1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.874 of 2006 MOST.ANUPI DEVI Versus MOUSMI KUMARI & ORS ----------- 10. 16.10.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for O.P.No.9. Despite service of notice the other opposite parties have not chosen to be represented by their counsel. In the opinion of this Court the amendment sought in paragraph 21 of the written statement was absolutely formal in nature, inasmuch as if paragraph 11 of the written statement is read it would become clear that the expression ‘defendants’ has been used in 7th line of paragraph 21 as an inadvertent error, typing or otherwise and was definitely one which was neither capable of changing the nature of the suit nor aimed to take away any admission by her in the original written statement. As indicated above paragraph 11 to the same effect clearly conveys the stand of the petitioner that as the consideration amount was not deposited by the plaintiff the title did not pass to the plaintiff. This was the fact which was again stated in paragraph 21 and 2 therefore, the court below ought to have allowed such formal nature of amendment. That having been not done, this Court would set aside the impugned order and would direct for amendment to be incorporated in the written statement, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/- and a chance of rebuttal to the defendant which must be availed by him within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order in which period the amount of cost should also be deposited. With the aforementioned observation, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/