JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. I.Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for respondent no.3.

2. The present revision petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 9.2.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 4/2020 by learned Civil Judge, No. 1 Cachar, Silchar arising out of Misc(J) Case No. 156/2006 in Execution Case No. 21/2006.

3. The brief facts leading to this litigation.

(a) One Nasiruddin Laskar, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner and respondent no.3 was a tenant under Rahima Khatun Laskar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 and 2.

The respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 13/2004 for a decree of eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent against the respondent No.3. The said suit was decreed on 21.7.2005 by the learned trial court. Against the aforesaid decree, the respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal which was registered as Title Appeal No. 49/2005. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate court by its judgment dated 18.5.2006.

(b) Thereafter, the decree was put into execution and accordingly, the Execution Case No. 21/2006 was registered. When the executing court issued warrant of possession, the present petitioner No.2 alongwith her deceased mother (petitioner No.1) filed an application before the learned Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the CPC 1908 which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 156/2006.

(c) The said petition was allowed by the learned Executing Court holding that the decree cannot be executed against the present petitioners as they were not made parties to the original suit inasmuch as they inherited the suit premises being the legal heirs of the original tenant namely Nasir Uddin Laskar and the suit was filed only against the respondent No.3 who was the son of said Nasir Uddin Laskar. The said Misc Case was allowed by an order dated 17.6.2009.

(d) Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal which was registered as Misc Appeal No. 19/2009. The said appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate court under its judgment dated 31.5.2011.

(e) Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 approached this Court by a revision petition which was registered as CRP No. 302/2011. Said revision petition was allowed by this court by setting aside both the orders of the learned trial court on the ground that the learned trial court, below without affording any opportunity to adduce evidence, has decided the matter. Accordingly, the entire matter was remanded back by this Court under its order dated 7.3.2012 and this Court requested the learned court, below to decide the matter expeditiously.

(f) Thereafter, the evidences were led by the parties, the matter was heard and by judgment and order dated 16.8.2019 passed in the aforesaid Misc (J) case No. 156/2006, the learned Executing Court held that the decree cannot be executed against the petitioners herein as they were not parties to the suit inasmuch they are the legal heirs of the original tenant namely Nasir Uddin Laskar. Such decision was once again challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein by preferring an appeal before the learned appellate court which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 04/2020.

(g) After hearing the parties, the learned appellate court set aside the decision of the executing Court and held that the decree can still be executed inasmuch as the estate of Nasir Uddin Laskar was duly protected and represented by the son of Nasir Uddin Laskar respondent No.3 herein. Therefore in view of principles of unity of estate, the non arraying the petitioner as defendants in the original suit cannot have any effect on the outcome of the suit. The court was also of the view that the validity of a decree may be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit in accordance with law or taking any other remedy available under the law. The Court also came to a conclusio