Sl.8 15.07.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2105 of 2026 Sudip Roy -versus- Habibullah Sekh Mr. Aritra Roy Chowdhury ..for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptor and is directed against an order being no.28 dated January 28, 2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court at Bolpur, Birbhum in Miscellaneous (Pre-emption) Case No.06 of 2022. By the order impugned the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. The petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which was registered as Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 6 of 2022 on the ground of co- sharership. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending the schedule of the pre-emption application by adding three more plots along with the plot of land which forms the subject matter of the pre-emption case. The learned trial judge rejected the application for amendment. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that while drafting the pre-emption application there were inadvertent mistakes and only one plot out of 2 four plots by virtue of which the transfer was made by the impugned deed was incorporated in the schedule of the pre-emption application. He submits that it is well settled that amendment can be allowed to correct the erroneous description of the suit property at any stage of the suit. He submits that the issue of limitation being a disputed question of law and fact, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for amendment and if at all the same shall be an issue in the suit after the amendment is allowed. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Tarapada Som Vs. Parbati Charan Sarkar reported at (1993) 2 CHN 149. In support of his contention that amendment can be allowed to rectify inadvertent procedural mistake by advocate, the learned advocate for the petitioner places reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary reported at (2019) 15 SCC 628. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in the case on hand trial has not yet commenced. The impugned deed was executed on 9th December, 2021 and the same was registered on 15th December, 2021. The application was filed sometimes in the year 2022. The petitioner claims to be a non-notified co-sharer. After going through the pre-emption application this Court finds that only R.S and L.R. Plot No. 1170 classification “pukur” 3 measuring an area of 53 sataks out of 1095 sataks which has been transferred vide deed no. 4750/ 2021 forms the subject matter of the pre-emption application. In paragraph 8 of the pre-emption application it has been stated that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with 10% interest thereupon. By way of amendment, the petitioner sought to incorporate three more plots which also form the subject matter of transfer by virtue of the impugned deed being no. 4750/2021. Initially the petitioner sought to pre-empt the transfer in respect of one of the plots. There is a period of limitation prescribed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for filing an application for pre-emption. The right to pre-emption accrues immediately upon transfer of a plot of land. In the case on hand the right of pre-emption accrued upon registration of the impugned deed on 15th December, 2021. The application for amendment has been filed sometimes in the month of April, 2025. The attempt to pre-empt the transfers in respect of R.S and L.R Plot Nos. 1170/2235, 1170/2236 and 1170/2237 by way of amendment has been made long after the period of limitation. It is now well settled that the right of pre-emption is very weak right and the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 are to be construed strictly. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law that in case the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and 4 fact an amendment of pleadings cannot be rejected on that ground. In such a case the amendment should be allowed and the point of limitation should be made an issue in the suit. However the said proposition of law cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in the case on hand as the application for pre-emption in respect of the three plots for which the petitioner now seeks to pre-empt has been filed after the right of pre-emption stood barred by lapse of time in respect of the said three plots. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders reported at 2022 16 SCC 1 held that time barred claim cannot be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment. In Varun Pahwa (supra) the plaint was not properly drafted inasmuchas in the memo of parties the plaintiff was described as Varun Pahwa through the Director of the company though it should have been the company through its director Varun Pahwa. On such factual background the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an inadvertent mistake in the plaint should have been allowed to be corrected so as to permit the private limited company to sue as plaintiff as the original plaintiff has filed the suit as director of the private limited company. The said decision being distinguishable on fact cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. In Tarapada Som (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench in paragraph 6 of the said decision held that when an 5 application for amendment is made beyond the period of limitation, the Court is to consider whether by refusing such amendment an injustice will be made to the party seeking the amendment. It was further held that no doubt, in such a case, the Court is also to consider whether by granting such amendment an injury would be caused to the other side, but if the facts and circumstances of the case require an amendment to be allowed, the Court will not be slow to allow such amendment, no matter, whether the amendment was sought for after the period of limitation. The said decision cannot come to the aid of the petitioner is an application under Section 8 of the 1955 Act as it is now well settled that the provisions of Section 8 and 9 are to be construed strictly. Though it may be true that by virtue of the impugned transfer deed 4 plots were transferred, it is not the case of the petitioner that the entire consideration for 4 plots together with 10% thereon was deposited. It is also well settled that any shortfall in the aforesaid amount also cannot be permitted to be deposited also cannot be permitted to be deposited after the prescribed period of limitation. The issue of limitation in the case on hand is not a mixed question of law and fact and an attempt was made to incorporate a time barred claim by way of amendment which is not permissible in law. 6 For the reasons as aforesaid and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders, this Court is not inclined to follow the ratio laid down in Tarapada Som (supra) as in the case on hand the amendment sought for was ex facie barred by limitation. For such reason, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, C.O.2105 of 2026 stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)