' Granted.
2. ' In order to challenge the legality of the impugned order, dated 19-8-2008, learned counsel has made reference to the provisions of section 4 of the Partition Act and placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Haradhone Haldar v. Usha Charan Karmakar and others (AIR 1955 Calcutta 292). He has made reference to para.9 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-- "(9) More difficult is the other question, namely, whether section 4, Partition Act is at all attracted when the suit for partition is brought not by the stranger purchaser but by a member of the family who is a co-sharer or "share-holder". The section says "and such transferee sues for partition" and, at first sight, therefore, it seems to have application only when the stranger purchaser is the, plaintiff in the partition action. A closer examination, however, in the light of the relevant principles, discloses sufficient warrant for broader view of the section and judicial opinion has definitely favoured a wider and liberal construction. The section, as it seems to me, has to be liberally construed, though in so doing the Court is not entitled to disregard or sacrifice its terms. It shall have as full a scope as its language permits and, within limits, set by the statutory language, the rule of liberal construction ought to prevail in the matter of construction of the section."
' The contention raised needs consideration. This appeal is therefore, admitted to regular hearing.
Let notice be issued to the other side for 28-10-2008.
3. Notice as above. In the meantime, operation of impugned order shall remain suspended.
' At this stage, learned counsel submits that after passing the impugned order further directions have been issued for taking over the possession of the property from the appellants. It is to be clarified here that once the operation of the impugned order, dated 19-8-2008 has been suspended, the consequences shall follow.