ORDER V.K. Jhanji, J. - Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the order and decree passed by the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff by way of pre-emption being co-sharers was decreed. 2. It is not in dispute that both the Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff were co-sharers with the vendor of the defendant and the said vendor had given no notice of sale in favour of the defendant to the plaintiffs. Regular Second Appeal was preferred in this Court which was admitted only on the ground that Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as amended by Haryana provides for vesting of right of pre- emption in tenant alone and right available to the co-sharer has been taken away-vide Haryana Amendment 1995 dated 15th March, 1995. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff filed an application bearing C.M. No. 7806-C of 2001 for decision of the appeal in view of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case Sham Sunder v. Ram Kumar, JT 2001(6) SC 1994. 4. After notice of application appeal has been taken up for hearing. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant fairly conceded that the matters is squarely covered by the decision in Sham Sunders case (supra), because the amendment made in the Act has been held prospective in nature which is not applicable to the present case as the decree in the present suit was passed by the trial Court on 17.11.1994 i.e. much before coming into force of the amendment. In view of the fair concession extended by learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in view of the law laid down in Sham Sunders case (supra), present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.