Honble ASOPA, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioners, who are illiterate persons, have challenged the order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the S.D.O., Laxmangarh, order dated 7.1.1985 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar and order dated 6.3.1990 passed by the Board of Revenue.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has dismissed their appeal on the ground that along with the application for condonation of delay unattested affidavit had been filed against when the petitioners filed revision petition before the Board of Revenue and the same was dismissed on 6.3.1990 on the ground that as per Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Revenue Court Manual Part-II an affidavit is to be filed along with the application.

3. Submission of Mr. K.K. Mehrish is that the Supreme Court in various pronouncements has said that the word shall is to be beneficially construed as sometimes compliance of the said part of the statute is directory. He further submits that in case of the application for condonation of delay if no affidavit is filed then the same is to be treated as defective and the Court very well can ask the applicant to file another affidavit. In the instant case, the affidavit was filed but the same was unattested, therefore, it could have been returned for attestation but there was no reason to dismiss the appeal as well as the revision petition by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue respectively on the said technical ground. It appears that the petitioners were not called upon by the Dealing Clerk to remove the defect in the affidavit and the said objection has been urged by the respondents at the judgment in State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr., reported in (2000) 7 SCC 372.

4. Dr. Khangarot, Addl. G.A. contends that the petitioners should have been more vigilant at the time of filing of the memo of appeal along with application for condonation of delay and even if the same is not filed then the petitioners ought to have sought time for filing the same but the requirement of the rule is to be complied with.

5. I have gone through contents of the writ petition and further considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

6. Relevant Rule 33 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual-II reads as follows :

"33. Affidavits to accompany certain applications. The following applications shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting out in the form of a narrative the material facts and the circumstances including names and dates where necessary on which the applicant relies, namely :

1. An application for review made on ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence or any other sufficient reasons;

2. An application for stay of execution proceedings;

3. An application for vacating of an order of stay;

4. An application for the attachment before judgment or an injunction;

5. An application for appointment or discharge of a receiver;

6. An application for the re-admission or restoration of an appeal or application dismissed in default of appearance or for the setting aside an ex parte order or decree;

7. An application for substitution of parties or for a note to be made in the record when the legal representative of the party is on the record or when a party has died without leaving any legal representatives;

8. An application for transfer of a case;

9. Applications for appointment of a guardian ad litem next friend;

10. Application by way of complaint against a legal practitioner or Revenue Agent.

11. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

12. Any other application sating all facts on the basis of which an order is sought or any other application which is required by any rules or law to be supported by an affidavit. The Court may call for an affidavit in any other matter coming before it or him."

7. Paras 11 and 12 of the Supreme Court judgment in State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (supra) read as under :

"11. No doubt sub-rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document