JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 7.12.90, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer, by which he rejected the application of the petitioner dated 1.12.90. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff- petitioner was suspended by the Government vide order dated 26.9.90 and he was informed on the same by letter and also by publication of the same in news-papers. Another person was appointed on the post of the petitioner. Later on, on 5.10.90, the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the non- petitioners. Alongwith the plaint, he also filed an application for temporary injunction. The non-petitioners filed reply to the said application on 6.10.90 and contested the application. The trial court vide its order dated 7.11.90 allowed the application for temporary injunction and directed the non-petitioners not to disturb the petitioner where he was already serving before his suspension. Against this order of learned trial court, the non- petitioners filed a miscellaneous appeal before the learned District Judge, Ajmer, on 8.11.90. The memo of appeal was signed by the officer-in-charge appointed by the Government in this connection. The appeal was presented in the court of District Judge, Ajmer, by Shri Basant Vijayavargia, who was Public Prosecutor/Government Advocate on that day. The petitioner on 1.12.90, submitted an application that the appeal has not been properly filed as the non-petitioners have not complied with the Rules 137 and 138 of the Rajasthan Law and Judicial Department Manual, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Manual'), as such the appeal is not competent and deserves to be dismissed only on this ground. The learned District Judge, vide its order dated 7.12.90, rejected the said application. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff petitioner has come in revision. It has been argued by Shri Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was presented by Shri Basht Vijayvargia without following procedure prescribed in Rules 137 and 138 of the Manual and as such deserves to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, Shri Garg, Government Advocate argued that Rules 137 and 138 of the Manual will apply only when there is no urgency in the case. in the present case the trial court Vide its order dated 7.11.90 directed the non-petitioners not to disturb the plaintiff petitioner from the post where he was serving before his suspension. 4. On the other hand, Shri Garg, Government Advocate argued that Rules 137 and 138 of the Manual will apply only when there is no urgency in the case. in the present case the trial court Vide its order dated 7.11.90 directed the non-petitioners not to disturb the plaintiff petitioner from the post where he was serving before his suspension. He submits that soon after the suspension of the petitioner another person was posted at his place and under these circumstances it was a urgent matter. He has further drawn my attention to sub-rule (2) of Rule 23 of the Manual which prescribes that the Public Prosecutor shall advice the Collector and departmental officers in civil matters of an urgent nature whenever there is no.time to make a reference to the Legal Remembrancer and shall further render them such assistance as is required under these rules in matters connected with suits and appeals filed or proposed to be filed by or against Government within the Public Prosecutor's jurisdiction. 5. He submits that as the matter was urgent, therefore, the appeal was filed immediately on 8th November, and the same was reported to the Collector, Ajmer, the same day and the Collector has also granted sanction for the same. He further argued that whether there was proper compliance of Rules 137 or 138 or not is an internal matter of the Government and the. petitioner has nothing to do with it. He submits that there is not illegality or irregularity in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. He argued that the application and the present revision were filed malafide to prolong litigation which deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs. 6. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that the appeal filed by the non- petitioners before the first appellate court cannot be dismissed on the ground that the non-petitioners did not comply with the rules 137 and 138 of the Manual. The aforesaid rules are for the guidance of the Government and its officers and the plaintiff- petitioner has nothing to do with them. There is no illegality and irregularity in the order passed by the lower court. 7. Consequently, the revision is dismissed with costs amounting to Rs.500/-.Revision Dismissed. *******