Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The plaintiffs have come up against an order rejecting their prayer seeking to add a relief in the prayer portion of the plaint. 2. The facts are short and simple. The suit in question was filed for declaration that the ex parte decree in partition suit No. 212 of 1978 is illegal and liable to be cancelled. It appears that the defendants in their written statement took up an objection that the suit in question is barred on account of Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to add relief in view of the objection taken by the defendant in his written statement. He further asserted that the petitioners happens to be a person belonging to backward class and possesses only 4 bighas of land and their annual income is only Rs. 4000 and thus they be exempted from filing court-fee. The said prayers were rejected on the ground that the suit in question was filed in 1981 whereas the amendment petition has been filed about 5 years thereafter and accordingly the relief has become time barred. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Yogendra Prasad Sinha, urged that the impugned order has been passed completely misconceiving the settled principles of law governing amendments of pleadings, Mr. Dhananjay Prasad. learned Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 on the other hand contended that valid reasons have been given by the court below while passing the impugned order and thus no interference is called for by this Court. 4. In my view, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is well founded and stand supported by several decisions viz. Charandas V/s. Amir Khan AIR 1921 PC 50; Shanti Kumar V/s. Home Insurance Co.; L.J. Leaver V/s. Jardine Skinner and Co., in which it has been held to the effect that despite the fact that the suit would have been time barred had it been instituted on the date when the amendment was sought for, such an amendment could be allowed and that the powers of the Courts are not circumscribed by the law of limitation. 5. In Genesh Trading Co. V/s. Moji Ram, it was held that "Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. 5. In Genesh Trading Co. V/s. Moji Ram, it was held that "Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice. Provisions relating to pleadings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other, so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties and to prevent deviations from the course which litigation on particular causes of action must take." 6. Keeping the ration laid down in the aforementioned cases, I am of the view that the court below has committed a jurisdictional error in not allowing the amendment and I am further of the view that there would be failure of justice as well as an irreparable injury to the petitioner, if the impugned order is allowed to stand. Court always allows the plaintiff to amend the plaint in order to give a relief which is impliedly asked by the plaintiff and which does not alter the nature of the suit. In the instant suite the relief prayed for by the petitioners in substance was from the very bingeing to declare that the ex pane decree is not binding on them and in that view of the matter there was no question of prejudice to the defendants. 7. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the civil revision application is allowed. The trial court is directed to amend the plaint subject to payment of cost of Rs. 150 by the petitioners to be paid to the opposite parties 1 and 2 within 30 days from the receipt of this order in the court below. It will be open to the opposite parties to amend their written statement suitably within such time which the court shall grant to them.