Short Note : The plaintiff-applicant filed the present suit under Order 37, rule 1 CPC in summary procedure for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,971.41 p. on the basis of three different Hundis. The defendant made appearance after service of summons of the suit on him on 27-10-77. Thereafter the plaintiff served on him summons of judgment on 8-12-77. The defendant made an application under Order 37, rule 3(5) CPC on 19-12-77. This application was within time, but it suffers from omission of prayer clause. When this defect came into light, the defendant-non-applicant submitted an application on 27-1-78 for amendment of the aforesaid application by incorporating prayer to the effect that the defendant should be granted unconditional leave to defend the suit. This application was opposed by the plaintiff-applicant. By the impugned order the amendment has been allowed. Held : It is well settled law that if a party sets out essential facts and does not pray for relief, it is the duly of the Court to grant relief which can be granted on the basis of the facts set out by that party. The trial of a suit is not like enforcement of military discipline. The Code of Civil Procedure is not a penal enactment so as to trip a party no sooner a mistake or omission is committed or found. 2. The provision contained in Order 37, rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure itself provides two modes to be adopted by a Court while deciding the question of granting leave to defend, viz.- (a) the Court may after considering the application of the defendant either to grant leave unconditionally; or (b) upon such a term as it may appear to the Court or Judge to be ad judged. Therefore, if the defendant submitted an application within limitation then either of the two types of orders could have been passed by the Court as contemplated by Sub-clause (5) of rule 3 of Order 37 CPC. The application could not be thrown out only on the ground of omission to make a formal prayer for grant of leave either unconditionally or on terms. Suppose in a given case the defendant applies for grant of unconditional leave the Court can impose terms. The application could not be thrown out only on the ground of omission to make a formal prayer for grant of leave either unconditionally or on terms. Suppose in a given case the defendant applies for grant of unconditional leave the Court can impose terms. Taking another case, if the defendant applies for grant of leave to defend without indicating whether the leave should be granted unconditional or upon terms, even then it will be the duty of the Court to grant leave as is found appropriate. In suitable cases, the leave may be granted unconditionally. In other cases, where leave cannot be granted unconditionally, terms as may be considered just may be imposed. But in no case the application can be thrown out on a mere technical mistake viz. omission of a formal prayer for grant of leave either unconditionally or on terms. In the instant case, the intention of the defendant to pray for leave can be gathered by the very title of the application, wherein it is clearly stated that the defendant has moved an application under Order 37, rule 3(5) CPC. The intention of the defendant cannot be any other than that of applying for leave to defend. 3. It is contended that it was not an application at all because unless there is a relief dame contained in a petition it cannot be regarded as an application. This is too technical a contention. In view of the fact that the defendant has submitted a petition though without a formal prayer, the defendant purporting it to be under Order 37, rule 3(5) CPC by expressly referring to it in the application. Therefore, the application submitted by the defendant on 19-12-77 is an application for a requisite relief which can be granted under the provisions of Order 37, rule 3(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant is that the application for amendment takes away the vested right accrued to the plaintiff by lapse of time. It being a case of formal omission, such an amendment can be allowed even after expiry of limitation as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 96 (A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation). That apart no question of limitation is germane here. It being a case of formal omission, such an amendment can be allowed even after expiry of limitation as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 96 (A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation). That apart no question of limitation is germane here. As observed by me earlier, the defendant has invoked the powers of the Court to grant leave to defend by styling the application to be under Order 37, rule 3(5) CPC, therefore, if there was an unfortunate omission on the part of the learned counsel for the defendant in the application inasmuch as the prayer was not incorporated in the application it is a case of mere correction of a mistake occurring in the application and no right can be deemed to have been decided by lapse of time. The case would have been entirely different if the original application dated 19-12-77 would have been time barred. 5. This brings me to the further contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, namely, Order 6, rule 17 CPC does not apply to amendment of the application. Sec. 153 CPC talks of the general powers of the Court to permit amendment. 6. In this section the words "proceeding in a suit" are significant. The word 'proceeding' is to be interpreted to include any application made to the Court. I am fortified in the view I am taking by a ruling reported in AIR 1937 Mad. 342 (Pallipuravil Asan Kurti v. Mukkolakkal Kayaman Kutti). 7. In this view of the matter the amendment allowed by the learned judge of the trial Court is justified. It does not constitute any illegal exercise of jurisdiction. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the dictum of AIR 1971 SC 2366 . The ratio of the case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. A case cannot by deemed to be an authority of universal application as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Orrisa v. Sudhansu Shekhar Misra and others, AIR 1968 SC 647 . Revision dismissed.