this Court for reasons aforestated excluding qua the factual matrix prevailing hereat, the sway of the mandate of the proviso qua the provisions held in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC thereupon with the workability of the exception to the principle engrafted in the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC hence standing rendered ousted, thereupon the vigour besides play of the mandate of provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC surfaces with invincible force thereupon with the defendant visibly not in his earlier instituted written statement rearing any counterclaim vis.a.vis the relief reared in the plaint by the plaintiff, hence enjoins this Court to firmly erect an inference qua his intentionally relinquishing his counter claim qua the suit of the plaintiff whereupon he stands statutorily dis-entitled to subsequently raise it. 6. Moreover, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC foist therewithin a statutory right upon the aggrieved defendant to assert a counter claim to the claim reared by the plaintiff in his apposite plaint, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “6A. 6. Moreover, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6A of the CPC foist therewithin a statutory right upon the aggrieved defendant to assert a counter claim to the claim reared by the plaintiff in his apposite plaint, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: “6A. Counter claim by defendant.- (1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of to suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the court. (2) Such counter claim shall have the same effect as a cross suit so as to enable the court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter claim. (3) The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the court. (4) The counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.” whereupon the defendant stood enjoined to with respect to causes of action accruing to him either before or after filing of the suit but prior to expiry of time qua his delivering his defence or prior to the time for the aforesaid purpose standing granted to him, his standing enjoined to in addition to the plea raised therebefore, also rear a plea of counter claim for thereupon his resisting the claim of the plaintiff. Nowat, with the apposite causes of action accruing vis.a.vis. Nowat, with the apposite causes of action accruing vis.a.vis. the aggrieved defendant at the time when a petition for eviction stood instituted before the learned Rent Controller, petition whereof stood squarely anchored upon his falling into arrears of rent with respect thereto also when thereat the aggrieved defendant omitted to make the afore-referred appropriate concerts/motions for thereupon his holding the apposite leverage to oust the endeavour of the respondent to seek his eviction from the demised premises, on score of his falling into arrears of rent also renders open an ensuing corollary qua his abandoning the aforesaid plea whereupon he reiteratedly now stands estopped, to, with the leave of the Court seek its incorporation in his written statement 7. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2308-2309 of 2016 titled Vijay Prakash Jarath vs. Tej Prakash Jarath, hence to canvass qua with the Hon’ble Apex Court therein permitting the aggrieved defendant therein, to even after striking of issues, institute a counter claim, on anvil of the Hon’ble Apex Court therein concluding qua no apparent loss or prejudice standing caused to the defendant therein, whereupon this Court also permit the aggrieved defendant to likewise introduce pleadings in his written statement apposite to his propagations qua his counter claim. However, a close reading of the verdict placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not disclose qua the Hon’ble Apex Court standing seized with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC nor obviously the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced thereupon qua the visible statutory imperativeness of the aggrieved defendant establishing qua his apposite application constituted under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC begetting satiation of the principles held in its proviso whereas with this Court concluding qua the aggrieved defendant petitioner herein visibly not satiating the principles held in the proviso to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereupon the benefit of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not accrue to the defendant also when the Hon’ble Apex Court has confined the benefits of its verdict only on its concluding qua in the factual matrix existing therebefore qua thereupon no serious or irreparable loss accruing upon the aggrieved defendant therein, whereas with the factual matrix prevailing hereat being starkly contra distinct therewith, significantly when the counter claim hereat of the defendant if allowed, it would encumber the plaintiff with immense financial loss comprised in his standing forestalled to recover arrears of rent qua the demised premises wherefrom the aggrieved defendant has suffered a decree of eviction also the plaintiff would stand thwarted to claim the relevant use and occupation charges. Predominantly also with the aggrieved defendant herein for all the reasons aforestated intentionally abandoning all the aforesaid pleas whereupon he hence stands estopped by the principle engrafted in Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC to hence nowat belatedly raise the pleas of counter claims. In aftermath the benefit of the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot stand bestowed upon the aggrieved defendant. Consequently, there is no merit in the petitions which are accordingly dismissed so also the pending applications. Impugned orders are maintained and affirmed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 8.5.2017.