Court No. 6 (265719) 17.02.2025 (AD 5) (S. Banerjee) CO 2761 of 2024 Sk. Suraj Vs. Ramendu Mukherjee & Ors. with CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 Mr. Anirban Kar Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi Mr. Rohit Mahato Ms. Khushnuma Akhtar Ansari …for the petitioner Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh Ms. Priyanka Saha …for the opposite party Re: CAN 2 of 2025 1. This is an application for recording the death of the opposite party no. 4, namely, Suniti Mukherjee. 2. It has been specifically stated in the said application that all her heirs are already on record. 3. In view thereof, there is no necessity to substitute any of the heirs of the deceased opposite party. 4. Let the death of the opposite party no. 4 be recorded. 5. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2025 stands allowed. Re: CAN 1 of 2025 6. This is an application for extension of interim order. 7. This Court invited the learned advocates for the respective parties to make their arguments on the merits of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of preemptees in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The petitioner took out an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of plaint on the ground that the preemptors cannot be said to be the co- sharers as they have purchased the demarcated portion of the property. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner that the plaint is liable to be rejected, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner took this Court through the averments made in the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 9. After going through the said application this Court could not find out from a plain reading of 2 the petition that it can be ascertained that the preemptees have purchased demarcated portion of the property in question. Learned trial Judge rightly observed that it cannot be ascertained as to whether the statement of the petitioner or the statement of the opposite party in this respect is correct. The said issue can only be decided at the time of trial after taking evidence. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 10. The civil revisional application being, CO 2761 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed. Consequently CAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Sadar Court at Suri, Birbhum is requested to dispose of the Misc. Preemption Case No. 1 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.) 3