( 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 prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1. The learned Judge also held that even if it was assumed that such a power could be exercised, appellant had failed to furnish any justification or ground to violate the mandate of law .

( 3 ) FOR proper appreciation of the issues thrown up in the process and the view taken by the learned Judge in the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce his conclusion:- the power of the High Court to make Rules is itself derived from an enactment of Parliament, and, therefore, those Rules which are not in consonance with statutory provisions would not be sustainable where Parliament legislates to the contrary.

( 4 ) A Delegatee cannot exercise powers greater than those of the authority/body from which it derives its subordinate powers. Be that as it may it is necessary to reiterate that Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1967 envisages that time can be enlarged on more than one occasion; it does not stipulate that this can be done even beyond ninety days. Assuming that this Rule has application post the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 it can, along with Order VIII Rule 1, be simultaneously given effect to by imparting the interpretation that the Court may permit several opportunities to file Written statement provided that this pleading is not permitted to be filed beyond ninety days from the date of service on the concerned Defendant.

( 5 ) ON the other aspect whether appellants had furnished any justification for extension of time, the learned Judge held:- Even assuming that this power is retained by the Court, all that has been stated is that the Written Statement could not be prepared because the defendant had to collate the documents/administrative orders and records which were available either at side or at other offices . This is no justification or ground to violate the mandate of law.

( 6 ) BEFORE coming to the brass tacks, it requires to be pointed out at the very outset that there has been conflict of judicial opinion right from the enactment of amended provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 in this Court and elsewhere also on whether the Court possessed any power to extend the time limit beyond ninety days for filing of a written statement under the amended provisions of Order VIII rule 1 CPC. The courts have pronounced for and against this proposition. In J. Kohli and Anr. Vs. Ram Bhagwat 2003 (105) DLT 275, the learned Trial Judge of this Court has ruled that the court enjoyed the power to extend time under Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules. In contra the author of the impugned judgment, Brother sen,j. took a diametrically opposite view in M/s. Texstyles and Ors. Vs. M/s. Kiran overseas holding that Court had no such power to extend the time for filing a written statement after the expiry