23 . Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that the limitation has to be seen at the time of trial and the amendment seeking counterclaim can be allowed by way of amendment is concerned, which was argued on the strength of judgment in the case of Pankaja (supra) , suffice to note that in the abovenoted cases the amendment application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed, wherein the relief sought was declaratory in nature and it was found that such relief is based on facts of the case and is thus, arguable question which can only be decided at the time of trial. Therefore, the facts of that case are entirely different from the present case, wherein the monetary settlement is being sought. As per three dates available on record i.e. 4.3.2010, 20.10.2012, as referred to in paragraph 17 (m) of the amendment application and March, 2014 as referred to in paragraph 5 of the plaint, clearly shows that the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable and since, admittedly, the parameters of a plaint has to be applied in the case of counterclaim, such counterclaim, which, on the face of record is time barred has to be rejected, whether the cause of action accrued before filing of the suit or after filing of the suit. Such exercise allowing delayed counterclaim has to be exercised judiciously and must not be given statutory or legislative intention. It is a settled law that a delayed counterclaim must be discouraged. A counterclaim, which is for the monetary settlement that too in a summary proceedings and is ultimately barred by limitation, cannot be slapped on the plaintiff merely on the ground that the issue of limitation is a triable issue as in such matters any suit, after keeping in mind that a
