ORDER : RENUKA YARA, J. 1. Heard Mr. V. Hanmanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff. Perused the record. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.407 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, wherein, a petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone delay of 1925 days in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC to set aside the ex-parte order passed against the revision petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.159 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar against the revision petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale, dated 05.09.2016 and to declare the registered sale deed dated 26.05.2018 vide document No.8657 of 2018 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2 as null and void with respect to the suit schedule land consisting of Ac.2.15 Gts., in Sy.No.168/E situated at Akuthotapally Village of Amangal Mandal, R.R.District (previously Mahabubnagar District). Said suit on account of reorganization of Districts has been re-numbered as O.S.No.51 of 2022 and is pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar. 4. In said suit, the revision petitioner herein has been set ex-parte on 30.04.2019 and his right to file written statement has been forfeited. The reason stated for non-filing of written statement is that the petitioner engaged a counsel by name Sri. Laxma Reddy to defend the suit. Said counsel impressed upon the petitioner that he would inform the petitioner whenever his presence is necessary. Due to personal inconvenience and COVID-19, there was no contact between the petitioner and the counsel and thereafter due to reorganization of Districts, the suit was transferred from the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Mahabubnagar to the Senior Civil Judge's Court at Shadnagar. The petitioner was under the impression that fresh notices would be served on the parties after transfer of cases. However, no such thing happened. Meanwhile the petitioner heard rumours that due to non-filing of written statement, his rights were forfeited and he has no right to contest the matter. The petitioner was under the impression that fresh notices would be served on the parties after transfer of cases. However, no such thing happened. Meanwhile the petitioner heard rumours that due to non-filing of written statement, his rights were forfeited and he has no right to contest the matter. Upon hearing this rumours, the revision petitioner engaged the present counsel and made enquiry about the status of the suit. Upon enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner has been set ex-parte due to non filing of written statement and currently the respondent No.1 has led evidence and the matter stood posted for cross examination of PW1 by the respondent No.2. 5. At this juncture, the revision petitioner filed the petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC with a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1925 days in filing the petition. The respondent No.1 opposed the petition by filing written counter stating that the reasons cited for non-filing of written statement i.e. engaging the counsel by name Lakshma Reddy and said counsel not giving proper guidance to the petitioner, followed by making enquiry and learning about the status of the case, are all denied. 6. Upon considering the case of the revision petitioner, the learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Further, it is held that a person who is unaware of law may not escape the liability by violating the law merely by being unaware of its contents. Further, the learned Trial Court examined the fact that the petitioner herein was set ex-parte in April, 2019 and that COVID started in March, 2020 and after February, 2022 onwards, the courts were running for one year before COVID and for two years after COVID, the petitioner has not taken any steps. Therefore, the reasons stated for delay were not considered and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7. Therefore, the reasons stated for delay were not considered and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. 7. In grounds of revision, the petitioner pleaded that there is no limitation prescribed for a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, that the defence taken in the written statement is to be taken seriously, that the suit is at the stage of cross- examination of respondent No.1/plaintiff and that no prejudice would be caused in case his written statement is taken on record by setting aside the ex-parte order. Further, it is emphasized that the time period fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory but it is only directory and therefore prayed that the Civil Revision Petition be allowed. 8. The learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that there is no limitation prescribed for filing of a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. However, by way of abundant caution, a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed to condone delay of 1925 days. Further, it is argued that the matter is still at the stage of cross-examination of PW1 and therefore, no prejudice would be caused, in case, his written statement is taken on record. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that there has been an inordinate delay of 1925 days in filing the written statement and the reasons assigned are not tenable. 10. A perusal of the record, more particularly, the plaint shows that the suit is filed seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 05.09.2016 executed between the revision petitioner and respondent No.1. Thereafter, just prior to filing of the suit, after the legal notice was issued, the revision petitioner executed registered sale deed document No.8657 of 2018, dated 26.05.2018 for an extent of Ac.1.15 Gts., out of total extent of Ac.2.15 Gts. of the suit schedule property. 11. It is seen that currently, the revision petitioner is having ownership and possession over Ac.1.00 Gts. and the respondent No.2 is having ownership and possession over the remaining extent of Ac.1.15 Gts. of the suit schedule property. The suit is still pending at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. As pleaded by the revision petitioner, there is no limitation prescribed for filing a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. and the respondent No.2 is having ownership and possession over the remaining extent of Ac.1.15 Gts. of the suit schedule property. The suit is still pending at the stage of cross-examination of PW1. As pleaded by the revision petitioner, there is no limitation prescribed for filing a petition under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC. However, there is a time period prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to file the written statement within 30 days of receipt of summons from the court in the suit. In the instant case, summons were served and the revision petitioner has engaged a counsel. However, after engaging the counsel, the revision petitioner failed to file the written statement and therefore, he was set ex-parte and right to file written statement has been forfeited. This event of the review petitioner being set ex-parte occurred in April, 2019. Up to March, 2020, there was no issue about COVID pandemic. Again after February, 2022 also, there was no issue of COVID pandemic and the courts functioned regularly. Therefore, the reason assigned by the revision petitioner for non-filing of written statement is not convincing and untenable. Shifting the blame to the counsel on record has become a routine ground for seeking relief. While there is responsibility on the counsel on record to pursue the case diligently, there is also responsibility on the parties to follow the case from time to time. A party cannot keep quiet for five (5) years and then shift the blame for non-filing of written statement on to the counsel. While seeking to set aside the ex-parte order under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC, the petitioner is also seeking extension of time for filing written statement which is only 90 days as per Order VIII Rule of the Civil Procedure Code. 12. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kailash v. Nanhku and others , MANU/SC/0264/2005 , the time period specified in Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC is only directory and not mandatory. It is held that costs may be imposed on the defendant for seeking extension of time for filing the written statement. Relevant portion is extracted and produced below: “iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. It is held that costs may be imposed on the defendant for seeking extension of time for filing the written statement. Relevant portion is extracted and produced below: “iv) The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time. Though, the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance. The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away. (v) Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 13. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.” 13. As per above legal ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the time frame set out in Order VIII Rule 1 is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, this Court can exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing written statement. 14. In the instant case, on account of the fact that the valuable rights of petitioner/defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac.1.00 Gts. are involved, since the trial is still at the stage of cross-examination of PW1, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner herein to protect his rights subject to payment of costs. 15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order, dated 22.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.407 of 2024 in O.S.No.51 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar. Consequently, I.A.No.407 of 2024 stands allowed. However, it is made clear that the delay of 1925 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.04.2019 passed in O.S.No.51 of 2022, is condoned subject to condition of petitioner paying cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within Two (2) weeks from today, and file proof of the same into the Registry. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.