Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh vs Sri Kamal Ghosh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7648 Cal

    (01)
18.11.2022

(p.jana) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CO No. 3587 of 2019

Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh

-versus-

Sri Kamal Ghosh

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, ... for the petitioner.

Ms. Shila Sarkar, Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee Mr. Souvik Das, Mr. Rudranil Das, ... for the opposite party.

The revisional application under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India is directed against the

judgment and order dated June 27, 2019 passed by the

learned Additional District Judge, Kandi District:

Murshidabad in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 2018

thereby affirming the judgment and order dated April

30, 2018 passed by the Second Court of learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) at Kandi in Miscellaneous (L.R.)

Case No. 34 of 2015. The petitioner sought to pre-

empt the sale of the suit plot in favour of the opposite

party under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land

Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'The said

Act' in short) on the ground of vicinage and non-

notified co-sharership.

The application of the petitioner for pre-emption

was registered before the Second Court of learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Kandi, District: Murshidabad

being Miscellaneous (L.R.) Case No. 34 of 2015. The

learned Trial Judge by the order dated April 30, 2018

dismissed the said application for pre-emption. The

appeal Court below by the impugned judgment and

order has affirmed the order of the learned Trial Judge.

Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, learned advocate for

the pre-emptee/opposite party submits that admittedly

the petitioner has not deposited the entire

consideration price of the disputed sale along with his

application for pre-emption as such the said

application is liable to be dismissed for such short-fall

alone and in support of his such contention he places

reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the Case of BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL AND

OTHERS VS. KAUSTABH MONDAL reported in (2019)

19 Supreme Court Cases 767 and in the case of

ABDUL MATIN MALLICK VS. SUBRATA

BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND OTHERS

reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 555.

In view of the aforesaid two decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court the issue whether the pre-

emptor is required to deposit the entire consideration

price of the disputed sale to maintain an application for

pre-emption under Sections 8 and 9 of the said Act of

1955 is no longer res integra, as a result, the order

impugned does not call for any interference C.O. 3587

of 2019 dismissed without any order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance

with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)