JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been urged that even though the Land Management Committee was made a party in the proceedings in compliance with the provisions of Rule 178-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and even if the notice was served on Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha that was no illegality as substantial compliance was made. It has further been urged that the objection of non-impleadment of the Land Management Committee or non-issuance of notice to the Chairman was taken at a late stage whereas in accordance with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 13 C.P.C. such an objection ought to have been taken at an initial stage, hence the impugned orders are erroneous in law. I have considered the arguments and I am of the opinion that as the Land Management Committee was required by law to be impleaded as a necessary party to the proceedings for cancellation of lease deed under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In these proceedings it is obligatory that the notice should be served only on the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and not on the Pradhan. The Board of Revenue was cautious about the fact that the grounds for cancellation of a lease-deed should also be mentioned in the notice and the same was not mentioned, hence the Board of Revenue has remanded the case for decision afresh. I think in this case the notice should have been given to the Chairman of the Land Management Committee with detailed grounds taken against the cancellation of the lease deed. About the objections being taken at the initial stage, I am of the view that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 13 C.P.C. provide that it should be taken before issues are settled. In this case the proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are not similar to that of a regular suit and rather they are summary in nature as it has been provided that the result of the proceedings under Section 198 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act shall be subject to the decision of the regular suit to be filed by the aggrieved party. In this view of the matter, the procedure provided under Order 14 C.P.C. about settlement of issues could not apply to the proceedings under Section 198 (4) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for cancellation of the lease deed. Hence the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not sound. 2. As regards the notice of the case I am satisfied that by the impugned order question has correctly been decided that the Land Management Committee was required to be impleaded as a necessary party pursuance of Rule 171-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, hence notice should also be served on the Chairman, Land Management Committee with the grounds for the cancellation of the lease. The impugned order is perfectly correct. 3. I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.