JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. In spite of service of notice none appears on behalf of the opposite parties to contest the instant proceeding. Let the affidavit-of-service be kept with the record. 2. This revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is at the instance of applicants under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act ("Act") and is directed a against order dated April 26, 1995 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Berhampore in Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 1991 thereby affirming the order No. 43 dated July 27, 1991 passed by the learned Munsif, 1st Court, Jangipur in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1984. 3. By the orders impugned, both the courts below have rejected the application for pre-emption filed by the petitioners. 4. The only question that arises for determination in this revisional application is whether an application under section 8 of the Act at the instance of a non-notified co-sharer is maintainable in respect of a deed of transfer when prior to the filling of such application, another application under section 8 of the Act has already been allowed in favour of another co-sharer. 5. To appreciate the aforesaid question it will be apposite to mention the following fact : The opposite party no. 1, an admitted co-sharer, sold the disputed property to the opposite party no. 2 on November 2, 1981 by a registered sale deed. No notice of the said transaction as required under section 5(4) of the Act was served upon the petitioners who are also admittedly co-sharers in respect of the holding. Opposite party no. 3, another co-sharer filed an application under section 8 of the Act being Misc. Case No. 62 of 1981 for pre-emption of the self-same transaction viz. the deed dated November 2, 1981 without making the present petitioners as parties therein and the said application has been allowed on September 10, 1983. In the year 1984 the present petitioners have filed the instant proceeding for pre-emption alleging non-service of notice and claiming benefit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act as the proceeding was initiated within 3 years from the date of transfer viz. November 2, 1981. 6. The learned trial Judge dismissed the instant application on the sole ground that already a valid order of pre-emption has been passed in favour of opposite party no. 3 in Misc. November 2, 1981. 6. The learned trial Judge dismissed the instant application on the sole ground that already a valid order of pre-emption has been passed in favour of opposite party no. 3 in Misc. Case No. 62 of 1981 and after the disposal of that case, the present application was not maintainable. 7. Being dissatisfied, the present petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge but the learned first appellate court below has also affirmed the finding of the learned trial Judge. 8. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that his clients being admitted co-sharers having filed the instant proceeding within the period of limitation prescribed by law, the learned courts below refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in law by holding that after the disposal of the Misc. Case No. 62 of 1981 filed by the opposite party no. 3, the petitioners have lost their right of pre-emption. 9. Mr. Bhattacharya contends that his clients have a vested right till such right is barred by limitation and as such in the instant case it was the duty of the learned courts below to re-open the previous proceeding initiated by opposite party no. 3 and pass fresh order for pre-emption by apportioning the suit property as provided in section 9(3) of the Act. 10. In order to appreciate the submission of Mr. Bhattacharya it is necessary to refer to the following provisions of the Act:- "Section 9. Revenue Officer to allow the application and apportion land the certain cases.-(1) On the deposit mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 8 being made, the Munsif shall give notice of the application to the transferee, and shall also cause a notice to be affixed on the land for the information of persons interested. On such notice being served, the transferee or any person interested may appear within the time specified in the notice and prove the consideration money paid for the transfer and other sums, if any, properly paid by him in respect of the lands including any sum paid for annulling encumbrances created prior to the date of transfer, and rent or revenue, cesses or taxes for any period. The Munsif may after such enquiry as he considers necessary direct the applicant to deposit such further sum, if any, within the time specified by him and on such sum being deposited, he shall make an order that the amount of the consideration money together with such other sums as are proved to have been paid by the transferee or the person interested plus ten per cent of the consideration money be paid to the transferee or the person interested out of the money in deposit, the remainder, if any, being refunded to the applicant. The Munsif shall then make a further order that the portion or share of the holding be transferred to the applicant and on such order being made, the portion or share of the holding shall vest in the applicant. (2) When any person acquires the right, title and interest of the transferee in such holding by succession or otherwise the right, title and interest acquired by him shall be subject to the right conferred sub-section (1) of section 8 on a co-sharer raiyat or a raiyat possessing land adjoining the holding. (3) In making an order under sub-section (1) in favour of more than one co-sharer raiyat or raiyat holding adjoining land, the Munsif any apportion the portion or share of the holding in such manner and on such terms as he deems equitable. (4).............................. (5).............................. (6).............................. (7).............................. Section 10. (3) In making an order under sub-section (1) in favour of more than one co-sharer raiyat or raiyat holding adjoining land, the Munsif any apportion the portion or share of the holding in such manner and on such terms as he deems equitable. (4).............................. (5).............................. (6).............................. (7).............................. Section 10. Consequences of an order for transfer-On an order under section 9 being made- (a) the right, title and interest of the raiyat and the transferee or of the person mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 9 who acquires any right, title and interest in the holding shall vest in the raiyat whose application for transfer has been allowed by the Revenue Officer or by the Munsif (or, after the commencement of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971 by the Additional District Magistrate, or, after the commencement of the West Bengal land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, by the District Judge on appeal : Provided that the transferee or the person mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 9 shall have the right to take away the crops which he might have grown on the land before the date of the order; (b) the raiyat whose application has been so allowed shall be liable for any revenue accruing from the date of the order." 11. The aforesaid provisions of the Act when read con-jointly with section 8 thereof make it clear that an applicant under section 8 of the Act is not required to give any separate notice upon the other co-sharers, adjoining owners or bargadars who are also entitled to pre-empt the disputed transaction. In such a proceeding those persons are not necessary parties. But a duty has been cast upon the learned Munsif to issue notice upon the transferee and also to cause a notice to be affixed on the land for information of the persons interested. Section 9 (3) of the Act authorises the court to apportion the portion or share of the holding in such manner and on such terms as he deems equitable when more than one co-sharer or raiyat adjoining the land apply for transfer. Thus, the notice by way of affixation on the disputed land is meant for giving notice to all other co-sharers, adjoining owners or bargadars of the land. Thus, the notice by way of affixation on the disputed land is meant for giving notice to all other co-sharers, adjoining owners or bargadars of the land. Therefore, in any proceeding under section 8 of the Act is initiated by any of the co-sharers, on receiving constructive notice due to affixation it is the duty of other co-sharers to come forward with their application if they intend to apply for needless to mention that the "person" referred to in section 9(2) of the Act does not include an applicant in whose favour an order under section 9(1) of the Act has been passed. 12. However, if the other co-sharers mentioned above can satisfy the court that there was no service of notice by affixation as provided under section 9(1) of the Act, they are entitled to apply for setting aside the order of pre-emption or re-opening the earlier proceeding for pre-emption on such a ground within the period of limitation and if it is established that there was no notice by affixation, the court can re-open such proceeding and thereafter can entertain the application of the other non-notified co-sharer for pre-emption if such right of pre-emption is exercised within the period of limitation provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. 13. Thus, I find that both the courts below in the instant case rightly refused to entertain fresh application by the petitioners in view of existence of a valid order of pre-emption in favour of opposite party no. 3 in an earlier proceeding. 14. The revisional application is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 15. No costs. Revisional application dismissed.