JUDGMENT Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioners have filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated March 27, 2018 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Howrah in Misc Appeal No. 316 of 2010 thereby dismissing the Misc Case for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. 2. One Birendra Nath Sau, i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein filed an application under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (for short "the said Act") which was registered as LR Misc Case No. 63 of 2006. 3. The case made out by the petitioners herein in the Misc Case may be summed up as hereunder. 4. By a registered deed of partition dated 23.03.1960 the heirs of the original owner of plot no. 1049 partitioned the said plot and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein got exclusive title over the "kha" schedule property. The pre-emptor claiming to be the longest boundary man in respect of "gha" schedule property exercised the right of pre-emption over "una" schedule property which is a part and parcel of "gha" schedule property. After obtaining the certified copy of the impugned deed on July 25, 2000, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners came to know that the opposite party no. 1 herein purchased the suit property by a sale deed dated February 19, 1999. It was, further, stated in the preemption application that the opposite party in collusion with the pro forma opposite party herein practiced fraud with an object of concealing the sale transaction from the pre-emptor and the opposite party no. 1 herein did not come to possess the said property till July 24, 2000. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein filed the instant misc case immediately after obtaining the certified copy of the sale deed for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. 5. The opposite party no. 1 herein contested the misc case by filing a written objection and denied the material allegation contained therein. The opposite party claimed to be a tenant in respect of the property in question. It was contended by the opposite party that the pro forma opposite party made an offer to the pre-emptor to buy the property but the pre-emptor refused to purchase the suit property along with the tenant. The opposite party claimed to be a tenant in respect of the property in question. It was contended by the opposite party that the pro forma opposite party made an offer to the pre-emptor to buy the property but the pre-emptor refused to purchase the suit property along with the tenant. Upon coming to know of the said fact that the pro forma opposite party is desirous of selling the suit property, the opposite party no. 1 herein expressed his intention to purchase the same and ultimately the pro forma opposite party sold the suit property to the opposite party by a registered sale deed dated February 19, 1999. It was contended by the opposite party that the pre-emptor was well aware of such sale and as such the pre-emptor is not entitled to an order of pre-emption. 6. The Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court at Uluberia by a judgment and order being no. 63 dated October 6, 2010 allowed the misc case on contest against the opposite party no. 1. It was further ordered that the right, title, interest and possession of the suit property mentioned in "una" schedule which the opposite party herein acquired by sale deed dated 19.02.1999 do vest in the petitioners. 7. The opposite party no. 1 herein preferred an appeal being Misc Appeal No. 316 of 2010 and the Learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Howrah by a judgment and order dated March 27, 2018 allowed the Misc Appeal thereby setting aside the judgment and order being no. 63 dated October 6, 2010 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in LR Misc Case no. 63 of 2006. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated March 27, 2018 passed by the Learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below in Misc Appeal No. 316 of 2010, the petitioners herein have preferred the instant application. 9. Mr. Mahato, the Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the opposite party no. 1 herein in collusion with the pro forma opposite party practiced fraud upon the petitioners with an object of concealing the sale transaction by taking possession of the same long after the expiry of the stipulated period for exercising the right of pre-emption by an adjoining owner. Mahato, the Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the opposite party no. 1 herein in collusion with the pro forma opposite party practiced fraud upon the petitioners with an object of concealing the sale transaction by taking possession of the same long after the expiry of the stipulated period for exercising the right of pre-emption by an adjoining owner. He submitted that if a particular right of a person is infringed by another by taking aid of fraud, and the fact of infringement of such right is concealed from that person, in such a case, so long fraud is not discovered, the delay in approaching the Court cannot stand in the way of the Court in granting appropriate relief to the person upon whom fraud has been practised. He, further, submitted that the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act has its applicability even in a misc case for pre-emption. Mr. Mahato, thus, submitted that the date of acquisition of knowledge about the transfer upon obtaining the certified copy of the deed is the starting point of limitation in the instant case. In support of the applicability of the provisions laid down in Section 17 of the Limitation Act to a proceeding for preemption under Section 8 and 9 of the said Act, Mr. Mahato relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Aparna Ghosh and Another versus Swarup Chand Roychowdhury and Others, 2005 1 CalHN 140 . 10. Per contra, Mr. Banerjee, the Learned Advocate for the opposite party submitted that the instant misc case was barred by limitation as the same was not filed within the stipulated period as provided under Section 8 of the said Act. He further submitted that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be pressed into service in aid of a belated application made under Section 8 of the said Act seeking condonation of delay. In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on October 17, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1090 of 2010 (Barasat Eye Hospital versus Kaustabh Mondal). In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered on October 17, 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 1090 of 2010 (Barasat Eye Hospital versus Kaustabh Mondal). He further submitted that the petitioner herein only prayed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the application for pre-emption and did not pray for exclusion of time under Section 17 of the Limitation Act and the Learned Judge of the Court of appeal below was justified in holding that the misc case was barred by limitation. 11. Heard the Learned Advocates of the respective parties. Considered the materials on record. 12. Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 recognises the right of purchase by bargadar, co-sharer or contiguous tenant. It also provides the period of limitation within which the application for transfer is to be made by the pre-emptor. Different periods of limitation have been prescribed in respect of different category of pre-emptors. A bargadar may apply before the court for transfer within three months of the date of transfer and an adjoining raiyat may apply within four months of the date of such transfer. In so far as the co-sharer of a raiyat is concerned, the period of limitation is three months of the service of the notice given under Subsection 5 of Section 5 of the said Act. 13. Admittedly, the misc case for pre-emption was filed beyond four months of the transfer. 14. It is accepted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners herein that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked in a misc case under Section 8 of the said Act filed belatedly. But in the instant pre-emption application it has been pleaded that the opposite party by exercising fraud has kept the petitioners herein out of the knowledge of the said transfer for a long time even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation of four months from the date of transfer. As such it is to be considered whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act should be invoked in the instant case. 15. Right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the said Act arises only when there is a transfer of a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat to any person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat. 15. Right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the said Act arises only when there is a transfer of a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat to any person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat. It is well settled that only upon completion of the registration of the document of transfer under Section 61 of the Registration Act the right to pre-empt would accrue. It has been uniformly held by this court that the period of limitation prescribed by Section 8(1) of the said Act for making a pre-emption application by a raiyat holding adjoining land begins to run when the registration of the document is completed and the transfer becomes effective. Section 8(1) of the said Act do not intend that the limitation shall start from the date when the purchaser takes possession of the property in question. Even if the allegation of the pre-emptor that the pre-emptee took possession of the property long after the date of sale is accepted to be true, that by itself does not amount to fraud when no duty is cast by the statute either upon the transferor or the transferee to intimate the pre-emptor seeking pre-emption on the ground of vicinage about such transfer. Thus, the pre-emptor is not entitled to the benefit of Section 17 of the Limitation Act in the instant case. 16. The starting point of limitation for making an application for pre-emption by a raiyat hold adjoining land is the date when the registration of the document is completed under Section 61 of the Registration Act. In the instant case the registration of the document of transfer was completed on February 19, 1999 and that is the starting point of limitation for filing the instant misc case. The instant misc case was filed on July 29, 2000 i.e. well beyond the period of four months of the completion of registration. Thus, the instant misc case was barred by limitation. 17. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Adhir Kumar Guchait versus Maya Rani Majhi and Another, 2009 4 CalHN 597 held that an adjoining owner cannot claim extension of the period of limitation on the ground of alleged fraud by taking aid of the provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Act. 17. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Adhir Kumar Guchait versus Maya Rani Majhi and Another, 2009 4 CalHN 597 held that an adjoining owner cannot claim extension of the period of limitation on the ground of alleged fraud by taking aid of the provision of Section 17 of the Limitation Act. In Adhir Guchait (supra) the pre-emptor claimed that the possession of the disputed land thereunder was not taken by the pre-emptee on the date of transfer and the pre-emptee came to possess the same long time after the statutory period of limitation expired and the pre-emptor discovered the fraud only after obtaining the certified copy of the deed. 18. The facts of the said reported decision is identical with the facts of the instant case and as such the ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. The said decision is binding upon me and, therefore, I hold that the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act should not be invoked in a pre-emption application on the ground of vicinage. 19. In Aparna Ghosh (supra) the application for pre-emption was filed on the ground of co-sharer-ship. It was held in the said reported decision that Section 5 of the said Act casts a duty upon the transferor or the transferee to give prior notice of such transfer to all co-sharers in the manner prescribed therein and the period of limitation for filing an application for pre-emption on the ground of co-sharer-ship is three months from the date of service of such notice in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. Therefore, if a transaction is effected by not complying with such provision in order to conceal the transaction from the co-sharers such concealment definitely amounts to fraud. 20. The Learned Advocate for the opposite party, in his usual fairness accepted that the said Act does not provide for service of notice under Section 5 of the said Act upon an adjoining owner. Thus, non-service of notice under Section 5(5) of the said Act cannot be said to be an act of fraud on the part of the opposite party herein. The instant misc case is at the instance of an adjoining owner and the period of limitation starts from the date of registration of the deed sought to be impeached. Thus, non-service of notice under Section 5(5) of the said Act cannot be said to be an act of fraud on the part of the opposite party herein. The instant misc case is at the instance of an adjoining owner and the period of limitation starts from the date of registration of the deed sought to be impeached. As such the decision in Aparna Ghosh (supra) cited by Mr. Mahato do not have any manner of application in the instant case. 21. The applicability of the provisions of Section 17 of the Limitation Act was not in issue before the Supreme Court of India in Barasat Eye Hospital (supra) and as such the said decision cited by Mr. Banerjee is also not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 22. In view of the observations made hereinbefore I hold that the Learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below was perfectly justified in dismissing the misc case. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 23. Co No. 3147 of 2018 is dismissed without however any order as to costs. 24. Urgent photostat certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.