Judgment Sonia Gokani, J.—The petitioners herein are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 2000 preferred by the respondents herein, who are aggrieved by the order of the learned 5th Additional Civil Judge (SD) Surat, passed below Exh. 5 in favour of the respondents herein as also confirmed by the learned 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2003. 2. To understand the controversy between the parties and to briefly state the fact-the petitioner and respondents have a common ancestor namely Parbhubhai Patel who passed away on 15th November 1971 (the pedigree of which is at Page No. 25 of the memo of this petition). Shri Parbhudas Kuvarji Patel executed a registered Will and bequeathed all his properties on the parties. The parties mutated their names in the revenue record on the basis of such Will. 3. Shri Ishwarbhai Parbhubhai Patel (since deceased) who was the original Defendant No. 1 in the said suit, had filed RTS Appeal No. 25 of 1996 before the Deputy Collector, Choryasi Prant Surat, challenging Entry No. 1566 mutated in the revenue record vide order dated 3rd February 1993 in respect of revenue Survey No. 262, 29-paiki, 7/1-paiki,33/3-paiki,10/3-paiki, situated in village Mora, Taluka Choryasi, district-Surat. This entry was favouring the respondents; as the heirs of one of the sons of deceased Parbhubhai Hargovindbhai Patel. Vide order dated 11th December 1997, the Deputy Collector, Surat setaside such an entry and ordered names of the legal heirs of deceased Parbhubhai to enter in the revenue records. The Respondent No. 3 herein preferred revision Application No. 34 of 1998 before the District Collector, Surat, which dismissed such revision vide order dated 1/8/30 November 1999 and thereafter Entry No. 1854 was mutated in the revenue record for the said lands in question. 4. The said regular civil Suit No. 72 of 2000 is filed by the respondents on 21st February 2000 praying inter alia that the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and District Collector Surat be declared null and void and the same shall not be implemented, with a further prayer that the petitioner do not have a right to get their names mutated in the revenue record on the basis of such order. 5. 5. It is the case of the respondents in the said Civil Suit that Parbhubhai executed a Will on 16th September 1997 and as per the said Will different shares have been bequeathed to four sons of the deceased Parbhubhai Patel namely; (1) Hargovindbhai Patel; (2) Ishwarbhai Patel; (3) Jaikishanbhai Patel and (4) Thakorebhai Patel and all the heirs have got their properties in their respective names and no ambiguity existed, either in covenant or in giving effect to the said will. 6. Aggrieved by such move, at a belated stage, an application for injunction was preferred below Exh. 5 by the respondents herein which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge inter alia directing that orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the District Collector shall not be implemented and no entries shall be made in the revenue record on the basis of the same. 7. Aggrieved by the same, when the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 2003, the same came to be dismissed on 31st August 2009 by the learned 5th Additional District and sessions Judge, Surat. Learned Senior Advocate Shri B.B. Naik appearing for the original defendants vehemently submitted that entry mutated in the name of Hargovindbhai was not on the basis of the Will but on the basis of consent as “no objection endorsement” was issued by other heirs of Parbhubhai and therefore, it can be said that such entry was not the result of execution of the Will. Moreover, daughter of Parbhubhai filed Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2007, which is still pending. 8. He further urged that admittedly the possession is with the plaintiff but the suit property is required to be kept intact till the disputes between the parties are adjudicated effectively. Yet another ground he has raised is that unless remedy prescribed under the revenue laws is exhausted, respondents can not approach the Civil Court, and therefore, the very suit of the respondent is not maintainable. Counsel also further contended that under the guise of the order of injunction, miscarriage of justice can not occasion. He proposed that the suit since is of the year 2000, there should be a direction for expeditious hearing of the suit. He lamented the fact that the Appellate forum, while confirming the order of injunction, did not give an iota of reasoning which is contrary to the settled legal position. He proposed that the suit since is of the year 2000, there should be a direction for expeditious hearing of the suit. He lamented the fact that the Appellate forum, while confirming the order of injunction, did not give an iota of reasoning which is contrary to the settled legal position. To substantiate this contention, learned sr. advocate Shri B.B Naik placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Reg), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 . 9. Learned Senior Advocate Shri D.C. Dave appearing for the original plaintiffs-respondents herein fervently submitted that decisions of the revenue authorities are not decisive as far as civil rights of the parties are concerned. He also urged that unless Entry No. 1067 mutated in the name of Hargovindbhai on 17th February 1972 is challenged, subsequent challenge would have no effect. It is the say of the learned advocate that Shri Hargovindbhai passed away on 9th March 1982 and nearly after 10 years of his death, on 20 August 1992, entry was mutated being Entry No. 1566 in the name of present respondents. The petitioner herein without praying for any counter injunction cannot prevent the respondents from enjoining their own land. He further contended that bequeath made in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai by his father Shrimiscarriage of justice can not occasion. He proposed that the suit since is of the year 2000, there should be a direction for expeditious hearing of the suit. He lamented the fact that the Appellate forum, while confirming the order of injunction, did not give an iota of reasoning which is contrary to the settled legal position. To substantiate this contention, learned sr. advocate Shri B.B Naik placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Reg), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, reported in AIR 2005 SC 104 . Learned Senior Advocate Shri D.C. Dave appearing for the original plaintiffs-respondents herein fervently submitted that decisions of the revenue authorities are not decisive as far as civil rights of the parties are concerned. He also urged that unless Entry No. 1067 mutated in the name of Hargovindbhai on 17th February 1972 is challenged, subsequent challenge would have no effect. Learned Senior Advocate Shri D.C. Dave appearing for the original plaintiffs-respondents herein fervently submitted that decisions of the revenue authorities are not decisive as far as civil rights of the parties are concerned. He also urged that unless Entry No. 1067 mutated in the name of Hargovindbhai on 17th February 1972 is challenged, subsequent challenge would have no effect. It is the say of the learned advocate that Shri Hargovindbhai passed away on 9th March 1982 and nearly after 10 years of his death, on 20 August 1992, entry was mutated being Entry No. 1566 in the name of present respondents. The petitioner herein without praying for any counter injunction cannot prevent the respondents from enjoining their own land. He further contended that bequeath made in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai by his father Shri Parbhubhai was not the only bequeath and the petitioners herein have already received benefit of such will and enjoyed the fruits of the same, and therefore, at this stage, they have no business to prevent the respondents from enjoying the property of Shri Hargovindbhai, who is respectively the husband and father of the Respondent No. 2. He further urged that there is concurrent findings of both the Court confirming the injunction in favour of the present petitioners, therefore, the Court should be very slow in disturbing this equilibrium. He sought to rely upon the following decisions of Apex Court : (1) Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj through L.Rs. & Ors., reported in (2008)9 SCC 1 . (2) Sankalchand Jaychandbhai Patel & Ors. vs. Vithalbhai Jaychandbhai Patel, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 433 ; (3) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Mohar Singh, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 542 ; (4) Rajinder Singh vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors., reported in (2008) 9 SCC 368 . 10. On thus having heard learned advocates for the parties and on closely examining the material available on the record with their assistance, it could be noted that the parties have common ancestor Prabhubhai Patel who had executed his Will, which was a registered Will. By this Will, he has bequeathed his self acquired properties where four parcels of land have been bequeathed to Hargovindbhai Parbhubhai, the husband and father of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. By this Will, he has bequeathed his self acquired properties where four parcels of land have been bequeathed to Hargovindbhai Parbhubhai, the husband and father of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Entry in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai was mutated on 17th February 1972 vide Entry No. 1067 and till the date there has been no challenge to mutation of such an entry. Shri Hargovidbhai expired on 9th March 1982 and after nearly one decade, the respondents got Entry No. 1566 mutated in their names on 20th August 1992. At that point of time, Shri Ishwarbhai Parbhubhai (since deceased) filed RTS Appeal no. 25 of 1996 before the Deputy Collector, Surat, challenging the said Entry No. 1566 mutated in favour of the respondents in respect of Survey No. 262;29-paiki; 7/1-paiki; 33/3-paiki; 10/3 paiki, situated in village More, Taluka-Chaurasai, District Surat. This favored the present petitioners and the Deputy Collector, Surat vide its order dated 11th December 1997 set-aside entry and directed the names of all the legal heirs to be entered in the revenue records. When this was challenged by preferring Revision No. 34 of 1998, the order of the Collector also followed the suit, instead of resorting to revenue proceedings before SSID. Regular Civil Suit No. 72 of 2000 was filed by the respondents on 21st February 2000. 11. As can be noted from the order of learned Civil Judge, he has elaborately dealt with all the issues raised before him to conclude in favour of the respondents herein. Such order also was further confirmed by the learned District Judge. 12. A moot question that would arise for determination of this Court is as to whether such orders passed by both the Courts consecutively require interference either on the ground of any illegality, or perversity, or on account of gross injustice to the petitioners herein particularly on account of possibility of property getting alienated/transferred during the pendency of the suit. 13. The reason which weighed with the trial Court is that the Will of deceased Shri Parbhubhai Kuwarji was already acted upon. Courts also noted that the land of revenue Survey No. 79 of village Limla was bequeathed upon the petitioner herein and an Entry No. 758 was mutated in respect thereof. 13. The reason which weighed with the trial Court is that the Will of deceased Shri Parbhubhai Kuwarji was already acted upon. Courts also noted that the land of revenue Survey No. 79 of village Limla was bequeathed upon the petitioner herein and an Entry No. 758 was mutated in respect thereof. The entries were mutated on the basis of the Will and therefore, the title of the properties were also determined by virtue of such Will, neither the Deputy Collector nor the Collector would have any authority to decide the title of the parties in respect of suit lands. 14. Appellate forum also noted the fact that in the Village Form-7/12 also names of the present respondents were already mutated. The property was in the name of Parbhubhai Kuwarji and thereafter got mutated in the name of Hargovindbhai Parbhubhai and after his death, Entry No. 1566 was mutated in the name of the respondents in the year 1992. Thus, when the entry was mutated in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai on 17th February 1972, being Entry No. 1067, that never was challenged by any of the heirs of Shri Parbhubhai and the subsequent entry made in the year 1992 is merely consequential. Therefore,without challenging the entry mutated in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai, challenge to the subsequent entry before the Revenue Authorities is a vital factor which essentially favoured the respondents herein. Again, as can be noted from the record that the Will of Shri Parbhubhai was already executed as he owned many parcels of land; different heirs were bequeathed different parcels of lands. After having enjoyed that bequeaths and without challenging the Will of Shri Parbhubhai, objecting to the entry mutated in the name of the respondents was prima facie not found sustainable by both the Courts correctly. One of the main contentions raised on the part of the petitioners herein was that the orders of Revenue Courts could not be challenged before the Civil Court. This contention also has no basis in as much as challenge in essence is to the bequeaths made by the Will executed by Shri Parbhubhai and not merely to the mutation of the entry per se. Therefore, the Civil Courts alone would have right to decide such disputes of the parties. 15. One reiterative emphasis that was made by learned Sr. Therefore, the Civil Courts alone would have right to decide such disputes of the parties. 15. One reiterative emphasis that was made by learned Sr. Advocate Shri Naik is that the trial Court relied upon entry mutated in the name of Shri Hargovindbhai on 17th February 1972. This was since based on the consent of all the parties and not the Will, according to him, the petitioners herein are entitled to challenge subsequent entry in the name of the respondents herein. Yet another contention that was emphasized was pendency of Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2007 preferred by one of the daughters of the deceased Prabhubhai challenging the will. Neither of the contentions is potent enough for this Court to intervene in this writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. 16. Even if there was a consent which resulted into mutation of entry in the name of deceased Shri Hargovindbhai in the year 1972, the fact remains that the Will never came to be challenged by any party. Whether this consensus or consent for mutation of entry in the name of deceased Hargovindbhai would change the very complicity of entire gamut of facts or not is not the question to be decided by the Court at the time of deciding interim injunction. The fact is not disputed that neither the Will nor entry was questioned by any of the heirs of Parbhubhai at any stage. Again, as rightly pointed out from respondents’ side that Special Civil Suit No. 54 of 2007 instituted through the sister of petitioner and daughter of deceased Prabhubhai can be a proxy litigation but, pendency of that suit would also not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the present petitioners who prima facie appear to have their share of bequeaths given through the will of common ancestor. Again, merit of the claim of plaintiff of that suit also can not be determinative of discretionary relief in favour of petitioners herein who have failed to established their prima facie case both on the grounds of equity and gross delay as well and consequently, do not succeed to satisfy this Court to invoke powers of supervisory jurisdiction. Again, merit of the claim of plaintiff of that suit also can not be determinative of discretionary relief in favour of petitioners herein who have failed to established their prima facie case both on the grounds of equity and gross delay as well and consequently, do not succeed to satisfy this Court to invoke powers of supervisory jurisdiction. Attempt to get their names mutated in the revenue record in respect of land which was given to deceased Hargovindbhai, atleast at an interim stage in the above circumstances if is estopped, both the Courts cannot be said to have committed any error much less any illegality causing miscarriage of justice for this Court to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Neither there is any jurisdictional error nor is there excess exercise of power by both the Courts. 17. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of merit fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 18. Any of the observations made in this petition may not influence the trial Court while adjudicating respective rights of the parties finally. 19. Learned advocate Shri S.P Majmudar, at this stage, urges this Court to extend ad interim relief granted earlier in terms of Paragraph 19[B] of this Application. 20. Request is acceded to. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands extended for a further period of four weeks so as to enable the applicant to approach higher forum. P P P P P