A trial court has no jurisdiction to recall its order for ex parte hearing and is not required to consider the defenses raised by the defendant in his written statement when the suit is posted for ex parte hearing and the defendant does not join issues with the plaintiff.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This civil revision application is directed against a judgment and decree dated 3-5-1991 passed by Sri Satyanarain Prasad, Munsif, Chaibasa in Eviction Suit No. 29 of 1 989 whereby and where under the said learned court decreed the suit ex parte filed by the plaintiff opposite party for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of her personal necessity.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. The plaintiff opposite party filed a suit for eviction on the ground of her personal necessity alleging, inter alia, therein that her adopted son Sri Ram Prakash Murarka is married and has several children who are grown up. The plaintiff contended that she was aged about 70 years and her husband was aged about 74 years and there was nobody to look after them, she requires the suit premises bona fide as her aforementioned adopted son Sri Ram Prakash Murarka residing in a tenanted premises.

4. The learned court below, in view of the fact the suit filed by the plaintiff was (sic) for her personal necessity adopted the procedure in terms of Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982.

5. The defendant petitioner, in the aforementioned suit sought for leave to contest the same and an affidavit filed by him was treated to be his written statement.

6. On 8-4-1981, which was the date fixed for hearing, the counsel for the petitioner stated that he has no instruction in the matter and as such, the suit was fixed for ex parte hearing and posted on 9-4-1991. The said suit was taken up for ex parte hearing on 9-4-1991 and on that date the plaintiff examined all her witnesses and also proved certain documents. On that date the arguments were also heard and the suit was fixed for judgment on 20-4-1991. On 12-4-1991, the petitioner filed an application purported to be under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging inter alia therein that as on the earlier occasion he was ill, he could not instruct his counsel. The said application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by an order dated 3-5-1991.

7. The learned court below by the impugned judgment dated 3-5-1991 decreed the plaintiffs suit.

8. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned Counsel firstly, submitted that in view of the fact that before the judgment was pronounced, the petitioner filed an application for recalling of the order dated 8-4-1991, the learned court below had no jurisdiction, acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment on the same day after rejecting the petitioners aforementioned petition under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8-A. The learned Counsel further contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed a written statement, it was obligatory on the part of the learned court below to consider the statements made therein before coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a case for obtaining a decree for eviction of the defendant on the ground of her personal necessity.

9. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned court below by an order dated 8-4-1991 posted the suit for ex parte hearing on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner had no instruction in the matter on 9-4-1991 the plaintiff examined all the witnesses and completed the argument and the suit was posted for delivery of the judgment.

10. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh V/s. Mohindra Kumar , the court below had no jurisdiction to recall its order dated 8-4-1991.

11. So far as the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the same has also no merit as the suit was posted for ex parte hearing, the court was required to pass a judgment on the basis of the evidences brought on records by the plaintiff. The plaintiff examined four witnesses including the plaintiff who examined herself