Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE landlady filed an appeal against the order of allotment. THE memorandum of appeal was signed by the counsel. After more than a year of its institution the landlady made an application that by oversight the memorandum of appeal was not signed by her but only by her counsel and that she may be permitted to sign it. This application was allowed.
(2.) AGGRIEVED the allottee has come up to this Court in revision. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Rule 7 (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972, is mandatory, that it specifically provides that every memorandum of appeal shall be signed by the appellant and his counsel and that the memo, in the present case not having been signed by the appellant was not entertainable. According to the learned counsel the defect could not be cured by permitting the appellant to sign it subsequently. Rule 7 lays down a rule of procedure. Its breach would, in my opinion, not make the memorandum of appeal void. In any event, it was also the duty of the court when entertaining the memorandum of appeal to see that it was not defective. It should have drawn the attention of the appellant to this defect. If that had been done, the appellant would have signed the memo at that time itself. The finding is that there has been a bona fide mistake by the counsel in not getting the memorandum of appeal signed by the appellant. In view of this finding the act of the court in granting permission to the landlady to sign the memo cannot be said to disclose any error of jurisdiction. 1 am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs. Revision dismissed;