JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision for admission with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated June 20, 1983 and affidavit filed on August 14, 1983 filed on May 20, 1983. The revision was filed on October 5, 1983 against order of learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal No. 132 of 1978-78/Aligarh. Application for filing the copy of trial court's judgment was moved on August 3, 1983. Copy of judgment of learned Additional Commissioner was filed along with the memorandum of revision filed on October 5, 1983 but it did not contain folio which was also filed on August 20, 1983. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties for hearing regarding application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act supported with affidavit. Vakalatnama for O.P. No. 13 to 26 has been filed today and opposite parties No. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10 have got personal service for today. Services on the rest are by affixation after refusal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for opposite parties No. 13 to 26 supported by learned counsel for the applicant. 5. It has been argued that the revision application was within time that Rule 185 of Revenue Court Manual does not require filing of the copy of the decrees; that the trial court's file was not traceable, hence copy of the judgment could not be filed earlier; that the copy of the learned Additional Commissioner's judgments filed. The folio was missing, a new copy has been filed, therefore, delay in filing the copies be condoned as the revision application was filed on October 5, 1983 which was within 3 years time. Reliance has been placed on 1983 R.D. page 260 and 1956 R.D. page 203. 6. The revision has been filed within 3 years and is within time as residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act is applicable as has been held by the Full Bench of the Board in Dulha Mian v. Gaon Sabha, 1983 R.D. 300. 7. The memo of appeal was accompanied with copy of judgment of learned Additional Commissioner's court. The folio was reported to be missing, therefore, fresh copy was been filed on February 23, 1983 alongwith the judgment of the trial court. 7. The memo of appeal was accompanied with copy of judgment of learned Additional Commissioner's court. The folio was reported to be missing, therefore, fresh copy was been filed on February 23, 1983 alongwith the judgment of the trial court. The delay in filing the fresh copy of the Additional Commissioner's judgment and trial court's judgment is condoned as sufficient and reasonable cause has been shown per affidavit filed. 8. The copy of the decree of the court of the learned Additional Commissioner has not been filed and it has been argued relying on Rule 185 of the Revenue Court Manual on Sukhroo v. S. Badshah Husain 1956 R.D. 203. In 1956 R.D. page 203 (supra) it has been held as follows:- "It is true that Rule 185 of the Revenue Court Manual lays down that a petition for revision must be accompanied with a copy of the order of be revised and also the order of the subordinate court giving rise to the order sought to be revised. But in the case of revision, if it is found that grounds on the basis of which the case must be submitted to the Board, and is so submitted, it cannot be thrown out merely on this technical ground." 10. This ruling is not applicable to the present case because copy of trial court's judgment has been filed and delay has been condoned. Rule 185 of the Revenue Court Manual runs as follows Rule 185. Form of Application- "Every application for revision shall be drawn up in the manner prescribed for memorandum of appeal, and shall be accompanied by copies of the decree or order and judgment sought to be revised and also by copies of the judgments, if any, of subordinate courts giving rise to the decree or order sought to be revised. If the application for revision if filed by a counsel on behalf of the applicant, he shall file a fresh Vakalatnama irrespective of the fact that one was filed by him in the court whose order is sought to be revised." This rule provides that revision application shall be in the manner prescribed for memorandum of appeal. If further provides that the memo shall be accompanied by copies of the decree or order and a judgment sought to be revised and also by copies of the judgment, if any, of the subordinate courts. If further provides that the memo shall be accompanied by copies of the decree or order and a judgment sought to be revised and also by copies of the judgment, if any, of the subordinate courts. It lays down that if decree is sought to be revised its copy shall accompany and if order is sought to be revised its copy shall accompany the memo and the use of word and judgment sought to be revised shall also accompany the memo. They can note that if there is a decree its copy shall accompany and there is an order and decree is not prepared copy of that order shall accompany the memo and the copy of the judgment sought to be revised aloingwith the copies of judgments of the sub-ordinate court shall also accompany the memko of revision. It no where lays down that if there is a decree based on a judgment copy of the decree shall not accompany the memo of revision. Rather it clearly lays down that the copy of the decree sought to be revised shall mandatorily accompany the memo of revision. 11. In the present case the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court have been sought to be revised, therefore, copy of the decree is required mandatorily to accompany the memo of revision which has not been complied with so far rule 185 has been wrongly relied upon to the contrary. It is wrong to submit that decree or order mentioned in the rule mean a copy of the judgment or order to be revised. Both the words mean that where decree is sought to be revised its copy also accompany along with the copy of the judgment sought to be revised and the word 'order' means order sought to be revised where decree is not prepared and does not cannote judgments sought to be revised without copy of the decree. 12. As copy of the decree has not been filed as yet and was not filed with the memo of the revision and ruling of 1956 R.D. (supra) is not all applicable. The revision application is incompetent, therefore, it is not admitted and is hereby rejected.