1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--These appeals and other Miscellaneous application arise out of the same matter, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. ' The cases relate to the well-known controversy over the recent development of law of pre- emption in accordance with the Islamic injunctions, jurisprudence and philosophy. Enough comment has already been made in the case of Ghulam Qadir v. Nawab Din PLD 1988 SC 701 regarding the general nature of these cases and human conduct vis-a-vis, the same. The limits of greed and lust for unearned gain was also commented upon. The present proceedings perhaps can also be linked with the said aspect of this matter.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has raised two-fold argument in support of these appeals. Firstly, he contended that the necessity of Islamic Talabs not being a part of the Holy Qur'an or Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) they could not be made part of any judicial pronouncement for the enactment of new law of Islamic Shufa. If, according to him, the foregoing proposition is correct then he further contended that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Shariat Appellate Bench to render any decision based on the concept of Talabs. When pointed out that these very questions have finally been settled and decided in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 as also on review by Shariat Appellate Bench (Suo-motu Shariat Review Petition No,1-R of 1989 PLD 1990 SC 865) and the question of jurisdiction, vis-a-vis, the Constitutional mandates having also been resolved by this Court subsequent to the decisions of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the same Court in the later decisions (See Sultan v. Habib Ahmad; Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan; and Muhammad Yasin v. Khan Muhammad PLD 1990 SC 897, 899 and 1060), learned counsel could not press the first contention any further and requested for the disposal of these appeals accordingly. He also requested for the disposal of C.MA. No,3 of 1990 as not pressed. However, it is essential to note the second limb of the two-fold contention raised by the learned counsel. It is based on the language of section 36 of the newly-promulgated Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance No,XXVII of 1990-- 26th November, 1990. It reads as follows:-- "36. Saving:--(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, all the decrees, judgments or orders dismissing the suits of pre-emption, instituted or pending during the period from 1st August, 1986 and 28th March, 1990, in which the right of pre-emption was claimed as is available under this Ordinance, shall be of no legal effect, and such suits, on an application made by the aggrieved person, within sixty days of commencement of this Ordinance, shall subject to subsection (2), be decided afresh according to the provisions thereof.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sections 13 and 31, in respect of the suits mentioned in subsection (1), the period of limitation shall be one year and it shall be sufficient if the pre-emptor establishes that he had made `Talab-i-Ishhad' in the presence of two thereby truthful witnesses."
4. ' According to the learned counsel it has become open to the pre-emptors whose cases fall within the afore quoted saving provision to plead the fulfilment of the condition of `Talab-i-Ishhad' even in cases which are pending before the Superior Courts or which stand already disposed of. Leaving aside the other aspect of this point which need not be touched as the same have not been argued by the learned counsel, one aspect thereof no doubt was discussed at length. It is the same which was discussed in the case of Ghulam Qadir already referred in another connection reported in PLD 1988 SC 701. When asked that unscrupulous litigants in pursuance of human greed and lust for unearned gain, as already noticed, would file false affidavits and take false pleas so as to obtain and/or preserve illegal gain, learned counsel contended that generally it would be so but there can be exceptional cases. We have doubts and they are not without foundations, because of what happened in the case of Ghulam Qadir. There is very strong possibility of false pleas and false affidavits being submitted. Learned counsel, accordingly, was told that if somebody takes such a plea and submits false affidavit in support thereof in this Court, we would seriously examine its factual worth and if it is found false, warning having already been administered, we might start taking serious punitive action. Learned counsel, nevertheless did not agree on our assessment with regard to submission of false pleas and false affidavits and sought permission to ask his clients' position in this behalf. Some concerned persons, according to him, were not available and those who are available in the other case have not submitted the affidavits; although according to the learned counsel they wanted to do so. Instead the learned counsel made the request already noted for the disposal of these matters without going into this aspect of the matter any further.
5. ' The respondents' side is not represented before us in these matters. Accordingly, these appeals and the Civil Miscellaneous application stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.