Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Arun Nath and Alam Nath were full brothers. Arun Nath died leaving behind his two sons-Amar Nath and Ajit Nath. Amar Nath left behind a son Bindeshwar Nath. Ajit Nath died leaving behind his widow Antav Kuer and three daughters namely Balamrit, Bhanumati and Bhawani. Bindeshwar Nath died leaving behind his widow Bhagwati Kuer. Alam Nath left behind his sons Achint Nath and Asankh Nath. Achint Nath died issue-less and Asankh Nath left behind his only son Biraj Nath. 2. On 21.5.1962, Birajnath executed a sale deed with regard to his undivided share in the suit property in favour of Rameshwar Pathak, who filed Partition Suit No. 105 of 1962 in the court of Subordinate Judge, for partition of his half share in the suit property. Bhagwati Kuer was impleaded as defendant No. 17 three daughters of Ajit Nath as defendants No. 2, 3 and 7 husband and two sons of defendant No. 3 as defendants No. 4 to 6. 3. Three sets of written statement, one on behalf of defendant No. 1, another on behalf of defendants No. 2 and 7 and third on behalf of defendants 3 to 6 were filed. By judgment and preliminary decree dated 2.2.1966, the suit was decreed. 4. First Appeal No. 98 of 1966 was preferred in this Court against the said judgment and decree, which was allowed on 30.9.1986; the judgment and decree dated 2.2.1966 were set aside and the suit was remanded to the trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. While remanding the suit, this Court directed the parties not to adduce any further evidence either oral or documentary and the trial court was directed to confine its decision on the evidence already on record. The trail court was also directed to consider the points raised in the written statements of the parties and to decide the case after finding out as to whether the plaintiff had got subsisting right, title and interest in the suit property. 5. In the meantime, the sole plaintiff died and his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. 6. When the matter came to the trial court on remand, on 8.8.1990 a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code Civil Procedure was filed fro amendments in paragraphs 1 and 9 of the plaint. 5. In the meantime, the sole plaintiff died and his heirs and legal representatives were substituted in his place. 6. When the matter came to the trial court on remand, on 8.8.1990 a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code Civil Procedure was filed fro amendments in paragraphs 1 and 9 of the plaint. By the proposed amendments, the plaintiff wanted to add that the defendant No. 4, son in law of Ajit Nath had no house of his own at Ranchi and he wanted to practise as a pleader and so he allowed by the then owners of the suit house to reside therein. 7. The trial court by the impugned order dated 16.8.1990 has been pleased to reject the said prayer for amendments in the plaint. The plaintiff therefore, have preferred this revision application. 8. Mr. Eqbal on behalf of the petitioners submitted that although the plaintiff in his evidence stated that the possession of defendant No. 4 was permissive and not adverse, but it was beyond his pleading. The defendant No. 1 in paragraph 15 of her written statement pleaded that possession of defendant No. 4 was permissive, but no evidence was led by her on this point. Since, however, there was a pleading to that effect, the evidence thereon could not have been ignored. It was immaterial whether the evidence was led by the party who had not raised the said point in his pleadings and it was raised in the pleading of other party. The plaintiff in his deposition as PW 14 admitted that the defendant No. 4 lived in the house at the time of his purchase and was still livings therein and he was not in adverse possession, rather in permissive possession. On the other hand, the defendant No. 4 in his deposition as claimed to be in possession in his own right and denied to be in permissive possession. According to Mr. Eqbal, besides the evidence of permissive possession already on record, the plaintiff are not required to lead any further evidence, either oral or documentary, in case the proposed amendments are allowed. Likewise, the defendants are also not required to either file any Additional Written Statement or lead further evidence, either oral or documentary in the matter. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Likewise, the defendants are also not required to either file any Additional Written Statement or lead further evidence, either oral or documentary in the matter. 9. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Prasad, senior counsel for the defendant opposite party No. 4 submitted that the plaintiffs wanted to fill up the lacuna in the original pleadings by the proposed amendments to the plaint and to introduce altogether a new case and in view of the direction of this Court the trial court to dispose of the suit on the basic of the evidence already on record, the proposed amendment has rightly been refused. According to Mr. Prasad, in case the proposed amendment is allowed, the defendant shall be required to file not only additional written statement, but also to lead further evidence, both oral and documentary in this regard, which is not permissible in this suit at this stage and this Court, therefore is not required to interfere with the in impugned order. 10. It is true that this Court remanded the suit for a fresh judgment in accordance with law with direction to the trail court to confine its decision on the evidence already on record and the parties were directed not to adduce any further evidence, either oral or documentary, but it was an open remand. It is not disputed that this Court neither gave any specific direction in the remand order prohibiting amendment sought for by any party to the suit, nor is the said order susceptible to prohibition to amend the pleadings even though the case for amendment arose. 11. If necessary materials, on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided, is already on record/in my opinion, the amendment ought to be more readily granted. The procedural law is intended to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the course of substantive justice. The provisions relating to the proceedings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case to the other, so that it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties. The procedural law is intended to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the course of substantive justice. The provisions relating to the proceedings in civil cases are meant to give to each side intimation of the case to the other, so that it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties. In the instant partition stilt, the defendant No. 1 pleaded permissive possession of defendant No. 4 to her written statement, the plaintiff as PW 14 supported it and the defendant No. 4 as DW 15 denied the same and as such, in my opinion, necessary material on which the plea of permissive possession arising from the proposed amendment may be decided is already on record and the parties are not required to adduce further evidence and the direction of this Court for disposal afresh obviously means a direction to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. I find that the amendment sought for is not outside the scope of the remand Order and the plea arising from the amendment can be decided on the basic of the materials already on record. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore, wrong in rejecting the proposed amendment on the ground that it was not an open, but a limited remand and the trial court, pursuant to the amendment, could not have allowed the parties to adduce further evidence. I, therefore, direct the proposed amendment as contained in annexure-3 to be incorporated in the plaint of Partition Suit No. 105 of 1962. 12. In the result, this Civil Revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There will, however, no order as to costs.