The period of 120 days for filing the written statement is directory and may be extended for sufficient reasons. Parties must assert their decisions clearly to avoid contributing to delays.

JUDGMENT

I.A. 18120/2022 and O.A 50/2022

1. By the present Chamber Appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original) Side Rules, 2018 (in short, "the Rules"), the plaintiffs/appellants challenge the orders dated 15.09.2022 and 06.10.2022 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) granting further time to the defendants/respondents to file their written statement.

2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants, placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Ram Sarup Lugani & Ors. v. Nirmal Lugani & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, Shri Gautam Gambir v. Jai Ambay Traders & Ors., CS(OS) 149/2018: Harjyot Singh v. Manpreet Kaur, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 26: Sameer Chaudhuri v. Dr. Reyhan Chaudhuri, CS(OS) 283/2019 and Rohit Sharma v. A.M. Market Place Pvt Ltd. and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3092 submits that the time for filing the written statement by the defendants/respondents could not have been extended by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) beyond the period of 120 days of the service of the summons of the suit on the defendants/respondents.

3. He submits that this Court issued summons in the suit to the defendants/respondents on 26.11.2021. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs/appellants had filed an application, being I.A.No.15409/2021, seeking exemption from filing the bills, vouchers, receipts, expense sheets etc., and for grant of adequate time for filing of the detailed documents. The said application was also allowed by this Court in its order dated 26.11.2021.

4. The defendants/respondents in answer to the summons, appeared before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 11.03.2022, when inter alia, the following order was passed:

"2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that he shall be filing vakalatnama on behalf of the defendants during the course of the day. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs, have moved an application under Order VII Rule 1 CPC seeking exemption from filing certain bills/vouchers etc. which was allowed by the Hon'ble Court however till date those documents have not been placed on record neither copy has been supplied to the defendants.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that needful shall be done within two weeks.

4. Let the needful be done accordingly with advance copy to the defendants after which the defendants may file written statement, reply to the interim application and affidavit of admission/denial within four weeks."

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the plaintiffs/appellants duly filed the requisite documents after supplying the copies thereof to the defendants/respondents on 25.03.2022.

6. As the defendants/respondents did not file their written statement even thereafter, the plaintiffs/appellants filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the `CPC') on 19.07.2022. Notice of this application was issued to the defendants/respondents on 26.07.2022. In spite of application having been served, the defendants/respondents did not file their written statement.

7. The suit was then listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 15.09.2022, when the following impugned order was passed:

"I.A 11572/2022 (O-VIII rule 10 CPC)

1. Learned counsel for defendants seeks time of one week for filing reply. Let the same be filed accordingly with advance copy to opposite party who may file rejoinder within one week thereafter.

2. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that bills/vouchers as reflected in order dated 11.03.2022 have been e-filed vide diary no 433600/2022 on 25.03.2022 and he had supplied a copy of the same to learned counsel for defendant through email. He further submits that no objection was received from their end.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant has submitted that no copy of above said documents was received by him but defendant had received one copy through em