S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THIS is a writ petition which clearly exhibits how people of this State are litigation minded. This is a case wherefrom it is clearly borne out that the litigants in the State do not like to see that any order of judicial Court or revenue Court or administrative authorities remain unchallenged. The litigation of this nature which is coming up in the courts is suggestive of the fact that the litigants are not properly advised. It is not as if every adverse order passed by the Courts below or authorities may have effect or result in causing prejudice to the party if it is not challenged. The purpose and object of holding legal literacy camps may also be to see that this class of litigants are made known and understand that every order of the Courts or authorities needs not be challenged. ( 3 ) THIS litigation arise out of transactions, i. e. agreement to sell in respect of the disputed land executed between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents No. 6 and 7 on the other. As usual, the dispute has arisen between the parties aforesaid which gave rise to filing of suit by petitioner being Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 1986 before the Civil judge (S. D.), Junagadh, for specific performance of agreement to sell. That suit is pending. It appears that the owner of the land, on 22nd April, 1988, executed a sale-deed of the land in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5. On the application of the petitioner in the civil Suit, those three persons were impleaded as defendants. In the suit, temporary injunction has also been granted to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. ( 4 ) ON the basis of sale-deed, what learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without notice to the petitioner, the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 got this land mutated in their favour in revenue records. In the suit, temporary injunction has also been granted to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property. ( 4 ) ON the basis of sale-deed, what learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without notice to the petitioner, the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 got this land mutated in their favour in revenue records. So though whatever orders passed by the revenue Court, on the basis of sale-deed which is the subject matter of challenge in the civil Court are subject to decision of the civil Court, but as what I said earlier, the petitioner has started litigating before the revenue Courts in the matter of correction of entries in the revenue record of this land and which resulted in two appeals, then revision and two special civil applications before this Court, including the present one. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the appellate authority in this case has found that the land has been wrongly entered in the revenue Court, in the name of respondents Nos. 3 to 5, but still that entry was not ordered to be struck of. On being asked by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy how this order will cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the entry made in the revenue record of the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 as holder of this land on the basis of sale-deed is an entry made in summary proceedings. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this entry is conclusive on the right and interest of the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 5 with respect to land is dispute but it is not correct. Even if this is the nature of entry, the same has been made without notice to the petitioner and the appellate authority should have ordered for its striking of, I fail to see how any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in case it continues in the revenue records. Only apprehension shown by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of this entry, in the revenue record the respondents No. 3 to 5 may alienate or transfer this land further. Only apprehension shown by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of this entry, in the revenue record the respondents No. 3 to 5 may alienate or transfer this land further. I fail to see any justification in this contention and the reasons are, firstly, that independently of this entry, the respondents No. 3 to 5 can sell this land and secondly, whatever the further transactions are being made, pending the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance for agreement to sell, will be subject to the decision of the Court. The civil Court has already protected the petitioner by grant of interim relief to maintain status quo in respect of property. That interim relief granted by the Court, if the petitioner feels is not sufficient or binding on respondents No. 3 to 5, proper course would have been for him to approach Civil Court with appropriate application rather than to approach this Court by way of this special civil application. It is not in dispute that the entries in the revenue record in respect of land in dispute has been made in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5 only on the basis of the sale-deed. Whatever the entries made in revenue record are made pending the decision of the matter in civil Court. I am of the opinion that they are always subject to decision of the civil Court. If ultimately suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement to sell is decreed, then this sale deed in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5 will go and as a result thereof, and in fact, a consequential order has to be made on simply informing by the petitioner to the revenue authorities of the correction of the revenue entries. For this, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has to take any separate proceedings. The revenue authority when it is approached by some person for correction of entries in revenue record in respect of land in dispute would have two options, firstly, where it is satisfied that in respect of the land in dispute any litigation is pending in civil Court, it should have passed an order not to make any correction of the entry in the revenue record in respect of the land in dispute. Second course would have been to pass necessary order for correction of entries in the revenue record in accordance with law and where it is satisfied that the dispute in respect of land is pending in the Civil court, a note should have been put in the revenue record that this entry is subject to decision to be given by the civil Court. Even if it is not done, I am satisfied that whatever the entry which is made in the revenue record in respect of land in dispute is subject to the final decision in the civil suit filed by the petitioner. However, in case the petitioner would have been properly advised, then this much of litigation which is absolutely uncalled for and avoidable, would not have been there before the revenue Court or before this Court and the petitioner would have been saved heavy amount which he spent in this litigations. This is nothing but only a litigation for the sake of litigation and whatever the decision given in this case will not ultimately turn either way on merits of the entries made in the revenue records. This entry is subject to the decision and outcome of the Civil suit filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the result, this special civil application fails and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the concerned revenue officer to bring to his notice the pendency of Civil Suit filed by him as well as this order and in case it is so done by the petitioner, the concerned revenue authority shall put necessary note in the revenue record against that entry that the same is subject to the decision of the civil Court in the suit filed by the petitioner and further that this entry shall stand automatically amended and modified according to the decision of the civil Court. .