Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R.K.S.Thakur Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms Zoya Bhardwaj, Mr. Rakesh Chargotra Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court emphasized that the stipulated period for filing written statements can be impacted by external factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, and in this case, the period was appropriately excluded in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The court held that the filing of written statements by the defendants after the expiry of 120 days from the date of service of summons does not automatically result in forfeiture of their right to defend, especially when the delay is excused due to extraordinary circumstances like the pandemic (!) (!) .

3. The court recognized that a statutory right, such as the right to file a written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC, can be waived by a party’s conduct or concession, which was validly done in this case when the plaintiff’s counsel expressed no objection to the late filing (!) (!) .

4. The court found that the concession made by the plaintiff’s counsel was a conscious and informed decision, and therefore, the court was bound to accept the written statement filed by defendant No.2, as the right to object was waived (!) (!) .

5. The court rejected the argument that the pandemic did not impact defendant No.1’s ability to file within the period, noting that there was no evidence that the pandemic conditions did not prevent interaction with counsel, and thus, the extension was justified (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court concluded that there was no patent perversity or illegality in the orders passed by the trial court, and therefore, the petition under Article 227 challenging those orders was dismissed (!) .

7. The court clarified that interim directions issued earlier, which excluded certain periods from limitation calculations, remain in effect, and that the filing of the written statement by defendant No.1 was within the extended period (!) .

8. Overall, the judgment underscores that procedural delays caused by extraordinary circumstances can be excused, and that conduct or concessions by parties can lead to waivers of statutory rights, provided they are made consciously and with awareness of their implications.