JUDGMENT : 1. Against the dismissal of the petition to condone the delay of 152 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and the dismissal of the petition to re-open the above condone delay petition, these revisions have been filed. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.300/2002 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karur, for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. In the suit, ex-parte evidence was taken and ex-parte decree was passed on 14.07.2009. To set aside the ex-parte decree dated 14.07.2009, the petitioner filed a petition along with a petition to condone the delay of 152 days in filing the ex-parte set aside petition. While the said condone delay petition was reserved for orders, the petitioner filed another petition to re-open the condone delay petition which was reserved for orders. The Court below dismissed both the applications, against which, these revision petitions have been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the suit was dismissed for default on 13.08.2002 and the respondent/plaintiff filed restoration petition in I.A.No.608/2008, in which, notice was ordered to the petitioner and he appeared through counsel and in June 2009, restoration petition was allowed on payment of cost. Thereafter, on 14.07.2009, ex-parte evidence was taken instead of directing the petitioner to file written statement and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner was under the impression that after restoration of the suit, the court would grant time to him for filing written statement. As regards the reason for the delay, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was severely affected by Viral Hepatitis from 14.06.2008 to 09.09.2009 and was taking treatment and thereafter, when he met his advocate, he came to know about the ex-parte decree and filed the ex-parte set aside petition along with I.A.No.304/2010 to condone the delay of 152 days. As regards the reason for the delay, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was severely affected by Viral Hepatitis from 14.06.2008 to 09.09.2009 and was taking treatment and thereafter, when he met his advocate, he came to know about the ex-parte decree and filed the ex-parte set aside petition along with I.A.No.304/2010 to condone the delay of 152 days. When the said I.A was reserved for orders, the petitioner filed another I.A.No.357/2010 stating that he could not get registration copies of old documents in respect of the suit property and hence, he could not file written statement in time and now he is ready with written statement along with documents and therefore, it is necessary to re-open I.A.No.304/2010 for filing written statement, but the Court below without considering the same, erroneously holding that the petitioner is protracting the proceedings, dismissed I.A.No.357/2010 consequent thereto, dismissed I.A.No.304/2010. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders. 4. The respondent filed counter. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that in spite of receipt of summons, the defendants did not appear and therefore, they were set ex-parte on 14.02.2002 and the matter was posted for ex-parte evidence on 20.06.2002 and at that stage, the court suo motu re-opened the case and since the respondent did not take note of the same, the suit was dismissed for default on 13.08.2002. Subsequently, I.A.No.608/2008 was filed for restoration of the suit, in which, notice was ordered to the revision petitioner and the petitioner filed his counter and restoration petition was allowed on payment of cost and on payment, the suit was restored in June 2009. After the restoration of the suit, ex-parte evidence was taken on 14.07.2009 and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day. Thereafter, I.A.No.304/2010 was filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree and after hearing, on 27.04.2010, I.A.No.304/2010 was reserved for orders and on the same day, the petitioner filed I.A.No.357/2010 to re-open I.A.No.304/2010 for filing written statement. Even in the condone delay petition, the petitioner has stated that after the suit was restored, without even issuing notice to him, the suit was proceeded with ex-parte evidence and ex-parte decree was passed as if the petitioner remained ex-parte instead of directing him to file written statement. Even in the condone delay petition, the petitioner has stated that after the suit was restored, without even issuing notice to him, the suit was proceeded with ex-parte evidence and ex-parte decree was passed as if the petitioner remained ex-parte instead of directing him to file written statement. According to the respondent, without taking suitable legal proceedings at the appropriate time, the petitioner has come up with the above averment that he was under the impression that the court would grant time for filing written statement. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that the petitioner was set ex-parte in the suit as early as on 14.02.2002 and thereafter, the suit was dismissed for default and restored only in June 2009. After restoration of the suit, the suit has to be proceeded from the stage where it stood. Accordingly, after restoration, the suit was proceeded with ex-parte evidence. Thus, the Court below has rightly proceeded from the stage on which the suit stood and finding that only to protract the proceedings, the petitioner filed re-open petition, has rightly dismissed the same and consequently dismissed the condone delay petition which does not require interference by this Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent relied on the following decisions:- (1) Nandipati Rami Reddi vs. Nandipati Padma Reddy reported in 1978 0 AIR (AP) 30. (2) Ponnammal vs. Subburaman and another reported in 2003 (3) CTC 385 . 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. Perusal of record shows that though the ex-parte evidence was taken on 20.06.2002, the suit was dismissed for default on 13.08.2002. Thereafter, restoration petition has been filed in 2008 and it was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/- and after restoration of the suit in June 2009, ex-parte evidence was taken on 14.07.2009 and the suit was decreed ex-parte on the same day. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.304/2010 seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Though the petitioner was set ex-parte on 14.02.2002 and ex-parte evidence was taken on 20.06.2002, the petitioner did not file any petition to set aside the ex-parte order till 13.08.2002. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.304/2010 seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. Though the petitioner was set ex-parte on 14.02.2002 and ex-parte evidence was taken on 20.06.2002, the petitioner did not file any petition to set aside the ex-parte order till 13.08.2002. Though the suit has been dismissed for default on 13.08.2002, I.A for restoration of the suit was filed only in the year 2008 and it has been allowed in 2008 on cost, after notice to all the defendants. When notice was given to the petitioner in the restoration petition, the petitioner ought to have filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order immediately, but he did not choose to do so till the ex-parte decree was passed on 14.07.2009 and when the condone delay petition to set aside the ex-parte decree filed without any acceptable reasons was reserved for orders, another application in I.A.No.357/2010 was filed by the petitioner to re-open the petition in I.A.No.304/2010 for filing written statement in the main suit which in my considered opinion, is only an abuse of process of the court. Though the petitioner contended that he was under the impression that the court after restoration of the suit would grant time for filing written statement, but erroneously proceeded from the stage where it was stood prior to the dismissal for default, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention in view of the decision in Nandipati Rami Reddi vs. Nandipati Padma Reddy reported in 1978 0 AIR (AP) 30, wherein, it has been held as follows:- ''We will first deal with the effect of restoration of the suit on the enforceability of the interlocutory orders passed before the order of dismissal of the suit for default. Clause (1) of R. 9 of O. 9, C. P. C. empowers the Court, once it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the appellant, to set aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. That means, if the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the time of hearing, it can revive the suit after setting aside the dismissal order. That means, if the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the time of hearing, it can revive the suit after setting aside the dismissal order. Once the dismissal order is set aside, the parties would be placed in the position in which they were when the suit was dismissed for default. The suit will proceed after restoration as if there was no order of dismissal. Clause (1) of R. 9 clearly means this. Therefore, it follows that the interlocutory orders, which had been passed before the order of dismissal, would also be revived along with the suit when the order of dismissal has been set aside and the suit has been restored.'' 8. The court can call upon the defendant to file written statement even before passing of the judgment, but for exercising that power, the petitioner has to satisfy the court by valid and acceptable grounds for not filing the written statement within the stipulated time and while receiving written statement beyond the stipulated period, the Courts should be very careful in exercising their judicial discretion, provided, the defendants satisfy the court with acceptable reasons for the delay. In this regard, it is relevant to extract below paragraph 44 of the judgment reported in 2003 (3) CTC 385 relied on by the respondent's counsel:- ''44. From the above discussion, we can safely come to the conclusion that the Courts, before pronouncing judgment, on the failure of the defendant to file written statement within the stipulated period, can receive the written statement if they find that such a defence has to be received to render justice and on valid and acceptable grounds, for not filing the written statement within the stipulated time, notwithstanding the expiry of the period mentioned in Order 8, Rule 1 or Order 5, Rule 1 of the Code, exercising power under Sec.148 of the Code or under the latter part of Order 8, Rule 9 or Rule 10 of the Code. But receiving such a written statement beyond the stipulated period is only an exception, as the filing of the written statement within the stipulated time is the Rule. While exercising such a power to receive the written statement beyond the period, the Courts should be very careful in exercising their judicial discretion. But receiving such a written statement beyond the stipulated period is only an exception, as the filing of the written statement within the stipulated time is the Rule. While exercising such a power to receive the written statement beyond the period, the Courts should be very careful in exercising their judicial discretion. If the Courts are allowed to exercise such a power liberally or without any basis, then it will be against the intention and the object of the legislature in bringing out the amendment. The judicial discretion of the Courts has to be exercised sparingly on valid grounds and only if the Court is satisfied that the defendant could not file the written statement for the reason beyond his control and such defence is absolutely necessary to decide the issue. The Court should not use such a discretion only with a view to give opportunity to the defendant to defend his case though he is not able to satisfy the Court regarding the reasons for the delay.'' 9. Here in this case, the petitioner was set ex-parte as early as in 2002 and even after the receipt of notice in the restoration petition, he did not take any steps to set aside the ex-parte order and only after passing of the ex-parte decree on 14.07.2009, he has filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte decree that too with a delay of 152 days, and when that petition was reserved for orders, he filed another petition to re-open the condone delay petition for filing written statement which in my considered opinion is an abuse of process of the court and with a view to protract the proceedings and therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Judge. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.