JUDGMENT Nasim Ali, J. - The facts which gave rise to this Rule are as follows. On May 17th, 1935, Opposite Party No. 1 purchased by a kobala a share of an occupancy holding from Opposite Party No. 2. The Petitioners and Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 are the immediate landlords of this occupancy holding. Notice under sec. 26C was served on the Petitioners on 15th July, 1935. Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 also received notice of the transfer at about that time. On 14th September, 1935, the Petitioners made an application under sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act and deposited the amount as required by sec. 26F, cl. (2). On that date, the Court asked the Petitioners to deposit the process-fees for service of notice by 21st September, 1935. The Petitioners complied with this order of the Court. The Court issued notice on the Opposite Parties on 21st September, 1935, fixing 23rd November, 1935, for the disposal of the case. Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 were served with this notice on the 11th November, 1935. On 23rd November, 1935, Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 applied to the Munsif to join in the application of the Petitioners for preemption. The Court, however, rejected the application as it was not made within two months of the service of the notice under sec. 26C or within one month of the application of the Petitioners under sec. 26F, cl. (1) of the Act. On 30th November, 1935, the Petitioners made a further deposit in accordance with the directions of the Court under cl. (3) of sec. 26F. On that date Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 filed an application stating that the application of the Petitioners for preemption was not maintainable as their application to join in the application was rejected. The learned Munsif gave effect to this objection and dismissed the Petitioner's application for preemption on 2nd December, 1935. On 24th February, 1936, the Petitioners obtained the present Rule. The point for determination in this Rule is whether under these circumstances the learned Munsif was right in holding that the application of the Petitioners for pre-emption under sec. 26F. cl. (1) was not maintainable. By sec. 26F, the immediate landlord of the holding has a right to pre-empt the occupancy holding or a share therein which has been sold by a raiyat of the holding. By sec. 26F. cl. (1) was not maintainable. By sec. 26F, the immediate landlord of the holding has a right to pre-empt the occupancy holding or a share therein which has been sold by a raiyat of the holding. By sec. 188, sub-cl. (1) of the Act, where two or more persons are co-sharers, an application under sec. 26F must be made either by both or by all of them. By the proviso to this subsection one or more co-sharer landlords may file an application under sec. 26F, sub-sec. (1), if all the other co-sharer landlords are made parties Defendant to the proceeding in the manner provided in sub-sees. (1) and (2) to sec. 148A and are given an opportunity of joining in the proceeding as co-applicants. By sub-sec. (2) to sec. 188, any order made in such a proceeding in which the conditions set forth in sub-sec. (1) have been complied with shall have the effect of an order made on the application of the sole landlord or the whole body of landlords and shall take effect as regards the whole holding or the portion of the holding which has been sold. In order to entitle the co-sharer landlord to get the benefit of the proviso to sec. 188 two conditions must, therefore, be fulfilled:-(1) The other co-sharer landlords must be made parties Defendant to the proceeding; (2) They must be given an opportunity of joining in the proceeding as co-applicants. It is not disputed in this case that the first condition has been complied with. The only question is whether the Petitioners have complied with the second condition. In other words, whether Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 were given opportunity to join in the application of the Petitioners as co-applicants. How is this opportunity to be given? 2. Sec. 26F does not provide for any notice of the application for pre-emption to the co-sharer landlords who have not joined in the application under cl. (1) of sec. 26F. By the proviso to sec. 188 read with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 148A, the Court is bound to give a notice to them in the prescribed form calling Upon them to join in the application as co-applicants. I am informed that the form of notice to be served in a proceeding under sec. 26F has not yet been prescribed. 26F. By the proviso to sec. 188 read with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 148A, the Court is bound to give a notice to them in the prescribed form calling Upon them to join in the application as co-applicants. I am informed that the form of notice to be served in a proceeding under sec. 26F has not yet been prescribed. The form prescribed for summons to be issued upon co-sharer landlords in rent suits under sec. 148A, cl. (2) with necessary modifications may be therefore used for the purpose of a notice to be served in a proceeding under sec. 26F. Under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 148A, on the date mentioned in the summons for the appearance of the co-sharer landlords or on any subsequent date fixed by the Court in this behalf they may apply to the Court to be joined as co-Plaintiffs in the suit and on such application being made the Court may join them as co-Plaintiffs on their complying with certain conditions laid therein. The proviso to sec. 188, however, mentions only sub-sees. (1) and (2) of sec. 148A and not sub-sec. (3) of that section. This omission is apparently due to the fact that the legislature has already provided in sub-sec. (4) of sec. 26F that the application of the co-sharer landlords under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 26F must be made within a period of two months of the service of notice under sec. 26C or sec. 26E or within one month of the date of the application for pre-emption whichever is later. The notice upon the other co-sharer landlords in a proceeding under sec. 26F must therefore call upon them to apply to join in the application within the time prescribed by sub-sec. (4) of sec. 26F. In order that the other co-sharer landlords may get an opportunity of joining in the application, the notice to join in the application must be given to them before the period of limitation expires. Now, there may be cases in which this notice is not served upon the co-sharer landlords in time cither on account of the laches of the co-sharer landlords who apply for preemption under sec. 26F, cl. (1) or on account of mistake of the Court or the laches of Court officers. In the former case, the applicants under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 26F, cl. (1) or on account of mistake of the Court or the laches of Court officers. In the former case, the applicants under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 26F not having complied with the first condition laid down in the proviso to sec. 188 cannot complain if their application for pre-emption is held to be hit by sec. 188 and is dismissed. In the latter case, however, (as in the present case) can it be said that the Petitioners for pre-emption should be penalised for the mistake or laches of the Court or of its officers? In the case before me, the Petitioners put in the process-fees and the processes in time. The Court apparently made a mistake when it did not Call upon the co-sharer landlords to apply to join in the application within the period of limitation. The notice upon the co-sharer landlords was not served by the officers of the Court within the period of limitation. Whether under those circumstances, the Munsif was right in rejecting the application of Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 under sec. 26F, cl. (4) (a) is a matter on which I express no opinion in the present case, inasmuch as the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 have accepted that order and on that footing they objected in the lower Court to the maintainability of the application of the Petitioners under sec. 26F, sub-sec. (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That order is now final. Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 did not choose to move this Court for the revision of that order. On the other hand, they contested the application of the Petitioners for preemption under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 26F on the footing that that order was final and was binding on them. Under these circumstances, the Petitioners should not be penalised because the Court made a mistake when it called upon the Opposite Parties Nos. 3 to 6 to join in the application after the expiry of the period of limitation and did not serve the notice within the period of limitation. The act of the Court cannot prejudice any person. The Petitioners cannot be held responsible for a mistake of the Court or laches of its officers. The Petitioners have done all that was required of them and it would be an obvious injustice if their application be dismissed. The act of the Court cannot prejudice any person. The Petitioners cannot be held responsible for a mistake of the Court or laches of its officers. The Petitioners have done all that was required of them and it would be an obvious injustice if their application be dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not prepared to hold that the application of the Petitioners for pre-emption is hit by sec. 188. 3. The result, therefore, is that this Rule is made absolute. The order of the Munsif dismissing the application of the Petitioners for pre-emption under sec. 26F is set aside. The Munsif is directed to dispose of the application according to law in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs in this Rule.