JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad dated 20.10.1991. The learned Addl. Commissioner has passed that order in Appeal No. 32 of 1990-91 in a proceeding arising out of a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant have been heard on admission. By the impugned order the learned Addl. Commissioner has not recommended the appeal and has dismissed it, against which this appeal has been filed here. 3. The main dispute is that there was suit between Smt. Bashiran and Munna for petition of holding. After a preliminary decree Smt. Bashiran had died. Munna claimed that he is heir of Smt. Bshiran therefore, whole property has vested in him and there is no point now for preparation of lots. Smt. Hamseeran and Smt. Akbari Devi filed application that they are daughters of Smt. Bashiran, hence the lots should be prepared. They also alleged that their names has been mutated in place of Smt. Bashiran in mutation proceeding. 4. The learned trial court dismissed the suit that till the question of heirship is not decided the suit is abated and the file should be consigned. 5. Against the order appeal was filed. The learned Addl. Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court and directed that the trial court should prepare the lot in accordance with law point laid down in 1988 R.D. page 193. Against this, this second appeal has been filed. 6. During the pendency of the proceeding if any party dies the proceeding cannot be abated on the ground of dispute of the heirship. For purpose of that proceeding that court should implead the legal heirs after proper inquiry. In these circumstances the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner is perfectly legal and valid. The order of the learned trial court is against the law. There is no illegality in the order of the lower appellate court not any question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence it is summarily rejected. The trial court may substitute the legal heirs in accordance with law.