SAT PAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery ofrs. 507328. 00 with pendente lite and future interest @ 20% p. a. filed by the plaintiff against the defendants under the provision of Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts as mentioned in the plaint are that the plaintiff which is a propreitory concern is carrying on the business of advertising and marketing consultants. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff obtained an order of publishing "coffee TABLE BOOK ON U. P. " from the U. P. State Tourism Development Corporation and entered into a written contract with defendant No. I and the agreement between the partics was executed on 30th day of September, 1991. The defendant No. 2 had executed the agreement as Managing Director of the defendant No. I. In terms of the said agreement, the First Print run was of 3000 copies and the agreement between the parties was for a sum of Rs. 7,l 1. 450. 00 and each book was to cost Rs. 279. 00 landed at Madras inclusive of 15% agency commission payable to the plaintiff by the defendant No. I and the defendant No. l was also to pay a royally on 10% on 1500copiestou. P. Statetourism Development Corporation. ( 3 ) IT is further stated in the plaint that as per Clause 5 of the agreement dated 30. 9. 91 mentioned hereinabove, the plaintiff was to advance 50% of the total estimated cost to defendant No. 1. adjustable against the Final bill to be submitted by the defendant No. 1 and pursuant to this. the plaintiff advanced a sum ofrs. 3,37,957. 00 vide Cheque No. 033457 dated 30. 9. 91 drawn in favour of defendant No. l and the same was encashed by the said defendant. It is then alleged that thereafter defendant No. 2 who is the Managing Director of defendant No. I did not execute the work as entrused to him and Finally by his letter dated 4th November, 1992 informed the plaintiff that they were making arrangements to return the sum ofrs. 3,37,957. 00 which had been given to them for the project. It is then alleged that thereafter defendant No. 2 who is the Managing Director of defendant No. I did not execute the work as entrused to him and Finally by his letter dated 4th November, 1992 informed the plaintiff that they were making arrangements to return the sum ofrs. 3,37,957. 00 which had been given to them for the project. The said letter reads as under :- "bnv/aa/92 M/s Appeal Advertising and Marketing Consultants 383 Pocket C Sheikh Sarai Phase I SFS Flats 4 November 1992 New Delhi Dear Sir Wonders of Uttar Pradesh We wish to inform you that we arc making arrangements to relurn the sum ofrs. 3. 37,957. 00 that you had given to us for this project. Thanking you Yours faithfully sd/- B N Varma Managing Director" ( 4 ) IT is then alleged that the plaint iff had to entrust their project to another firm M/s. Nu Tech Photolilhographers who accepted the said job vide their letter dated 1. 5. 93 for a sum ofrs. 7,05. 000-/. It is further staled in the plaint that meanwhile the plaintiff vide its Regd. A. D. letter dated 22. 2. 93 demanded from the defendants 1 and 2 the return of Rs. 3. 37,957. 00 alongwith interest @ 20% p. a. . but the defendants did not rehind the said amount with interest. Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit under the provision of Order 37 of the Code as stated hereinabove. ( 5 ) SUMMONS in the prescribed form were issued to the defendants. Defendants I and2enteredintotheappearanceon6thjuly. 1993. At thercquestoftheplaintiff,lhcnamc of defendant No. 3 was deleted from the array of the parties vide orders dated 9th July. 1993. Summons for judgement were filed by the plaintiff in the registry on 16thjuly. 1993. The service of the summons for judgement was accepted by the defendants I and 2 through their counsel in the Court on 23rd September. 1993. There after defendants land 2 filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code on 4th October, 1993 seeking leave to defend the suit. Reply to this application was Filed by the plaintiff on 12. 10. 93. However, no rejoinder has been filed. on behalf of defendants I and2. ( 6 ) MR. There after defendants land 2 filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code on 4th October, 1993 seeking leave to defend the suit. Reply to this application was Filed by the plaintiff on 12. 10. 93. However, no rejoinder has been filed. on behalf of defendants I and2. ( 6 ) MR. Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants I and 2 drew my attention to the agreement signed between the parties on 30th September. 1991 and submitted that in terms of Clause 6 of the agreement the work was to be delivered within 105 days to the representative either of the plaintiff or of U. P. State Tourism Development Corporation and in terms of Clause 10 of the agreement if the poposed work was not completed within the stipulated time, the plaintiff was entitled to make the deduction upto 20% from the final bill of the publisher. He also drew my attention to the supplementary agreement dated 29. 9. 92 in terms of which the defendants were given extension upto 31st October. 1992 for delivery of the 1500copiesatmadras. He submitted that in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff could make deduction of 20% from the bill but was not entitled to recover the amount advanced to the defendants. As regards Hie letter dated 4th November, 1992 wherein the defendant No. 2 had slated that the defendants were making arrangements to return the sum of Rs. 3,37. 957. 00 , learned counsel submitted that the defendant No. 2 was coerced by the plaintiff to sign the said letter. Learned counsel further submitted that in their application seeking leave to defend the suit. the defendants had made counter claims towards the business losses and other expenses incurred in the job work since 1991. Relying on these facts learned counsel contended that the said facts raised triable issues and are of such a nature that unconditional leave should be granted to the defendants to defend the suit. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of Supreme Court reported in the case of R (ij Duggal VS. Ramesh Kumarbansal, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 191 and a Devision Bench judge- ment of this Court reported in the case of Ilira Lal and Sons Vs. Lakshmi Commercial Bank,25 (1984) DLT (SN)33. ( 7 ) MR. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a judgement of Supreme Court reported in the case of R (ij Duggal VS. Ramesh Kumarbansal, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 191 and a Devision Bench judge- ment of this Court reported in the case of Ilira Lal and Sons Vs. Lakshmi Commercial Bank,25 (1984) DLT (SN)33. ( 7 ) MR. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, however, submit- ted that the defendants had not denied the receipt of the amount ofrs. 3. 37. 957. 00 advanced to them on 30. 9. 91. He further submitted that the defendants failed to do any work entrusted to them interms of agreement signed between the partics on 30. 9. 91. At their request. the time to do the job was extended up to 31stoclober. 1992 in terms of letter dated 29. 9. 92 but despite this extension, they failed to do the job. It was in hese circumstances that the defendants informed the plaintiff vide their letter dated 4lh November. 1992 that they were making arrangements to return the sum of R. S. 3. 37. 957. 00 which they hail received for the project. He further submitted that it was an aflerthought on the part of the defendants that they had signed the said letter under coercion. He submitted that at no point of time the defendants had sent any letter to the plaintiffs staling the alleged fact that the letter dated 4th November, 1992 was signed by them under threat and coercion. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that the defence raised by the defendants was sham one and as such the defendants were not entitled to leave to defend. As regards the counter-claim, learned counsel submitted that this defence was not available in a suit filed under the provision of Order 37 of the Code. In support of this submission he placed reliance on a judgement of this Court reported in the case of Deutsche Ranco GMBII VS. Mohan Murti, 52 (1993)Dclhi Law Times 288. ( 8 ) I have given my. thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 3,37,957. 00 on 30. 9. 91 vide cheque No. 033457 of the same dale from the plaintiff. Mohan Murti, 52 (1993)Dclhi Law Times 288. ( 8 ) I have given my. thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the defendants had received a sum of Rs. 3,37,957. 00 on 30. 9. 91 vide cheque No. 033457 of the same dale from the plaintiff. The letter dated 29th September, 1992 written by the plaintiff to the defendant No. l which has also been relied upon by learned counsel for the defendants, clearly shows that the defendants were not able to do the job even till that date and by this letter lime was extended by the plaintiff uplo 31st October. 1992 for delivery of 1500 copies in Madras. It appears that since the defendants failed to do the job even uplo 31st October, 1992, they had written the letter dated 4th November, 1992 to the plaintiff wherein they had stated that they were making arrangements to return the sum ofrs. 3. 37. 957. 00 which was given to them for the project. ( 9 ) THE defence raised on behalf of the defendants that the said letter was signed by them under threat and coercion does not appear to be bonafide as no letter is stated to have been written by the defendants tollicplainliffafter4lh November, 1992alleging the fact that the said letter dated 4. 11. 92 was signed by them under threat and coercion. Though there is a vague allegation in the application for leave to defend that the plaintiff once visited personally alongwith one person and threatend the defendant No. 2 the if he would not give in writing the reciept of the said amount. he would be killed and complaint about such threats was lodged at the Paschim Vihar Police Station, but the said allegation is totally vague and without material particulars. For instance neither the date of said threat has been mentioned nor the date on which the complaint was lodged at Paschim Vihar Police Station has been mentioned and nor a copy of the FIR has been placed on record. In view of this, the allegation of the defendants that the letter dated 4th November. 1992 was signed by the defendant No. 2 under threat and coercion appears to be an after- thought. . In view of this, the allegation of the defendants that the letter dated 4th November. 1992 was signed by the defendant No. 2 under threat and coercion appears to be an after- thought. . ( 10 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff could only make deduction of 20% from the bill in terms of the agreement becomes irrelavant after the defendants videtheirletterdatcd4th November, 1992hadpromisedtoretum the sum ofrs. 3,37. 957. 00 to the plaintiff which was given to them by the plaintiff for the project. As regards the counter-claim, this defence is not available to the defendants in a suit Filed under the provision of Order 37 of the Code as held By this Court in two judgements reported in the case of Punjab and Sindh Bank VS. B. S. K. Tulsan, ILR (1991) 1 Delhi 293and my judgement in the case of Deutscheranco GMBH (supra ). ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion I find that facts stated in the application for leave to defend do not raise triable issues and the defence raised on behalf of the defendants is a sham one. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Duggal (supra) leave should be declined where the court is of the opinion that the grant of leave would merely enable the defendant to prolong the litigation by raising untenable and frivolous defences. The present case being of this nature, leave to -defend cannot be granted to the defendants. The application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the defendants 1 and 2 is accordingly dismissed. ( 12 ) THE application for leave to defend filed by the defendants having been dismissed, the facts stated in the plaint are admitted as correct. Accordingly, the suit for recovery of Rs. 5,07,328. 00 is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff will also be entitled to pendente lite and future interest 12%p. a. from the date of Filing of the suit till realisation. Let the decree be drawn accordingly. With this order suit and IAs 5721-5722/93 stand disposed of.