3. Fact:
The predecessor of the deceased pre-emptor Amirun Nahar
is co-sharer by inheritance from her father Bazul Haque, one
of the recorded co-sharers, and that the pre-emptee
petitioner is a stranger purchaser and that without serving
any notice the property has been sold to the said pre-
emptee.
The pre-emptor coming to know of the transfer filed the
case on 30 November 1971.
The trial Court allowed the pre-emption in favour of the
pre-emptor.
4. The pre-emptee petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal
No. 177 of 1977 which was dismissed in 1988.
The pre-emptee-petitioner Abul Kashem seeks leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 27th August 2002 passed
by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision
No. 4924 of 1991 discharging the Rule.
7. Application of Law:
Argument in favor of the appellants:
The case land being transferred on 29th
March 1972 the Misc. case for preemption
was barred by limitation.
8. Argument in favor of the respondents:
•No notice was served upon the pre-emptor
regarding the sale in question and that later
after coming to know of the transfer
he instituted the case with in four months of
the date of his knowledge and adduced
evidence in support of his contention.
9. Conclusion(Judgement)
It was held that in the courts below the point of limitation
was not urged even no such ground was taken in leave
petition.
Any ground not canvassed before the courts below
cannot be raised before the Appellate Division.
In view of the discussion made above, the petition is found
to be without merit. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
10. That’s all my presentation.
Thank you for
your patience.