ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J. - (1.) Order impugned dated 16th January, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Contai in Misc. Appeal No.18 of 2006 reversing the order of the learned Trial Court dismissing application for pre-emption is under challenge in this revisional application.
(2.) Facts revealed in this case is briefly stated hereunder :- Opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 purchased the suit property by a registered deed of sale dated 24th June, 1999. The petitioners are joint owners of plot Nos.792, 794 and 795 which are situated western side of the suit property. Opposite party no.1/pre-emptor became the owner of property being plot Nos.792, 794 and 795 after partition with his brother and the opposite party no.1. is the adjoining owner of the land of the suit property and as such, opposite party no.1 prayed for pre-emption. The petitioner contested the Misc. Appeal by filing written objection. It was contended by them that the opposite party no.1 is neither a co-sharer nor adjoining raiyat of the suit property being plot No. 780 measuring 57 decimals belonged to Atul and Asutosh in equal share. Accordingly, in revisional settlement their names have been published finally recorded as raiyat in the record of right. Thereafter registered partition deed was registered on 3rd January, 1978 by which Atul got entire suit property and had been in possession thereof. Thereafter Atul by a registered deed of gift dated 4th June, 1987 gifted the property in favour of one Nirmala and Nirmala sold the suit property to the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 by a registered sale deed dated 2nd July, 1999. The registration was recorded in volume on 20th July, 1999. Opposite party no.1 filed a pre-emption case on 15th November, 1999 within the statutory period of four months in between the date of registration of sale deed dated 2nd July, 1999 and filing of pre-emption case on 15th November, 1999. Opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 by a registered deed exchanged the suit property with the petitioners on 23rd June, 1999. The pre-emption case was heard on merit. The learned Trial Court rejected the application for preemption by its order dated 31st August, 2004. The pre-emptor/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment order dated 31st August, 2004 filed a Misc. Appeal no.18 of 2006 before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court at Contai. The appeal was heard on contest. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court at Contai by judgment and order dated 16th January, 2007 was pleased to allow the appeal setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court at Contai. Hence this is revisional application.
(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners who are transferee by exchange have filed this revisional application thereby alleging that the order impugned should be set aside.;