ORDER
Rajive Bhalla, J.
1. By way of the second appeal, the appellant, seeks to impugn the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court, as also by the first appellate Court.
2. The appellant, filed a suit for possession, by way of pre-emption on the plea that he was a co-sharer and, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale effected by sale-deed No. 842 dated 2.7.1993. During the pendency of the suit, Haryana Amendment Act, 1995, was enacted. Pursuant to the aforementioned Act, Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act stood amended and the right of a co-sharer to seek pre emption was deleted. The learned trial Court, dismissed the appellant’s suit on the ground that the right to pre-emption no longer survived. The first appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant contends that as the appellant was admittedly a co-sharer and as the amendment had come into force after the filing of the suit, the amendment could not affect subsisting rights and, therefore, the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the suit and the appeal.
4. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the right of preemption, must survive (a) on the date of the sale-deed, (b) the filing of the suit and (3) upto the date of the decree. If the right to pre-emption ceases before any of these dates, the suit for pre-emption cannot be decreed. As amendment to the Punjab Pre-emption Act extinguished the right to pre-empt, during the pendency of the suit, the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
6. The controversy in the present case, is squarely covered in favour of respondents by a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar . Para 11 thereof reads as follows:
11. An analysis of the aforesaid decision referred to in first category of decisions, the legal principles that emerge are these:
(1) The pre-emptor must have the right to pre-empt on the date of sale, on the date of filing of the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the Court of the first instance only.
(2) The pre-emptor who claims the right to pre-empt the sale on the date of the sale must prove that such right continued to subsist till the passing of the decree of the first Court. If the claimant loses that right or a vendee improves his right equal or above the right of the claimant before the adjudication of suit, the suit for pre-emption must fail.
(3) A pre-emptor who has a right to pre-empt a sale on the date of institution of the suit and on the date of passing a decree, the loss of such right subsequent to the decree of the first Court would not affect his right or maintainability of the suit for pre-emption.
(4) A pre-emptor who after proving his right on the date of sale, on the date of filing of the suit and on the date of passing of the decree by the first court, has obtained a decree for pre-emption by the Court of first instance, such right cannot be taken away by subsequent legislation during pendency of the appeal filed against the decree unless such legislation has retrospective operation.
The sale-deed in the present case is dated 2.7.1993. The suit was filed on 24.10.1994. Haryana Amendment Act 10 of 1995 came into force on 27.5.1995 i.e. during the pendency of the suit. With the coming into force of the amendment, the statutory right of the appellant to preempt the sale stood extinguished during the pendency of the suit and did not survive upto the passing of the decree. Thus, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and the appellate Court, the appeal. No question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in the present appeal.
Dismissed.