ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2014, passed by the respondent No.10the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-D. 2. The property in question was purchased by the partners, one of whom was Bharmappa Dharmarao Kittur, who is dead and after the partnership is dissolved, the property was transferred in the name of the petitioner. As such the name of the partner was entered in the revenue records for more than thirty years, but the possession has been disputed by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner has preferred O.S.No.41/2001 pending on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. Notices have been served and the petitioner has contested the matter. In the meanwhile, the application was made by the respondents for change of name in the revenue records. Thereupon, the appeal came to be filed before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 21.05.2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent Nos.1 to 7 challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner by filing revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner’s order has been challenged on the ground that there is dispute between the petitioner and the respondents and during the pendency of the suit, the entries could not have been changed. Secondly, the name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records for more than thirty years. Unless, the Court passes a decree, the revenue authorities cannot change the entries in the revenue records. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri. Basappa vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur and others reported in 2006(3) KCCR 1757 and submitted that during pendency of the suit, revenue authorities cannot change the name in the revenue records. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents’ submits to dismiss this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers. 6. Basappa vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur and others reported in 2006(3) KCCR 1757 and submitted that during pendency of the suit, revenue authorities cannot change the name in the revenue records. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents’ submits to dismiss this writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition papers. 6. It is seen that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order in detail, in which it is stated that as to what circumstance the name of the respondent is entered by deleting the name of the petitioner. Further, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the change of name is subject to result of the suit. Such being the case, the petitioner should have waited till the suit is disposed of. Further the petitioner is in possession of the property, which is not disputed. When the civil dispute is pending between the parties in respect of the possession, the suit is being declaratory suit, the power of the revenue authorities ceases to entertain or adjudicate the issue that is similar in nature. 7. In the facts and circumstance of the case, it is held that when the dispute is between the parties in respect of possession or ownership in civil dispute, it is not appropriate to approach the revenue authorities seeking similar relief. When the suit is pending, if it is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities, it is appropriate on their part not to precipitate such matters and simply direct both the parties to obtain a decree and then to enter the name either of the parties only on the basis of the decree. In the instant case, though the Deputy Commissioner held that the entries are subject to result of the suit, when the Deputy Commissioner had the knowledge of the suit in respect of the property, in this circumstance, proceeding further, directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of the respondent in the revenue records is improper. 8. Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and is set aside. The name of the petitioner is restored back in the revenue records. Further, both the parties are directed to maintain statuesque till the suit is disposed of. It is also made clear that the parties are restrained from creating third party interest. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.