1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The vendees by two separate petitions seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court affirming in second appeals the decision of the first Appellate Court refusing to interfere with an order passed on review petitions restoring the two suits in which earlier the plaint had been rejected on account of non-compliance with an order passed under section 22(4) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
2. ' In the two pre-emption suits filed by the Pre-emptors on their request an order was passed by the trial Court before the appearance of the petitioners as defendants to furnish security for the 1/5th of the sale consideration. On appearance the petitioners sought variation of that order demanding deposit of 1/5th preemption money in cash. The trial Court did not accept their application but by an order, dated 5th of May, 1997 the order with regard to security was altered and the plaintiffs were called upon to furnish security for the entire sale consideration instead of 1/5th as earlier ordered. The plaintiffs were required to do so by 25-5-1977. On account of the curfew the case could not come up on 20th of May, 1977 and when it was taken up the next day, that is, 21st of May, 1977 none was present and the security was not furnished, whereupon the trial Court rejected the plaint. The plaintiffs sought review of the order which was reviewed even though opposed by the petitioners and against this acceptance of the review the petitioners went in appeal and second appeal but with no success.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the plaintiffs-respondents had the time and opportunity to comply with the order of the Court, that on their non-compliance an order rejecting their plaint was competently passed and that there was no occasion for its review.
4. ' The very basis for review of the order is factual, namely, the state of things existing and affecting the parties capacity to attend the Court and furnish security and the Court's incapacity to perform its judicial functions. All the Courts have concurrently held that the conditions were so disturbed that the plaintiffs could not be penalized either by the rejection of the plaint or for their failure to appear when the Courts opened in those disturbed conditions for short periods. If that finding is kept intact and we do not see any reason why it should be disturbed, the order passed by the Court is unexceptionable both as regards the restoration of the suit and the explanation given for not complying with the order of furnishing security. We do not think that these petitions raise any question of law which requires further examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused in both the petitions.