( 1 ) THIS appeal raises two interesting questions:- whether Rule 3 of Chapter of 6 of Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules), 1967 empowered the Court to extend time for filing a written statement beyond the outer limit of 90 days prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC or whether the two provisions could be harmoniously interpreted to hold that even Rule 3 did not permit any extension beyond these 90 days.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS are the defendants in a recovery suit no. 2181/2003. It is not known when summons were served on them in the suit but when it was listed before Joint Registrar on 12. 5. 2004, they were represented by their counsel. The suit was adjourned to 18. 8. 2004 when they filed the written statement with IA No. 6102/2004 seeking extension of time in filing the same which application was dismissed by impugned order dated 29. 9. 2004 with the learned Trial Judge taking the view that the Court had no power or discretion to extend time for filing the written statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and that in any case if this time was to be extended even under Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules such extension could not go beyond 90 days the time embargo prescr