### Summary of Judgment: Skipper Furnishing Pvt. Ltd. v. Anubandh Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Legal Headline: Annual written balance confirmations and issuance of cheques constitute valid acknowledgments of debt, defeating limitation pleas. Key Legal Principles & Findings: * Acknowledgment of Liability: The Court held that balance confirmations issued at the end of every financial year and the issuance of a cheque in 2019 served as written acknowledgments of both principal and interest under the Limitation Act, 1963. * Limitation and COVID-19 Period: The suit filed in 2024 for a 2014 loan was deemed within time, as the plaintiff was entitled to exclude the period prescribed by the Supreme Court’s *suo motu* extensions during the COVID-19 pandemic. * Order XXXVII Maintainability: A suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC is maintainable when the debt and interest rate are documented through written balance confirmations, even in the absence of a formal initial contract. * Leave to Defend: Unconditional leave to defend cannot be granted if the defense is "moonshine." Admitting the receipt of funds while failing to provide a bona fide explanation for non-payment justifies a summary decree. * Clerical Corrections: Minor typographical or grammatical corrections made during departmental scrutiny of a plaint do not constitute "amendments" that violate the procedural requirements of Order XXXVII. Conclusion: The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decree, finding no merit in the appellant's challenge regarding limitation or procedural non-compliance.

The Respondent (Anubandh Financial Services) advanced a loan of Rs. 30 lakhs to the Appellant in 2014.

While the receipt of the principal is admitted, the Appellant claimed interest was only agreed upon for a three-month period.

Between 2014 and 2019, the Appellant issued written balance confirmations acknowledging both principal and interest, and further issued a cheque in 2019 which was withheld from presentation at the Appellant's request.

The Respondent filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in 2024.

A Single Judge of the High Court passed a judgment and decree on June 25, 2025, directing the Appellant to pay Rs. 30 lakhs plus 10% interest from June 19, 2019.

1. Whether the suit was barred by the laws of limitation given the loan originated in 2014 and the suit was filed in 2024.

2. Whether the suit was maintainable under Order XXXVII of the CPC in the absence of a formal written contract for interest.

3. Whether the procedural corrections/amendments in the plaint vitiated the summary procedure.

Limitation Act, 1963, specifically regarding the acknowledgement of debt in writing which resets the period of limitation.

COVID-19 limitation extension principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs summary suits based on written contracts or liquidated demands.

Principle that minor typographical or grammatical corrections in a plaint do not alter the nature and character of a suit.

The Court found the Appellant’s defense to be "moonshine" because the debt was consistently acknowledged through written balance confirmations at the end of every financial year since 2014.

These acknowledgments specifically included interest, negating the Appellant's claim that no written contract for interest existed.

Regarding limitation, the Court held that the 2019 cheque issuance served as a fresh acknowledgment of liability, and the subsequent filing in 2024 was protected by the Supreme Court’s COVID-era limitation extensions.

The Court dismissed the procedural objection regarding plaint amendments, noting that the Department-transcribed corrections were merely typographical/grammatical and did not shift the cause of action.

Since no bona fide defense was raised, the Court affirmed that the Appellant was not entitled to leave to defend.

It held that the suit was within the limitation period due to continuous written acknowledgments and the benefit of the COVID-19 extension.

The Court confirmed the Appellant's liability for the principal sum of Rs. 30 lakhs and the interest as decreed; IA No. GA-COM/1/2026 was allowed, but the main appeal APDT/10/2026 was dismissed without costs.