JUDGMENT B.N. AGRAWAL & SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ. These two writ applications are being disposed of by one order as common question involved therein. Prayer has been made in these two writ applications for quashing order dated 4.2.1991 passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue in two revision applications where the same have been allowed and the orders passed by the appellate authority in the two appeals have been set aside and claims for pre-emption in two pre-emption applications have been rejected. 2. The short facts are that one Mostt. Jileba Kuer, respondent no. 6 executed two sale deeds on 2.6.1986, registration of which was completed on 8.10.1986. One sale deed was executed in favour of Dipleshwar Singh who is respondent no. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 5257/91 while the other was executed in favour of Kapileshwar Singh who is respondent no.5 in the other application i.e. in C.W.J.C. No. 5258/91. By the aforesaid two sale deeds different plots were sold by the parties. Both the purchasers are full brother being son of one Shri Agar Singh. 3. The petitioner filed two pre-emption application in relation to the aforesaid two sale deeds and his claim was that she was co-sharer as well as adjoining raiyat. According to him none of the two purchasers was either co-sharers or adjoining raiyats. 4. The case of both the purchasers was that pre-emptor was neither adjoining raiyat nor co-sharer. According to them they were adjoining raiyats as well as co-sharers both as their father Agar Singh had acquired a property by joint family funds in his name which was in the boundary of the lands purchased and both the purchasers had share therein being members of joint family which fact was denied by the pre-emptor. According to him there was separation between purchasers and their father. 5. The Original Authority rejected the claim for pre-emption on the sole ground that both the pre-emption applications were filed beyond the period of 90 days. Thereafter the matter was taken in appear and the appellate authority recorded a finding that the Original Authority has not justified in rejecting the preemption application on the ground that the same were filed beyond the period of 90 days as in Section 16(3) of the Act the period of limitation which is required in law is not 90 days but three months. When the period of limitation is three months then undisputedly the pre-emption applications were filed well within time. The appellate authority allowed the pre-emption applications without going into details after recording a finding that the purchasers were neither co-sharers nor the adjoining raiyats as the sale deed was not in their names but in the name of their fathers. 6. Purchasers thereafter took up the matter before the Member, Board of Revenue in revision by filing two revision applications and the learned Member, Board of Revenue by his order contained in annexure-5 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that the pre-emptor did not adduce any evidence on the question as to whether the purchasers were joint with their father or separate. 7. It appears to us that before the Original Authority the parties had mainly raised the question as to whether the pre-emption applications were filed within time or not and on merit material evidence was not produced by them. We feel that one opportunity should be given to the parties to adduce evidence before the original Authority in support of their respective case for which the matter is fit to be remanded. 8. For the foregoing reasons, these two writ applications are allowed, the orders contained in annexures 3, 4 and 5 are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority to dispose of both the preemption application on merit after giving opportunity of adducing evidence to the parties. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.