Short Note : 1. Order 22 in terms applies only to suits and appeals. For the purpose of Order 22, a suit must be taken as one meaning a suit instituted by the presentation of a plaint as laid down in the Explanation to section 3 of the Limitation Act. Proceedings under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act are not suit proceedings. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to proceeding under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act taking those proceedings as suit proceedings in reality or fictional under the Code of Civil Procedure. The award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was in the nature of an offer and once a reference is made under section 18 the Court has to render an award under section 26. Under section 20, the Court is required to give notice of the hearing of the objection. The reference thus made cannot be dismissed for any reason of default or abatement. The burden to prove that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate or erroneous is on the party objecting the award. Therefore, if for any reason the party objecting to the award did not appear before the Court, the result would be that he had failed to discharge the burden resting on him. But the Court under section 26 must render an award. The finality of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer is wholly destroyed when a reference under section 18 is made. The application of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is altogether inconsistent with the very nature and scope of proceedings under section 18. The procedure to be followed when the objector died did not present any difficulty. A notice must be given to the legal representatives and it is the duty of the Government to supply to the Court the names and addresses of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant to enable the Court to issue fresh notices to them under section 20. 2. This being the position in law, the award rendered by the Additional District Judge could not be said to be a nullity. 2. This being the position in law, the award rendered by the Additional District Judge could not be said to be a nullity. It is true that notices were not issued to the legal representatives but the award seems to be in favour of the legal representatives and they can have no legitimate grievance about the non-service of notice on them nor have they made any such grievance at any time before us. 3. The Additional District Judge was bound to render the award and the fact that the substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased was not made before the award was made would not be a fatal defect. When the appeal was filed against the award since the name of Ishwarsingh was there on record, an appeal had to be filed making him as a respondent. The fact of death of Ishwarsingh was revealed when the summons was returned and it is then that the State moved for taking action. The State has, in the alternative, prayed that the legal representatives be brought on record. We see no difficulty in bringing the legal representatives of deceased lshwarsingh on record in view of the application made. Since the award did not abate, the question of setting aside abatement does not arise. We accordingly order that Smt. Rajkuwarbai be brought on record as the legal representative of Ishwarsingh. Abdul Karim v. State of M.P. 1964 JLJ 205 relied on. Appeal dismissed on merits.