JUDGMENT Jagdish Sahai, J. - This case has come to us on reference made by Beg, J. on 23rd of July, 1965. The question is whether the provisions of the rules framed under Section 234 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act hereinafter called the Revenue Act, are applicable in second appeals filed under Section 11 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. At the relevant time there was no provision either under the Act or the rules framed thereunder requiring certified or true copies of the orders sought to be set aside in appeal being filed along with the memorandums of appeals filed under Section 11 (2) of the Act. 3. On the basis of the rules trained under Section 234 of the Revenue Act, it was contended that such copies should be filed and, if not filed, the, appeal is incompetent. 4. Sec. 41 of the Act provides that "unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 shall apply to all proceedings including appeals and applications under this Act." Chapter IX of the Revenue Act deals with procedure to be followed in revenue Courts and by revenue officers, while Chapter X deals with appeals reference and revision. In none of the sections forming part of Chapters IX and X is there any provision to the effect that a memorandum of a second appeal should be accompanied by a copy of the judgment of the trial court. Rule 161, which has been framed under the provisions of Section 234 of the Revenue Act, however, provides that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by copies of the decree of order appealed from and of the judgments or orders passed in the case by all the courts subordinate to the Court to which the memorandum of appeal is presented. 5. Sec. 234 of the Revenue Act does not find place in Chapters IX and X of that Act. For this reason any rule or any set of rules framed under Section 234 of the Revenue Act cannot be made applicable to the proceedings under the Act by virtue of Section 41 of the Act or by virtue of any other provision contained in the Act. For this reason any rule or any set of rules framed under Section 234 of the Revenue Act cannot be made applicable to the proceedings under the Act by virtue of Section 41 of the Act or by virtue of any other provision contained in the Act. Sec. 54 (2) of the Act authorises the State Government to frame rules for the purposes of the Act. The State Government has framed rules and Rule Ill so framed deals with the presentation of revisions. There was, however, at the relevant time no provision with regard to appeals or second appeals. Consequently, in our opinion, it was not necessary that the memorandum of appeal or second appeal should be accompanied by copies of orders of the authorities subordinate to the authority to which the appeal was presented. Actually no rule has been framed under Section 54 (1) of the Act which at the relevant time required the filing of the copy of the judgment appealed against. In his referring order Beg, J., has stated that if the view that the filing of the judgment is not necessary is taken, the office of the Court or authority in which the appeal is presented would find it difficult, if not impossible, to report about the period of limitation and the appellate Court might find it difficult to decide the question of limitation or questions relating to merits of the case. 6. Clearly grounds of convenience cannot be allowed to require filing of the copies in the absence of such a rule. Besides, there can be no practical inconvenience if the matter is properly analysed. After all, the record of the subordinate court would be before the appellate court and the record would contain not only the judgment sought to be appealed against, but the entire proceedings. The date on which the copy of the judgment was applied for and the date on which it was supplied can also be ascertained. Therefore, there can be no difficulty either in deciding the question of limitation or of merits. 7. The law, at it stood at the relevant time, permitted the filing of a second appeal, but did not require the filing of the copies. If the Legislature and the rule-making authority in their wisdom did not require the filing of the copies, this Court cannot on the grounds of so-called convenience insist on their filing. 7. The law, at it stood at the relevant time, permitted the filing of a second appeal, but did not require the filing of the copies. If the Legislature and the rule-making authority in their wisdom did not require the filing of the copies, this Court cannot on the grounds of so-called convenience insist on their filing. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it was not necessary to file the copies. The view that we have taken has not been contested on behalf of the respondents. 8. We, therefore, allow this writ petition, quash the order of the District Deputy Director dated 26th of September, 1962, and that of the Commissioner. Faizabad Division, dated 15-1-1963, and direct that the second appeal shall be heard on merits by the District Deputy Director, Consolidation. The parties shall bear their own costs.