Ghosh Sri Kamal Ghosh -versus- Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, … for & Ors. v. KAUSTABH MONDAL reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 767 and & Ors.

Sri Prabir Kumar Ghosh Sri Kamal Ghosh -versus- 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 2 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 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.)