JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---Heard both sides. On examination of the plaint and the reply, it is seen that the defendant has not seriously disputed the substantial claim made by the plaintiff in the suit. Of course, a dispute has been raised by the defendants as to the rate of interest claimed by the plaintiff. I have examined the claim also and I noticed that interest on interest has been claimed in the plaint. In view of this excessive claim of interest made in the plaint, the Counsel for the defendants Mr. Tulzapurkar has argued to grant unconditional leave, on the basis of the judgment of this Court reported in 1998(I) L.J. 793 (Hydraulic and General Engineering Ltd. another v. UCO Bank)1. 2.He contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the above case has observed that if the interest claimed by the defendant is illegal two options are left for the plaintiff; one is to grant unconditional leave to defend the suit and another is to withdraw the Chamber Summons and after amending the plaint apply for fresh Chamber Summons. Mr. Tulzapurkar contended that this decision is binding on me and that I have to dismiss the Summons for Judgment if the plaintiff does not exercise any one of the above two options. Summons for Judgment as its nomenclature implies is only summons issued by the Court in Form No. 4-A statutorily prescribed under the C.P.C. Therefore dismissal of Summons for Judgment does not arise at all as contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant as the Summons having been already served on the defendant. Under Clause 5 of Rule 3 under Order 37 C.P.C., on Summons for Judgment in a summary suit being served on the defendant, he can apply for leave of the Court to defend the suit. Second proviso to the said Clause 5 of Rule 3, indicates that if the fact of the claim is not disputed, only conditional leave can be granted to the defendant. This implies that if other part of the claim, say interest, is disputed this Court can have no power to dismiss the Chamber Summons. 3.In this legal paradigm on a close reading of the above cited judgment and also the judgment relied upon by the Division Bench, it cannot be construed that any law has been laid down in those judgments to bind me. 3.In this legal paradigm on a close reading of the above cited judgment and also the judgment relied upon by the Division Bench, it cannot be construed that any law has been laid down in those judgments to bind me. The Division Bench has observed that two options are there for the plaintiff to cure such defects, pointed out therein. But according to me, one more option is available to the plaintiff. Order on the claim of interest is after all the discretion of the Court. The Court may grant the interest as envisaged under section 34 of C.P.C. It is always the discretion of the Court to grant interest. If according to the defendant the interest claimed is excessive and a wrong calculation has been adopted by the plaintiff, it is open to the plaintiff to seek the Court to grant the interest at such rate as the Court deems fit to grant. Yet another option is available for the plaintiff. He can apply for amendment of the prayer of the plaint. So that such defect can be cured. The Supreme Court has time and again held that the amendment of the plaint unless it does prejudicially affect the defendant or alter the nature of the suit, it can never be rejected. If the plaintiff comes forward on realising his mistakes and pray the Court for amendment of the plaint, certainly it is incumbent upon the Court to allow that request and cure the defect. If this option is available to the plaintiff, I do not think that merely because an excessive interest is claimed, one can compel the plaintiff to withdraw the Summons. A Summons which was already served on the defendant and in response to which he appeared and sought the leave of the Court to defend, it has to be considered that it worked itself out, and therefore nothing left for the Court to make any order on that or to dismiss the same. 4.However, the circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench does not arise in this case. In that case the Division Bench came to a conclusion that interest claimed was illegal. I do not find that interest claimed in this case is illegal. It can be termed only an irregular claim which can be cured. 4.However, the circumstances enumerated in the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench does not arise in this case. In that case the Division Bench came to a conclusion that interest claimed was illegal. I do not find that interest claimed in this case is illegal. It can be termed only an irregular claim which can be cured. Really a wrong calculation has been alleged in this case, which can be cured at any time as indicated above by way of amendment or a request made to the Court for exercising the discretion to grant appropriate interest. 5.In this case another circumstance also arise. There is a categorical admission made by the defendants in paragraph 7 of the reply, that a scheme of arrangement under sections 391 and 394 of the Company Act of 1950 is pending in the High Court of Calcutta and if the scheme is sanctioned all the creditors including the plaintiff will be paid the amount due and payable to them. In view of this categorical admission, under Second Proviso to sub clause (5) of Rule 3, I find it is a fit case where conditional leave is to be granted to the defendant on depositing an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs within 16 weeks from today; I order accordingly. Written Statement shall be filed within 2 weeks thereafter. 6.Suit is transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. 7.Prothonotary to invest the above amount initially for a period of one year and thereafter to renew the same every year till the suit is finally heard. Certified copy expedited. Suit transferred to Commercial Cause. -----