Judgment Arindam Sinha, J. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 19th March, 2013 made by the Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Alipore in Misc. Appeal no.41 of 2004 by which the appeal of the petitioner/pre-emptee was dismissed. The opposite party/pre-emptor had made an application for pre-emption stating, inter alia, the petitioner/pre-emptee obtained transfer of the suit property by registered sale deed dated 14th October, 1988. The said opposite party alleged he came to know about the transfer only when the petitioner/pre-emptee came to take possession of the suit property on 5th September, 1989. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted it appears on the face of the said application the same was barred by limitation. Relying on Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 he submitted the application ought to have been dismissed by the learned trial court or otherwise by the learned appellate court. In support of such submission, he relied on a decision reported in (2008) 14 SCC 445 (Noharlal Verma Vs. District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur) in particular paragraph 33 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held, inter alia, even in absence of such plea by the defendant, respondent or opponent, the court or authority must dismiss such suit, appeal or application, if it is satisfied that the suit, appeal, or application is barred by limitation. In making such submission, Mr. Banerjee conceded the point was not taken or urged before the learned courts below. Mr. Banerjee, then submitted even according to the opposite party/pre-emptor he is a co-sharer and not the exclusive owner of the plot which lies to the east of the case plot. Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 provides that any raiyat possessing land adjoining such plot of land may within four months of the date of transfer apply for pre-emption. In support of this submission, Mr. Banerjee relied on the decision reported in (2004) 1 WBLR (Cal) 812 (Amal Kumar Giri Vs. Noni Gopal Paira & Ors.). In that decision it was held the claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage can succeed only if such claimant can show by positive evidence that he is the exclusive owner of the property by relying on, inter alia, the decisions reported in 1980(1) CLJ 395 (Kedarnath Panchadoyee & Ors. Vs. Noni Gopal Paira & Ors.). In that decision it was held the claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage can succeed only if such claimant can show by positive evidence that he is the exclusive owner of the property by relying on, inter alia, the decisions reported in 1980(1) CLJ 395 (Kedarnath Panchadoyee & Ors. Vs. Nagendranath Mahapatra & Ors.) and 1995 WBLR(Cal) 263 (Smt. Rekha Rani Maity & Ors. Vs. Jagatapati Sashmal). Mr. Banerjee, further submitted since the opposite party/pre-emptor is a co-sharer, therefore too, he cannot claim to have common boundary with the suit plot and in any event in the objection filed by the petitioner, it was disputed the pre-emptor was the owner of any contiguous land of the case plot. Mr. Banerjee still further submitted that the decision reported in 2000(1) CHN 505 (Smt. Bula Kundu Vs. Nirmal Kumar Kundu & Anr.) relied upon by the learned trial court below cannot be said to be good law in view of the amendment to Section 8 of the said Act, whereby the word ‘holding’ was substituted by the word ‘plot’ in relation to pre-emption claimed by adjoining owner. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party/pre-emptor submitted by relying on the decisions reported in AIR 1961 SC 1747 (Ram Saran Lall & Ors. Vs. Domini Kuer & Ors.) in particular paragraph-5,6 and 8, AIR 1981 (Cal) 435 (Krishna Chandra Pramanik & Ors. Vs. Hari Sadhan Sahana & Anr.) Para-9, 2000(2) CLJ 571 (Smt. Pranati Biswas Vs. Mantu Kumar Lal) in particular paragraph 7 and AIR 1977 AP 90 (Shaik Buddan Sab & Ors. Vs. Nagamma & Ors.) in particular paragraph 18, a claim for pre-emption made within 4 months from the date of transfer was maintainable if made within 4 months from the transfer being complete by registration as provided in Section 61 of the Registration Act. He further submitted the petitioner got registered his document of transfer and neither disclosed the date of completion of registration nor raised an issue on facts about the delay in the matter of filing the petition for pre-emption. Limitation being a question of fact and law and there being no issue either before the learned trial court or before the learned appellate court on the question of limitation, it could not be held the claim was barred by time. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Limitation being a question of fact and law and there being no issue either before the learned trial court or before the learned appellate court on the question of limitation, it could not be held the claim was barred by time. In such circumstances, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, there was no occasion of satisfaction being obtained by the courts below on the question of the claim being barred by limitation for either of them to have dismissed the same by applying the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Mr. Bhattacharjee then relied upon Smt. Bula Kundu’s case to submit the other points taken by Mr. Banerjee were taken before this court in that matter and decided. The objections that the pre-emptors were merely co-sharers of adjoining holding and there being no common boundary were taken in that case and such objections turned down. This court in rendering that judgment had considered in particular Rekha Rani Maity, to hold the same was not an authority for the proposition that in order to get relief for pre-emption on the ground of adjoining ownership, the applicant must be both the owner of the adjoining holding and his land must have common boundary line with the land transferred by the transaction sought to be pre-empted. This court in that judgment went on to hold further that in order to maintain an application for pre-emption on the ground of adjoining ownership, it is not necessary the applicant must be owner of the adjoining holding. Even a co-sharer of the adjoining holding may apply for pre-emption. Mr. Banerjee having himself relied upon Amal Kumar Giri for the proposition the claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage can succeed only if the claimant can show by positive evidence he is the exclusive owner of the property as held in that decision by relying on the earlier decisions in Kedar Nath Panchadhoyee and Rekha Rani Maity the latter held not to be good law in Smt. Bula Kundu, cannot seek to distinguish Smt. Bula Kundu by reason of amendment subsequently having been made to Section 8 of the said Act by substituting the word “plot” for “holding”. The decision in Amal Kumar Giri was rendered post amendment relying on decisions on the point, rendered prior thereto. The decision in Amal Kumar Giri was rendered post amendment relying on decisions on the point, rendered prior thereto. It appears from the order impugned, the learned trial judge had found and held the opposite party/pre-emptor is a raiyat possessing land adjoining the case holding. Against such finding, the petitioner preferred two grounds of appeal as are re-produced below: - 1) That the learned court below failed to appreciate the scope of Section 8 of the WBLR Act and committed mistake, error and illegality in passing the impugned judgment. 2) That the learned court below failed to consider that the petition for preemption is not maintainable and allowed the application for pre-emption erroneously. So, he has made prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment. The learned appellate court on perusal of the materials on record found it is clear plot no.641 is owned by the petitioner/pre-emptor and others and it is situated adjoining to the case plot. The said court also found the opposite party/pre-emptor has right to apply for pre-emption despite he is not exclusive owner of the adjoining plot no.641. In the facts and circumstances this court does not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharjee on the law applicable as aforesaid are accepted. The application is, therefore, found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.