SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) The preemptors in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has preferred the instant revisional application. The trial court allowed such application for preemption on the ground of co-sharership. The appellate court reversed the same on the ground that the constituted attorney, who had filed the preemption application on behalf of the petitioners by virtue of a power of attorney, did not have authority to so file. The premise of such observation was that the power of attorney had not been marked as an exhibit in the proceeding and secondly, the P.W.1, being one of the petitioners, himself admitted that the petitioners had not given the constituted attorney the authority to file the preemption case.
(2.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the appellate court reversed the preemption order on an entirely technical basis, which was not permitted in law. It is submitted that a stray comment in the cross-examination of the P.W.1 could not have altered the entire perspective of the evidence of P.W.1, which unerringly indicated to the petitioners having granted authority to the constituted attorney to file the preemption case. It is further submitted that the constituted attorney, in any event, had the authority to conduct the preemption case on behalf of the petitioners, irrespective of the written power of attorney, since, in his evidence, P.W.1 ratified such authority on behalf of both the petitioners. In such view of the matter, the petitioners argue that the appellate court's order ought to be set aside.
(3.) In controverting such arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party argues that the power of attorney had been executed in respect of the petitioners' own property and not the property, sale of which was sought to be preempted. As such, it is submitted, the said power of attorney could not grant any authority to a third party to the litigation to conduct the same on behalf of the petitioners.;