HARISH TANDON, J.

This revisional application is directed against an order no. 218 dated May 11, 2006 passed by Sri P.K. Chakraborty, learned Judge, 2nd Bench, City Civil Court at Kolkata in Title Suit no. 1003 of 1976. This case has a chequered history. The litigation started sometimes in the year 1967 with the initiation of the suit being Title Suit No. 6 of 1967 filed by the opposite party no. 12, Life Corporation of India against one Sarjan Singh, the original defendant no. 2 in the instant suit treating him as trespasser and claiming recovery of possession. The said suit was decreed. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners instituted title suit no. 1003 of 1976 against the Life Corporation of India as principle defendant and incorporated one Sarjan Singh and Punaya Singh as the defendant no. 2 and 3. The relief claimed in the said suit was in respect of a tenancy belonging to the premises of the Life Corporation of India which was initially held by one Pujan Singh who being bachelor and having died intestate, the tenancy was inherited by the original plaintiff along with the original defendant no. 2 and 3 being the brothers. Further declaration was sought therein that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 6 of 1967 in favour of the Life Corporation of India is not binding and is bad, illegal and void. The said suit was contested by the original defendants. The defence taken by the original defendant no. 2 and 3 namely Sarjan Singh, since deceased and Punaya Singh was to the effect that the original defendant no. 2 Sarjan Singh being the karta of the joint Hindu family is the only person to represent the tenancy and the original plaintiff was allowed to carry on the business for and on behalf of the said defendant no 2. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff namely Ram Narayan Singh died and the present plaintiffs/opposite parties were substituted. The plaintiffs/opposite parties sought for withdrawal of the said suit and made an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the pretext that on discovery of the certain documents it appears that the said tenancy is in fact not a joint tenancy of the original plaintiffs and the original defendant no. 2 and 3, but the said tenancy is an exclusive tenancy of the original plaintiff as he was carrying on the business from the said shop room as proprietor. The said application, on being opposed by the original defendant no. 2 and 3, was rejected as ‘not pressed’. Subsequent to the rejection of the said application for withdrawal of the suit filed by the present plaintiffs/opposite parties, an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code was taken out by the plaintiffs/opposite parties deleting the paragraphs wherein it was stated that the said tenancy devolves upon the original plaintiffs and original defendant no. 2 and 3 as joint tenants and incorporating the fact that the business was being carried in the said shop room by the predecessor-in-interest of the present plaintiffs/opposite parties as proprietor and as such the tenancy cannot be termed as a joint tenancy but is an exclusive tenancy of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/opposite parties. The said application was however contested by the original defendant no. 2 and 3 but was eventually allowed. In spite of the amendment being allowed whereby the claim of the joint tenancy was taken of by the original plaintiffs and was substituted by the claim of an exclusive tenancy of the plaintiffs the original defendant no. 2 and 3 were still the parties and the names were not struck off from the plaint. On the death of the original defendant no. 2 the petitioners herein were substituted on the basis of an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties. In the meantime the original defendant no. 3, Punaya Singh also died and their heirs and legal representatives were duly substituted. Having