Prem Shankar Asopa, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners, who are illiterate persons, have challenged the order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the SDO Laxmangarh, order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar and order dated 6.3.1990 passed by the Board of Revenue. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has dismissed their appeal on the ground that along with the application for condonation of delay, unattested affidavit had been filed against which the petitioners filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed on 6.3.1990 on the ground that as per Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Revenue Court Manual Part -II an affidavit is to be filed along with the application.
(2.) SUBMISSION of Mr. K.K. Mehrish is that the Supreme Court in various pronouncements has said that the word 'shall' is to be beneficially construed as sometimes compliance of the said part of the statute is directory. He further submits that in case of the application for condonation of delay if no affidavit is filed then the same is to be treated as defective and the Court very well can ask the applicant to file another affidavit. In the instant case, the affidavit was filed but the same was unattested therefore, it could have been returned for the attestation but there was no reason to dismiss the appeal as well as the revision petition by the Revenue -Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively on the said technical ground. It appears that the petitioners were not called upon by the Dealing Clerk to remove the defect in the affidavit and the said objection has been urged by the respondents at the time of hearing of the case. Counsel placed reliance on paras 11 and 12 of the Judgment in State of M.P. and another v/s. Pradeep Kumar and another reported in : (2000) 7 SCC 372.
(3.) DR . Khangarot, Addl. GA contends that the petitioners should have been more vigilant at the time of filing of the memo of appeal along with application for condonation of delay and even if the same is not filed then the petitioners ought to have sought time for filing the same but the requirement of the rule is to be complied with. I have gone through contents of the writ petition and further considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.;