JUDGMENT : Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. The preemptor in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has challenged an order passed by the Trial Court, directing the preemptor/petitioner to deposit the entire consideration money, as shown in the sale deed sought to be preempted, within a particular period and observing further that the case would proceed further on deposit of the balance consideration money, along with compensation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that it is settled law that the petitioner can deposit only the admitted consideration amount and seek an enquiry as to the actual consideration which passed between the vendor and the preemptee. It is equally well-settled, learned counsel argues, that in the event the Court, upon an enquiry, arrived at the finding that the consideration money was more than that admitted by the preemptor, the Court could, at the final stage of the matter (at the time of passing order), direct the preemptor to deposit such balance consideration amount. 3. As such, it is argued that the Court below acted without jurisdiction in directing the deposit of the entire balance consideration without any enquiry into the actual consideration paid, and in stalling the preemption case itself in default of such deposit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites in this context, a judgment [Pradipta Padha vs. Laxmi Kanta Maity reported at, (2015) 3 CalHN 186], wherein a co-ordinate bench of this Court held that unless the adjudication was made over the entitlement of the applicant to seek transfer under Section 8(1) of the said Act, it was not imperative to deposit the consideration money along with the preemption application. It was also held that the deposit of money is relatable to a transfer and not the time of making the application. This conclusion was arrived at by the learned Single Judge on a conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next cites a judgment [Helu Pal @ Piru Pal vs. Master Souvik Sarkar & Ors. reported at, (2016) 3 ICC 270 (Cal)], wherein another co-ordinate bench of this Court, placing reliance on Pradipta Padha (supra), laid down the ratio that the petitioner had to pay the consideration money assessed by the Court below if and when his application for preemption was allowed. 6. reported at, (2016) 3 ICC 270 (Cal)], wherein another co-ordinate bench of this Court, placing reliance on Pradipta Padha (supra), laid down the ratio that the petitioner had to pay the consideration money assessed by the Court below if and when his application for preemption was allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next cites an un-reported judgment rendered by a third co-ordinate bench of this Court dated March 17, 2017 in C.O. No. 3971 of 2015 [Chhabi Saha vs. Mithun Barman & anr.], where it was held that it was settled law that while filing an application for preemption the petitioner was not required to deposit the entire market value of the suit land and the same could be deposited after the final assessment to be made by the Court at the hearing of the preemption application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on the examination-in-chief of P.W. 1, who was the vendor of the preemptee, who stated in paragraph no. 6 of his affidavit of examination-in-chief that it was not true that the amount of Rs. 5 lakh, as mentioned in the deed-in-question, was the actual consideration money. As such, it is argued that the consideration money shown in the deed was not the actual consideration, which was admitted by the vendor himself. 8. Unfortunately, even on second call, none appears on behalf of the opposite party. However, it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, at a previous juncture, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party had taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the present revisional application on the ground that an order passed under Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 was appellable under the said Act. 9. It is also found from the records of this revisional application that two judgments had been cited on some previous occasions by the opposite party, photocopies of which are on record. Such position is also endorsed by learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness. 10. For a proper adjudication of the matter, particularly since the opposite party is not represented, it would be appropriate if the contentions of the opposite party, even at a previous stage, are taken into consideration for deciding the matter. 11. The judgments, which were previously relied on by the opposite party, were as follows: (i). 10. For a proper adjudication of the matter, particularly since the opposite party is not represented, it would be appropriate if the contentions of the opposite party, even at a previous stage, are taken into consideration for deciding the matter. 11. The judgments, which were previously relied on by the opposite party, were as follows: (i). An unreported judgment dated November 29, 2013 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in C.O. No. 835 of 2011 [Amitava Shit vs. Bablu Kundu]. It was held therein that if an enquiry as to the actual amount of money to be deposited by the preemptor is taken up together with the main preemption case, the period of litigation could be shortened to a great extent. It was further held that, if at the conclusion of the trial it is found that the preemptor had no basis of right for claiming preemption or that abnormally short deposit was made, then the Court has a right to award exemplary cost against the preemptor. If required, the same may be recovered from the money already deposited by the preemptor in the Court at the time of filing of the case. (ii). Another unreported judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court dated December 16, 2011 in C.O. No. 4046 of 2011 [Sri Punit Kumar Santoria vs. Sri Brojendu Roy & Anr.]. It was held therein inter alia that, read literally, what the statute mandates is that notice of the preemption case shall not be issued by the Court unless the deposit as required by Section 8(1) is made and that such reading does not produce any absurd result. In such view of the matter, the learned Single Judge upheld an order of the Trial Court whereby the preemptor's application, contending that he may be permitted to proceed with the preemption case without making the requisite deposit, was rejected. 12. Upon considering the arguments of both sites, a consideration of the following provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is necessary: "Section 8. Right of purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant. 12. Upon considering the arguments of both sites, a consideration of the following provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is necessary: "Section 8. Right of purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant. (1) If a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land, the bargadar in the plot of land may, within three months of the date of such transfer, or any co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land may, within three months of the service of the notice given under sub-section (5) of section 5, or any raiyat possessing land adjoining such plot of land may, within four months of the date of such transfer, apply to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction, for transfer of the said portion or share of the plot of land to him, subject to the limit mentioned in section 14M, on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of ten percent of that amount: Provided that if the bargadar in the plot of land, a co-sharer of raiyat in a plot of land and a raiyat possessing land adjourning such plot of land apply for such transfer, the bargadar shall have the prior right to have such portion or share of the plot of land transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by others shall be refunded to them: Provided further that where the bargadar does not apply for such transfer and a co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land and a raiyat possessing land adjourning such plot of land both apply for such transfer, the former shall have the prior right to have such portion or share of the plot of land transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by the latter shall be refunded to him: Provided also that as amongst raiyats possessing lands adjourning such plot of land preference shall be given to the raiyat having the longest common boundary with the land transferred. (2) Nothing in this section shall apply to (a) a transfer by exchange or by partition, or (b) a transfer by bequest or gift, hiba-bil-ewaz, or (c) a mortgage mentioned in section 7, (d) a transfer for charitable or religious purposes or both without reservation of any pecuniary benefit for any individual or (e) a transfer of land in favour of a bargadar in respect of such land if after such transfer, the transferee holds as a raiyat land not exceeding one acre (or 0.4047 hectare) in area in the aggregate. Explanation. All orders passed and the consequences thereof under sections 8, 9 and 10 shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter IIB. (3) Every application pending before a Revenue Officer at the commencement of section 7 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to, and disposed of by, the Munsif having jurisdiction in relation to the area in which the land is situated and on such transfer every such application shall be dealt with from the stage at which it was so transferred and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provision of this Act, as amended by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972." "Section 9. Revenue Officer to allow the application and apportion lands in 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 day 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 percent 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 plot of land be transferred to the applicant and on such order being made, the portion or share of the plot of land shall vest in the applicant. (2) When any person acquires the right, title and interest of the transferee in such plot of land by succession or otherwise, the right, title and interest acquired by him shall be subject to the right conferred by sub-section (1) of section 8 on a co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land or a raiyat possessing land adjourning the plot of land or bargadar. (3) In making an order under sub-section (1) in favour of more than one co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land or raiyat holding adjourning land or bargadar the Munsif may apportion the portion or share of the plot of land in such manner and on such terms as he deems equitable. (4) Where any portion or share of a plot of land is transferred to the applicant under sub-section (1), such applicant shall be liable to pay all arrears of revenue in respect of such portion or share of the plot of land that may be outstanding on the date of the order. (5) The Munsif shall send a copy of his order as modified on appeal, if any, under sub-section (6) to the prescribed authority for correction of the record-of-rights. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif under this section may appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated, within thirty days, from the date of such order and the District Judge shall send a copy of his order to the Munsif. (6) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif under this section may appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated, within thirty days, from the date of such order and the District Judge shall send a copy of his order to the Munsif. The fees to be paid by the parties and the procedure to be followed by the District Judge shall be such as may be prescribed. (7) Every appeal pending before an Additional District Magistrate at the commencement of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to, and be disposed of by, the District Judge having jurisdiction in relation to the area in which the land is situated and on such transfer, every such appeal shall be dealt with from the stage at which it was so transferred and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as amended by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972." 13. A thorough reading of Section 9(6) of the said Act of 1955 shows that any person aggrieved by an order of the Munsif (now Civil Judge, Junior Division) under Section 9 may appeal to the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated, within the limitation as prescribed therein. A perusal of the previous sub-sections of Section 9 shows that sub-section (1) thereof ultimately envisages an order that the portion or share of the plot of land-in-question be transferred to the applicant and on such order being made the said portion or share of the plot of land shall vest in the applicant. Such order, as per the said sub-section, is preceded by an enquiry and an adjudication of what further sum is required to be deposited by the applicant in lieu of consideration of sale and directions on the applicant to deposit such further sum, with a rider that the said sum, including ten percent interest, would be paid to the transferee or the person interested out of the money in deposit, and the remainder, if any, being refunded to the applicant. 14. 14. As such, sub-section (1) of Section 9 culminates in an order that the concerned portion or share of plot of land would be transferred to the applicant, which takes immediate effect by vesting of the said portion or share in the preemptor. The preceding formalities are only various stages culminating in the final order of transfer and are merely interlocutory stages to such final order. The interlocutory stages are only in aid of the transfer order envisaged in Section 9, read conjointly with Section 8, and as such cannot be elevated to the status of independent orders against which appeal is provided under Section 9 (6). 15. Hence, the expression "an order of the Munsif" under the said section can only mean the order of transfer passed by the Court and not the previous interlocutory stages, which are only incidental in nature, although termed as 'order' in Sub-Section (1) of Section 9. In any event, it would be absurd if even an order adjudicating the amount to be deposited is made appellable on a same footing is the final transfer order. Even the scheme of the parent procedural law of Civil Courts, being the Code of Civil Procedure, gives an indication as to the nature of the orders which are made appellable. Such appellable orders, for example injunctions, appointment of receivers, etc., have more serious effect on the rights and liabilities of the parties and might influence the fate of the parties or the subject-matter of the suit prior to the conclusion of the litigation itself. Interlocutory orders of purely procedural nature are not made appellable either in the Code of Civil Procedure or any other statute. As such, a mere decision as to the amount of money payable, could only be on the same footing as ascertainment of court fees, and the intention of the legislature could not be construed to make those orders of limited purport and effect appellable too. 16. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that an order directing the preemptor to pay a certain amount as balance consideration and, in default, to stay the preemption proceeding, is not appellable and the petitioner has rightly preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. 16. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that an order directing the preemptor to pay a certain amount as balance consideration and, in default, to stay the preemption proceeding, is not appellable and the petitioner has rightly preferred an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 17. A perusal of the several judgments cited by both the parties on the stage when the Court can direct the preemptor to put in the balance consideration amount, are harmonious in principle overall, but are conflicting only as to whether such directions could be given even after the disposal of the preemption application itself, as indicated in Pradipta Padha (supra) and categorically observed in Helu Palalias Piru Pal (supra), or have to be prior to passing of the final preemption order. 18. It appears a bit doubtful to this Court that, as laid down in Pradipta Padha (supra) and Helu Pal alias PIru Pal (supra), the preemptor could wait for disposal of the preemption case and only upon the same being allowed, to put in such deposit. It would be as absurd an interpretation of Section 9 as holding that a plaintiff in a money suit can deposit the court fees only after the suit is decreed in her/his favour. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer to being permitted to deposit such balance consideration only upon a proper enquiry by the Court below and at the final stage, before a preemption proceeding is disposed of, this Court need not go into an appreciation of the legal conflict, as indicated above. 19. As such, in view of the consistent principle as laid down in all the judgments of this Court, as cited by the petitioner, and is clear from a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 taken together, it would be open to the preemptor to deposit further balance consideration, if any, only upon a proper enquiry in that regard by the Trial Court, as mandated by Section 9(1) of the 1955 Act. 20. The provision as to the Munsif giving a notice to the transferee on the deposit mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 being made, has to be read as a deposit in terms of the consideration amount actually admitted by the preemptor and ten percent thereon. 20. The provision as to the Munsif giving a notice to the transferee on the deposit mentioned in Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 being made, has to be read as a deposit in terms of the consideration amount actually admitted by the preemptor and ten percent thereon. It is only upon a proper enquiry being held and a decision being arrived at by the Trial Court, as to the real consideration which passed between the vendor and preemptee, that the preemptor could be directed to put in further balance consideration. Such direction could be given at any time before the final order is passed in the preemption application. 21. Accordingly, C.O. No. 16 of 2014 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order and directing the Court below to enquire into the actual consideration paid for the sale, sought to be preempted, prior to finally disposing of the preemption application and directing the preemptor/petitioner to deposit such balance consideration, as found due by the Trial Court, prior to the final disposal of the preemption application. 22. There will be no order as to costs. 23. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.