The court held that the omission of a necessary averment in the original plaint rendered it defective but did not mean that the plaint never existed or could not be amended. The subsequent amendment, which included the required averment, cured the defect. The court emphasized its inherent power to allow amendments to pleadings to correct defects, provided it has jurisdiction. The defendant's argument that the amendment was ineffectual because the original plaint was void was rejected. The court found that the amended plaint was valid and that the application to strike out the plaint had no merit.