JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 07.03.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 136 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein.

2. Brief facts:

(a) The Appellant-Plaintiff and Respondent No. 5 - whose name has been deleted from the array of parties by this Court's order dated 08.08.2003, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption being Civil Suit No. 107/92/93 against Respondent Nos. 1-4 herein (Defendants) before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bahadurgarh, Haryana claiming themselves to be co-sharers with the vendor - Shiv Lal-Defendant No. 3 (Respondent No. 3 herein-since deceased, his legal representatives are on record), who sold away his half share of the suit land comprised in Khewat No. 22 (min.), Khasra Nos. 47 and 48, Khasra No. 1043 measuring 3 bighas, 3 biswas pukhta 1058 (2-11) and Khewat No. 28 (min.), Khasra Nos. 54-55. Khasra No. 5496/1693 (2-16) 5497/1693(1-5) total measuring 10 Bighas 8 Biswas to Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein) by sale deed dated 08.06.1992 for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/- and for declaring the lease deed No. 326 dated 07.05.1992 illegal, null and void and unwarranted by law. Defandant Nos. 1 & 2 are brothers and Defendant No. 4 (Respondent No. 4 herein) is their mother.

(b) When the case was fixed for service of the remaining Defendants, Defendant Nos. 1 & 4 filed an application for dismissing the suit of the Plaintiffs being not maintainable on the ground that after passing of the Punjab Pre-emption (Haryana Amendment) Act, 10 of 1995, (hereinafter referered to as "the Act") the right of pre-emption on the basis of co-sharership is not available to them. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division), by judgment dated 09.02.1996, accepting the application filed by the Defendants dismissed the suit filed by the Plaintiffs.

(c) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1996 before the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. By order dated 18.07.2000, the Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs.

(d) Challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Pirthi-Plaintiff No. 1 (Appellant herein) filed regular second appeal being RSA No. 136 of 2001 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 07.03.2002, holding that the Plaintiff/Appellant had lost the character of a co-owner during the pendency of the suit, dismissed the appeal. Against the said judgment, the Appellant-Plaintiff has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Pramod Dayal, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 4. Despite service of notice, Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have not chosen to appear in-person or through counsel.

Discussion:

4. It is the case of the Respondents/Defendants that superior right of pre-emption on the basis of co-sharership is not available to Plaintiffs now. After passing of the Act, this right has been restricted only to the tenants and the Plaintiffs have No. locus-standi to file and pursue their suit as they are not claiming the right as tenants. It is the claim of the Appellant/Plaintiff that the suit in question was instituted prior to the amendment in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 hence the amendment in the Act is not applicable to the present case. The trial Court accepted the objection of the Defendants as to the maintainability of the suit and dismissed the same as not maintainable which was affirmed by the lower appellate Court. The same view has been reiterated by the High Court by dismissing the second appeal.

5. It is true that the suit, in the present case, was filed prior to the amendment in the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Section 15 of the Pre-emption law has been amended and notified vide Gazette Notific