JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - In a case under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, pending in the court of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Kalpi, district Jalaun, evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded on November 18, 1978 and without any application of the plaintiff November 25, 1978 was fixed for further evidence of the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the case was transferred to another court, and on November 25, 1978, the transferee court ordered that the case be registered and fixed, on December 14, 1978 for plaintiff's evidence. On that adjourned date the plaintiff's witnesses had not come, but no adjournment application was given by the plaintiff. Instead, the plaintiff filed an application for requisitioning three judicial records and the court mechanically ordered that the records be summoned. The defendant felt aggrieved by this order and went up in revision in the court of the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division. The revision was heard by Shri Kamal Kishore Misra, learned Additional Commissioner, who on February 26, 1980 dismissed the revision on the ground that perhaps there was some purpose in summoning the judicial records, and so the trial court had not committed any illegality or material irregularity. The defendant-revisionist again felt aggrieved by this order and he has come to this court, and has prayed that in view of para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual the summoning of the judicial records without complying with the provisions of para 124 of the aforesaid Manual was absolutely illegal and that order must be set aside. 2. Para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual lays down that judicial records may be summoned by the courts on their own motion or on the application of the parties. In this case, judicial records had not been summoned by the court on its own motion and, therefore, the second part of this sentence applies to this case. 2. Para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual lays down that judicial records may be summoned by the courts on their own motion or on the application of the parties. In this case, judicial records had not been summoned by the court on its own motion and, therefore, the second part of this sentence applies to this case. Para 124 further lays down that if judicial records are to be summoned on the application of the parties, (i) every application shall be accompanied, by an affidavit, (ii) that, affidavit must show how the record is material to the suit, (iii) that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the document or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires and (iv) of that the production of the original is necessary in the interest of justice. Para 124 saddles the court also with a duly that it must satisfy itself that good cause for compliance has been shown and shall state in the requisition that it has done so. Needless to say that in this case the trial court did not at all exercise its mind and had mechanically granted the prayer of the plaintiff. It also did not compel the plaintiff to file an adjournment application because that was a date fixed for evidence and not for summoning the records, Raw and rules are made for guidance of courts and also for compliance. When the courts ignore mandatory law and rules, and act in air arbitrary of mechanical manner, the orders passed by such courts cannot be sustained. 3. The trial court had no jurisdiction to summon the judicial records on the plaintiff's application because the applicant had not been accompanied by an affidavit, because it was not shown by the affidavit as to how the record was material to the suit, because the applicant had now shown that he should not obtain duly authenticated copy of the document or of such portion thereof as he required without any unreasonable delay or expense, because he had nowhere Hated that the production of the original was necessary in the interest of justice, because the trial court had not satisfied itself that good cause for compliance had been shown and also because the trial court had pot stated in the requisition that it had satisfied itself in that manner. As I have stated earlier, the trial court did not at all apply its mind while granting the application. The order passed was written in the handwriting of the Reader and the Presiding Officer had only taken the trouble of signing it at the appointed place. The court of law or any responsible authority is required to function in a legal manner and for their guidance and compliance certain laws, rules and regulations are made. No court of law or authority has power to act arbitrarily and flout mandatory laws, rules and regulations. In this case, the trial court has acted in a manner which leaves no doubt in my mind that it never considered the implication of the application and passed the order in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. 4. As the question involves a substantial point of law and as many Judicial Officers summon judicial records without compliance of para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual, it is necessary to emphasize that while summoning judicial records the revenue courts must keep in view para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and insist that the application for requisitioning any record complies with the provisions of para 124. The court must further satisfy itself that good cause for compliance has been shown and this satisfaction of the court should be stated in the requisition itself. This is only to impress on the revenue courts that summoning of judicial records is not a matter which can be lightly taken and that such records should be summoned only if they are absolutely necessary. 5. The reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner to support the view of the trial court is a strange one and perhaps he also aid not consider para 124 of me U.P. Revenue Court Manual. The learned Additional Commissioner opined that at the time when the trial court passed the order for requisition of the judicial records it was not known as to what would be the utility of the records regarding the evidence to be adduced and, therefore, the order of the trial court was not improper, unjust or against the rules. I have shown that the order of the trial court was against the rules and was improper and was passed without applying its mind. I have shown that the order of the trial court was against the rules and was improper and was passed without applying its mind. It was arbitrary and without jurisdiction and was passed in complete disregard of the mandatory previsions of para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. 6. The order passed by the trial court requires interference and I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated December 14, 1978. If the plaintiff wants to file certain documents or judicial Revenue Court Manual and the court wall records he may separately apply keeping in view the provisions of Para 124 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual and the Court will then pass necessary orders in the light of that, provision. The revision is allowed with costs and Rs. 50/- as counsel's fees.