ORDER B.N. Nigam, J. - Srimati Indrani Kunwar (now succeeded by Mata Prasad and two others) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by opposite-party No. 3, the Assessing Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Maudaha, district Hamirpur, the order passed by opposite party No. 2, the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and the order passed by opposite-party No. 1, the Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow, copies being annexures 1, 2 and 4 respectively. 2. In the petition I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Junior Standing Counsel. 3. The Petitioner states that her deceased husband had holdings in different villages in tahsils of Maudaha and Mahoba in the district of Hamirpur. There was a private partition between the Petitioner and her sons. The Petitioner received a notice u/s 7 of the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act, 1957. The Petitioner contested the notice. Her objection was dismissed by opposite party 3 on 30-12-1960. The Petitioner preferred an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the memorandum of appeal was not signed by the Petitioner herself but by her general agent. The Petitioner preferred a revision. This revision application has also been dismissed. It has been held by the Board of Revenue that the non-signing of the appeal by the Petitioner was a fatal defect. 4. The learned Junior Standing Counsel has taken his stand on the forms at the end of the rules framed under the U.P. Large Land Holdings Tax Act. Reliance is placed on note 2 to form L.L.H.T. 6. This note indicates that in case of an individual the appeal and the verification should be signed by the individual himself or herself. The blanks have to be filled in the form and the Appellant is given the option to cancel either paragraph 4 or 5. A concise statement of additional facts may be added. Even the prayer may be adopted as necessary. In these circumstances I am of opinion that the form only provides a guide and is not to be adhered to rigidly. If that be so, then the signature by a general agent or even a duly constituted counsel would be sufficient for preferring an appeal. In my opinion, the note is more in the nature of a guidance rather than a mandatory injunction. 5. If that be so, then the signature by a general agent or even a duly constituted counsel would be sufficient for preferring an appeal. In my opinion, the note is more in the nature of a guidance rather than a mandatory injunction. 5. Even if I were to accept the contention of the learned Junior Standing Counsel and the view of the Board of Revenue that the from must be strictly adhered to and in case of departure from the form, the appeal would be incompetent, it appears to me that it was only right and proper that the memorandum of appeal should have been rejected on the day it was presented so that the Appellant could have remedied the defect and presented either that memoradum of appeal after remedying the defect or another memorandum of appeal within the period of limitation or beyond it but accompanied by an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It cannot be countenanced that the act of court should cause prejudice to either party. Before rejecting the memorandum of appeal the learned Commissioner should have relegated the parties to the position they occupied on the date the appeal was presented and accepted as indicated in the office report. In the circumstances I am of opinion that irrespective of the view as regards the mandatory character of the form, the orders of the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue must be quashed. I, therefore, quash them and direct the restoration of the appeal in the court of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division with the direction that if the Commissioner is of the opinion that this defect is fatal, he should call upon the Appellant to remove the detect within the time allowed by him. 6. The writ petition is allowed in terms above. There will be no order as to costs.