JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 10.01.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ajmer City (East), Ajmer whereby the application moved by her under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC was rejected. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed. An application seeking amendment in the counter claim filed by her earlier on the ground that during the pendency of the civil suit a patta has been issued by the UIT in favour of the plaintiff which is resulted in seeking declaration in the counter claim as against the respondent-plaintiff. The registration of the patta was challenged by the defendant-petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer who had rejected his appeal on the ground that the issue cannot be decided by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer and the same has to be decided by the Civil Judge and thereafter, an application was moved for seeking amendment which has been rejected wrongfully treating the prayer to be beyond limitation. Learned Counsel submits that at the stage of examining application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC question regarding the amended relief claimed being beyond limitation cannot be decided at this stage and it has to be independently examined by framing a separate issue in relation thereto. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the fact of the patta having been registered on 12.03.2003 came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 27.06.2003 i.e. on the day when the appeal was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner and decreetal suit has to be filed within three years. The period counted from 27.06.2003 i.e. from the date of knowledge is calculated, it is apparent that three years period has elapsed and the application moved under Order 6, Rule 17 is beyond limitation. Learned Counsel further submitted that the concerned patta could be challenged only under the Land Revenue Act, and under Section 259 thereto the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. Therefore, the application for seeking declaration relating to the patta if allowed would be without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submitted that the concerned patta could be challenged only under the Land Revenue Act, and under Section 259 thereto the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred. Therefore, the application for seeking declaration relating to the patta if allowed would be without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel further submits that such aspect could have been considered by the Court at the stage deciding application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as a prima facie case has to be seen by the concerned Court at the said stage. It is his further submission that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has also been challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. 4. I have considered the submissions of the parties. 5. At the stage when the application has been moved under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, the same is required to see whether the amendment sought to be made by the concerned applicant is bonafide and with not a purpose to further delay the proceedings. By the said prayer made in application, facts which were in the knowledge of the plaintiff/defendant at the time of filing his original plaint or written statement cannot be brought without seeking specific permission and without there being reasonable cause. 6. In case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others (2009) 10 SCC 84 the Supreme Court has laid down the following conditions when an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is required to be allowed:- "Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment. (1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. And (6) As a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6, Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 7. Having noted above, the facts of the present case are concerned, I find that the petitioner-defendant has come out with an averment that a registration of patta was shown as 12.3.2003 against which she preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner who has rejected her appeal on 02.02.2007 stating therein that the jurisdiction does not lie with the Divisional Commissioner. In view thereof, an application was moved under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for incorporating prayer in the cross-objections raised by the defendant in the present suit. Thus, the application was filed in view of the clear observations of Divisional Commissioner. It is noticed that the order of Divisional Commissioner has been challenged by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue. However, the same would not make a difference so far as moving of an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is concerned. In view of the Court, the limitation would also not arise as the defendant has challenged the registration of order dated 12.03.2003 before a particular Court which has refused to pass order on merits and the cause of action, therefore, arose to her after the decision of the Divisional Commissioner dated 2.2.2007. However, the observations made by this Court would not come any way for the civil Court to independently examine the question regarding limitation. 8. This Court is of the firm view that at the stage when the application moved under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC the amendment sought cannot be ousted on the ground that the relief claimed therein is barred by limitation. The Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak D.John vs. S.Rayappan & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 472 has held as under:- "6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The Supreme Court in Ragu Thilak D.John vs. S.Rayappan & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 472 has held as under:- "6. If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. " 9. In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the order dated 10.01.2018 is set aside. The amendment sought in the cross-objections is allowed to be made. 10. Trial Court to proceed further.