The right to pre-empt under Section 8(1) of the W. B. L. R. Act is available only to a co-sharer or an adjoining owner, and the right must exist at the time of the application being decided.

( 1 ) THE hearing stems from an application filed by the petitioners praying for revision of the order dated 16. 12. 1998 passed by the learned Additional district Judge, 5th Court, Midnapore in Misc. Appeal No. 45/95 reversing the order dated 24. 3. 95 of learned Munsif, Dantan in J. Misc. Case no. 26/1991.

( 2 ) THE circumstances leading to the present revision are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act being registered as J. Misc. Case No. 27/91 for pre-emption of the lands transferred in favour of O. P. No. 1 by pro-O. P. Nos. 2 to 7 by a sale deed executed on 21. 09. 87 and registered on 2. 2. 91, on the ground of vicinage, on depositing sale-price along with compensation, as they purchased land of plot Nos. 2315 and 2319 of Khatian Nos. 158 and 483 respectively of Mouza palasi by a registered deed dated 21. 9. 89. After a contested hearing the trial Court allowed the said Misc. Case holding the petitioners as contiguous raiyots of the disputed land. In appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 45/95 preferred by O. P. No. 1 the learned Judge reversed the order of the Trial Court observing that there were co-shares of the lands, that the lands transferred are not specific and there was no partition of the said lands, though the lands transferred which are Panbaraz and Bastudhosa are well defined, demarcated, sufficiently identifiable and are in exclusive possession of O. P. No. 1.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present revision.

( 4 ) ALL that now requires to be considered is whether the learned Lower appellate Court was justified in passing the above order.

( 5 ) MR. Puspendu Bikas Sahoo, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, on drawing Court's attention to the provision of Section 2 (6) as also Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act, as amended by the W. B. L. R. (Amendment) Act, 2000 (W. B. Act XXXI of 2000) with retrospective effect from 7. 8. 69 and an unreported decision of this Court in P. Upadhayay v. Tilakdhari Singh contended that since the concent of "holding" is now not- est, as it has been substituted by "plot of land of a raiyot" with retrospective effect from 7. 8. 69, the entire complexion has been changed thus giving rise to the necessity for sending the case back on remand to the Trial court for a fresh decision, as the right of pre-emption of the co-sharer, bargadar and adjoining owner has been limited to a portion or area of the plot of land. Mr. Rameshwar Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for O. P. No. 1, on the other hand, on referring the decisions reported in AIR 1997 SC 448, 2001 W. B. L. R. (Cal) 352 and 1980 (1) C. L. J. 395 contended that some portion of lands was transferred to O. P. No. 1, as will be evinced from the schedule of the application and page 2 of the Appellate Court's judgment, and so mere omission of the word "holding" from the definition will virtually not affect this proceeding in any way, that the documents filed on behalf of the petitioners should not have been exhibited without proof, that as the co- sharers of plot No. 2319 in respect of which the petitioners claim to have adjoining land have not been made parties and that as the said plot 2319 is un-partitioned and so other co-sharers have interest and possession legally in every inch of the property, there is no material to interfere with the findings of the learned Court of appeal.

( 6 ) BEFORE I open the discussion, and indeed as paying the way for it, i may shortly dispose of one or two legal questions, as raised by Mr. Bhattacharya, so that the desk may be clear for dealing with the main issue which actually deserves to be dealt with here.

( 7 ) IT was contended by Mr. Bhattacharya that all the co-sharers of plot Nos. 2319 should have been made parties here. A "necessary party" is one whose presence is essential and in whose absence no effective decree can at all be passed, whereas a "proper party"