Manisana, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Manipur in C. A. No. 31 of 1973 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge II Manipur in O.S. No. 8/109/1972. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The appe­llant 1 was the owner of the suit land. He sold the land to appellant 2 under a registered deed of sale dated 3.1.72 by sho­wing the price of the land as Rs. 8000/- in the deed. The res­pondent brought the suit claiming, inter alia, for declaration that he was entitled to purchase the suit land at Rs. 3000/-under Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960 for short the ''Act". The case of the res­pondent is that he has been the tenant of the appellant 1 in respect of the suit land and that without giving notice as pro­vided under section 132 of the Act the appellant 1 sold the land to the appellant 2 at an inflated consideration of Rs. 1000/-. 3. The Courts below have concurrently given findings that the respondent has been the tenant of the appellant-1 and that the appellant-1 sold the land to the appellant-2 without giving notice as provided under Section 132 of the Act. However, the Trial Court has not granted the reliefs by holding that the sale was void as the sale was in violation of section 132. The first appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and decreed the suit. 4. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the transfer of the land by the land owner without notice to the tenant is void or invalid. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. Mr. Nilamani Singh has referred me to the decisions as reported in Kandaswami Naick vs. Ponnu Naick, AIR 1950 Madras 279 ; Gajanan Mahadeo Yerekar vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 Bombay 357 ; and Md. Sher Ali vs. Assam Board of Revenue, (1981) 1 GLR 283. In Kandaswami Naick (Supra), the Madras High Court has held that sale of holding for arrears of rent without personal service of notice upon the defaulting 'ryot' is null and void. In Gajanan Mahadeo, a reference was .answered in negative by the Bombay High Court. Sher Ali vs. Assam Board of Revenue, (1981) 1 GLR 283. In Kandaswami Naick (Supra), the Madras High Court has held that sale of holding for arrears of rent without personal service of notice upon the defaulting 'ryot' is null and void. In Gajanan Mahadeo, a reference was .answered in negative by the Bombay High Court. The refere­nce was : "The question which has been referred to us in this proceeding is whether a landlord who has dispossessed the tenant otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act and where the right of a tenant to restoration of tenancy is subsisting on the date of sale, a sale by a landlord to a stranger is not in violation of the provisions of Section 91 of the Tenancy Act". In Md. Sher Ali (Supra), a Division Bench of our High Court has held that revenue sale for arrear of land revenue under section 81 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation without service of notice on the defaulter of the estate is invalid. 5. Section 132(1) of the Act reads as follows : "If a landowner at any time intends to sell his land held by a tenant, he shall give notice in writing of his intention to such tenant and offer to sell the land to him. In case the latter intends to purchase the land, he shall intimate in writing his readiness to do so within two months from the date of receipt of such notice." After the institution of the suit, i. e. after the sale, Sec­tion 132 has been amended in the year 1976 during the pendency of the appeal in this Court by inserting sub-section (7). The sub-section (7) of section 132 runs as follows : "If a landowner sells his land in contravention of sub-section (1), the tenant, within two months from the date of his knowledge, of such sale, may apply in wri­ting to the competent authority expressing his intention to purchase the land at the price received by the lard-owner or at reasonable price determined under sub-section (2). The competent authority, after giving opportunity of being heard to the landowner, the purchaser and to any other person interested in the land, and if satisfied that the sale has been made in contravention of sub­section (1), may ask the tenant to deposit the amount of the price actually paid or the reasonable price, which­ever is less, within such period as may be prescribed, and upon deposit of such amount by the tenant, the competent authority shall pass an order allowing the app­lication of pre-emption and thereupon the provision of sub-sections (4) to (6) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis." (emphasis added) 6. The question which arises for consideration is whether tie sale of the land on 7.1.72 without giving notice to the tenant by the land owner in violation of section 132 (1) of the Act is invalid or void. In order to answer the question, it is necessary to trace what is the nature of right created under Section 132(1) of the Act. Under Section 132(1), the tenant has right to the offer of an agricultural land intended to be sold by an owner. This is the right of the tenant who has the option of first refusal. Rule 182 of the Rules framed under the Act, provides that an offer must be in writing and that the offer/notice must be in the form prescribed under the Rules and it must be sent by a registered post to the tenant or tenants, as the case may be, and that the notice/offer shall clearly prescribe the property to be sold, the price to be charged and the encumbrances on the land if any. The Supreme Court in Bishan vs. Khazan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 838 , has held that the right of the pre-emption is not a right to the thing sold but a right to the offer of a thing about to be sold. This right is called primary or inherant right. The pre-emptor has a secondary right or right to follow the things sold. It is a right of substitu­tion and not of re-purchase i. e., the pre-emptor takes the en­tire bargain and steps into the shoes of the original veadee. As already concluded, the right of a tenant under section 132(1) is the right to the offer of the land to be sold. Therefore, the right of a tenant under Section 132 is the right of pre­emption. As already concluded, the right of a tenant under section 132(1) is the right to the offer of the land to be sold. Therefore, the right of a tenant under Section 132 is the right of pre­emption. This view of mine finds support from the amendment of section 132 by inserting the sub-section (7). In sub-section (7), the expression "pre-emption" has been used. The subse­quent legislation can be looked into in order to see what would be the proper interpretation to be put on section 132(1). After a statute is amended, the statute thereafter is to be read and construed with reference to the new provisions and not with reference to the provisions originally existed (see Shamrao vs. District Magistrate, AIR 1952 SC 324 ; and State of Bihar vs. S. K. Roy, AIR 1955 SC 1995) . 7. Coming to the provision of the Act, Section 154 of the Act provides that any transfer or partition of land made in contravention of the provisions of the chapter 12 of the Act shall be void. Chapter 12 relates to the prevention of frag­mentation. Under that chapter, "fragmentation" means a hol­ding of less than one hectare area. Section 152 and 153 place restriction on the transfer and partition respectively, creating fragmentation. The Act also has not provided that the sate without giving notice as contemplated under Section 132 with be void as in the case of sale - creating fragmentation. 8. In view of the above discussions relating to the rele­vant provisions of the Act and the nature of the right and re­medy under Section 132, it cannot be held that the sale in violation of section 132(1) is void or invalid. la view of the matter, the decisions in Khandaswami Naick vs. Pontut Naick AIR 1940 Madras 279 ; AIR 1971 Bombay 357 and Md. Sher All, (1981) I GLR 283 are not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances of those cases are different from the present case. 9. The next submission of Mr. Nilmani Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that in view of the sub-section (7) of section 132, the respondent has to apply in writing to the competent authority giving his intention to purchase the suit land as provided thereunder. 9. The next submission of Mr. Nilmani Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that in view of the sub-section (7) of section 132, the respondent has to apply in writing to the competent authority giving his intention to purchase the suit land as provided thereunder. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the Act has provided, by inserting sub­section (7), for enforcing the right created under section 132(1) by applying to the competent authority appointed under the Act. The general principle is that every right has a remedy. Although a right has been created under section 132(1), originally the method of enforcing the right was not provided in the Act creating the right. Therefore, the respondent sought general re­medy of suit. However, from the date of enforcement of the sub-section (7) the Act has provided a method for enforcing the right, as stated above. But the Act has not provided that from the date of the enforcement of the sub-section (7), the Civil Court shall cease to have jurisdiction over the pending cases and that the pending cases shall be transferred to the competent Court under the Act. The Civil Court had the jurisdiction and in the exercise of their jurisdiction the lower Civil Courts had decided the matter. The multiplicity of proceedings and hard­ship must be avoided. In Dewaji vs. Ganpatlal, AIR 1969 SC 560 the Supreme Court had held that a new law bring about a change in forum does not affect pending actions in the Civil Court unless a provison is made in it for change over the pro­ceedings. (See also Shyamcharan, AIR 1951 SC 199 ). In Sadar vs. Doliluddin, AIR, 1928 Calcutta 640 (F. B.), it has been held that unless contrary can be shown the provision which takes away the jurisdiction is itself subject to the implied saving of &he litigant's right. The said decision of Calcutta High Court has received the approval of the Supreme Court in Garikapalt vs. Subbiat AIR 1957 SC 540 . In view of the above dis­cussions, the Civil Court has the jurisdiction over the pending cases before the amendment came into force. Therefore the con­tention of Mr. Nilamani Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has no force. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed. No costs.