ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - The dispute in the present case is in respect of plot Nos. 471 area 16 biswa, 4.73 area 12 biswa 16 dhur and 474 area 8 biswa 9 dhur. 2. Babu Nandan and others filed an objection claiming to be the sirdars of these plots. This was registered as one objection. The other objection was filed by Ram Ker in respect of the same three plots. It was registered as another objection. As a matter of fact the two objections were in respect of the three disputed plots and should have been considered to be one case. Since these objections were treated as two cases after the decision of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowed the appeals and aggrieved with the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) two second appeals were filed by the Petitioners. One appeal was complete in all respects and all the relevant copies of judgments had been filed. In another appeal the copy of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was not filed. 3. At the hearing of the second appeal a preliminary objection was raised that one appeal was incompetent became all the judgments of the subordinate authorities had not been filed. Reliance was placed on para. 161 of the Revenue Court Manual. The Dy. Director accepted the preliminary objection and dismissed one of the appeals and dismissed the other appeal on the ground of res judicata. 4. The Petitioners preferred a revision before the Director which was dismissed as not maintainable. However, the decision of the revision as not maintainable will not affect the claim of the, Petitioners in the present writ petition. 5. The Petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the order of the Director as well as that of the Dy. Director in this petition. The petition filed in this Court is well within time. Since the Petitioners were bonafidely agitating the matter before the Director and the question whether the revision was maintainable or not was a highly disputed question, rather at one stage this Court had ruled that such revisions were maintainable. In such circumstances I have decided to look into the merits of the second appellate order itself. 6. The order of the Dy. In such circumstances I have decided to look into the merits of the second appellate order itself. 6. The order of the Dy. Director in my opinion is unsustainable as I have already stated above that on the facts of this case it is really one case and not two cases and one appeal was in my opinion competent without filing another appeal. The Dy. Director has taken too technical a view of the matter and has not exercised his jurisdiction properly. Para. 161 of the Revenue Court Manual in my opinion could not be applied in proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. There is R. Ill which provides for the filing of the judgments of the subordinate authorities so far as revisions are concerned. No other rule has been shown or referred in the judgment of the Dy. Director under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. Since one of the appeals was complete in all respects the Dy. Director could have done well in dispensing with the copy of the judgment in the other case. I have always emphasised that consolidation authorities should look more to the substance rather than to the technicalities for they are not bound by the CPC or Evidence Act. The Dy. Director in my opinion committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not entertaining the appeal which was complete in all respects, for in my opinion the Appellant could have filed only one appeal against the orders of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). 7. In the result this petition is allowed, the order of the Dy. Director dated the 15th February, 1963 is hereby quashed and the Dy. Director is directed to decide the appeal on merits. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.