JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Anant Ram against the order dated September 15, 1969 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Auraiya, district Etawah Calling for suo motu action under Rule 115, UPZA and LR Rules may be dismissed with costs and counsel's fee. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. 3. Basant Lal, Ram Sewak, Dayaram, Seva Ram, Sone Lal, Shri Ram and Gur Narain had moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer requesting for action under Rule 115-N of the UPZA and LR Rules. In this application, Anant Ram, Lakshmi Narain, Mumtaz Khan, Lal Mohammad and the Land Management Committee were arrayed as opposite parties. It was alleged taht the Land Management Committed had made allotment of plots Nos. 280, 292, 66 and 272 which were Gaon Sabha land, in an irregular manner. The Sub-Divisional Officer passes an order on September 15, 1969 to the effect that suo motu proceedings under Rule 115-N may be taken and the opposite parties may be summoned. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. It is noteworthy that the revisionists Anant Ram has only impleaded Lakshmi Narain, Mumtaz Khan, Lal Mohammad and the Land Management Committee as opposite parties in the revision. All these are in fact alleged to be colluding with him in the application filed by Basant Lal and others. Basant Lal and others on whose application the proceedings have been initiated have not been impleaded at all. Thus, the revision is defective. No purpose would be served if this court tries to cure this defect. The revision is clearly aimed at hindering the judicial proceedings. It is evident from the facts that though the Sub-Divisional Officer had ordered for suo motu proceedings on September 15, 1969, the matter could not proceed further though more that nine years have passed because of the revision. Further, no revision in fact lie against the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the order does not constitute 'suit or proceedings decided.' Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act gives the Board of Revenue power of revision only in matters of 'suit or proceedings decided.' The impugned ordered of the Sub-Divisional Officer only commences the proceedings and does not decide them. Thus, no revision lies in the present case. 5. I fully uphold the learned Commissioner's view that the present revision petition is vexatious and frivolous and merely aims at delaying the proceedings. Accepting his recommendation I hereby dismiss the revision with costs and Rs. 20/- as counsel's fee.