ORDER B.D. Agarwal, J. -This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Camp Mirzapur dated Dec. 18, 1970. 2. Briefly the facts relevant to Hie point in issue may be stated. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Gopiganj, the petitioners filed 15 appeals in the court of Asstt. Settlement Officer (Consolidation). All these 15 appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated June 21, 1969 by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Aggrieved, the petitioners filed fifteen revisions before the Deputy Director of Consolidation at Varanasi. All these revisions were filed on Aug. 12, 1969. The memo-randa of revisions of all these fifteen revisions were accompanied by certified copies of the judgment of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) which as has already been noticed above was a common judgment deciding all the fifteen appeals. Since the certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer were not available on the date when the revisions were filed, though they had been applied for earlier within limitation, these certified copies could not be accompanied with the memorandum of revisions. In all these fifteen revisions the petitioners filed applications praying for grant of time to file certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer at a later date after being available. These revisions came up for hearing before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on Dec. 18, 1970. At the time when the revisions were taken up for hearing on behalf of the petitioners thirteen certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer which had by then been received, were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer in respect of the other two cases had not by then been received and hence could not be filed on that date. At the hearing a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that all these fifteen revisions were liable to be dismissed for want oi certified copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer having been filed along with the revisions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld this preliminary objection and dismissed all these fifteen revisions as being incompetent by his common order dated Dec. 18, 1970 which has been impugned in the present petition. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld this preliminary objection and dismissed all these fifteen revisions as being incompetent by his common order dated Dec. 18, 1970 which has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition must be allowed. 4. Rule 111 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules made under Section 54 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads thus :- 111. "An application under Section 48 of the Act shall be presented by the applicant or his duly authorised agent to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation within 30 days of the order against which the application is directed. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment and order in respect of which the application is preferred. Copies of judgments and orders, if any, of other subordinate authorities in respect of the dispute shall also be filed along with the application. The Consolidation Officer shall also check it to satisfy himself that the work has been correctly done." 5. An analysis of this rule makes it clear that a revision application under Section 48 of the Act has to be filed within 30 days of the order against which the revision is directed. The rule further requires that the memorandum of revision shall be accompanied by a copy of the judgment and order in respect of which the application is preferred. This rule further requires that copies of judgments and orders, if any, of other subordinate authorities in respect of the dispute shall also be filed along with the application. Therefore, the requirement of the rule, in so far as the filing of a copy of the judgment and order against which the revision is preferred, is concerned it is clear that such copy of the judgment and order must accompany the memorandum of revision. The word 'accompany used in this part of the rule is significant. So far as the other requirement of filing the copies of judgments and orders of other subordinate authorities is concerned, the rule only requires such copies of judgments and orders to be filed along with the application. The word 'accompany is significantly absent so far as this requirement is concerned. So far as the other requirement of filing the copies of judgments and orders of other subordinate authorities is concerned, the rule only requires such copies of judgments and orders to be filed along with the application. The word 'accompany is significantly absent so far as this requirement is concerned. The rule making authority by not using the word 'accompany in this latter part of the requirement must be intended to mean the rule as not requiring such copies of judgments and orders of subordinate authorities necessarily to accompany the memorandum of revision. The rule so read is on the face of it salutary in nature. The intention of the rule making authority appears to be that though the judgment and order under revision alone is necessarily required to accompany the memorandum of revision; but, copies of the other judgments and orders be also made available to the revisional authority at the time when the matter comes up for consideration before the authority. In the present case, it is unnecessary for me to finally indicate any opinion on the question as to whether a revision which is not accompanied by a copy of the judgment and order under revision at the time when the revision is filed would or would not be a competent revision. As already noticed above, the question in the present case is as to whether the non-filing of the copies of the judgments and orders of the Consolidation Officer along with the revisions when they were filed, would render the revisions as in-competent and not maintainable. 6. On reading of the rule and as already analysed by me above, I am clearly of the opinion that filing of copies of judgments and orders of other subordinate authorities in respect of the dispute though necessary to be filed before the revision is taken up for consideration by the revisional authority, need not necessarily accompany the memorandum of revision at the time when the revision is filed. 7. In Jagdeo Prasad v. Asst. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow. 1975 Rev. Dec. 277, the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer had been filed and was available before the Assistant Director of Consolidation on the date of hearing of the revision. 7. In Jagdeo Prasad v. Asst. Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow. 1975 Rev. Dec. 277, the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer had been filed and was available before the Assistant Director of Consolidation on the date of hearing of the revision. The learned single Judge of this Court held that the revision was not rendered incompetent merely because the copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer did not accompany the revision application when it was filed. It was held that justice required that the Assistant Director should have decided the dispute on merits. 8. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed manifest error in law in rejecting all the fifteen revisions as incompetent, merely because the copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer had not been filed along with the revision applications. 9. It must further be noted that, in the instant case, as already noticed above though the judgment of the Consolidation Officer was a common judgment, thirteen copies of this judgment were filed in respect of thirteen revisions. Actually at the time of filing of all the fifteen revision applications had been made for grant of time to file copies of the order of the Consolidation Officer, when available. No orders were passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on these applications. The copies of the Judgment of the Consolidation Officer in the other two cases could not be filed by the petitioners as these copies were not available. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed all the revisions solely on the ground that the filing of the copies of the judgments of the Consolidation Officer on any date after the date of filing of the revision application was immaterial as according to him the requirement of Rule 111 of the Act was that these copies must have accompanied the revision applications. 10. This writ petition is, hence, allowed. The judgment and order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated Dec. 18,1970 is quashed. He is directed to decide all the fifteen revisions on merits in accordance with law. The copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer already filed by the petitioners in the thirteen revisions shall be taken on record as a part of the memorandum of revisions. 18,1970 is quashed. He is directed to decide all the fifteen revisions on merits in accordance with law. The copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer already filed by the petitioners in the thirteen revisions shall be taken on record as a part of the memorandum of revisions. He is further directed to permit the petitioners to file the copies of the judgment of the Consolidation Officer in the other two revisions, before the revisions are taken up for consideration by him on merits, on a date of which adequate notice would be given to the petitioners and the opposite parties. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.