( 1 ) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 3297 of 2004 in the Court of VII Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner, for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule premises and recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner entered appearance, and filed I. A. No. 13 of 2005, seeking permission of the Court to file written statement, since 30 days time, stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 8 C. P. C. expired. The trial Court rejected the same, through its order dated 4-3-2005. Hence, this revision. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. ( 3 ) THE trial Court took the view that the written statement was presented to it, beyond 90 days, and as such, it cannot be received. It also took note of the fact that the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the suit, inasmuch as he has received notice in an application filed underorder38 Rule 5 C. P. C. and that he was not diligent in filing the written statement, promptly. ( 4 ) SO far as the view taken by the trial court that it is impermissible to receive a written statement beyond 90 days under any circumstances, is concerned, it no longer holds good, in view of the judgment of the division Bench of this Court in G. Parimala v. Mrs. Bimala Bhatia and others. It was held that the time fixed, under the amended rule 1 of Order 8 C. P. C. is not rigid and if the court is satisfied about the reasons for the delayed submission of written statement, it can be received. ( 5 ) THE trial court proceeded as though the time for computation of the period, stipulated under Rule 1 of Order 8 of C. P. C. starts from the date of knowledge of the proceedings. In arriving at this conclusion, the trial court took note of the fact that the petitioner appeared before it, to defend himself in an application, filed under Order 38 Rule 5 C. P. C. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the starting point for calculation of time fixed under Rule 1 of Order 8 C. P. C. is the date of service of summons in the suit. It is not uncommon that the notices in Interlocutory applications are served much earlier than the summons in the suit. The fact that the defendant in a suit received notices in I. A. , and participated in the proceedings, does not disable him to file the written statement, if it was presented within 90 days from the date of receiving the summons in the suit. When the rule is so specific about the starting point, it cannot be related to any other event. Analogy can be drawn from the phenomenon of filing Cross-Objections in an appeal under order 41 C. P. C. The starting point for this is the date of receipt of notice in the appeal. The fact that the respondent in the appeal participated in the interlocutory proceedings in the appeal does not alter the starting point for computation of time for filing Cross- objections. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the summons in the suit were issued by the Court on 21-8-2004, fixing the first date of hearing as 22-9-2004. The exact date of service of summons is not before this Court. Even if the first date of first hearing is taken as the starting point, the petitioner had time till 21-12-2004. The trial court took the date of issuance of summons, as the starting point, which is impermissible. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained, and the same is accordingly set aside. Since the written statement was presented already, the same shall be taken on record, and the I. A. shall stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.