Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on the ground that there has been a violation of Rule 111 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Rules. It appears that the Petitioners presented the memorandum of revision without it being accompanied by a copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer. A copy of that order was filed later on. The Deputy Director held that the explanation given by the Petitioners for the delay in filing the copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not satisfactory. Hence the delay cannot be condoned.
(2.) We find no manifest error of law in this order. Even if Rule 111 is held directory, that will only mean that a person who wants to file a revision may comply with it substantially. The last part of this Rule requires that copies of judgments and orders, if any, shall also be filed with the memorandum of Revision. If the Rule is directory, an Applicant may file the copies subsequently and the Director can, in a fit case, accept the same even if they had been filed at the proper time. But the fact that the Rule is directory does not confer an absolute right on a litigant to violate the Rule and file the copies whenever he wants. The directory nature of the Rule will only enable the Director to entertain a copy even if filed beyond time, if he is satisfied that the case is a fit one for doing so. In that event, the Director will have to go into the merits of the explanation offered by the litigant for the delay in filing the copy; and if on facts, the Director is satisfied that the cause shown is not sufficient, he would be within his powers in refusing to entertain such a defective revision. In the present case, the Deputy Director applied his mind to the explanation offered by the Petitioners and was not satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.
(3.) The learned Counsel invited our attention to the referring order in Writ No. 1412 of 1965, in which a learned Single Judge has referred to a Division Bench the question whether Rule 111 was mandatory. In the view we have taken, this question does not need consideration in the present case. Moreover, that case is distinguishable on facts. There, there was no finding by the Deputy Director that the cause for the delay in filing the copy was not satisfactorily explained.;