S. Serto, J.

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging order dated 21.03.2007, of Court of Civil Judge, Dhubri, wherein, learned Civil Judge disposed two Misc. (J) cases being No. 271 /2004, and 272/2007.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also heard learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

2. Brief facts which led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are stated here below ;-

That petitioner by purportedly executing an agreement dated 02.01.1984, became a tenant of one Biresh Chandra Poddar, defendant No.2, in original Title Suit No. 234/1989, and proforma respondent in Title Appeal No. 27/2006, in respect of a portion of a house standing in a plot of land measuring 3K 11L, covered by Khatian No.39 and Dag No. 114 & 115, situated at Bidyapara Part Dhubri Town, Dhubri District.

And while continuing as such, a suit being No. 234/1989 was instituted in Court of Munsif, Dhubri by respondents, who are sisters of Mr. Biresh Chandra Poddar, defendant No. 2 in original title suit, and proforma respondent in appeal, praying for eviction of defendant No. 1, present petitioner.

The suit was decreed in favour of present respondents on 25.04.2006. Not satisfied with judgment and decree, petitioner herein filed an appeal before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhubri on 02.06.2006. And while appeal was pending petitioner filed two applications, one under Order 13, Rule 10 and other under Order 41, Rule 27 praying for calling of records of three title suit cases viz. T.S. No. 5/2002, T.S. No. 19/1987 and T.S. No. 136/2000, pending before other Courts and also to allow him to lead additional evidence to show that respondent No. 4 and proforma defendant, one of owners of land, Shri Biresh Chandra Poddar has expired during pendency of original suit before trial court, respectively.

The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) took up two applications and disposed them by a common order dated 21.03.2004, which is impugned herein.

Being aggrieved, petitioner has come to this Court praying for setting aside impugned order.

3. Case of petitioner as submitted by learned counsel is as follows:

That since decree passed by trial court was after death of one of plaintiffs. i.e., plaintiff No. 4/respondent No. 4 and, defendant No. 2/proforma respondent, decree is non est. Therefore, in order to bring these facts into record of appeal he prayed for calling of records of said three title suits pending before other Courts and also to file additional evidence in support of his case. These two applications, however, were dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), without considering fact that such evidence if brought on record will have a significant bearing on outcome of appeal.

That legal heirs of Biresh Chandra Poddar are necessary parties in title suit and unless they are brought in as parties no effective order or decree can be passed in respect of suit land. Since this fact was not taken in consideration by learned Civil judge (Sr. Div.) while passing impugned order he has committed error in law.

In support of his submission, learned counsel submitted judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad & Anr., v. Khirodhar Mahto & Ors., reported in (1994) Suppl. (3) SCC 314 and in case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by Lrs., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511.

4. In reply, learned counsel for respondents submitted as follows :

That petitioner became one of tenants in property which belongs to respondents and their brother Biresh Chandra Poddar who was impleaded as defendant No.2 in original suit and proforma respondent in appeal. petitioner stopped paying rent of house he was occupying; therefore, a suit for eviction was intended to be filed against him. While preparation for same was going on Biresh Chandra Poddar being one of co-owners was asked to join suit but he declined to take part in suit, therefore, he was impleaded as one of defendants in s