JUDGMENT ALOK SINGH, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, whereby orders of the Assistant Collector, First Grade as well as the Collector, sanctioning mutation in favour of the petitioner were set aside. 2. Mr. Amarjit Markan, learned counsel, in all his fairness for which he is known in the Bar, has specifically stated that civil suits between the parties involving the question of inheritance, title and shares are pending adjudication in the Court of Civil Judge, Malerkotla and in the Court of Civil Judge, Ludhiana. 3. In the opinion of this Court, mutation does not confer any title; it is the source of title, which is to be seen; if parties are before the regular civil Court contesting their respective title, mutation proceeding looses its importance and any mutation done, shall always be subject to the final decision in a regular suit involving the question of title. Moreover, any decision in mutation proceeding will not be a Res-judicata in the pending civil suit involving question of title. Civil Court can always decide question of title in a pending suit on the basis of evidence, in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any finding recorded by the revenue authorities in summary proceeding of mutation. 4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to invoke my jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to look into the correctness of the order passed in summary proceeding of mutation. 5. In view of the fact that regular civil suits are pending between the parties before the competent civil Courts, wherein the parties are agitating their title and inheritance, therefore, the civil Courts shall decide the suit between the parties, in accordance with law and mutation shall be carried out thereafter, in accordance with the decree passed in the pending civil suits. 6. To avoid the conflicting views and observations in two civil suits pending before two different Courts involving identical questions of fact and law, petitioner shall be at liberty either to move application under Section 10 C.P.C. in the subsequent suit or to move proper application before this Court to transfer the suit in one Court. 7. Mr. 6. To avoid the conflicting views and observations in two civil suits pending before two different Courts involving identical questions of fact and law, petitioner shall be at liberty either to move application under Section 10 C.P.C. in the subsequent suit or to move proper application before this Court to transfer the suit in one Court. 7. Mr. Markan apprehends that in the garb of impugned order, respondent may create third party interest in the property during the pendency of civil suits to create complications and multiplicity of litigation. It goes without saying that any transfer made during the pendency of civil suit shall be hit by the principles of lis pendens and transferee shall abide by the ultimate decision in the pending suits. However, petitioner can also move appropriate application before the Court hearing the suit for interim injunction. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.