With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the disputed parcel of land, and deny that the other party was in possession. To go forward with the quiet title action, the trial court must have concluded that the Moores were in possession of the .534 acre parcel at issue here. The trial court failed, however, to set forth its reasoning on this issue; in fact, it is unclear whether the question was ever considered. The Moores also fail to discuss the matter. Regardless of the rationale, however, we conclude that the trial court’s maintenance of this case as an action to quiet title was not fatal to the cause of action claimed. This Court has previously determined that, even on appeal, we may amend the pleadings when necessary to conform to the proper form of action as established by the evidence. See Sutton v. Miller, supra (<HOLDING>); Plauchak v. Boling, supra, at 163, 653 A.2d

A: holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error
B: holding that the trial courts failure to dismiss the action to quiet title was error because the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question but the error was not fatal to the claim because the superior court could sua sponte amend the pleadings to include an action in ejectment
C: holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
D: holding that the failure to charge an essential element of a crime in the indictment is an error which should be noted by an appellate court sua sponte as plain error
B.