Judgment 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. 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 as P.W. 2. The plaintiff had categorically slated that she required the suit premises for accommodating her adopted son and his family in view of the fact that she as well as her husband have become old. 12. The plaintiff examined four witnesses including the plaintiff who examined herself as P.W. 2. The plaintiff had categorically slated that she required the suit premises for accommodating her adopted son and his family in view of the fact that she as well as her husband have become old. 12. The learned trial court took into consideration the entire evidences on records and came to the conclusion by assigning sufficient and cogent reasons that the plaintiff has been able to prove her bona fide requirement in respect of the entire suit premises. 13. The petitioner has not filed any civil revision application questioning that part of the order dated 3-5-1991 whereby his application under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. 14. The petitioners other remedy was to file an application for setting aside the ex parte decree as provided for under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also not filed. The learned trial court, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any illegality in passing the judgment on the basis of ex parte evidences brought on records on behalf of the plaintiff. 15. The contention of Mr. Eqbal to the effect that before passing an ex parte decree, the learned court below should have taken into consideration the defenses raised by the petitioner in its written statement, cannot be accepted inasmuch as it is also well known that pleading is not proof. 16. In view of the fact that the suit was posted for ex parte hearing and as the defendant did not join issues with the plaintiff, the question of learned court below taking into consideration the defenses taken by the petitioner in his written statement did not arise. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the learned court below has committed any illegality material irregularity or failed to take into consideration any relevant matter while passing the ex parte decree. 17. Taking, thus, all facts and circumstances into consideration I am of the view that there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that some time should be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. 18. 17. Taking, thus, all facts and circumstances into consideration I am of the view that there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that some time should be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises. 18. In this situation, it is directed that ex parte decree passed as against the petitioner shall not be executed for a period of six months from today subject to the conditions that the petitioner files an undertaking supported by an affidavit before the learned executing court that he will vacate the suit premises on the expiry of the 31st March, 1992. The petitioner shall also deposit all arrears of rent up to September, 1991 by 31st October, 1991 and shall continue to deposit the rent from the month of October, 1991 onwards by 15th of the next month succeeding. In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the any of the directions aforementioned, it would be open to the plaintiff opposite party to execute the decree passed as against the petitioner forthwith However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs.