T. NK. Singh, J.

1. This Revision Petition (under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Agartala dated 4.4.2009 allowing the petition filed by the respondent, Shri Nityananda Chakraborty under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the CPC to implead him as defendant No. 5 in the T.S. No. 49/2007 filed by the present petitioners and also order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court 2, Agartala dated 2.7.2009 (impugned order) rejecting the Review Petition filed by the present petitioner for reviewing the earlier order dated 4.4.2009 (impugned order).

2. Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Ms. K. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Nityananda Chakraborty. None appears for the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 4 without showing any cause.

3. The present petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed the Title Suit No. 49/2007 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Court 2 West Tripura, Agartala against the principal respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as the defendants. The relief sought for in the Title Suit No. 49/2007 filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs are:

(i) Pass a decree declaring that the defendants, their agents, associates and representatives under the banner of "Gram Unnayan Yuva Sanstha" or "Narendra Smrity Pathagar" are all trespassers/illegal possessors of the suit land;

(ii) Pass a decree of recovery of possession by evicting the defendants, their agents and associates by demolishing the house with Brick Walls and Tin Roof situated within the suit land;

(iii) Pass orders as to cost and any Order or Orders as may be deemed fit and proper for ends or justice.

4. In the plaint of the Title Suit No. 49/2007, the petitioners/plaintiffs pleaded that the land described in the schedule to the plaint is in illegal possession of the defendants. The petitioners/plaintiffs seek recovery of possession of the suit and from the defendants. The suit land originally belonged to one Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee, who died on 6.11.1990 whereupon his only legal representative Smt. Kiran Prabha Bhattacharjee (wife) became the owner by succession and she also died after two years, i.e., on 20.8.1992.

5. The said Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee and Kiran Prabha had no issue. During the life time of Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee, petitioners/plaintiffs at different times were invited to live with them and accordingly petitioners/plaintiffs lived in different parts of the land belonging to said Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee without any rent or expenses. After death of Narendra Chandra Bhattacharjee, his widow Kiran Prabha continued to allow the plaintiffs to keep up their possession in various parts of land belonging to her and the deceased owners did not transfer any part of their land in favour of anybody. After the death of Kiran Prabha, the holder of title in possession the plaintiffs continued their possession. Kumud Bandhu Chakraborty was the brother of Kiran Prabha, who is now deceased. The petitioner/plaintiff No. 1 Shri Sudhir Ranjan Chakraborty is the brother of late Kiran Prabha while the petitioner/plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, 9 and 4 are sisters and plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6 are son and daughter of predeceased sisters of late Kiran Prabha. Thus, after the death of Kiran Prabha on 20.8.1992, the petitioners/plaintiffs jointly became successors in interest with regard to the property left by Kiran Prabha.

6. In September 2004 the principal defendants approached the petitioners/plaintiffs No. 1 and petitioner/plaintiff No. 5 to take permission to hold Durga Puja on a part of their land which was vacant. The petitioners/plaintiffs had collectively decided to allow the principal respondents/defendants to use the said land for performing Durga Puja, i.e., the suit land. Next year also similar request was repeated and similar permission was granted. Thereafter principal respondents/defendants with their agents stated performing Durg