1. Claiming to be the adopted son of Balak Ram and successor to the properties left by him and his another successor Mrs. Gullan, petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning Settlement Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammus order of August 17, 2005 whereby he had dismissed two appeals preferred by Suram Chand, petitioner, against the orders passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Udhampur on September 18, 2004 setting aside mutation No. 1413 of February 6, 1989 and mutation No. 1423 of October 25, 1989 whereby estate of Balak Ram had been mutated in favour of Mrs. Gullan, and of Mrs. Gullan in favour of Suram Chand, petitioner. 2. Petitioner questions the order passed by Settlement Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu, inter alia on the grounds that the respondents appeal before the Commissioner was barred by time, the delay had been condoned without any sufficient reason therefor, and the decree of the Civil Court on the basis whereof Additional Deputy Commissioner had set aside the mutation did not confer any right on Shiv Dei, respondent No.5, because it had not been executed within the prescribed period of limitation. It has been further stated in the writ petition that Shiv Deis declaration as adopted daughter of Balak Ram by the Civil Court was invalid in view of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 3. Opposing the admission of the writ petition to hearing, Shiv Dei, respondent No.5, while controverting the pleas set up by the petitioner in his writ petition has submitted that the dispute raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is squarely covered by the suit which he had filed in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Reasi, and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was disentitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court to seek simultaneous adjudication of the same dispute by this Court when the Civil Court was already in seizin thereof. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of the writ petition, gone through their pleadings as also an unattested copy of the plaint filed by tie petitioner in the Court of Sub-Judge, Reasi. 5. Filing of suit by the petitioner, and the authenticity of the copy placed on records by respondents counsel was not disputed by the petitioners counsel, at the time of consideration of the petition. 6. 5. Filing of suit by the petitioner, and the authenticity of the copy placed on records by respondents counsel was not disputed by the petitioners counsel, at the time of consideration of the petition. 6. Mutation, does not, by itself, confer any title, is a position well settled in law. Final order passed by a Revenue Officer declaring as to who is the party best entitled to the property, is always subject to any decree or order which may be subsequently passed by any Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Such is the mandate of Section 26 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act, Svt. 1996. 7. It appears that the petitioner had filed a suit against Shiv Dei, respondent No. 5, wherein he had sought declaration to the effect that Shiv Dei was not the adopted daughter of Balak Ram as no giving and taking in adoption, ceremony had been performed and that decree of July 18, 1985 obtained by Shiv Dei was null and void having been obtained by collusion, misrepresentation, fraud and coercion and had no legal effect on the rights of the petitioner who was the exclusive owner in possession of the property in question. Petitioner had sought a decree of permanent injunction too against respondent No.5 refraining her from selling, alienating or in any manner interfering into the possession of the petitioner over the suit property measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 241, 15 kanals 3 marlas comprised in Khasra No. 70/241 situated at Village Aghar and land measuring 20 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 1480/1099 situated at Village Mari-Ballian Tehsil Reasi. 8. A bare reading of petitioners plaint before the Civil Court demonstrates that before approaching this Court and invoking its extra ordinary civil writ jurisdiction, the petitioner had, about three (3) years ago, approached the Civil Court seeking same relief which he has projected in the writ petition. This suit, as stated at the bar, is still sub-judice. 9. 8. A bare reading of petitioners plaint before the Civil Court demonstrates that before approaching this Court and invoking its extra ordinary civil writ jurisdiction, the petitioner had, about three (3) years ago, approached the Civil Court seeking same relief which he has projected in the writ petition. This suit, as stated at the bar, is still sub-judice. 9. Petitioner having already availed of his remedy before the appropriate forum, i.e., the Civil Court, for efficacious relief to seek adjudication of his status as adopted son of Balak Ram, his rights in the property left by Balak Ram and his successor, and annulment of the decree of the Civil Court on the basis whereof respondent No. 5 had claimed attestation of mutation, is thus disentitled to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court to week adjudication of those issues which are subjudice before the civil court. His writ petition is thus not maintainable and warrants dismissal. 10. While filing the writ petition, the petitioner had maintained significant silence regarding his having already approached the Civil Court to seek adjudication of all those questions which he had raised in the writ petition. 11. Legally bound to disclose about the pendency of proceedings in the Civil Court on the same subject matter as had been projected in the writ petition, before invoking the extra ordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction of the Court, the petitioner had opted not to do that and had rather maintained silence regarding the pendency of a civil suit on the same subject matter between the parties in the competent court of jurisdiction. Not only this, he had even obtained an ex-parte interim direction on October 17, 2005 for maintenance of status quo on spot which continues to remain in force. He has thus been unfair in approaching the Court by suppression of material facts. 12. Simple dismissal of his writ petition would not thus serve the ends of justice which may require dismissal of his writ petition with exemplary costs. 13. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as misconceived, with costs, quantified at Rs. 6,000. 14. Interim order passed by the Court on October 17, 2005 is, accordingly, vacated.