JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - Respondents No. 5 to 8 filed an application for partition of the land on October 21, 1994. The petitioner raised certain objections. These objections were rejected by the Assistant Collector vide order dated July 31, 1995. The petitioner filed an appeal. It is dismissed by the Collector vide order dated October 29, 1996. The revision petition was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated November 19, 1998. The petitioner filed a second revision petition. It was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on September 15, 1999. Hence this petition. The petitioner prays that the four orders passed by the revenue authorities, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P-1 to P-4 with the writ petition be set aside. 2. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 5, 7 and 8. 3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a question of title is involved. The matter is pending before the Civil Court. The authorities have erred in rejecting the objections. Mr. Mani Ram, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 8, has submitted that there is a valid decree in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8. Even otherwise, there is a registered Will in their favour. Thus, the objections raised by the petitioner have been rightly rejected. 4. Admittedly Bihari Lal was the common ancestor. He had three children, the petitioner Sube Singh, Dharam Singh, respondent No. 5 and Nanti their sister. On June 5, 1993, the Civil court passed a decree by which Nanti conceded her share in the property in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8, who are the sons of Dharma Singh, respondent No. 5. After the decree, a mutation was sanctioned in their favour. After the mutation having been sanctioned, respondents No. 5 to 8 filed the petition for the partition of the land. After the partition proceedings had been initiated, the petitioner filed a suit on November 21, 1994 to challenge the decree dated June 5, 1993. The suit is still pending. 5. The petitioner had raised the objection that the dispute regarding the validity of the decree being pending before the Civil Court, there was a question of title involved in the proceedings. The suit is still pending. 5. The petitioner had raised the objection that the dispute regarding the validity of the decree being pending before the Civil Court, there was a question of title involved in the proceedings. Thus, the revenue authorities should stay their hands till the rights are determined by the Civil court. This objection has been considered at length by all the authorities and it has been rejected primarily on the ground that "the Civil Court has not so far upset the transfer of land" in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8. So as long as the decree stands, their right in the property is established. Consequently, till the decree is reversed, the said respondents have a right to get the land partitioned. 6. The view taken by the authorities is not violative of the provisions of law. Since the suit is pending, we shall say no more at this stage. 7. Mr. Mittal contends that the decree was a nullity inasmuch as it was not got registered. He as referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 1996. As already noticed, we are not making any comment on the merits of the controversy as the issue is pending consideration before the Civil Court. At this stage, we are only concerned with one question - could the revenue authorities ignore the decree of the Civil Court merely because the suit is pending ? The answer to this question is in the negative. This is precisely the view, which has been taken by the revenue authorities. We find no infirmity in this view. 8. Mr. Mittal further submits that the civil suit is almost at the final stage. Only the arguments remain to be addressed. This contention is irrelevant. On the date, on which the Assistant Collector had decided the matter, the civil suit was at the preliminary stage. Even at the date on which the appeal and revisions were dismissed, the suit was no where near the end. It has not been decided till today. So long as the suit is pending, it cannot be said that the decree passed in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8 has ceased to exist. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It has not been decided till today. So long as the suit is pending, it cannot be said that the decree passed in favour of respondents No. 6 to 8 has ceased to exist. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is consequently dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.