Judgment : 1. The petitioners, the defendants 1 to 12 in the suit for partition filed by the first respondent herein, after the preliminary decree was passed, filed a petition under Section 4 of the Partition Act to direct the second respondent herein to sell his 1/8 share in the suit property to the petitioners, which was purchased by him as a stranger purchaser, and the said petition was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition. 2. The first respondent filed the suit for partition of his 5/8 share in the suit property. Since 5/8 share in the suit property. Since 1/8 share of the suit property was purchased by the second respondent herein as a stranger purchaser, he was also impleaded as one of the parties to the suit. Ultimately, a preliminary decree was passed, allotting 5/8 share to the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and 1/8 share to the second respondent herein, who is the stranger purchaser and 2/8 share to the petitioners/defendants 1 to 12. 3. Inpursuance of the preliminary decree, the first respondent filed a petition in I.A. No. 294 of 2001 for passing final decree. At this stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.113 of 2003 under Section 4 of the Partition Act for passing an order, directing the second respondent, the 13th defendant in the suit, to sell his 1/8 share in the property, to the petitioners, for the value to be fixed by the Court, since the suit property is a family residential house, in which the petitioners alone are residing. 4. The said I.A.No.113 of 2003 was contested by both the plaintiff, the first respondent herein and the second respondent, the 13th defendant in the suit, stating that such an order would cause irreparable loss to the second respondent, who is owning the property situated near to the suit property and also that Section 4 of the Partition Act would not apply to the present facts of the case. 5. Accepting the said contentions, the trial court dismissed the application. Hence, this civil revision petition by the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the typed set of papers. 7. The question for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase the share of a stranger purchaser, namely the second respondent herein under Section 4 of the Partition Act. 8. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the typed set of papers. 7. The question for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to purchase the share of a stranger purchaser, namely the second respondent herein under Section 4 of the Partition Act. 8. The provision is quoted hereunder: “4. Partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house (1) Where a share of a dwelling-house belonging to an undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family, and such transferee sues for partition, the Court shall, if any member of the family being a shareholder shall undertake to buy the share of such transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit, and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder, and may give all necessary and proper directions in that behalf. (2) If in any case described in Sub-Section (1) two or more members of the family being such shareholders severally undertake to buy such share, the Court shall follow the procedure prescribed by Sub-Section (2) of the lat foregoing Section”. 9. On a plaint reading of the Section it is clear that there are certain conditions for its application, namely (i) the dwelling house must being to undivided family; (ii) the transfer must be made to a stranger; (iii) transferee has filed the suit for partition and (iv) shareholder claims and undertakes to buy the share of the stranger. 10. The condition for application of the statutory provision is that a dwelling house belonging to an undivided family, must have been transferred to a person who is not a member of such family and such transferee sues for partition. If this pre-condition is satisfied, then if any member of the family being a shareholder, undertakes to buy the share of such transferee, the Court is to make a valuation of such share in such manner as it thinks fit and direct the sale of such share to such shareholder. 11. So, one of the important pre-condition is that the stranger purchaser, namely transferee, must have sued for partition. In this case, a member of the undivided family has filed the suit for partition and he also would say that he was residing along with others in the same house. 11. So, one of the important pre-condition is that the stranger purchaser, namely transferee, must have sued for partition. In this case, a member of the undivided family has filed the suit for partition and he also would say that he was residing along with others in the same house. Therefore, Section 4 of the Partition Act would not apply to the present facts of the case. 12. The Supreme Court has interpreted the said Section and dealt with the mandatory requirements to be fulfilled for application of Section 4 in the following decisions : .(i) Srilekha Ghosh (Roy) & Anr. v. Partha Sarathi Ghosh , 2003 (3) CTC 236 : 2002 (4) L.W. 551 and .(ii) Babulal v. Habibnoor Khan , 2000 (3) M.L.J. 94 : 2000 (3) L.W. 259 (SC). 13. The trial court also while dismissing the application, has taken into consideration all the observations made by the Supreme Court in 2000 (3) M.L.J. 94 (SC) (cited supra) and correctly dismissed the application. 14. I donot find any merit in the civil revision petition and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 16111 of 2003 is also dismissed.