As per case facts, the appellant company filed a suit for damages and secured an ex parte attachment order. The respondent sought to vacate this, leading to a modified order. ... Subsequent motions and appeals by the appellant were withdrawn. After duplicate summons were served, the respondent applied for an extension to file its written statement. A Single Judge initially granted ninety days, with further extension declined at that stage but later granted by the High Court. The appellant challenged this extension. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that Original Side Rules, not the amended Civil Procedure Code provisions, govern such suits. The question arose whether the amended Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) applies to suits on the Original Side of the High Court, or if the High Court Original Side Rules prevail, especially concerning the High Court's rule-making power under Section 129 CPC and the effect of its non-obstante clause. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that Section 129 of the CPC empowers Chartered High Courts to make rules for their Original Side procedure, which can be inconsistent with the general CPC provisions but must be consistent with the Letters Patent. The Court highlighted this as a historical distinction for Chartered High Courts, consistent judicial interpretation, and the principle of stare decisis, concluding that the Original Side Rules, therefore, govern the matter of filing written statements.