Judgment The appeal is treated as on the day's list and is disposed of along with the stay application which appears in the list after filing of affidavits. The appeal is against an order dated the 10th of October 2002 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta passing a summary decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- with interim interest and interest on judgment @ 10% per annum from 8.10.96 till 25.3.2002 and interest on judgment @ 8% per annum. 2. The suit was filed in 1999 for the said principal sum being the un-refunded amount of moneys paid, for which consideration had totally failed. According to the plaintiff the defendant-appellant had failed to deliver the flat for which the payment had been made. The Hon'ble Judge found no defence worth the name raised to the simple plea of the plaintiff and after hearing the learned Advocates we cannot find any defence worth the name either. 3. To be very exact, the decree passed by the Court below was to follow default in furnishing si3curity in the amount of Rs.13,50,000/-. Time for four weeks was granted but until no such security has not been furnished and the order under appeal was never stayed. As such the present effect of the impugned order is that a summary decree has come into being. 4. Under Chapter 13A of the Original Side Rules of our Court summary decrees of the above nature can be obtained for liquidated money claims to which no reasonable defence can be raised by the defendant. 5. No doubt a written statement was filed in July 1979 by the defendant and no doubt there had been several interlocutory proceedings including an application for obtaining of security before judgment. But these do not stop the Court from passing a summary decree in an appropriate case like this. A technical defence was taken to the maintainability of the application under Chapter 13A. The proviso to Rule 3 of Chapter 13A was relied upon and the said proviso reads as follows:- "Provided that as against any defendant who has filed a written statement such application shall not be permissible unless the summons is taken out as in Rule 4 mentioned within ten days after receipt of notice of the entering of appearance under Chapter-VIII Rule 18". 6. 6. It will be seen from the proviso that it might, in certain cases, taken advantage of by a defendant who has already filed a written statement before the 13A summons is taken out. That condition is satisfied by the appellant here. But the second point is that the 13A application must be delayed beyond 10 days of receipt of notice of entering of appearance by the defendant. No doubt various applications having been made and the defendant having made appearance therein, it would not be difficult for the plaintiff or the plaintiff's Advocate to know or assume that the defendant wished to contest the suit also, and had entered appearance. But such knowledge does not prevent the application being made under Chapter-13A. A notice of entering of appearance is served on the Original Side in the usual manner as between Solicitor and Solicitor (as previously), and now between Advocate on record and Advocate-on-record (hopefully the practice is still continuing); it is a special communication and that special communication is given importance by the words of the proviso to the above rule. 7. The technical defence of a special limitation to Chapter 13A has to succeed on satisfaction of the technicalities. Since there is no mention of any service or receipt of notice of entering of appearance in the papers before us or in the papers in the Court below the technical defence does not succeed. We are quite happy that it does not succeed, because a Court is always reluctant to turn down a good claim because of a mere technical plea. 8. The order appealed from is confirmed. The appeal and the application are both dismissed with costs. 9. Since the decree has already come into operation it be drawn up expeditiously in accordance with the order under appeal. 10. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for but the prayer is refused. All parties, the Department and all others concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this dictated order on the usual undertakings.