Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Bharat Bhushan defendant No. 6 sold land on 2.1.1993 for Rs. 3 lacs. It may be mentioned here that he suffered a decree in favour of vendees i.e. defendants No. 1 to 5 on 2.1.1993 so as to avoid pre-emption. It was sale but was given the colour of exchange by the defendants in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs who had superior right to pre-empt the sale being co-sharers with Bharat Bhushan. 2. Plaintiffs Raj Singh @ Raj Pal son of Gian Singh and Gian Singh son of Chamela, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on 4.1.1994. 3. During the pendency of the suit, Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana was amended. As a result of the amendment, the right of pre-emption inhering in co-sharers, relations etc. of the vendor was taken away. The right of pre-emption was allowed to enure only in favour of the tenant of the vendor, 4. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, dismissed the suit holding that the right of pre-emption was no longer available to the co-sharers plaintiffs after 17.5.1995 i.e. when the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana came into being. Section 15 as substituted in the original Act as applicable to Haryana reads as under:- "15. Right of Pre-emption to vest in tenant.- The right of pre-emption in respect of sale of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof." 5. The right of pre-emption in respect of sale of agricultural land and village immoveable property shall vest in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof. Thus the right of pre-emption vesting in co-sharers etc. was taken away. Plaintiffs went in appeal. Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissed the appeal. He also held that the pre-emption suit ceased to be maintainable after the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana had come into being, Not satisfied with the decree of the Courts below, plaintiffs have come up in further appeal to this Court. 6. Shri Vipan K.Bali, Advocate for the vendees-defendants Krishan Kumar etp. He also held that the pre-emption suit ceased to be maintainable after the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana had come into being, Not satisfied with the decree of the Courts below, plaintiffs have come up in further appeal to this Court. 6. Shri Vipan K.Bali, Advocate for the vendees-defendants Krishan Kumar etp. submits that an order to succeed in a suit for possession through pre-emption, the pre-emp-tor must retain his qualification to pre-empt at three stages namely; at the date or institution of the suit (2) during the pendency of the suit (3) at the date of decision of the suit. He submits that the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana came into being on 17.5.1995, which took away the right of pre-emption inhering in co-sharers etc. and therefore, the pre-emption suit ceased to be maintainable after this amendment had come into being. He submits that on 13.1.1997, When Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra disposed of the suit, the co-called pre-emptors were not retaining their qualification to pre-empt and, therefore, he was right in dismissing the suit as not maintainable. He submits that the first Appellant Court was also right in taking the same view. In support of the submission hat a pre-emptor must retain his qualification to pre-empt at all those three stages, he seeks support from "Ramji Lal and Anr. v. The State of Punjab and Ors., (1966)68 Punjab Law Reporter 345, where it was held that a pre-emptor must maintain his qualification to preempt to the date of the decree of the first court only, whether that decree is one dismissing the suit or decreeing it and his loss of qualification, whether by his own act or by an act beyond his control, after the date of that decree does not affect the fate of his claim in the suit. A pre-emptor in whose favour a pre-emption decree has been given in the first court need not retain his superior right of pre-emption till the hearing of the appeal by the vendee. 7. Sh. A pre-emptor in whose favour a pre-emption decree has been given in the first court need not retain his superior right of pre-emption till the hearing of the appeal by the vendee. 7. Sh. Ball submits that in the case in hand the so called pre-emptors i.e. Raj Singh @ Raj Pal and Gian Singh had ceased to retain their qualification to pre-empt in view of the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana, w.e.f. 17.5.1995. 8. Faced with this position, Sh. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the plaintiffs-appellants submits that the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applicable to Haryana which came into force on 17.5.1995 will not have any affect on this suit as this amendment is only prospective in character and not retrospective in character. In support of the submission, he draws my attention to "Shyam Sunder and Anr. v. Ram Kumar and Anr., 2001(2) P.L.J. 332 at page 349 para 48, where it is recorded that the amending Act being prospective in operation does not effect the rights of the parties to the litigation on the date of adjudication of the pre-emption suit and the Appellate Court is not required to take into account or give effect to the substituted Section 15 introduced by the Amending Act. It is settled that a pre-emptor must retain his qualification to pre-empt at the aforesaid three stages in case the right of pre-emption inhering in a co-sharer was taken away by the Legislature after 17.5.1995, on 13.1.1997, i.e. when the suit was decided by the first court, there was no right of pre-emption inhering in the so called pre-emptors. Both the Courts below have thus correctly adjudicated the suit. 9. For the reasons given above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.