NAKUL CHANDRA MISTRY Vs. RADHEY SHYAM MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners implore the court to do justice by ignoring the rules of procedure. They challenge an order of April 29, 2014 by which their petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected, which paves the way for the opposite parties herein to get the benefit of, what the petitioners perceive to be, a palpably erroneous order.

(2.) The petitioners' father purchased a land measuring 0.19 acre in district Murshidabad by a deed registered on February 23, 1987. The predecessors-ininterest of the opposite parties applied under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in February, 1990, claming a right of pre-emption. On June 22, 1993 the petition for pre-emption succeeded. An appeal was carried from the order by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. On September 11, 1988 such appeal succeeded. The pre-emptors applied under Section 115 of the Code before this court, seeking revision of the appellate order. By an order of April 8, 2004, the appellate order was set aside by this court in CO 248 of 1999 and the order passed by the trial court in the pre-emption case was affirmed thus:

(3.) In May, 2007 the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest attempted to seek review of the order dated April 8, 2004 passed by this court by praying for condonation of the delay in applying for review. During the pendency of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed in connection with the proposed petition for review of the order dated April 8, 2004, the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest applied under Section 47 of the Code before the court in seisin of the execution proceedings launched by the opposite parties herein for implementation of the pre-emption decree. The ground urged in course of the proceedings under Section 47 of the Code was that by virtue of an amending Act of 2000, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 stood amended with retrospective effect from August 7, 1969 and such amendment materially affected the rights of the parties. It was the same ground which was sought to be made the basis of the petition for review of the order dated April 8, 2004.