Y. K. Sabharwal, J ( 1 ) THESE 2 appeals by mother and son challenge the judgment and order dated 1st May, 1997 whereby their application for leave to defend the suit tiled under Order 37, Civil Procedure Code. has been dismissed and decree has been passed, against them for recovery of Rs. 85,62,500. 00 with simple interest @> 1. 5% P. A. from the date of the suit till payment. ( 2 ) THE suit No. 2524/93 was tiled against Kamlesh Kamal and Company-Deft. No. 1 of which Kamesh Kolili Dell. No. 2 (Appellant in Appeal No. 1977/97) is a sole proprietor and Deft. No. 3 Rajiv Kohli son of Kamlesh Kohli. The suit was based on Memorandum of Agreement dated 19th November, 1992 entered between the plaintiffs and deft. No. 1 and deft. No. 2 Rajiv Kohli has signed the agreement authorised signatory of his mother. ( 3 ) IN brief the case of the plaintiffs in the suit is that Kamlesh Kohli has been holding a membership ticket of Delhi Stock Exchange and has been carrying on business in the same of deft. No. 1. As on 10. 9. 92 a sum of Rs. 3. 02 crores was due and payable by defts. to the plaintiffs. On 21. 9. 92 plaintiffs filed a Writ Petition (CW. 3324/92) against Delhi Stock Exchange, deft. No. 1 in the suit and Mr. J. N. Kohli husband of deft. No. 2. In the said W. P. interim restraint order had been granted on 23. 9. 92. During the pendency of the W. P. a settlement was arrived at in terms of Memorandum of Agreement dated 19. 9. 92. The said Memo. inter alia, postulated payment of Rs. 65 lakhs by deft. No. 1 to the plaintiffs within 7 days from the date the agreement is signed, Rs. 60 lakhs on or before 31. 3. 93 and Rs. 20 lakhs in. , tour equal instalments on or before 30. 6. 93, 30. 9. 93,.) 31. 12. 93,31. 3. 94. The agreement was signed by Rajiv Kohli as authorised signatory of deft. No. 1. The Agreement was tiled in the W. P. along with an application lor settlement filed by the parties under order 23 rule 3 read with S. 151, Civil Procedure Code with the supporting affidavit of the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs and Rajiv Kohli, constituted attorney of deft. No. 1. The Agreement was tiled in the W. P. along with an application lor settlement filed by the parties under order 23 rule 3 read with S. 151, Civil Procedure Code with the supporting affidavit of the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs and Rajiv Kohli, constituted attorney of deft. No. 1 in me Suit On the basis of the setllement, the WP was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 23. 11. 92 passed by D. B. of this court. Both the attornies were also present in the Court when the order dated 23. 22. 92 was passed. ( 4 ) THE payment of Rs. 65 lakhs in terms of the settlement was made to the plaintiffs. As already noticed, in terms of Agreement, Rs. 60 lakhs were payable on or before 31. 3. 93 and balance Rs. 20 lakhs on the dales afore-mentioned. The plaintiffs issued notice dated 4. 7. 93 to the dells. 2 and 3 since payment of Rs. 60 lakhs was not made as also the First instalment in respect of Rs. 20 lakhs was also not paid. A joint reply dated 27. 7. 97 was sent by Kamlesh Kohli and Rajiv Kohli to this notice, inter alia, pleading that Kamlesh Kohli was not a party to the agreement dated 19. 11. 92 Defts. 2 and 3 thus repudiated their liability, with the result that the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 80 lakhs and interest. ( 5 ) IT deserves to be noticed that not only the joint reply dated 27th July, 1993, to the notice of the plaintiffs was sent but before learned single Judge all the defts. were represented by same counsel. Further a joint application was filed by mother and son seeking leave to defend the suit, inter alia, pleading thal the mother Kamlesh Kohli was not party to the agreement and deft. No. 3 had no liability. ( 6 ) LEARNED Single Judge after noticing facts of the case as also noticing that Rs. 65 lakhs was paid to the plaintiffs under the Agreement came to the conclusion thal defts. had absolutely no defence and thus dismissing the leave application, the suit was decreed. ( 7 ) NOW, as stated above, two separate appeals have been filed one by mother, other by the son. It is not in dispute that the mother is sole proprietor of deft. had absolutely no defence and thus dismissing the leave application, the suit was decreed. ( 7 ) NOW, as stated above, two separate appeals have been filed one by mother, other by the son. It is not in dispute that the mother is sole proprietor of deft. No. 1. It is also not in dispute that the Agreement was signed by Rajiv Kohli as attorney of defts. 1 and 2. It is further not in dispute that mother and son are living together. Kamkesh Kohli has also admitted having signed cheque in the sum of Rs. 65 lakhs which was given to the plaintiffs. That amount was payable within 7 days of signing the Agreement dated 19. 11. 92. She, however, claims that the said cheque was signed as per her understanding with her son Rajiv Kohli and on assurance given by him that he will re-establish himself after getting business from the plaintiffs. ( 8 ) IT lias been contended by the mother that her son was only attorney for prosecuting the W. P. and had no authority to enter into agreement dated 19. 11. 92 agreeing on behalf of the appellant to pay to the respondeiits/plaintiffs the amount as stipulated in the agreement dated 19. 11. 92. To say the least, the plea is wholly misconceived, malafide, abuse of the process of law and may even amount to contempt of court though this aspect we need not go into in this appeal. The appellant lias abused the process of law by on one hand filing the Memorandum of Agreement in the W. P. and has thus used the process of law to her advantage and on the other hand has now resiled from the Agreement/the coin enient plea of having signed cheque of Rs. 65 lakhs on the asking of the son again shows her real intention and the extent to which the appellant can go. Such dishonest and convenient pleas deserve to be severely condemned. /further it has to be borne in mind that apart from the fact mother and son are living together and not only a joint reply to the notice of plaintiffs was sent but even a joint application for leave to defend was filed. In dlis view, appeal preferred by Kamlesh Kohli deserves to be dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 22,000. 00 to be payable to respondents 1 and 2. In dlis view, appeal preferred by Kamlesh Kohli deserves to be dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 22,000. 00 to be payable to respondents 1 and 2. ( 9 ) THOUGH a lot deserves to be said about the conduct of Rajiv Kohli but having regard to what is pleaded in the plaint, namely, the said deft. having signed as an attorney of defendants 1 and 2, the question whether Rajiv Kohli has any personal liability towards the plaintiffs or not deserves to be tried. Further the plaintiffs in reply to the application for leave to defend has, inter alia, slated that Rajiv Kohli has been arrayed only as a proforma party and no relief is claimed against him personally. In dlis view, Rajiv Kohli is entitled to grant of unconditional leave and thus FAO (OS) 160/97 tiled by Rajiv Kohli is allowed accordingly.