K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THREE plaintiffs have filed this suit against Delhi Transport Corporation and Union of India for the recovery of Rs. 7 lakhs with interest. Very briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is as follows. ( 2 ) FIRST defendant is a Government of India undertaking functioning under the control of the second defendant - Union of India. The first defendant, Delhi Transport Corporation had employed more than 30,000 employees. In the beginning of 1984, the defendants introduced a new medical scheme for their employees and members of their families for treatment by doctors empanelled by the defendants for this purpose. To give medical aid to the employees, the defendants appointed authorised chemists issuing letters of appointment which contained terms and conditions and such letters of appointment were issued from 1984. The letters of appointment were accepted by the chemists and those letters formed a complete contract between the parties. It is a case of the plaintiffs that as per the terms and conditions the plaintiffs supplied medicines and on that account, money became payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) THE first defendant filed written statement repudiating the claim of the plaintiffs contending inter alia that the bills submitted by the employees were improper and the employees had not come forward with genuine claims and, therefore, the plaintiffs would not be entitled for payment. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement. The plaintiff gave up the Union of India, second defendant and the same was recorded by this court on 5. 7. 88. On 26. 4. 91, this court passed the following order: "parties jointly request for time to enable the defendant to file Statement of Account of the amounts due to the plaintiff as well as the over payments made. Let the same be done by 8th July, 1991 and the matter be listed on 16th July, 1991. The defendant will be at liberty to file the original documents as it may be advised. " ( 5 ) ON 10. 7. 91 this court passed the following order:- "counsel for defendant No. 1 has still not filed statement of accounts. After hearing the parties, I direct the defendant No. 1 to file complete statement of accounts giving details of each bill raised by the plaintiff, within three weeks from today. " ( 5 ) ON 10. 7. 91 this court passed the following order:- "counsel for defendant No. 1 has still not filed statement of accounts. After hearing the parties, I direct the defendant No. 1 to file complete statement of accounts giving details of each bill raised by the plaintiff, within three weeks from today. List the case for hearing on 8th August, 1991". ( 6 ) ON 8. 8. 91 giving another opportunity to the first defendant, this court passed the following order:- "counsel for defendant No. 1 prays for some more time to compile the statement giving the details of each bill raised by the plaintiff. Let the same be done and filed within three weeks from today with advance copy to counsel for the plaintiff who may file his comments thereunder before the next date of hearing. List the case for hearing on 3rd September 1991. " ( 7 ) ON 28. 11. 91 this Court passed the follow ing order:- "as prayed by Mr. Vats, defendants are granted further four weeks time to file the statement in terms of order dated 8th August. 1991 within four weeks. List the suit on 28th January 1992. " ( 8 ) ON 7. 2. 92 this Court passed the following order:- "the suit has been placed before me on transfer. None is present on behalf of the defendants. To be renotified for further directions on 6. 3. 1992. The defendants should comply with the directions given by this court. " ( 9 ) ON 19 5. 92 as no one appeared for the first defendant, this court passed the following order setting the first defendant ex-parte:- "no one appeared for the defendants. Matter called twice. It is 3. 50 p. m. Name of the counsel for the defendants is duly shown in the list. It is further noticed that the order passed as far back on 8. 8. 1991 requiring the defendants to file statement of account of the amounts due to the plaintiff as well as the payments, if any made, have not so far been complied within spite of the number of opportunities given and time taken by the learned counsel for the defendants. It is a fit case to proceed exparte against the defendants. Defendants are proceeded exparte. Exparte evidence be taken by way of affidavits. It is a fit case to proceed exparte against the defendants. Defendants are proceeded exparte. Exparte evidence be taken by way of affidavits. It is therefore, directed that affidavits by way of ex parte evidence be filed within 8 weeks. Mater be listed before the J. R. for exhibiting the documents in terms of the affidavit-evidence on 16. 10. 1992. To come up in Court for final disposal on 11. 12. 1992 in "short Causes". ( 10 ) ON 16. 10. 92 the Joint Registrar received the affidavit by way of evidence as per the directions and the documents filed by the plaintiff were accepted as Public Witness. 1/1 - Public Witness 1/7 and directed the matter to be listed on 11. 12. 92. ( 11 ) ON 8. 3. 94 ignoring the earlier orders it was represented on behalf of the first defendant that the learned counsel would examine the records and would bring cheques if amounts were due to the plaintiffs. This court granted time to the learned counsel for the first defendant. ( 12 ) ON 7. 4. 94. this court granted further time to the first defendant. Again on 12. 5. 94 time was granted. On 6. 7. 94 this court passed the following order:- "mr. Vats states that an affidavit has been prepared and a copy of which has been supplied to the opposite counsel and states that according to the defendant s accounts, after the scrutiny of the account done partly, a sum of Rs. 32,850/06p is payable to the plaintiff and further scrutiny of the account is yet to be undertaken. Let counsel for the defendant bring a cheque for the admitted amount on the next date and a final opportunity is given for complying with the order dated March 8. 1994. Adjourned to August 18, 1994. " ( 13 ) THE first defendant filed IA No 10005/93 to set aside the ex-parte order. By order dated 18. 8. 94 this court passed the following order:- "counsel for defendant states that previous order shall be complied with positively within five days. I make it clear that if the order is not complied with, the application of the defendant shall be dismissed. Put up on 15th September 1994. " ( 14 ) ON 15. 9. By order dated 18. 8. 94 this court passed the following order:- "counsel for defendant states that previous order shall be complied with positively within five days. I make it clear that if the order is not complied with, the application of the defendant shall be dismissed. Put up on 15th September 1994. " ( 14 ) ON 15. 9. 94 again this court passed an order in the following terms:- "i direct that Janak Raj, Secretary, DTC Board to appear in person for recording his statement under Order 10 C. P. C. in order to clarify the pleadings to explain as to what amount is due to the plaintiff as the written statement appears to be quite vague. Let him appear in Court on 27th September 1994. He should bring the whole record to clarify the position and if any amount is still due according to the defendant, a cheque in the said sum be also brought in Court. Copy of the Order be given DASTI to counsel for defendant. " ( 15 ) AGAIN on 27. 9. 94 time was granted to the first defendant. ( 16 ) AFTER several adjournments on 16. 3. 95, My Lord Mr. Justice Lahoti passed the following order:- "this is an application under Order 9 Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants. Vide order dated 10. 7. 91, the Court directed the defendant No. 1 to file complete statement of accounts for the purpose of enabling hearing of this application. On 12. 12. 94, it was made clear that if the defendant No. 1 does not comply with the order dated 10. 7. 91, the application may not be entertained by the Court. Today learned counsel states that though some one was to appear on behalf of the defendants in the Court today but he is not in a position to state why there is no appearance of any authorised representative of the defendants and why the order dated 10. 7. 91 has not been complied with. The gross and persistent non-compliance with the order of this Court by the defendant No. 1 cannot be condoned. However, still in the interest of justice and on a persistent appear made by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, it is directed that if the defendant No. 1 complies with the order dated 10. 7. 91 and 12. 12. However, still in the interest of justice and on a persistent appear made by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, it is directed that if the defendant No. 1 complies with the order dated 10. 7. 91 and 12. 12. 94 within two weeks from today and also pays an amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 by way of costs to the Indian Legal Aid and Advice Board Chamber No. 3, High Court Lawyers Chamber, the application shall be considered on merits on the next date. Failing the compliance within two weeks, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 shall be treated to have been dismissed without reference to the Court. List for further directions on 15th May, 1995 in "short matters . " ( 17 ) ON 15. 5. 95, My Lord Mr. Justice Lahoti dismissed IA 10502/93 by passing the following order:- "there is a default in compliance with the order dated 16. 3. 95 by the defendant - DTC, in terms of the order dated 16. 3. 95. the application stands dismissed. " ( 18 ) THE learned Judge directed the suit to be posted on 9th October for hearing as a short matter. Later on, the first defendant filed IA 7347/95 to review the order of Lahoti, J passed on 15. 5. 95 dismissing IA 10502/93. By order dated 15. 9. 95, the review petition was dismissed by My Lord Mr. Justice Lahoti. On 15. 11. 95. the matter came up before me and Mr. S. K. Luthra, learned counsel appeared for the first defendant. He represented that he had been recently engaged and he wanted time to take instructions. I thought the first defendant would assist the Court being a public authority in deciding the dispute especially in the light of the earlier orders passed by this court which had become final and conclusive against the first defendant. I, therefore, acceded to the request of the learned counsel and adjourned it to 2. 2. 96. ( 19 ) WHEN the matter was taken up on 2. 2. 1996, Mr. S. K. Luthra, learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that this court had committed an error in passing earlier orders when, as a matter of fact, the first defendant had. 2. 96. ( 19 ) WHEN the matter was taken up on 2. 2. 1996, Mr. S. K. Luthra, learned counsel for the first defendant submitted that this court had committed an error in passing earlier orders when, as a matter of fact, the first defendant had. complied with directions issued by this court and the first defendant ought not to have been set ex-parte and review application filed by the first defendant is still pending adjudication and earlier orders should be reviewed and first defendant should be given an opportunity to substantiate his stand. I then called upon Mr. D. K. Garg to explain the circumstances and he brought to my notice what happened from 1988 and I my self went through all the orders passed by this court. It is really amazing that the first defendant should have chosen to advance such an extreme argument that this court while passing orders on earlier occasions had committed a mistake in coming to the conclusion that the first defendant had not complied with directions issued by this court and, therefore, I should suo moto recall the orders passed earlier. At the first blush, it was really shocking to me to hear such an argument being advanced but I pacified myself acquiescing to the position that even the public authorities are prone to act like ordinary litigants and 1 should employ restraint in making any comments about the first defendant. ( 20 ) I then proceeded to consider the affidavit filed by the plaintiff by way of evidence and documents in the case. I have no hesitation in accepting the affidavit by way of evidence and the documents filed with plaintiff in proof of their case. Accordingly, there shall be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for with costs with future interest.