JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, M. - This is a revision against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Disivion, Meerut dated 17.12.1986 rejecting the revision of the revisionist Yamin against the order of the Addl. Collector, Muzaffarnagar dated 4.3.1986 through which the application for substitution moved by the opposite party Ali Baz and others was allowed. 2. The facts of the case in short are that Yamin applied to the Collector under Section 198 (4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for the cancellation of patta of respondent No. 1 Ali Baz and other persons on certain ground of irregularities. This application was forwarded to the S.D.O. for making inquiry. During pendency of this inquiry pattedar at SI. Nos. 13, 50, 60 and 65 passed away. An application for substitution of the heirs of these deceased persons was moved with some delay but it was allowed by the Collector and he again sent back the file to the S.D.O. for further inquiry. This order was challenged in revision but it was upheld, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the Civil Procedure Code is fully applicable to these cases of cancellation, of patta and, therefore, the application for substitution was required to have been moved as contemplated under order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. and the entire procedure would have been followed meticulously. He further argued that in the instant case no application for condonation of delay was moved, hence the application for substitution was liable to be rejected and has been wrongly allowed. 5. The learned counsel for the Opp. Party contended that this revision as well as the revision before the Addl. Commissioner are misconceived because no regular case has yet started before the Collector and he has not yet taken cognizance of the matter. On the application of Alibaz he did not issue any notice to the Pattadars and instead sent the file to the S.D.O. for inquiry under the impression that he would take cognizance if he was satisfied from the report of the S.D.O. that any prima facie case was made out for the cancellation of the patta. On the application of Alibaz he did not issue any notice to the Pattadars and instead sent the file to the S.D.O. for inquiry under the impression that he would take cognizance if he was satisfied from the report of the S.D.O. that any prima facie case was made out for the cancellation of the patta. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel provisions for the abatement or substitution as required under order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C. are not attracted at all as they required only during a regular proceeding. 6. In my opinion there is a force in the argument advanced on behalf of the opposite party. The Collector has not yet taken cognizance and has merely awaited report of the S.D.O. for considering whether any prima facie case is made out for the cancellation of the patta. Such inquiry is, therefore, not a regular proceeding or a suit and, therefore, no question of abatement or substitution arises in such a matter. There is, therefore, no irregularity in the order of the Addl. Collector and it need not be disturbed. 7. This revision is, therefore, without any force and is rejected. Let the record be sent back to the Collector with the direction that he should hold the inquiry by himself because the Z.A. Act does not contemplate any inquiry to be done by any sub-ordinate court or any officer. Both the parties shall appear before the Collector on 17.1.1990.