ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for in the present petition is to set aside the order and decree dated 18.04.2018 made in I.A. No. 4267 of 2017 in O.S. No. 1304 of 2016 passed by the learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. By consent of both the counsel, the present civil revision petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The present revision is against the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 164 days. The reason assigned by the trial Court in the rejection order is that the petitioner was negligent during the course of the proceedings. 4. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act, it is seen that the petitioner has assigned a reason that he was unable to trace out certain old documents, which caused delay of 164 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. It is also submitted that the said application to condone the delay was accompanied with a written statement dated 20.02.2017. 5. The issue in the present revision petition is, as to whether the reason assigned could be termed as sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is for delivery of possession and that he has been in possession of the property for more than 50 years and that he has also a arguable case before the trial Court. 7. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner herein is a encroacher and that he has already suffered decree against him in an earlier litigation, the present defence is only abuse of process of law. 8. Since the present application is only for challenging the order, rejecting the condone delay application, the reasons assigned in the present petition is, in my view, could be termed sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay of 164 days, which aspect ought to have been considered by the Court below. 9. 8. Since the present application is only for challenging the order, rejecting the condone delay application, the reasons assigned in the present petition is, in my view, could be termed sufficient cause for the purpose of condoning the delay of 164 days, which aspect ought to have been considered by the Court below. 9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner herein had presented the application along with the written statement, he had not obtained leave of the Court below for filing written statement, after expiry of statutory period prescribed. 10. It would be appropriate to observe here that it is open to the petitioner to raise such a defence before the trial Court, when the application to set aside the exparte decree is taken up for consideration. 11. In the light of the above observation, the order and decree dated 18.04.2018 in I.A.No. 4267 of 2017 in O.S. No.1304 of 2016 is set aside. Consequently, the delay of 164 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree is condoned. 12. The learned XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is called upon to take up the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte decree and dispose of the same on its own merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to both the parties, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Till such time, there shall be an order of status-quo. It is made clear that the order of status-quo shall be in force till the disposal of the application to set aside the exparte decree. 13. With the above observations and directions, these Civil Revision Petition are allowed. No costs.