##PAGE1##

23.12.2025

Ct. No. 06

Sl. No.1

skg

C.O. No. 3687 of 2025

M/s. Subham Enterprise

Vs.

Sri Joy Baba Kedernath Cold Storage Private Ltd. & Ors.

Mr. Anirban Bose,

Mr. Amar Krishna Saha,

Ms. Smita Singh,

Mr. Rahul Nag,

Mr. Satyajit Senapati,

…..for the petitioner

Mr. Ayan Banerjee,

Mr. Ajay Chowdhury,

…for the opposite parties

1. In the penultimate line of paragraph 3 of the order

dated November 12, 2025 Rs.49,30,678/- be corrected

as Rs.41,30,678/-.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated August

14, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.),

Chandannagar, Hooghly in Money Suit no. 18 of 2021.

3. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected the

application for amendment after issues were framed.

The petitioner wanted to correct certain typographical

errors in the figures. According to the petitioner there

were miscalculations. The total money claim of the

petitioner was mentioned as Rs.39,05,530/- but the

said claim ought to have been Rs.41,30,678.

2

4. The other paragraphs of the plaint in which the similar

typographical errors in the figures had cropped up

were also sought to be corrected. The learned Court

was of the view that the claim was time barred. Such

amendment would not only prolong the trial, but also

unfairly prejudice the defendants. If the amendments

were allowed, it would not only dilute the discipline,

but also amount to rewriting the suit after four years.

The doors of amendment could not be kept ajar to

allow stale and time barred claim. Several decisions of

the Hon’ble Apex Court were relied upon by the

learned court, to justify refusal of the amendment.

5. Mr. Bose learned Advocate for the petitioner submits

that the learned court failed to appreciate that the

petitioner did not incorporate a new claim, but the

mistake in the computation was sought to be

corrected. The claim was thus, not time barred. It is

also submitted that the merits of the amendment

application ought not to have been decided by the

learned Court.

6. Mr. Banerjee learned Advocate for the opposite

parties/defendants submits that, this is a suit for

recovery of money. The petitioner enhanced the claim

after four years from the filing of the suit. Such claim

was barred by limitation. The Hon’ble Apex Court had

clearly held that, although amendments should be

3

allowed liberally, but an amendment could not be

allowed in order to introduce a time barred claim.

7. I appreciate the submissions of Mr. Banerjee. The

application for amendment states that after going

through the vouchers and the payments received from

the defendants, the petitioner discovered that the sum

of money stated in the plaint was incorrect. There were

miscalculations and the actual amount payable at the

relevant point of time was Rs.41,30,678/-. In other

paragraphs as well, certain mistakes in the figures had

occurred. The vouchers were not considered properly

at the relevant point of time. Those errors were sought

to be corrected.

8. In my view, the plaintiff can correct mistakes in the

calculations. Whether the enhancement in the

quantum of money was an additional claim or whether

the said amount was the actual claim but had not

been stated in the plaint at the time of filing of the

suit, is a matter of evidence. The payment vouchers

and other documents on the basis of which the errors

in miscalculations were corrected, will have to be

looked into, to understand whether the claim is time

barred or not. This can only be done upon

appreciation of evidence. Thus, the amendment is

allowed, but the point of limitation with regard to the

enhanced claim introduced by way of the amendment,

shall be decided at the trial.

4

9. Although, the issues have been framed, allowing this

amendment will not create any impediment in the

trial. The plaint case remains the same. No new cause

of action has been brought in. The amendment can be

allowed upon payment of cost to the defendant. The

petitioner is allowed to file the amended plaint within a

period of 4 weeks from date. Such amended plaint will

be accepted by the co