JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against order dated 01.04.2015 passed by learned District Judge Solan Distt. Solan (H.P.) in Civil Misc. Appeal No.14-S/14 of 2014 wherein learned District Judge Solan set-aside order dated 01.07.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Solan announced in CMA No.10/6 of 2012 filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in C.S. No.13/1/2012 title Smt. Santosh and others Vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar. Brief facts of case: 2. Smt. Santosh and others plaintiffs filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are co-owners in possession of suit land and house situated over suit land and codefendant No.1 has no right, title and interest in and over suit land in any manner whatsoever and revenue entries showing co-defendant No.1 as absolute owner in possession of suit land are wrong, illegal and null and void. It is further pleaded that mutation No.746 dated 11.04.2002 sanctioned in favour of Smt. Kamlesh wife of co-defendant No.1 behind the back of plaintiffs and on the basis of oral Will is wrong, illegal and null and void and is not binding upon plaintiffs. It is further pleaded that mutation No.939 dated 29.09.2007 sanctioned in favour of co-defendant No.1 after demise of Smt. Kamlesh on the basis of Will dated 22.02.2007 is also wrong, illegal and null and void. It is further pleaded that revenue entries showing co-defendant No.1 as absolute owner in possession of suit land are wrong, illegal and inoperative qua right, title and interest of plaintiffs. Additional relief of permanent prohibitory injunction also sought restraining co-defendant No.1 from causing any interference in the ownership and peaceful possession of plaintiffs and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from suit land and from selling and alienating suit land and also from claiming any compensation from suit land either himself or through his agents servants or family members. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit of plaintiffs is time barred as mutation No.746 was sanctioned on dated 11.04.2002 in favour of deceased Kamlesh. It is further pleaded that in mutation proceedings both plaintiffs have given their statements. It is further pleaded that present civil suit after ten years is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped to file present suit against defendants due to their act, conduct and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that in mutation proceedings both plaintiffs have given their statements. It is further pleaded that present civil suit after ten years is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped to file present suit against defendants due to their act, conduct and acquiescence. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs did not approach civil Court with clean hands. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendants. It is pleaded that suit of plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are guilty of suppressing the material facts from the Court. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file present suit. It is further pleaded that co-defendant No.1 is absolute owner in possession of suit land on the basis of Will dated 22.02.2007 executed by deceased Kamlesh in favour of codefendant No.1. It is further pleaded that house over suit land is constructed by co-defendant No.1 and his deceased wife by obtaining loan from State Bank of Patiala Solan Branch. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs are not co-owners of suit property. It is further pleaded that on the basis of Will mutation No.939 dated 29.09.2007 was legally sanctioned in favour of co-defendant No.1. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have knowledge about all the mutations and Wills from the beginning. It is further pleaded that plaintiffs have filed present suit without any cause of action. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought. Plaintiff filed replication to written statement and reasserted the allegations mentioned in plaint. 4. Learned Trial Court framed following issues on dated 23.07.2014: (1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are owners in possession of suit land and co-defendant No.1 has no right, title and interest over suit land? ….OPP. (2) Whether revenue entries of suit land are illegal and null and void? ….OPP. (3) Whether mutation No.746 dated 11.04.2002 sanctioned in favour of Smt. Kamlesh wife of co-defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon plaintiffs? ….OPP. (4) Whether mutation No.939 dated 29.09.2007 subsequently sanctioned in favour of co-defendant No.1 on the basis of Will dated 22.02.2007 is illegal, null and void? ….OPP. (5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? ….OPP. (4) Whether mutation No.939 dated 29.09.2007 subsequently sanctioned in favour of co-defendant No.1 on the basis of Will dated 22.02.2007 is illegal, null and void? ….OPP. (5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for? …OPP (6) Whether suit is time barred? …OPD (7) Whether plaintiffs are estopped to file present suit due to their own act and conduct? …….OPD (8) Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? ..OPD (9) Whether plaintiffs have not properly valued suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? …OPD 10) Relief. Learned Trial Court listed civil suit for plaintiffs witnesses for 14.03.2016. 5. During pendency of civil suit plaintiffs have filed application under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and sought interim relief of ad interim injunction restraining co-defendant No.1 from causing any interference in the ownership and peaceful possession of plaintiffs and sought ad interim injunction restraining co-defendant No.1 from selling and alienating suit land and claiming any compensation qua suit land till disposal of civil suit. Application under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with section 151 CPC was contested before learned Trial Court by co-defendant No.1. Learned Trial Court allowed the application filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiffs and directed parties to maintain status quo qua nature, user, possession, construction and alienation of suit land till disposal of main suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned Trial Courtco-defendant No.1 and proforma defendants No.2 & 3 filed Civil Misc. appeal No.14-S/14 of 2014 before learned District Judge Solan Distt. Solan (H.P.). Learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of learned Trial Court dated 01.07.2014. Learned District Judge Solan dismissed the application filed under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC by plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned District Judge dated 01.04.2015 plaintiffs filed present petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and nonpetitioners and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination: (1) Whether petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. 7. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and nonpetitioners and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 8. Following points arises for determination: (1) Whether petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition? (2) Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that petitioners namely Santosh and Sharda Devi are daughters of deceased Rattan Dass and Sh. Rattan Dass did not execute any oral Will in favour of Smt. Kamlesh and on this ground petition be allowed is decided accordingly. Judicial findings whether deceased Rattan Dass has executed any oral Will in favour of Smt. Kamlesh or not cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial findings will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that even Smt. Kamlesh did not execute any Will on dated 22.02.2007 in favour of co-defendant No.1 and on this ground petition be allowed is decided accordingly. Judicial findings whether Smt. Kamlesh has executed any Will in favour of co-defendant No.1 or not cannot be given at this stage of case. Judicial findings will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that dispute inter se parties in civil suit is about legality of oral Will alleged to be executed by Sh. Rattan Dass in favour of deceased Kamlesh and further dispute inter se parties is about legality of Will dated 22.02.2007 executed by deceased Kamlesh in favour of co-defendant No.1 and both facts will be adjudicated by learned Trial Court during trial of case and till disposal of civil suit prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss are in favour of petitioners is decided accordingly. It is prima facie proved on record that Santosh, Sharda Devi and Kamlesh are daughters of deceased Rattan Dass and falls in Class-I heirs. It is also prima facie proved on record that deceased Rattan Dass did not execute any written testamentary document in favour of deceased Kamlesh qua suit property. It is prima facie proved on record that Santosh, Sharda Devi and Kamlesh are daughters of deceased Rattan Dass and falls in Class-I heirs. It is also prima facie proved on record that deceased Rattan Dass did not execute any written testamentary document in favour of deceased Kamlesh qua suit property. Smt. Kamlesh one of the daughters of deceased Rattan Dass has claimed legal right over entire suit property on the basis of oral Will. It is well settled law that oral Will will be proved in accordance with law during trial of civil suit. It is also prima facie proved on record that co-defendant No.1 is brother-in-law of petitioners. It is also prima facie proved on record that co-defendants No.2 & 3 are daughter and son of co-defendant No.1. In the present case both parties have claimed ownership and possession rights over suit property as of today. Dispute inter se parties is about title. Adjudication about title will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence in civil suit. As per section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1956 suit for declaratory decree by persons aggrieved by entries in record of rights prepared under H.P. Land Revenue Act 1956 can be filed. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioners that in revenue record entire property was recorded in the name of deceased Kamlesh on the basis of oral Will and thereafter recorded in the name of her husband namely Sanjeev Kumar co-defendant on the basis of Will and mutation No.746 dated 11.04.2002 and mutation No. 939 dated 29.09.2007 also sanctioned and on this ground petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that mutation in revenue record is not evidence of title. It is also well settled law that jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they do not create or extinguish any title. See AIR 1994 Apex Court 1496 Nawalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat,SeeSLJ 94 (1) SC 68 Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh and others,SeeAIR 1994 Apex Court 227 Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand. SeeAIR 2015 SCW Apex Court 3482 H. Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy. 13. See AIR 1994 Apex Court 1496 Nawalshankar Ishwarlal Dave and another Vs. State of Gujarat,SeeSLJ 94 (1) SC 68 Jattu Ram Vs. Hakam Singh and others,SeeAIR 1994 Apex Court 227 Guru Amarjit Singh Vs. Rattan Chand. SeeAIR 2015 SCW Apex Court 3482 H. Lakshmaiah Reddy Vs. L. Venkatesh Reddy. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioners that civil suit is not filed within limitation and on this ground petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. It is well settled law that issue of limitation is mixed issue of fact and law. Learned Trial Court has framed issue No.6 relating to limitation in civil suit. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings upon issue No.6 at this stage of case. Learned Trial Court will give judicial findings upon issue of limitation after giving due opportunities to both parties to lead oral and documentary evidence upon issue of limitation. 14. In the present case both parties are asserting their title and possession over suit property. Dispute inter se parties would be resolved in civil suit. Complicated questions of rights, title and interest of parties in suit property are yet to be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Court is of opinion that in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se parties order of status quo is essential in the ends of justice in the present case till disposal of civil suit. See AIR 2015 Apex Court 826 Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Polytex Ltd.,See AIR 1994 Apex Court 1837 Satyabrata Biswas & Others Vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku & Others,See AIR 2005 Apex Court 104 Maharwal Khewaji Trust Vs. Baldev Dass. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-petitioners that mutation in the name of deceased Kamlesh qua suit property was sanctioned with the consent of Smt. Santosh and Smt. Sharda Devi and on this ground petition be dismissed is decided accordingly. Learned Trial Court has framed issue No.7 in civil suit relating to estoppel. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings upon issue of estoppel at this stage of case. Judicial findings relating to estoppel will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunities to both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. Learned Trial Court has framed issue No.7 in civil suit relating to estoppel. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings upon issue of estoppel at this stage of case. Judicial findings relating to estoppel will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunities to both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. In view of law that zamabandis entries and entries of mutations are not proof of title it is held that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of petitioners. It is held that petitioners will suffer irreparable loss if ad interim injunction under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC is not granted. It is held that in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se parties grant of ad interim injunction under order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC is essential in the present case in the ends of justice. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2 (Relief). 16. In view of findings upon point No.1 present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is allowed. Order of learned District Judge Solan (H.P.) dated 1.4.2015 announced in Civil Misc. Appeal No.14-S/14 of 2014 title Sanjeev Kumar and others Vs. Smt. Santosh and others is set-aside and order of learned Trial Court dated 1.7.2014 affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Observations will not effect merits of case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of present petition. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 23.12.2016. File (s) of learned First Appellate Court and learned Trial Court alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. CMPMO No.426/2015 is disposed of. Pending application (s) if any also disposed of.