Court No. 6 (265719) 05.08.2026 (AD 36) (S. Banerjee) CO 2504 of 2026 Sri Subhas Gorai Vs. Sunayan De & Anr. Mr. Amitabha Ghosh Ms. Arpita Pal Biswas Mr. Buddhadeb Chatterjee …for the petitioner This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the preemptee and is directed against a judgment and order dated February 19, 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khatra at Bankura in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 2023 affirming the judgment and order dated April 5, 2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bankura, Khatra in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 25 of 2016. The opposite-party no. 1 filed an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 claiming right of preemption as a non-notified co-sharer. Learned trial judge allowed the misc. case. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred a Misc. Appeal which also stood dismissed by the impugned order. 2 Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the application under Sections 8 and 9 of the 1955 Act was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. He submits that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have no manner of application for condoning the delay in filing an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the 1955 Act. He further submits that the preemptors/opposite- party was not a co-sharer and for such reason the application for preemption ought to have been dismissed. The learned Judge of the appellate Court after considering the materials on record, more particularly the record of right which was marked as Exhibit B, held that the preemptor was a co-sharer in respect of the plot in question. It was the specific case of the preemptor that no notice was served upon the preemptor prior to transfer of the said property in favour of the petitioner therein. Thus, the preemptor claims to have applied for preemption as a non- notified co-sharer. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner could not controvert the factual position that the preemptor was a non-notified co-sharer. It is now well-settled that the period of limitation for filing an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the 3 1955 Act by a non-notified co-sharer is one year and not three months. The application under Sections 8 and 9 of the 1955 Act was filed within the aforesaid period of limitation. The learned Judge of the appellate Court after considering the materials on record applied the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhana Rani Saha –Vs.- Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal in Civil Appeal No. 5905 of 2009 on November 15, 2025 as well as in the case of Naymul Haque @ Naimul Haque vs Alauddin Sk. disposed of by this Court, disposed of the appeal. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court. For such reason this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned. Accordingly, the civil revision application stands dismissed. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)