JUDGMENT

Ext.P1, order dated 30.10.2010 passed by learned Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on I.A.No.4154 of 2010 in O.S.No.52 of 2003 allowing amendment of the plaint is under challenge.

2. Respondent filed the suit against petitioner/1st defendant and others for recovery of money, initially `1,27,55,070/-, later amended as for recovery of `1,48,26,573/-. Petitioner/1st defendant challenges the order allowing amendment on various grounds including that amendment is allowed on the basis of a report which is unacceptable and that prayer incorporated by amendment is otherwise barred by limitation and hence ought not to have been allowed. It is contended that learned Sub Judge was not correct in observing that the claim incorporated by amendment is not barred by limitation.

3. Ext.P3 is the copy of plaint filed by the respondent. It is the case of respondent that certain construction work was entrusted to it and that before completion of the work, petitioner illegally terminated the contract. There was breach of contract on the part of petitioner consequent to which respondent suffered damages in that cost of work done was not paid to the respondent. Respondent claimed, initially