JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri Lakshmana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri B. K. Saxena, learned counsel for the caveator respondent no.6. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ayodhya Division whereby in proceedings arising out of Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901, the order dated 04.02.2019 has been affirmed by which the mutation order has been passed in favour of respondent no.6. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the property in question was recorded in the name of Bhanu Pratap Singh. 4. Bhanu Pratap Singh had initially executed a registered Will in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Jabar Bahadur Singh, the mother of the petitioners. Subsequently, the said Will was revoked and another registered Will was executed by Bhanu Pratap Singh in favour of the present petitioners. Subsequently, by means of another Will dated 30.11.2012 the earlier two Wills were revoked and a fresh Will came to be executed in favour of the private respondent no.6, who is the son-in-law of Bhanu Pratap Singh. 5. After the death of Bhanu Pratap Singh on 03.11.2013, two rivals sets of mutation applications came to be preferred before the respondent no.5. By means of order dated 04.02.2019 respondent no.5 accepted the Will and passed the mutation order in favour of the respondent no.6. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order dated 04.02.2019 preferred a revision before the respondent no.2 which has also been dismissed by means of order dated 17.01.2022 affirming the order dated 04.02.2019. It is thus being aggrieved that the petitioners had approached this Court by means of the instant petition. 7. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Bhanu Pratap Singh through out had implicit faith and trust in the family of the petitioners which led him to execute the registered Will dated 21.03.2002, first in favour of the mother of the petitioners. Subsequently, by revoking the said Will, a fresh Will was executed in favour of the present petitioners on 23.12.2004. 8. Subsequently, by revoking the said Will, a fresh Will was executed in favour of the present petitioners on 23.12.2004. 8. It is further urged that prior to the date of death of Bhanu Pratap Singh, the private respondent no.6 by exercising coercion got another Will executed on 30.11.2012 and as such the same cannot be taken to be the basis for mutating the name of the private respondent no.6 as it is an outcome of undue influence and fraud. 9. It is further urged that there is already a title dispute pending between the predecessor of the petitioners and the private respondent no.6 before the Consolidation Courts and unless and until the title is cleared the mutation court was not justified in accepting the Will and passing the impugned order. 10. It is also urged that the findings recorded by the mutation court which has been affirmed by the revisional court are not on the basis of the material on record. Accordingly, the matter requires interference. 11. Shri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.6 has submitted that by means of Will dated 30.11.2012 the earlier Will in favour of the petitioners dated 23.12.2004 was revoked. Bhanu Pratap Singh apart from executing the fresh Will in favour of the private respondent no.6 who is none other than his real son-in-law (Damaad) also revoked and cancelled a power of attorney which was executed in favour of Jabar Bahadur Singh and executed the Will in favour of respondent no.6 12. Learned counsel has further emphasized that the Will of the private respondent no.6 was dulyattested and proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the findings which have been recorded are not liable to be interfered with. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to a fact that the petitioners have already approached the civil court by filing a suit seeking cancellation of the Will deed dated 30.11.2012 which is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Musafirkhana, District Amethi as Regular Suit No.113 of 2014. 13. It is thus urged that where the title is to be adjudicated in the regular suit, the instant petition preferred at the behest of the petitioners assailing a mutation entry is not maintainable, consequently, deserves to be dismissed. 14. 13. It is thus urged that where the title is to be adjudicated in the regular suit, the instant petition preferred at the behest of the petitioners assailing a mutation entry is not maintainable, consequently, deserves to be dismissed. 14. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the petitioners have already instituted a regular suit seeking cancellation of the Will dated 30.11.2012. In this view of the matter where the Will is still subject to scrutiny of the appropriate civil court also noticing the fact that mutation entries do not decide the right, title or interest of any of the parties rather are maintained only for fiscal purposes and does not distinguish or create any rights. The issue regarding validity of the Will has been tentatively considered for mutation and finding has been returned. Any finding recorded by the mutation court is not binding on the civil court, however, the finding recorded by the Civil Court with the bindings on the mutation court. Against mutation order generally this Court does not entertain the writ petition as the matter is to be adjudicated on merits by taking the recourse to regular proceedings where rights of the parties shall be adjudicated. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 802. 16. In view of the aforesaid where it is admitted position that the parties are already contesting the rights before the appropriate Civil Court, accordingly this Court is not inclined to interfere and entertain the writ petition at this stage. It is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to get his rights adjudicated and the mutation entries will follow the order passed by the regular courts. 17. With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.