JUDGMENT

Vinod Goel, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in CS(OS) No.43/2018, decreeing the suit for possession in respect of Flat no.2, 1st Floor, Property no. M-5, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'). The appellants are the son and daughter-in-law of the respondent. The ld. Single Judge also granted mesne profits/damages in favour of the respondent for the use and occupation of the suit premises against the appellants @ 50,000/- per month from the date of institution of the suit i.e. 01.02.2018, till the delivery of possession.

2. The appellants were served with the summons in the suit on 08.02.2018. The statutory period of 30 days available for them to file the written statement expired on 09.03.2018. The maximum period of 90 days available in law reckoned from 08.02.2018, expired on 09.05.2018. In the interregnum, the appellants entered appearance before the Joint Registrar on 26.02.2018 and were given time of 30 days to file their written statement. The period of 30 days reckoned from 26.02.2018, expired on 27.03.2018. However, the appellants did not file their written statement within the extended time of 30 days granted by the Joint Registrar.

3. When the suit was listed before the learned Single Judge on 15.03.2018, the Court noticed that the appellants had not filed their written statement. Instead, learned counsel sought an adjournment. In the interest of justice and to avoid any technicality by passing a decree for possession against the appellants, on the very same date, learned Single Judge deferred orders to await the written statement of the defendants till 25.03.2018. By the same order, the appellants were also directed to deposit in Court, a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.02.2018 i.e., from the date of institution of the suit, towards use and occupation of the suit premises.

4. In the impugned order dated 27.04.2018, the learned Single Judge noted that the appellants had neither filed any written statement, nor complied with the order dated 15.03.2018, wherein they were directed to deposit certain amounts in Court. As learned counsel for the appellants asserted that he had filed the written statement within the time stipulated in the order dated 15.03.2018, i.e. till 25.03.2018 and the written statement was still not on record, the matter was passed over for the Registry to find out the status of the written statement. On the second call, the Registry informed the court that the appellants had filed their written statement only on 02.04.2018 but it was returned under objections and taken back by learned counsel on 10.04.2018. At that stage, counsel for the appellants had to admit that after taking back the written statement on 10.04.2018, to remove the defects, he had re-filed the same only on 27.04.2018, after the matter had been passed over. This fact was not disclosed to the Court on the first call and the impugned order records that it was only at the pointing out of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that counsel for the appellants had disclosed to the Court that the written statement had not been re-filed till the matter was passed over.

5. As a result, the right of the appellants to file a written statement was closed in view of the delay in filing the same and a decree for possession under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC was passed in favour of the respondent along with mesne profits assessed @ Rs.50,000/- per month from the date of the institution of the suit i.e. 01.02.2018, till the date of delivery of possession.

6. Mr.Mohanty, ld. counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned judgment is not based on a correct appreciation of facts and law and hence deserves to be set aside. He contended that the appellants were unjustly denied the right to file their written stateme