Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Admit. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeals have been taken up for final hearing.

2. The appellant, M/s. Bright Star Hotels Pvt. Ltd., has challenged the order dated 22nd August, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in RFA(OS) No. 04/2008 and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th August, 2007 passed in FAO (OS) No. 72/2008.

3. The facts of the case briefly stated are as follows:

a. The appellant are the promoters of a hotel namely "The Bristol", located at 108-110, Sikandarpur, Main Gurgaon Faridabad Road, Haryana and had engaged the services of the Respondent, for purposes of installing, erecting and commissioning of an Air-conditioning system for their hotel at Gurgaon.

b. A work order dated 29th June, 1995 was placed on the respondent for a value of Rs. 19,59,362/-.

c. Although the scope of work remained the same, the value of the contract was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 69,13,967.94. On execution of the said work, the respondent raised the total bills for a sum of Rs. 69,13,967.94 out of which, the appellants made payment of Rs. 39,69,595. A discount at the rate of 2% on running account bills amounting to Rs. 1,15,279.26 and Rs. 7,97,133.00 as value of the material received, were deducted from the total amount of Rs. 69,13,967.94 thus leaving the balance of Rs. 20,31,960.68.

.d. The last payment of Rs. 75,000/- was made by the appellant on 30th July, 1998 and according to the respondent, a sum of Rs. 20,31,960.68 remained due from the appellants which they did not pay despite various legal notices and reminders.

.e. The respondent instituted a civil suit No. 1411/2001 for the recovery of Rs. 31,29,219.32p which was decreed in favour of the respondent, by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 22nd August, 2003 on the premise that the failure of the appellant to file the written statement within the stipulated period of time of 90 days entitled the respondents to a decree under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

.f. On 27th April, 2006 the appellant came to know about the aforesaid decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court when the execution application was fixed for 4th May, 2005.

.g. The appellant appeared before the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court on 4th May, 2006 wherein the learned Single restrained the appellant from selling, transferring, mortgaging or parting with the property bearing No. s. 108-110, Sikandarpur, Main Gurgaon Faridabad Road, Haryana.

.h. The appellant filed the following three applications before the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court on 6th July, 2006:

.(i) I.A. No. 5822/2005 seeking stay of execution proceedings pertaining to Execution Petition No. 28/2005,

.(ii) I.A. No. 5823/2005 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree dated 22nd August, 2003.

(iii) I.A. No. 5837/2005 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing I.A. No. 5823/2005 seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Honble Court heard arguments on all the abovenoted three applications filed by the appellant and dismissed all the three applications filed by the appellant by a common order dated 24th August, 2007 and vacated the interim stay of the execution granted by vide order dated 17th January, 2005.

5. The main appeal being RFA(OS) No. 04/2008 proceeds against the judgment dated 22nd August, 2003 under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein on the premise that the written statement was not filed within 90 days. In so far as the FAO(OS) 72/2008 is concerned, this arises from an order dated 24th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 5823/2005 in CS(OS) No. 1411/2001 under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 22nd August, 2003 and also for sett