C. R. Sarma, J.:- The order, dated 27.03.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 2, Agartala, West Tripura, in Case No. Misc. 8/2009, is in challenge in this revision petition, preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The respondent obtained a decree against the petitioners in Title Suit No. 4/2005. By the judgment and decree, dated 19.09.2006, passed in T.S. No. 4/2005, while declaring right, title and interest, in the suit land in favour of the plaintiff/respondent, the learned trial Judge ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover khas possession by execution process. The judgment debtors, as defendants contested the suit on the plea of adverse possession and non-joinder of necessary parties, amongst others. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence and the materials on record, decreed the plaintiffs' suit granting the relief as indicated above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the judgment debtors/petitioners, as appellant, challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 3/2009, before the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. According to the judgment debtors/petitioners, before any stay order could be passed in the said appeal, the decree holder/respondent instituted an execution proceeding for executing the decree and the said proceeding was registered as Exe (T) No. 12/2007 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala, West Tripura. The judgment debtors/petitioners filed an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning the executability of the decree on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit and failure of the learned trial Judge to appreciate the evidence regarding adverse possession. Accordingly, the petition under Section 47 of CPC was registered as Misc. Case No. 8/2009. The learned Executing Court, by the impugned order, dated 27.03.2010, passed in said Misc. Case, rejected the petition filed by the judgment debtor/petitioners aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said order, the judgment debtor/petitioners has come up with this revision petition. 3. I have heard Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors/petitioners and Mr. D.B. Sengupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/respondent. 4. Mr. Case, rejected the petition filed by the judgment debtor/petitioners aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said order, the judgment debtor/petitioners has come up with this revision petition. 3. I have heard Mr. D. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors/petitioners and Mr. D.B. Sengupta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the decree holder/respondent. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors/petitioners, taking me through the impugned order, dated 27.03.2010, has submitted that the decree was not executable on the ground that the learned trial Judge passed the decree in the absence of the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff, who were also co-owners with the decree holder/respondent and that the plea of adverse possession, raised by the judgment debtors/petitioners as defendants, was not properly appreciated. The learned counsel has further contended that the plaintiff should have made his brothers and sisters, who were co-owners, as parties to the suit and that the decree passed behind them is a nullity in the eye of law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the cases of Mehta Suraya Vs. United Investment Corporation, reported in AIR 2002 Calcutta 108 and N.S.S. Narayana Sarma & Ors. Vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2002) 1 SCC 662 . 5. Refuting the said argument, Mr. B.D. Sengupta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the decree holder/respondent, has submitted that the learned trial Judge duly appreciated the evidence on record and that the executing Court has no scope to examine the questions, regarding adverse possession and non-joinder of necessary parties, raised by a party to the suit. The learned senior counsel, referring to the plaintiff's pleadings, further contended that the plaintiff purchased the share of other co-sharers by registered Sale Deeds and after such purchase, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the entire landed property measuring 1.33 acres i.e. the suit land and as such it was not necessary to add the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff in the suit for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendants therefrom. It is also contended that the judgment debtors/petitioners were trespassers to the suit land that the learned trial Judge passed the decree after adjudicating the said matter. It is also contended that the judgment debtors/petitioners were trespassers to the suit land that the learned trial Judge passed the decree after adjudicating the said matter. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the appeal, preferred by the judgment debtors/petitioners against the judgment and decree, having been dismissed, the judgment debtors cannot stall the execution of the decree on the said grounds, which were the grounds in the appeal. It is submitted at the Bar that the appeal filed by the judgment debtor/petitioners has already been dismissed by the appellate Court. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the decree-holder respondent, has relied on the decision held in the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors., reported inAIR 1970 SC1475. In the above referred case, the Supreme Court observed:-"6. A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree between the parties or their representatives; it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties." 6. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I have perused the pleadings, the judgment and order, dated 19.09.2006, passed by the learned trial Judge in T.S. No. 4/2005 and the impugned order, dated 27.03.2010, passed by the learned Executing Court in Misc. 08/2009 aforesaid. 7. The first point raised by the learned counsel, appearing for the revision-petitioner, is that the decree is not executable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. According to the judgment-debtors/petitioners, the brothers and sisters of the decree-holder/respondent were also the co-owners of the suit property and that the decree, passed in their absence, cannot be executed. In paragraph-8 of the plaint, the plaintiff (decree-holder/respondent herein) specifically pleaded that he had purchased the share of his brothers and sisters by registered Sale Deed and thus he became the absolute owner of the entire property. In view of the above, it appears that the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming himself to be the absolute owner of the suit land. The appeal preferred by the defendants/judgment debtors, against the said judgment and decree, has already been dismissed. In view of the above, it appears that the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming himself to be the absolute owner of the suit land. The appeal preferred by the defendants/judgment debtors, against the said judgment and decree, has already been dismissed. Therefore, the defendants' plea being rejected by both the Courts below, the judgment debtors/petitioners can't reopen the matter, regarding non-joinder of parties, in the execution proceeding, by filing an application under Section 47 CPC. 8. The second point raised by the revision-petitioners is that the judgment debtor/petitioners'plea of adverse possession was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge. The matter regarding adverse possession is a mixed question of law and facts. For deciding the question of adverse possession, the learned trial Judge framed an issue being issue No. 3 and decided the said issue against the defendants i.e. the revision-petitioners. The learned trial Judge observed that the defendants failed to produce any record to show that they were in continuous possession, either as permissive possession or as forceful occupier, of the suit land. The said issue having been decided against the defendant, the defendants should have agitated the matter before the appropriate appellate Court. Admittedly, an appeal was preferred challenging the decree, put in the execution, and the said appeal has already been dismissed. Therefore, the judgment debtors/petitioners, having failed to succeed in the appeal also, can't be allowed to reopen the question of adverse possession, by filing an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. In the case of Mehta Suraya (supra), the Supreme Court held that the decree obtained against the lessee of the suit property (land) was not executable against the sub­lessee (in respect of the building). In the above referred case, the Union Investment Corporation was a lessee in respect of the land. A decree was originally obtained in respect of the land. Admittedly, a building was constructed on the land. The building was not the subject matter of the decree until it was amended. The decree was made on admission. The building was not included either in the plaint or in the application for decree on admission. The Union Investment Corporation after constructing the building sub-let it to various tenants including the IPM. The building was not the subject matter of the decree until it was amended. The decree was made on admission. The building was not included either in the plaint or in the application for decree on admission. The Union Investment Corporation after constructing the building sub-let it to various tenants including the IPM. It was held that as the building was not the subject matter of the suit or the application for decree on admission, the decree could not be executed against the building and the EPM, who were not sub-tenant/lessee of the land, which was the subject matter of the suit. In our present case, there is no dispute regarding the subject matter. According to the plaintiff, the defendants were occupying the suit land and the decree has been obtained in respect of the land. That apart, there is no question of occupying the suit land by any sub-tenants/lessee or any other third party. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of the above referred case and the case in hand being different, the said decision, relied upon by the petitioners, will not help them. 10. In the case of N.S.S. Narayana Sarma (supra), a preliminary decree was passed in the suit on the(basis of the compromise entered between the parties and no appeal having been filed, the preliminary decree obtained finality. The appellants, who were not parties to the suit claimed that the Late Nawab Khurshed Jan Pyagah administration had granted pattas in favour of several villagers. The said pattadars entered into an agreement with SETWIN Employees Housing Co-operative Society and Shri Satya Sai Co-operative Society Ltd. of which the appellants were members. Registered sale deeds were also executed in favour of the appellants to the extent of 85 acres of land. Pucca houses were constructed on the lands transferred in favour of the appellants. Assessment of property tax has also been made. Coming to know of the execution petition filed by the respondents for delivery of possession, the appellants filed petition under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 CPC resisting the execution. The appellants' petition being dismissed by the District Judge, they approached the High Court but were unsuccessful. Then the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The appellants' petition being dismissed by the District Judge, they approached the High Court but were unsuccessful. Then the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, remitted the matter for fresh consideration. In the above referred case, the appellants claimed independent title to the property on transfer from the pattadars and their claim was not adjudicated upon by the Court, passing the decree. But in the case in hand, the petitioners contested the suit as defendants and being unsuccessful in the suit they preferred an appeal and the appeal was also dismissed, thereby affirming the judgment and decree rendered against the petitioners/defendants. Therefore, at this stage, i.e. in the execution proceeding, the pleas of the defendants (who lost in both the Courts below) that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the brothers and sisters of the plaintiff and that the suit was hit by the law of adverse possession cannot be entertained. The facts of the case of N.S.S. Narayana Sarma (supra) and the facts of the present case are different. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the decision rendered in the said case will not help the petitioners. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find nothing to hold that the learned trial Judge exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. In view of the above discussion, I find no sufficient merit in this revision petition. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.