Vikramajit Sen, J. ( 1 ) THIS suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 19,37,589. 00 underorder XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. Summons in Form No. 4 of Appendsb, directing the defendants to enter appearance within ten days from the date ofservice were admittedly served on the defendants on 25. 10. 1996 but appearance wasentered on their behalf only on 21. 12. 1996. Simultaneously I. A. 178/97hasbeenfiledby them under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Order XXXVII, Rule 3 (7)of the C. P. C. ( 2 ) THE case made out for condoning the delay in entering appearance is thatdefendant No. 1 was admitted in hospital between 26. 10. 1996 and 28. 10. 1996, andwas advised complete bed rest as he was suffering from various other ailments. Medical Reports and Certificates have been filed. It has been further stated thatdefendant No. 2, being a housewife, attended to only household chores and "is notof any assistance to defendant No. 1 for field works". Defendant No. 1 had contactedhis Counsel on 29. 10. 1996 but could not keep his appointment for 1. 11. 1996 due tothe dislocation of his knee on 30. 10. 1996. In paragraph 4 of the application it has beenstated that "the necessary papers regarding the matter were sent by the defendantno. 1 to his Counsel through his domestic help. Interim present Counsel handedover to the said domestic help a Vakalatnama which was to be signed by thedefendants. " This Vakalatnama was thereafter sent. No explanation has beenpreferred for not taking requisite action in the period presumably commencingfrom 1. 11. 1996 upto 18. 12. 1996 on which date the defendant No. 1 is stated to havebecome well enough to move about. It has been further stated in the application thathe contacted his Counsel on the evening of 20. 12. 1996. On these facts it is pleadedthat the delay of the defendants in not putting appearance within ten days of service,i. e. by 5. 11. 1996, was totally unintentional and for bona fide reasons. ( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the Court Records, it transpires that the defendants advocate had inspected them on 19. 11. 1996 and 12. 12. 1996. No explanation hasbeen given for the non-disclosure of these facts which are germane to the issues nowbeing canvassed in Court. 11. 1996, was totally unintentional and for bona fide reasons. ( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the Court Records, it transpires that the defendants advocate had inspected them on 19. 11. 1996 and 12. 12. 1996. No explanation hasbeen given for the non-disclosure of these facts which are germane to the issues nowbeing canvassed in Court. Failure to plead and explain these relevant facts cannotbe ignored, and it is not a satisfactory answer that these facts have been stated in therejoinder to the application that is, after an objection to this effect had been takenby the plaintiff. The hospital is ation of the defendant No. 1 between 26th to 2 8/10/1996, and the subsequent alleged dislocation of the knee and other ailmentscannot be considered as an obstacle or deterrence in appearance being entered onbehalf of defendants. This action did not require or entail the presence of either ofthe defendants. The averments in the application itself show that defendant No. 1had contacted his Advocate within time and had even furnished a Vakalatnama. No justifiable reason has been given for the non-compliance of simple formality ofentering appearance. Had these reasons been given for the condonation of delay infiling an application seeking leave to defend, it would perhaps have carried someweight, since the presence and briefing of the defendants would then have beencalled for. Learned Counsel for the defendants could not controvert that thepersonal attendance of the defendants was not required at the stage of enteringappearance, as envisaged in Order XXXVII of the C. P. C. ( 4 ) A Vakalatnama dated 21. 12. 1996 executed by defendant No. 2 is on record. It is signed in English and the attending circumstances do not show that she was apardanashin lady as is sought to be made out now. Annexure P-l to the plaint whichis the Agreement between the parties hereto, has also been signed by defendant No. 2 which would also belie the stand that she was a Pardanashin lady. A recital in thisagreement is. to the effect that both the defendants are carrying on business ofceramic tiles and sanitary wares at property No. 5279, Shradanand Marg, Delhi-110006 in the name of their proprietary concern M/s. Delhi Marble House andm/s. Ceramic House respectively. Defendant No. 2 is evidently an educatedbusiness woman and there was no obstacle in her ensuring that the requirementspostulated in Oraer XXXVII were complied with within the stipulated period. Defendant No. 2 is evidently an educatedbusiness woman and there was no obstacle in her ensuring that the requirementspostulated in Oraer XXXVII were complied with within the stipulated period. Evenif the allegation that she was a Pardanashin lady is taken to be correct, this in itselfwould not be sufficient for condoning the delay for the reason that, on havingobtained authority to represent the defendants, it was left only to their Counsel toenter appearance. When a special procedure has been conceived of, it should not beallowed to be circumvented and ignored on palpably flippant grounds. For thesereasons the application for condoning the delay is rejected. . Suit No. 2343/96 ( 5 ) SUB-RULE (3) of Rule 2 of Order XXXVII states that in default of the defendantentering appearance, the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted andthe plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree for any sum, not exceeding the summentioned in the summons, together with interest at the rate specified if any. Theapplication for the condonation of delay in entering appearance has been rejectedand the plaint must be accepted to be correct. It is averred in the plaint that Annexurep-1 was executed on 30. 9. 1994 between the parties, wherein the liability of thedefendants was unequivocally admitted, defendant No. 1 had admitted andacknowledged liability to a sum of Rs. 1,42,694. 00 and defendant No. 2 had admittedand acknowledged the liability to a sum of Rs. 8,23,477. 00. In terms of para 5 of thisagreement defendant No. 1 had undertaken to pay the then outstanding sum of Rs. 9,66,171. 00 in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 50,000. 00 each. Defendant No. 2 hadguaranteed payment of the entire amount then outstanding. Pursuant to thisagreement, two payments of Rs. 10,000. 00 each has been paid. It has been averredthat six cheques, as detailed in Annexure P-2 had been given to the plaintiff bydefendant No. 1, but these were dishonoured when presented for encashment. I seeno reason for disbelieving the averments in the plaint, since these are supported bydocumentary proof. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved thatthe defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,46,171. 00 towardsprincipal amount and Rs. 9,91,418. 00 towards interest accrued thereon till the filingof the suit. I accordingly pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 19,37,589. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, I hold that the plaintiff has sufficiently proved thatthe defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 9,46,171. 00 towardsprincipal amount and Rs. 9,91,418. 00 towards interest accrued thereon till the filingof the suit. I accordingly pass a decree in the sum of Rs. 19,37,589. 00 together withpendente lite and future interest, however at the rate of 18 per cent per annum,together with costs of the suit.