IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19680 of 2010 SRI UMESH KUMAR & ORS . Versus SMT. RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS . ----------- 9. 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice was issued to the opposite parties on 9.11.2009 and further proceeding in Title Suit No. 166 of 2002, pending before the Subordinate Judge III, Madhubani, stayed. The contesting respondent no. 1, has entered appearance through counsel but none appears on her behalf. No one had appeared on her behalf on Thursday and Friday last when the Court suo motu passed over the matter. Today also no one appears. The Court has therefore no option but to take up the matter for consideration ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioners questions the order dated 18.5.2009 by which amendment sought in the plaint has been rejected. It is submitted that those who were proposed to be added as plaintiffs were none other than the brother, sister and mother of the petitioner. Whether it was sought to be done under Order 6 Rule 17 or Order 1 Rule 10, was hardly relevant. What had to be seen is the substance and not the form. There is no justification for rejecting the prayer without considering it on merits whether they were necessary 2 parties or not. In so far as amendment-D was concerned, allowing the amendment is one aspect of the matter proving the averments made in the amendment petition during the trial is another aspect of the matter. The trial Court has rejected the amendment questioning that no material on merits has been brought on record in support of the same. The impugned order dated 18.5.2009 is accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)