JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is an application for review of the order dated May 15, 1972 passed by Shri Ram Sahay, Member, Board of Revenue since retired, in revision No. 346 of 1971-72/district Basti. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The impugned order of the learned Member is in two parts. The first rejects the application filed by Jhinkoo and Bhagwati to the effect that the revision be dismissed. This application was rejected on the ground that the application did not bear any stamp. The second part is to the effect that the revision be deposited as incomplete on the ground that copy of the order of the S.D.O. had not been filed. It is this portion of the order, which has been challenged in the review petition. 4. The grounds taken in the review portion are firstly that the revision was summarily dismissed without giving any intimation to the revisionist of his counsel; and secondly, that the learned Member had committed irregularity and illegality in not deciding the case on merits. 5. The procedure dealing with the revisions before the Board of Revenue is given in rules 185 to 197 of the Revenue Court Manual. It may first of all be stated that revision is not a right of any party. It is only the power of the Board of Revenue to call for the period of any suit or proceeding decided by a subordinate court and to pass such orders as it thinks fit. Thus, it cannot be taken for granted that the Board of Revenue shall exercise this power of revision in each case, without exercising its judicial discretion. Before the Board can exercise its judicial discretion in the matter, it is necessary that the party filing the revision must comply with the prescribed procedure. Rule 195 clearly lays down that the application for revision shall be accompanied by copies of order of subordinate courts, which have been passed in the matter. The use of the word 'shall' in this rule means that the filing of the copies of the orders of the subordinate courts is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with, nor can the omission be condoned as a minor irregularity. The use of the word 'shall' in this rule means that the filing of the copies of the orders of the subordinate courts is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with, nor can the omission be condoned as a minor irregularity. Where the copies of the orders of the subordinate courts have not been filed, the revision is not maintainable and must be dismissed as incomplete. The question of giving an opportunity of being heard to the revisionist does not arise in such a case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited reference to a Full Bench decision in Ishwari v. Jugnu 1975 R.D. 156 which lays down that it would not be necessary to file certified copies of decrees and judgments with the review applications, but this decision is with reference to applications for review and not for applications for revision. This decision lays down that the procedure as laid down in Rule 165 of the Revenue Court Manual for filing appeals and revisions is not binding with the same force, rigidity and rigour to applications for review. The requirement that every application for revision shall be accompanied by copies of the judgments, if any, of the subordinate court giving rise to the order or decree sought to be revised is mandatory. Where this requirement has not been fulfilled, the Board is entitled to deposit the revision as incomplete. 7. No apparent error in the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Shri Ram Sahay, has been shown, nor is there any other sufficient cause for entertaining the present revision application. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss it.