REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

( 1 ) BY this judgment, I shall dispose of the application under Order IX rule 13 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 22nd August, 2003.

( 2 ) THE facts in a nutshell are that a suit for the recovery of rs. 22,64,564/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum pendente lite till realisation and costs was instituted by the plaintiff, M/s. Sandeep industries on 12th January, 1995. Notice of the institution of the suit was duly served on the defendants No. 1 and 3 for 14th July, 1995, on which date counsel for defendants No. 1 and 3 sought time for filing written statement. Defendants No. 1 and 3 assert in the present application that they filed their written statement through the Central Government Standing Counsel, Shri P. S. Sharma "expeditiously". The record belies this: Written Statement has not been filed till date, much less "expeditiously"

( 3 ) AS per the record, on 14th July, 1995 four weeks' time was granted to the defendants No. 1 and 3 to file written statement and the case was renotified for 16th October, 1995. On the said date, that is on 16. 10. 1995, though counsel for defendants No. 1 and 3 appeared, written statement was not filed and was ordered to be filed by this Court within a week's time by supplying advance copy to counsel for the plaintiff. The case was thereafter adjourned to 26th April, 1996. On the said date, that is on 26th April, 1996, the case was listed before the Joint Registrar, who recorded that written statement had not been filed by the defendants No. 1 and 3. Since none appeared on behalf of the defendants No. 1 and 3, no further time was granted to the defendants No. 1 and 3 for filing written statement and the case was renotified for 30th September, 1996. None appeared for the defendants No. 1 and 3 on 30th September, 1996 and even on subsequent dates, that is, 12th February, 1997; 25th July, 1997; 15th september, 1997; 17th November, 1997; 28th November, 1997; 2nd April, 1998; 22nd may, 1998; 20th November, 1998; 24th March, 1999; 1st September, 1999 and 8th october, 1999. On the said date, that is 8th October, 1999, the names of defendants No. 2 and 4 at the behest of the said defendants were deleted from the array of defendants and the court ordered as follows:"by way of extraordinary precaution the learned counsel for the plaintiff may inform the counsel for defendant No. 1 and 3 about the orders which are being passed today by circulating a letter. "

( 4 ) PRESUMABLY on receipt of such information, counsel for the defendants no. 1 and 3 appeared on 29th February, 2000, but thereafter again chose not to appear on 24th April, 2000; 28th August, 2000 and 18th October, 2000. On 18th october, 2000, the following order was passed:"counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendants 1 and 4 were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 8-10-1999. None is present on behalf of defendants 1 and 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that written statement was filed by defendants 1 and 3 but the same is not on record. Replication to the same is on record. None appeared before the Joint Registrar on behalf of defendants 1 and 3 on the last date of hearing, and none is present today. In the interests of justice let notice to the standing counsel for the union of India be issued without process fee returnable on 23rd November, 2000. "

( 5 ) PURSUANT to order dated 18th October, 2000, the defendants were served with court notice through Shri H. S. Phoolka, Standing Counsel for the Union of india on 21st November, 2000 for 23rd November, 2000. Accordingly on 23rd november, 2000, defendants No. 1 and 3 were represented through counsel, Mr. Virender Rawal, Advocate who stated before the Court that after receiving notice, he was appearing for the first time. He accordingly sought time to inspect the file which was granted to him and thereafter, the case was listed for directions on 12t