JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - In this reference dated May 25, 1982, the learned Commissioner, Faizabad, has recommending that the order of the learned trial court dated January 15, 1982 may be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The impugned order was passed by the learned trial court, presumably under Section 229-B, Z.A. and L.R. act or under Section 10 or 151 C.P.C. to he effect that the mutation proceedings continuing between the same parties about the same subject-matter, be stayed. The learned Commissioner after discussing the various aspect reached the conclusion that the mutation proceedings need not be stayed as these are not covered by Section 10 C.P.C. I agree with the view because, in mutation proceeding submission is on decided in a summary manner, based on possession while in a declaratory suit title is decided and and it is well settled that mutation court's order is not binding in a case under Section 229-B U.P. and L.R. Act. Obviously, the scope of the two cases is different. For this reason, neither Section 10 nor Section 151 C.P.C. would be applicable. 4. However, I may also observe that the learned Court where mutation case was pending should not have taken so much time and should have decided it indeed in a summary manner as it the intention of the law. When both cases are pending, one under Section 229-B, Z.A. and L.R. Act and the order under Section 34, Land Revenue act,and it is known that the mutation order will have no effect on the decision of the declaratory suit, mot of the value of the mutation proceedings is immediately lost 5. Accordingly, I accept the reference, set aside the order of the learned trial court dated January 15, 1982, and remanded the case to the learned trial court for further proceedings. It may incidentally be mentioned that the learned trial court having the mutation case before it, should try to decided the same summarily and expeditiously for obvious reasons.