Judgment D. P. Sirkar, (II) J. 1. This is a Revisional Application under Art. 227 read with s. 115 of the CPC arising out of order dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly in Misc. Appeal No. 7/1986, having reference to Order No. 47 dated 23.11.1985 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Hooghly of Misc. Case No. 31/ 1982 under s. 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act. 2. The facts leading to this Revisional matter, are, in short, as follow One Gouri Bala Devi was the owner of plot numbers 378 & 379 of Mouza Bemorgachha. She transferred the property by Registered Deed for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/- to the Opposite parties in the Misc. Case, who were strangers to the property, without giving any notice to the petitioner in the Misc. Case. The transferees raised objection that Gouri Bala Devi was a necessary party that it was in substance a loan transaction and that the petitioner in the Misc. Case was not a co-sharer. 3. Learned Munsif did not accept the story of loan in substance. He held that the petitioner was a co-sharer and that Gouri Bala Devi was not a necessary party. 4. On being aggrieved the Opposite Party in the Misc. Case filed a Misc. Appeal which was heard and disposed of by Sri Bimalendu Basu, learned Addl. Dist. Judge, 2nd Court, Hooghly. Learned Addl. Dist. Judge held that the petitioner was not a co-sharer and there was no whisper that she also claimed pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. The learned Addl. Dist. Judge also held that Gouri Bala Devi was a necessary party but he rejected the contention that the transaction was an out and out sale and ultimately he allowed the Misc. Appeal setting aside the order passed by the learned Munsif. 5. On being aggrieved by such order the present Revisional Case has been filed by the original petitioner Smt. Renuka Chakraborty on the ground that the lower Appellate Court could not properly appreciate the evidence and the Law involved in this matter. 6. The Opposite Party did not appear to contest the matter inspite of proper service. It is a matter of 1994. So far as the decision of the learned Addl. Dist. 6. The Opposite Party did not appear to contest the matter inspite of proper service. It is a matter of 1994. So far as the decision of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge on the ground of co-sharership, I do not think it necessary and proper to interfere with this finding, specially in view of the decision reported in 76 CWN 1058 and 93 CWN 289. The learned Judge has discussed the principles of law as laid down by those two sections in this regard and has come to the finding that the petitioner ceased to be a co-sharer in view of the change in law after the introduction of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and West Bengal Land Reforms Act. There is no scope for doubt that each co-sharer at the time of vesting became separate and independent owner in respect of his/her share by operation of Law. Even if the Khatian i.e. Record of right displays a single Jama that will not affect otherwise the effect of law and intention of the legislation. 7. So far as the question of addition of Gouri Bala Devi the Vendor, who is a party to the Misc. Case the decision of the learned Addl. Dist. Judge cannot be supported on the ground that the story of loan in substance has not been accepted by either: of the' two Subordinate Courts. So, if it was an out and out sale of the right, title and interest of Gouri Bala Devi to the present respondent's, the question of adding Gouri Bala Oevi as an Opposite party becomes redundant. So, it is held that Gouri Balla Devi is not a necessary party in the pre-emption case. For the sake of argument, if we hold that the transaction was a loan in substance, in that event, the entire case for pre-emption crumbles down. So, when both the Courts below held that it was an out and out sale, then Gouri Bala Devi is not a necessary party in the Misc. Case. The story of loan in substance is not supported by the evidence on recorded by the Original Court and the finding of the Original Court has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. So, I am not inclined to interfere with that finding. Case. The story of loan in substance is not supported by the evidence on recorded by the Original Court and the finding of the Original Court has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court. So, I am not inclined to interfere with that finding. Accordingly if there is any such case, that should be thrashed in a separate suit before the proper forum by Gouri Bala Devi. 8. Right of pre-emption can be exercised under s. 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act on two grounds viz. on the ground of co-sharership and on the ground of vicinage. In the instant case, the ground of vicinage has not been taken up by the original petitioner in the Misc. Case. She relied on the ground of co-sharership. But the learned lower Appellate Court did not accept that contention. I have already mentioned that in view of the position of Jaw at present the claim of the present petitioner for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership cannot succeed. The right of pre-emption is a valuable right arid the purpose behind it is to prevent fragmentations and sub-divisions of land in the interest of agriculture and also to prevent a stranger to jump into the picture; from that point of view, the right of pre-emption should be given its due importance against the broad spectrum of agro-socio-economic context. Therefore, it is prayed for by the petitioner that a chance should be given to amend petition in the Misc. Case by introducing the ground of vicinage for pre-emption. If such a prayer is allowed, in my view, the intention of the legislation in enacting s. 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act will be properly fulfilled and honoured. Such amendment will not change the nature of the case and should not be affected by the law of limitation. The Division Bench of this High Court presided by Mr. Justice Murari Mohan Dutta and D.C. Chakraborty in the case of Debabrata Bhowmick VS. Nani Bala Some reported in AIR 1978 Cal 482 has laid down similar views as expressed above, Their Lordships held that the prayer to amend the application claiming pre-emption on the ground of vicinage should not be refused as amendment cannot be said to change the nature and character of the proceeding nor it introduced a new case. Nani Bala Some reported in AIR 1978 Cal 482 has laid down similar views as expressed above, Their Lordships held that the prayer to amend the application claiming pre-emption on the ground of vicinage should not be refused as amendment cannot be said to change the nature and character of the proceeding nor it introduced a new case. It is further laid down that Court's power in allowing the amendment is not circumscribed by the Law of Limitation. 9. I share the same, view as expressed by Their Lordships and I think, that to meet the ends of justice the impugned order passed by the learned Munsif as well as by the lower Appellate Court both should be set aside and the case be sent back to the learned Munsif for re-hearing. 10. Before concluding the Judgment, I like to point out that the Art. 227 of the Constitution and s. 115 of the CPC should not go hand in hand because it is laid down in AIR 1980 SC 892 that a Revisional Application under s. 115 of the CPC ,cannot be converted to a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, the framing of this Revisional Application is not proper in the eye of law. Section 115 CPC and Art. 227 of the Constitution should not clubbed together. 11. In the result, the Revisional Application under s. 115 of the CPC is allowed ex-parte without cost. The impugned orders passed by the learned Munsif as well as the learned Addl. Dist. Judge are hereby set aside and the case be and the same is sent back on remand to the learned Munsif for hearing afresh after allowing the amendment introducing the ground of vicinage, provided such amendment application is filed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order to the lower Court and on payment of Rs. 500/-. by the present petitioner to the respondents. The learned Munsif shall hear the matter of amendment giving opportunities to both the parties for hearing. After amendment learned Munsif shall proceed to hear the pre-emption matter afresh on the new ground of vicinage by recording fresh evidence if adduced by the parties and shall dispose of the Misc. Case as expeditiously as possible. Application allowed