Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.

The pre-emptee has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order No.12 dated 24th of January, 2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Bankura in Misc. Case No.15 of 2009.

The O. P. filed said pre-emption case under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereafter to be referred as the Act of 1955) praying for pre-emption. The sale of the suit property in favour of the present petitioner pre-emptee by his vendors through a sale deed dated 7th July, 2009 was the subject matter of said preemption case. As per recitals of said kobala dated 7th July, 2009 the consideration amount was Rs.12 lakhs. However, the O. P. pre-emptor filed said pre-emption case by depositing only Rs.1, 10,000/- alleging that actual consideration passed between the parties was Rs.1 lakhs and that remaining Rs.10,000/-was the 10 per cent thereof in terms of Section 8 of the Act of 1955.

The pre-emptee filed one application under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 alleging that actual consideration money passed in said sale was Rs.12 lakhs as disclosed in the deed and that he had also to pay a sum of Rs.2, 27,706/-towards stamp duty and that the pre-emptor should have filed Rs.14,27,706/-together with 10 per cent thereof totaling Rs.15,47,706/- for getting an order of pre-emption. It was further claimed in said application that the pre-emptor should be asked to file the balance amount namely 14,37,706/- in the court before proceeding with the pre-emption case. The O. P. pre-emptor filed a written objection thereof. After contested hearing learned trial court rejected said application under Section 9 (1) of the Act of 1955 by the order impugned dated 24th of January, 2011. Hence is this revisional application.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy appearing for the petitioner pre-emptee submits that there is no specific provision either in Section 8 or in Section 9 of the Act of 1955 that the pre-emptor had any right to deposit an amount other than the amount shown as the consideration money in the deed of transfer together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount or any enquiry to be undertaken by the court at the instance of the pre-emptor for ascertaining the actual amount of consideration money. According to him, the pre-emptee had the right to prove consideration money paid for the transfer and other sums, if any, paid by him in connection with said transfer and that munsif may conduct such enquiry as he considers necessary as to ascertain the total amount involved in the transfer and to direct the pre-emptor to deposit the balance amount, if any, plus 10 per cent thereof. He, however, admits that on the strength of some case laws now the pre-emptor can raise a dispute as to the actual amount of consideration money passed in the transaction and that on raising said dispute the court has to make an enquiry to ascertain the same and to direct for further deposit, if any, in terms of said enquiry. But according to Mr. Roy said further deposit should have been made before proceeding with the main case praying for pre-emption to avoid filing of frivolous and test cases by the pre-emptor causing unnecessary harassment to a purchaser who purchased the property by paying consideration money. Accordingly Mr. Roy submits that the order impugned rejecting the application under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 wherein petitioner pre-emptee prayed for directing the pre-emptor to deposit the balance amount after necessary enquiry before proceeding with the main case under Section 8 of the Act of 1955 is not sustainable in law. In support of his contention he refers a case law reported in 2013 (2) CHN (CAL) 453 (Susanta Jadav vs. Rupchand Dhar).

Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya appearing for O. P. pre-emptor, on the other hand, submits that in order to frustrate the right of pre-emptionas granted under Section 8 of the Act of 1955 it was a usual practice to show an inflated