JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners' application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the petitioners' said application is barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.6 of 2008 before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Burdwan. The learned Appeal Court also dismissed the said appeal by confirming the order of the learned Trial Judge. The learned Appeal Court also held that the petitioners' said application for pre-emption is barred by limitation. 2. Let me now consider as to how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioners' said application for pre-emption on the ground of limitation in the facts of the instant case. 3. The pre-emptors/petitioners filed the said application for exercising their right of pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in respect of the transfer made by the raiyat in favour of the pre-emptee, on the ground of co-sharership. The petitioners claimed that no notice under section 5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was ever served upon the petitioners in respect of the said transfer. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the petitioner is a non-notified co-sharer. 4. Admittedly, the said sale was completed as per section 61 of the Registration Act on 23rd December, 1985. The application for pre-emption was filed on 21st December, 1988. The petitioner claims that since no limitation is prescribed for the non-notified co sharer under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the residuary provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply to the instant case and as such the petitioner is entitled to file such application within three years from the date of completion of such sale. 5. 5. This Court is unable to accept such contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioners in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gapal Sardar vs. Karuna Sarda, reported in 2004(2) CHN, Page 164, wherein it was held that since the application for pre-emption should be regarded as a plaint and though the initiation of the said proceeding for pre-emption is made on presentation of the petition, but such petition, for all practical purposes should be regarded as a plaint and the said proceeding should be regarded as a suit before the Civil Court and as such the statutory provision under Article 137 of the Limitation Act will not govern period of limitation so far as filing of the pre-emption proceeding is concerned on any ground for which period of limitation is not prescribed in section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that under such circumstances Article 97 of the Limitation Act will apply. 6. In view of the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court holds that prescribed period of limitation for filing of this application for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharership by non-notified co-sharer will be one year from the date of completion of such sale. 7. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that the pre-emptors application for pre-emption is barred by limitation as the same was not filed within one year from the date of completion of sale. 8. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. 9. The revisional application, thus, stands rejected. Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.: Revisional application rejected.