- (1.)BY way of this Revision Application, the applicants have challenged the Judgment and decree dated 02.04.1998, passed by the learned First Joint Civil Judge(J.D.), Surendranagar, in Civil Suit No. 230 of 1990, whereby the learned Judge, has dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff as also order dated 13.07.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.l, Surendranagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1998, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the Appeal filed by the present applicants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 02.04.1998, passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 230 of 1990.
(2.)THE short facts of this case are that the present respondents are tenants of one room and open front portion situated at Dalmil Road, Surendranagar. Patel Budhabhai Parsottam was the original owner of the said premises. He had filed Civil Suit No. 230 of 1990, against the original tenant-Namori Gorabhai Mali for recovery of possession on the ground of arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit Namori Gorabhai Mali died. THErefore, the respondents being heirs of Manori Gorabhai Mali were brought on record of the suit. THE said suit was then heard and dismissed by judgment and decree dated 02.04.1998. Against the said judgment and decree the original plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1998 in the Court of Learned District Judge, Surendranagar. During the pendency of the said Appeal original plaintiff had sold the property in question to the mother of the present applicants by registered dated 27.09.2004. Subsequently, document for amending sale deed was also executed in favour of the mother of the applicants on 24.01.2005. THEreafter, the mother of the applicants wanted to join as appellant in the pending appeal but before that the said appeal was withdrawn by the original plaintiff. THEreafter, the mother of the applicants filed an application on 25.02.2005, for restoration of the appeal and impleading her as appellant, but during the pendency of the said application, the mother of the applicants also died. THErefore, the applicants were brought on record of the application for restoration of the appeal. THE said application was allowed on 11.03.2008. THEreafter, the appeal was heard and vide order dated 13.07.2009, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Revision application.
I have heard Mr. C.L.Soni, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mrs. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondents.

Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the applicant contended that the original landlord has given complete premises along with tenancy right and litigation, however, the same is not referred in the original proceedings but subsequently by correction in the documents it was done, which was executed on 21st January, 2005, after the appeal was withdrawn by original plaintiff.

(3.)LEARNED Advocate for the respondents submitted that both the Courts below after the orders of both the Courts below are just and proper and no interference is called for.
This Court has considered the documents which are produced by the learned Advocate for the applicants as also the entire record of the case. The appellate Court while deciding the appeal in paragraph No.13, has observed as under:-

13. Now, on perusal of record of Misc. Application No. 66/06. It appears that the deceased plaintiff executed corrigendum to accord and grant rights in connection of arrears of rent, suit in favour of appellants, the stamp paper purchased on 21.1.2005, after the permission was grant by Joint District Judge to withdraw appeal on 25.10.2004, not only that same is unregistered deed, does not specify the names of witnesses, date of execution which drafted by Mr. Arvindbhai V. Dhruv on the basis the transfer deed which placed before the Court by present appellants are after thought and the learned trail Judge who came on conclusion to join party and restore the apapeal. Applying the well knowledge principal of estoppal the appellants are not entitled to get possession of suit place, appeal not tenable the appeal cannot be allowed and I am unable to agree with submission of appellants' learned Advocate Raval to allow the appeal. In answered point No.1 accordingly.....