In a pre-emption proceeding, the amendment of the application should be allowed only if it is necessary and the question of title or other considerations save the clauses as noted in Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act cannot be considered at all within the domain of Section 8 of the Act. The heirs of the vendor are neither necessary parties nor proper parties even in the preemption proceeding.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.:

1. Challenge is to the Order No.212 dated July 6, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai in Misc. Case No.27 of 2007 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the application under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act and also rejecting another application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.

2. The petitioner herein is the pre-emptor of the application under Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act. He filed the application for pre-emption being Misc. Case No.27 of 2007 against the preemptees.

3. The pre-emptees are contesting the said misc. case and the misc. case was at the stage of peremptory hearing when the application for amendment of the misc. case and another application for addition of parties were filed. Those prayers were rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by such orders, the pre-emptor has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the learned Trial Judge is justified in rejecting the prayers of the pre-emptor.

4. Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the pre-emptor has sought for pre-emption against the preemptees in respect of a registered sale deed dated May 18, 1984. The said misc. case for pre-emption was filed in the year 1991 and since then the same is still pending for decision. After major change of the W.B.L.R. Act in 2000, the pre-emptor amended the misc. case incorporating the ground of being a co-sharer in respect of the land in case for pre-emption. Thereafter, the matter came up for peremptory hearing again when the applications for amendment and addition of parties as referred to above have been filed.

5. So far as amendment is concerned by the proposed amendment, I find that the plaintiff has contended that the proposed amendment is related to subsequent event which transpired from the additional written statement filed by the opposite parties in the preemption proceeding. It may be noted herein that, by an order dated November 28, 2006 in C.O. No.2880 of 2006, this Hon’ble Court directed the opposite parties to file an additional written statement to deal with the allegations incorporated by way of amendment of the misc. case earlier. Accordingly, the application for amendment appearing as Annexure-‘G’ at page no.45 has been filed which lays down certain formal amendment, such as, adjacent possessor and co-sharer etc. and that the main amendment has been recorded in paragraph no.2 appearing as page no.46 which lays down that the vendor of the petitioner colluded with other opposite parties and brought a suit being Title Suit No.78 of 1993 and thus, got an ex parte decree by practising fraud and misrepresentation. So, the said contention should be incorporated.

6. It may be noted herein that previously the application under Section 8 of the said Act was on the ground of vicinity and by the amendment as noted earlier, the plaintiff had incorporated the ground of pre-emption as co-sharership. So, I am of the opinion that the amendment as sought for in paragraph no.1 is not at all necessary.

7. So far as the contention in paragraph no.2 is concerned, I am of the view that if the plaintiff succeeds, he would get the right, title and interest in the property already transferred by his vendor in favour of the third party. The pre-emption right is a weak right and it has very limited scope as per provisions of Section 8 of the said Act and there is no scope of considering whether fraud and misrepresentation had been practised in respect of the suit being Title Suit No.78 of 1993 filed by the vendor against other opposite parties.

8. Moreover, since the suit was filed in the year 1993 and the plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the said decree in the year 1996, such belated application for amendment cannot be considered at all. Again the question of title or other considerations save the clauses as noted in Secti