Surendra Narain Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against an order of the Dy. Director (C) rejecting a revision as incompetent. It appears that the petitioners filed a revision and along with the revision they also filed the order of the SO (C) sought to be revised. When this revision was filed, the opposite party No. 1 sent for the record of the case and issued notice to the contesting opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5. On the date of hearing a preliminary objection was raised that the order of the CO had not been filed as such the revision was incompetent. This technical objection prevailed with the Dy. Director (C) and he dismissed the revision as incompetent.
(2.) The petitioners have coma to this Court and it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in accordance with R -111 as it stood before the amendment of March 1964, it was not necessary to file the copy of the judgment of the CO along with the memo of revision. R. 111 as it than stood reads as follows: - - 111. An application u/S. 48 of the Act shall be drawn up and presented by the applicant or his pleader to the Director or to such other officer as he may appoint in this behalf. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or the order in respect of which the application is made, and by a copy of judgment, if any, upon which the decree or the order is founded. Copies of decrees or orders or judgments of other subordinate authorities shall not be required to be filed unless, for special reasons, filing of these documents is also considered necessary by the Director. A bare glance of this rule would show that filing of the copy of the order of the CO was not mandatory. It could be filed when the Dy. Director (C) considered it necessary. In the present case when the revision was filed the Dy. Director (C) called for the record and when the entire record was before the Dy. Director (C), non -filing of the order of the CO should not have entailed the dismissal of the revision.
(3.) The Dy. Director (C) u/S. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act has jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the subordinate authorities suo motu. Once he summoned the record and the record was before him, it was not proper for the Dy. Director (C) to have rejected the revision on a technical ground which, to my mind, is not justified in view of R. 111 Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood then. Rules of procedure are meant to facilitate justice and not to hamper justice. Even if the Dy. Director (C) found some defect in the presentation of the revision he should have asked the petitioner to remove it & if the petitioner failed to comply with the order, it would have been possible to reject the revision. The Dy. Director (C) having summoned the record in the instant case was not justified in dismissing it on the preliminary objection raised which in my opinion was not sustainable in view of the old R. 111 of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules referred to above.;