JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - This revision application filed by the plaintiff has assailed the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in T. S. No. 63 of 1993 whereby he refused the prayer for amendment sought by the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of his title in respect of two buses and for direction to the defendants 2 & 3 to record the name of the plaintiff as owner in respect of those buses in the R. C. Book and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 5 from transferring the ownership of the buses. 3. The case in nutshell as revealed from the revision application is that defendant No.l executed a power-of-attorney in favour of defendant No. 5, her son, for plying the two buses and to manage the affairs of those buses on her behalf. The further case is that the defendant No. 1 intended to sell those two buses which were in a dis-repaited condition. The terms and conditions settled between them for the sale stipulated that the plaintiff would pay a consideration amount of Rs.80,000/-and upon .payment of Rs. 30,000/- would ply the bus, but after payment of entire consideration, the transfer of ownership shall be effected in plaintiff's name. The plaintiff-petitioner paid Rs.30,000/- and got delivery of possession of the bus. On another occasion Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the defendant No. 5 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff asked tor execution of the deed of transfer of ownership of the bus bearing registration No. ORB-2757. But the defendant No. 1 expressed her inability to' transfer and apprised the plaintiff that after full payment of Rs. 90,000/- meant for another bus, the ownership shall be transferred of the bus bearing Registration No. ORM-9957. It appears, on 3-7-92 the plaintiff paid full and final instalment of the bus bearing No. ORM. 9957. The defendant No. 5 executed two documents showing payment; of entire consideration of two buses and delivery of possession was effected of those buses to the plaintiff at Baripada on behalf of defendant No. 1. It appears, on 3-7-92 the plaintiff paid full and final instalment of the bus bearing No. ORM. 9957. The defendant No. 5 executed two documents showing payment; of entire consideration of two buses and delivery of possession was effected of those buses to the plaintiff at Baripada on behalf of defendant No. 1. But since the defendant No. 1 did not take any steps for getting the two buses transferred in plaintiff's name, therefore, such suit was the outcome of the controversy, In the meanwhile the bus bearing No. ORB-2757 has been seized and is in the custody of the S.D.J.M., Baripada. But the bus bearing No. ORM-9957 is under the possession of the plaintiff. 4. Defendant No. 5 did not choose to file any written statement and was accordingly set ex-parte. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement denying the sale of those two buses to the plaintiff and also questioned the authority of defendant No. 5 for sale and execution of the deeds of transfer in plaintiff's favour. She also disputed the power-of-attorney purported to have been executed in favour of defendant No. 5. 5. The plaintiff filed an amendment application on 13-12-99 for realisation of the consideration amount from the defendant No. 5 as an alternative prayer and also to insert the fact of joint living of defendant Nos. 1 and 5. But the learned court below, however, declined to allow the amendment. In so far as the prayer for amendment of the cause title and also amendment sought in para-1 of the plaint, there could be no dispute. But it is not understood as to how the trial court rejected such amendment. The prayer for amendment should be allowed, more particularly, in a case where it does not change the nature and character of the suit nor the cause of action. In so far as the new prayer for incorporation in the prayer of the plaint is concerned, by allowing such amendment, neither the defendant shall suffer any prejudice nor can it be said to change the nature and character of the suit. Therefore, the trial court should not have been so much hyper-technical in rejecting the plaintiff's prayer. 6. It is needless to state that the defendant No. 5 did not choose to file written statement despite receipt of money from the plaintiff. Therefore, the trial court should not have been so much hyper-technical in rejecting the plaintiff's prayer. 6. It is needless to state that the defendant No. 5 did not choose to file written statement despite receipt of money from the plaintiff. The question would arise as to whether the defendant No. 5 received the amount for himself or on behalf of defendant No. 1. Such question can only crop up for consideration after the written statement is filed by the defendant No. 1 disputing the plaintiff's averments. It does not lie in the mouth of defendant No, 5 to dispute about the amendment sought for by the plaintiff, since he has not filed any written statement from the beginning by controverting the allegations. 7. The courts exist to advance the cause of justice and not to hinder it. It is the settled position of law that when an amendment is sought for, the same should be liberally considered unless such amendment would alter the nature and character of the suit or it was filed designedly to protract the litigation and/ or it has been presented after the period of limitation. In the original prayer, the plaintiff has asked for declaration of title in respect of those buses and in the amended prayer he has sought to recover the amount from defendant No. 5 (who did not dispute about the receipt of consideration from the plaintiff) in case, the court held that the power-of-attorney purported to have been executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 5 was untrue. Therefore, while praying for alternative prayer, the plaintiff can file amendment application at any time during the pendency of the suit, even, before the appellate court for final and effective adjudication of the litigation. In this regard a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sri Budhinath Padhi Vs. Second Additional District Judge and Others, may be relied upon. In this case by allowing the amendment it cannot however be construed that the plea of limitation is rejected if it is otherwise barred by limitation. Such question is always open to be considered at the time of trial. Accordingly, I am not in a position to agree with the observation of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in rejecting the amendment. Such question is always open to be considered at the time of trial. Accordingly, I am not in a position to agree with the observation of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in rejecting the amendment. The defendant No. 5 can file his written statement within four weeks from date and contest the issue. In the result the plaintiff's prayer for amendment is allowed and consequently the revision succeeds. No costs. 8. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed