JUDGMENT These revisional applications are directed against the order passed by the 2nd Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapur in Misc. Appeal Nos. 107 and 108/92 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court of Midnapur in Judicial Misc. Case No. 42/92. The opposite party No.1 has initiated a proceeding being Judicial Misc. Case No. 42/92 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Midnapur for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against the petitioners as defendants 3 and 4 and the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. 2. The short facts stated in the application, inter alia, was that the lands in Plot No.417 in Mouza Rupnarayanpur belonged to the defendant No.1 and the same constituted one holding. The applicants were the owner of the plot Nos. 418 and 419 and other lands in Rupnarayanpur Mouza and bad been possessing the same. Plot No. 418 was situated to the adjoining west of plot No. 417 and, as such the opposite party No.1 was an adjoining owner of the holding of the opposite party No.2. The defendant No.2 had sold the land to the defendant No.1 by a registered deed dated 2nd December, 1988 at a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the deed of conveyance was completed on 25th March, 1992. As such, the applicant being an - adjoining owner claimed pre-emption of the same, and accordingly, filed an application before the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Midnapur. Subsequently, the applicant came to learn that by three (3) deeds dated 22nd November, 1991, 25th November, 1991 and 27th November, 1991, the defendant No.1 sold different portion of the said land to defendants 3 and 4 respectively and had presented the document for registration on 30th November, 1991 showing fictitious, valuation therein. In order to avoid future complications, those defendants were made parties to the proceedings. The applicant had deposited 1,20,000/- rupees together with Rs. 12,000/- in the Court below ft is claimed by the applicant that he being not a ceiling surplus holder is, therefore, entitled to pre-emption right. 3. In order to avoid future complications, those defendants were made parties to the proceedings. The applicant had deposited 1,20,000/- rupees together with Rs. 12,000/- in the Court below ft is claimed by the applicant that he being not a ceiling surplus holder is, therefore, entitled to pre-emption right. 3. Opposite party No.1 had, Inter alia, filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he bad a very good chance of success in the proceeding and the defendants 3 and 4 knowing full will that the proceeding would positively terminate in favour of the applicant started construction in hot-haste just to defeat the right of the opposite party No.1. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the applicant. Therefore, be prayed that the defendants 3 and 4 he restrained by an order of injunction from ma king any temporary or permanent construction and from going on with their construction on the land and/or from changing the nature and character thereof. 4. The petitioners filed their written objection denving the material allegations contending, inter alia that the application under Section 8 is not being maintainable the application for injunction arising therefrom would equally be untenable. The applicant did not have any locus standi. The application was speculative and filed with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners. It is further stated that the applicant was a dealer in land and had been purchasing land to sell others with the motive of profit earning. As such he had purchased several plots of land in different parts of the District Midnapur and had been doing business of 'purchase-sale of land'. The applicant was not a cultivator hut has been dealing with the land for profit making and, therefore, filed this speculative application just to procure unfair advantage in case the application is decided in his favour. The petitioners have also stated that after having acquired the case land, they applied for conversion before the appropriate authority and, accordingly, the authority after proper enquiry allowed the prayer. The defendant No. 1 had also purchased other lands and amalgamate all the said lands including the land sought to be pre-empted and converted into a vast industrial estate. The petitioners have also stated that after having acquired the case land, they applied for conversion before the appropriate authority and, accordingly, the authority after proper enquiry allowed the prayer. The defendant No. 1 had also purchased other lands and amalgamate all the said lands including the land sought to be pre-empted and converted into a vast industrial estate. Various licences and permissions have been duly obtained and an industry is being established after investing huge amount and on obtaining sanction for construction from the Panchayat. The petitioners have already invested huge amount over Rs. 56 lacs for such industrial complex on and adjoining plots of the case land. The suit land had already lost its character as 'agricultural land'. But the learned Munsif. 2nd Court at Midnapur had passed an order of injunction directing the petitioner for maintaining status quo therefore, being aggrieved by the such judgment/order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge. Midnapur which was eventually transferred and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Midnapur whereby he confirmed the order of the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal. 5. The petitioner in C. O. No. 2941/93 bas, inter alia, stated that the opposite party No.1 as petitioner had initiated a proceeding being Judicial Misc. Case No. 42/92 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Midnapur for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against the petitioner as defendant No.9 and the opposite parties 2 to 9 as defendants 1 and 8 respectively. It has been however, stated that the land in plot No 417 in Mouza-Rupnarayanpur had belonged to defendants 2 to 8. The applicant is the owner of plots 418 and 419 and the other lands in the same Mouza and has been possessing the same. Plot No. 418 is situated adjoining the holding of the defendants 2 to 8. The defendants 2 to 8 bad sold the land to defendant No.1 by a registered deed executed on 3rd Dec. 1988 for consideration of Rs. 70,000/- and the conveyance was completed on 25tb March, 1992. As such, the applicant being an act joining owner was entitled to preempt the same. The defendants 2 to 8 bad sold the land to defendant No.1 by a registered deed executed on 3rd Dec. 1988 for consideration of Rs. 70,000/- and the conveyance was completed on 25tb March, 1992. As such, the applicant being an act joining owner was entitled to preempt the same. The applicant came to learn that by two sale deeds dated 22nd November, 1991 and 25th November, 1991 the defendant No.1 sold different portions of the said land to defendant No.9 and bad presented the said documents for registration on 30th November, 1991 showing fictitious valuation therein. In order to avoid future litigation the said defendant had also been made as a party to the proceedings. The applicant had deposited Rs. 70 000/- together with 7,000/-in the Court along with the laid app1ication. It was, however, stated in the application that he was not a ceiling surplus holder. As such, his application for pre-emption, however, is maintainable. In the said application, the opposite party No. 1 also prayed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he bad a good chance of success therein and the defendant No.9 on the basis of such fictitious deeds bad proceeded with their construction over the case-land. In case, the defendant No. 9 would complete the construction there would be series of complications which might also stultify the rights of the applicant. The balance of convenience and inconvenience being in his favour the defendant No 9 should be restrained by an order of injunction from making any further construction and/or from changing the nature of character of the case land. The petitioners filed their written objection denying the material allegations by contending, infer alia, that the application under Section 8 being not maintainable, the application for injunction arising out of it was also equally untenable. The application for pre-emption was misconceived. It has also been stated that the applicant was neither a cultivator nor a raiyat and the instant application had been filed after a long lapse of time. The balance of convenience and inconvenience bas tilted in favour of the defendant No. 9 With this averments, it is prayed for dismissal of the application for injunction. The learned Munsif by an order dated 8th November, 1991 passed in Misc. Case No. 42/92 was inclined to allow the said application for injunction. The balance of convenience and inconvenience bas tilted in favour of the defendant No. 9 With this averments, it is prayed for dismissal of the application for injunction. The learned Munsif by an order dated 8th November, 1991 passed in Misc. Case No. 42/92 was inclined to allow the said application for injunction. The petitioner has also claimed to have invested Rs 56 lacs for the purpose of construction of the industrial complex and in case the prayer for temporary injunction is granted the petitioner would suffer heavy and irreparable injury whereby it could not proceed to complete the industrial complex. The balance of inconvenience and convenience is in favour of the defendant No.9 and, accordingly, the prayer for injunction should be refused. The learned trial Court, however, injuncted the petitioner from proceeding with the further construction. Therefore, the defendant No.9 being aggrieved by such order preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Midnapur which was eventually transferred and disposed of by the Additional District Juege, Midnapur in Misc. Appeal No. 108/92 whereunder the learned Appellate Court also confirmed the order of the learned Munsif. Being aggrieved by and affected with the order of injunction this Revisional application has been preferred as to assailing the orders of the Courts below. 6 Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has strongly urged that in the instant case both the Courts had palpably committed serious error in law as well as on facts in granting injunction against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner after having purchased the land has got an absolute right of enjoyment and there cannot be any clog or impediment in the right of its enjoyment in case the injunction is granted from proceeding with construction of the building; the money which have been already invested for such industrial complex shall go wasted. On the contrary if injunction is refused, all that what can be said is the applicant temporarily may likely be put to some inconvenience, but, if he secures success in the application he shall get the land inclucing the improvement Till the application for pre emption is allowed the petitioner cannot be said to have a prima facie case, rather, it cannot be argued that the purchaser has no right to enjoy the property in whatever manner he likes to do. Mr. Mr. Mukherjee has also relied upon a decision reported in (1) 1978(1) CLJ 451 and contended that in case the opposite party No.1 applicant succeeds the petitioner cannot claim cost of improvement on the land from the pre-emptee. In this back ground, the applicants prayer for injunction ought not to have been allowed by the Courts below. He has also placed strong reliance on the decision reported in (2) AIR 1972 Cal 502 in the case of Madan Mohan Ghosh v. Sishu Bala Alta and Ors. In the above full bench decision, the rights of co-owner has been discussed and it turns out that the Court bas no power either to grant or refuse the prayer for injunction. The petitioner has also relied on a .decision reported in (3) 1957 Andhra Pradesh 960, S. Ramalingam Pillai v. G. R. Jagadammal and Anr., where the rights of a purchaser bas been indicated in the aforementioned case it has been held as follows:- "(a) Transfer of Property Act (1882), Sections 55(1)(d), 55(6)(a) and 54-Contract for sale-Rights of purchaser-Claim for mesne profits-Not maintainable. In view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act there is no room for the contention that the purchaser becomes in equity the owner of the estate under the contract of sale and the vendor hold a the property in the trust for him. The buyer is entitled to the rents and profits of the property on the passing of the ownership to him by the execution of a sale deed be the vendor. It cannot be said that the possession of the vendor is wrongful or that he is bound to account to the purchaser for profit tilt the sale deed is executed in favour of the plaintiff. The purchaser, therefore, cannot sue for mesne profits from the date of contract for sale to the date on which he obtains possession." The petitioner being a pre emptee has every right to improve the land and also the right of enjoyment and it cannot be whittled-down or curtailed, interfere with by clamping and order of injunction. Mr. The purchaser, therefore, cannot sue for mesne profits from the date of contract for sale to the date on which he obtains possession." The petitioner being a pre emptee has every right to improve the land and also the right of enjoyment and it cannot be whittled-down or curtailed, interfere with by clamping and order of injunction. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that since 56 lacs of rupees has been invested for the industrial complex and apart from the case-land other adjoining land has been amalgamated thereto and a huge complex has been already built, if the Court, at this stage restrained the petitioner from completing the construction, then the main purpose for which the petitioner has proceeded with the construction so long would be defeated. At the best, in case the applicant/opposite party No. 1 succeeds in the pre-emption application he may get back the land along with the construction. He shall not, in any case, be put to loss. The balance of convenience and inconvenience therefore, has tilted in favour of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1. has argued in support of the judgment passed by both the Courts below by stating that in case, the nature and character of the land is lost; the applicant will be put to serious prejudice and the character of agricultural land is likely to loose its identity. The applicant being an adjoining owner is entitled to the pre-emption right and for that reason both the Courts below having found a prima facie case with the petitioner, were therefore, inclined by passing an order of status quo. The best re-course would be, in the above back-ground to direct the learned 2nd Court of Munsif at Midnapur to dispose of the case as has been directed by the Appellate Court. This Court while exercising its revisional jurisdictional should be slow and wary to interfere with the discretionary and equitable order passed by the Courts below. 8. Mr. Dutta, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 pre-emptor, has submitted that this Court should not allow the petitioner to change the nature, character and use of land which is completely within the domain of the authority under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. 8. Mr. Dutta, the learned senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 pre-emptor, has submitted that this Court should not allow the petitioner to change the nature, character and use of land which is completely within the domain of the authority under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In case, such injunction is refused it may amount to granting permission and the authority shall be forced to pass an order for changing the character of the land which may tantamount to interfering with the jurisdiction of the authority. If conversion into a non agricultural land from agricultural tenancy is allowed it would work-out serious prejudice to the applicant opposite party No.1. Therefore, the pre emptee should not be given a free hand to proceed with the construction, particularly when, no application for conversion has been made. 9. The petitioner has filed an affidavit showing that the conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural has been allowed under Section 4C(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act. Therefore, in such situation, the initial objection taken by Mr. Dutta seems to have no legal basis. 10. While deciding the question of granting or refusing the prayer for injunction, the Court should not be oblivious that it has primary concern with the preservation of the property in dispute till the legal right is adjudicated. Injunction is a judicial process by which a party is required to do or refrain from doing any particular act. It is in the nature of preventive relief to a litigant to prevent future possible injury. In other words, the Court on exercise of the power of granting adinterim injunction is to preserve the subject matter of the suit. It is settled law that the grant of injunction is a discretionary relief. The exercise thereof, is subject to the Court satisfying that (1) there is serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the Court, there is probability being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiffs/defendant (2) the Court's interference is necessary to protect the party from species of injury. The exercise thereof, is subject to the Court satisfying that (1) there is serious disputed question to be tried in the suit and that an act, on the facts before the Court, there is probability being entitled to the relief asked for by the plaintiffs/defendant (2) the Court's interference is necessary to protect the party from species of injury. In other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at the trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would likely to arise from granting it. 11. Adverting to the case, I find the petitioner has taken a categorically stand that immediately after the purchase he has invested huge amount by not only levelling the land but also substantially proceeding with the construction for the purpose of erecting an industrial complex. The pre-emptee has an absolute right of enjoyment till it is decided that the opposite party No. 1/applicant has a better right of pre-emption. In case, an order of injunction is granted against the petitioner, then, there would surely be a clog on his enjoyment which may fetter his right. On the other hand, if injunction is refused all that which may happen is after the disposal of the case the applicant shall get back the property including the improvement made thereon. 12. Mr. Banerjee has advanced a contention that it would amount to changing the nature and character of the property in case injunction is refused. It seems to be a fruitless argument, as the petitioner was all along allowed to proceed with the construction of the building till the date of the application. Had the applicant/opposite party No.1 been conscious of his right? He could have filed such petition for injunction much earlier so that the petitioner could not have progressed with the construction work till this stage. If at this stage, the petitioner is prohibited from completing the construction, rather, the balance of inconvenience would be greater than the refusal of injunction Mr. Dutta the learned Advocate has advanced a serious contention that by allowing the injunction it will amount to permitting the petitioner from changing the nature and character of the case land as it may turn into a non-agricultural land. Dutta the learned Advocate has advanced a serious contention that by allowing the injunction it will amount to permitting the petitioner from changing the nature and character of the case land as it may turn into a non-agricultural land. I find there is little force in the aforesaid submission inasmuch as permission for conversion has already been granted by the authorities. 13. In case, the petitioner completes the construction he shall not claim any equity for such act. He may do so at his own risk which will be subject to the result of the proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It is open to the authorities to pass such further order so as to preserve the nature and character of the land at the final disposal of the case. If the authority is so inclined it can direct the petitioner to bring it to the original stage where it was on the date of the proceeding at his own cost. For which, he shall not claim any equity, but on the other hand if an order for maintenance of status quo is made, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. 14. Taking the over all situation into consideration and after giving serious cogitation to the case, I find that it would be appropriate to direct the 2nd Munsif to dispose of the application within 3 months from the date of communication of the order. The opposite party no. 1 is directed to communicate this order to the learned Munsif at his own cost through a special messenger the cost of which shall be deposited within a week. Accordingly, the revisional applications are allowed as per the above discussion but in the circumstances without costs.