1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---These two Review Petitions (No, 70-R and 71-R of 1989) arising out of order of 23rd May, 1989, in preemption matter; whereby two Civil Petitions (290-R of 1988 and 291-R of 1988) were dismissed on the ground that no decree having been passed in these cases till 31st July, 1986 the judgment of this Court in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360, barred any further consideration of the cases. This view was expressed as it purported to be based on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1988 SC 287, as also some later judgments. However, a larger Bench of this Court has, on re- examination of some of the questions involved, in Ahmad v. Abdul Aziz (Civil Review Petition No, 80- R of 1988) and some other cases has taken. a different view. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following observations made in the said latest case.
2. "The result was that where it was contended or it could be contended that ownership in the Patti or estate was coupled with contiguity, then such ownership in the estate or Patti continued to be a valid and available ground for pre-empting the sale. For adjudicating this question of fact, opportunity shall be allowed to parties to amend their pleadings, where necessary or required."
3. This decision, according to learned counsel, benefits the petitioners, accordingly, the review petitions require examination on merits. Prima facie, the position taken in these two Review Petitions is supported by the decision of this Court in the aforementioned Review Petition; namely, Civil Review Petition No,80-R of 1988. That being so, while condoning the delay, we admit them to regular hearing. Notices shall issue to the parties concerned. These matters shall be heard alongwith other similar cases.
4. ' Security for costs shall be Rs, 5,000 in each case. The appeals shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal of appeals.
5. ' The security of Rs, 2,000 deposited as a condition precedent for filing Review petitions shall be given adjustment in the said security amount of Rs,5,000 each.
6. ' It needs to be noted that after the decision in the case of Ahmed v. Abdul Aziz (Civil Review Petition No, 80-R of 1988) PLD 1989 SC 771, the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court has ordered suo Motu, for re-examination of certain questions in the case of Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360. The matter was taken up during last August at Karachi. The Bench has not been able to assemble since then.
7. The office should take steps for the hearing. Of that matter by the Shariat Appellate Bench as soon as possible. Review applications admitted: