Judgment : 1. This is an application filed by the defendants in O.S. No.73 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court at Tiruchirapalli. 2. Suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that the Telephone Bills issued by the defendants dated 7. 1998 and 9. 1998 are not valid and for consequential injunction. 3. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No. 104 of 1999 praying for interim relief. After defendants entered appearance through counsel on 21. 1999 and sought time for filling counter. The matter was adjourned twice and on third occasion, the petitioners were declared exparte and an order was also passed on 22. 1999. 4. To set aside that order, an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 3. 1999 as I.A.No.440 of 1999. By the impugned order, the lower court dismissed it on the ground that no sufficient cause was made out. The same is challenged in this revision. 5. Notice of Motion was ordered and the respondent has entered appearance. 6. After hearing both sides, I feel there is some illegality in the procedure adopted by the lower court. Under Order 27, sub-Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court will have to fix a day where is defendant is the Government in such a way that there is reasonable must be given for it to get instructions, but, the time so extended is not to exceed two months in the aggregated. From this provisions, it is clear that so far the Government is concerned an enabling provision is made, so that, it can sort out the matters or in case the matter could not be settled, to enable the Government to file the Written Statement. Even as per Rule5-B empowers the Court to adjourn the proceedings from time to time. From these provisions, it is clear that so far the Government is concerned, the Court must fix a date in such a way so as to see the interest of the Government is not in any way affected. At the same time, it should not grant unreasonable adjourned. Taking into consideration the above provisions, if we consider the proceedings before the lower court, I find that the petitioners were not given that opportunity which should have given. The suit itself is filed only on 21. At the same time, it should not grant unreasonable adjourned. Taking into consideration the above provisions, if we consider the proceedings before the lower court, I find that the petitioners were not given that opportunity which should have given. The suit itself is filed only on 21. 1999 and the present application under Order 9, Rule 7 filed as early as on 3. 1999 long before the expiry of two months provided under Order 27, Sub-Rule 5. The Government cannot be accused of any laches if they come within the period of time. That will be a sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte order. 7. In that view of the matter, I set aside the impuged order by allowing the revision. 8. In the result C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.