Fraud vitiates all transactions and nobody can take away the right of a person by practicing fraud, and this principle applies even in proceedings under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, and Section 17 of the Limitation Act is applicable in such proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of a pre-emptee in proceedings under Section 8 of the west Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and is directed against Order No. 146 dated 10th February, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Katwa in Misc. Case No. 39 of 1993 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the application for pre-emption.

( 2 ) THE Opposite Party No. 1 filed the aforesaid application under Section 8 of the Act for pre-emption on the ground of adjoining ownership. Subsequently, the pre-emptor filed an application for amendment of the original application for pre-emption for incorporating the ground of co-sharership of the holding in accordance with the then law but on objection raised by the present petitioner, the learned Trial Judge rejected such application for amendment. It appears from the record that the pre-emptor did not challenge such order by moving any higherforum.

( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, after amendment of the Act by incorporation of the word "plot" in place of the word "holding" in Section 8 of the Act, the Opposite party No. 1 filed another application for amendment of the original application thereby alleging that in view of amendment of the aforesaid provision, he was entitled to get pre-emption also on the ground of co-sharership of the plot concerned.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid second application for amendment of the pre-emption was opposed by the present petitioner contending that in the past similar prayer having been refused, the pre-emptor was not entitled to agitate the aforesaid ground by way of further amendment. It was further contended that no amendment should be allowed at such a belated stage. It was also submitted that by lapse of time, a valuable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner and as such, the Opposite Party No. 1 was not entitled to take any additional ground for enforcing the right of pre-emption.

( 5 ) BY the order impugned herein, the learned Trial Judge has allowed such application holding that by the proposed amendment, the nature of the suit would not be changed and that such amendment was necessary for effective adjudication of the disputes involved in the suit, in view of amendment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act in the year 2000.

( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the pre-emptee has come up with the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 7 ) MR. Basu, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced threefold submission in support of this application.

( 8 ) FIRST, Mr. Basu has contended that previously, the Opposite Party no. 1 having prayed for amendment of original appliaction for pre-emption by incorporating ground of co-sharership and the same having been rejected, the said order has attained finality and as such, the second application on the self-same ground is barred by the principle of resjudicata.

( 9 ) SECONDLY, Mr. Basu contends that an application for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership can be filed only within three years from date of transaction if no notice under Section 5 (5) of the Act is served upon a cosharer. According to Mr. Basu, in this case the transaction had taken place on 6th November, 1989 and the registration was completed on 10th November, 1989 as it appears from the certified copy given to his client; but the original application for pre-emption was filed on 8th September, 1993 more than three years from the date of transaction. Mr. Basu, thus, contends that when original application for pre-emption was filed beyond the period of limitation, by way of amendment, the Opposite Party No. 1 cannot incorporate any ground of co-sharership. In support of such contention Mr. Basu relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Muni Lal v. The Orintal Fire and Insurance company and Another reported in AIR 1996 SC 642.

( 10 ) THIR