JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Supplementary filed by the learned counsel petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri M. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents as well as Shri Satish Kumar learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.2 on caveat. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 24.09.2022 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Baldirai, District Sultanpur which has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baldirai, District Sultanpur by means of order dated 17.05.2023 as well as the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Commissioner Ayodhya Division whereby the revisional court by means of order dated 02.08.2024 affirmed the two orders dated 24.09.2022 and 17.05.2023. 4. The dispute in question relates to the property left behind by Jagannath Giri who was the recorded owner of Khata No.116, 117, 118, 419 and 420 of village Sewara, Pargana Barausa, Tehsil Baldirai, District Sultanpur. 5. Mutation proceedings were initiated by the petitioner, who claimed rights in the property of Jagannath Giri on the basis of a Will said to have been executed by Jagannath Giri dated 18.09.2014. 6. Upon the death of Jagannath Giri on 19.09.2014, the private respondent no.2 being the daughter of Jagannath Giri alongwith her mother Dharamraji had sought mutation on the basis of succession and their names came to be incorporated as per P.A.11 on 01.10.2014. 7. The petitioner moved an application under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and also sought a stay on the order dated 01.10.2014 by which name of Dharamraji and Smt. Kirtan was recorded. During pendency of the proceedings Dharamraji also expired and thus the estate of Jagannath Giri was being contested by the respondent no.2. 8. The Tehsildar by means of order dated 24.09.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and it also allowed the application of the respondent no.2 The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.05.2024 whereafter the revision was also dismissed on 02.08.2024. 9. 8. The Tehsildar by means of order dated 24.09.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 and it also allowed the application of the respondent no.2 The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 17.05.2024 whereafter the revision was also dismissed on 02.08.2024. 9. Assailing the aforesaid orders, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts have failed to consider that the Will as claimed by the petitioner was duly proved in accordance with law and the petitioner had examined Guru Nath who was the attesting witness of the Will who clearly indicated that the Will was duly executed and registered. Once the said Will was duly proved in accordance with law coupled with the fact that the private respondent had already instituted a suit before the civil court seeking cancellation of the Will, in such circumstances, the mutation order ought to have been passed in favour of the petitioner which would have been subject to the final decision regarding the Will in the civil suit which was instituted by the private respondent. 10. It is further submitted that Jagannath Giri had brought up the petitioner as his own son and in all the relevant records pertaining to the petitioner his father's name had been shown as Jagannath Giri. In such circumstances, it was the petitioner who had taken care of Jagannath Giri as his own father and it was but natural for him to have executed a Will in favour of the petitioner since there was no formal adoption, hence the Will was the only way for Jagannath Giri to have given expression to his intentions. As Jagannath Giri was suffering from a terminal disease, hence he had gone to the Sub Registrar' Office where the said Will was executed and registered which was duly proved as per the statement of the attesting witness Guru Nath, hence the findings recorded by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court are bad in the eyes of law. 11. It is also urged that since mutation proceedings are of summary nature, hence the statement of the attesting witness was sufficient to discharge the burden of the petitioner to prove the Will which necessarily would have been subject to the outcome in the civil suit. 11. It is also urged that since mutation proceedings are of summary nature, hence the statement of the attesting witness was sufficient to discharge the burden of the petitioner to prove the Will which necessarily would have been subject to the outcome in the civil suit. This aspect has not been appropriately considered by the three courts resulting in sheer miscarriage of justice. 12. Learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the private respondent no.2 has urged that it is now well settled that the writ petition arising out of mutation proceedings which are of summary nature is not maintainable. Even the exceptions which have been carved out by this Court as per the decision rendered in Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 SCC Online All 193 yet the said exceptions are not attracted in the instant case, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and as the petitioner is already contesting the civil suit, accordingly the order of the civil suit would necessarily bind the parties. 13. It is also urged that the Will of the petitioner did not find favour with the three courts and they have recorded their reasons which are pure findings of fact and concurrent, hence for all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 15. At the outset, it may be noticed that there is no dispute that the suit for cancellation of the Will dated 18.09.2014 executed by Jagannath Giri in favour of the petitioner is the subject matter of suit bearing R.S.No.14 of 2015 pending before the competent civil court at Sultanpur. 16. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and from the perusal of the material on record, it would reveal that the attesting witness Guru Nath who had appeared before the mutation court for proving the Will in his cross examination stated that the Will which was shown to him was not the original wherein Guru Nath had put his signatures as an attesting witness. 17. The record further indicates that the other witness who was examined by the petitioner, namely, Yashwant Giri i.e. the power of attorney holder of the petitioner also gave statement which had inconsistencies. 17. The record further indicates that the other witness who was examined by the petitioner, namely, Yashwant Giri i.e. the power of attorney holder of the petitioner also gave statement which had inconsistencies. Another circumstances which was taken note of by the Tehsildar was the fact that on the date of the alleged execution of the said Will the testator, namely, Jagannath Giri was admitted in the hospital, he was discharged from the hospital around 6.00 P.M. whereas the said Will is said to have been executed and registered in the office of the Sub Registrar on 18.09.2014 itself during the day Jagannath Giri is said to have died the very next day i.e. 19.09.2014. 18. Taking note of the aforesaid facts, the Tehsildar did not find favour with the Will and it held that the Will is said to have been executed on the day when Jagannath Giri was hospitalized, hence his presence in the Registrar Office for executing the Will becomes doubtful. The Tehsildar also noticed that since original Will had not been filed in the record till the time the attesting witness was examined who himself stated that the Will which was confronted to him was not the original of the Will wherein he had put his signature. Taking a cumulative impact, the Will did not find favour and these findings have been affirmed by the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court. These are apparently findings of fact which this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is loath to interfere with. 19. Needless to say that any finding in summary proceedings such as the mutation cases are only tentative expression which is recorded by the mutation courts for a limited purpose. They do not bind the parties if the issue is agitated in a regular forum. Apparently, in the instant case the civil suit is pending adjudication which relates to cancellation of the Will. Any finding recorded by the civil court would necessarily impact the orders passed by the mutation court but it is not vise-versa (see Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 and Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 SCC Online All 193) 20. Any finding recorded by the civil court would necessarily impact the orders passed by the mutation court but it is not vise-versa (see Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. & others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802 and Smt. Kalawati Vs. Board of Revenue reported in 2022 SCC Online All 193) 20. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear opinion that the instant petition which arises out of mutation proceedings and also considering that the mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and would necessarily be governed by the decision of the civil suit, hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant petition at this stage. 21. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court would not impact the outcome of the civil suit which is pending between the parties relating to cancellation of Will and the civil court would necessarily decide the same in light of the material and evidence before it in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be at liberty of moving any appropriate application before the civil court where the suit is pending for ventilation of his grievance and in case if any such application is moved, the Court concerned shall decide the same as per its own merit in accordance with law. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not deem appropriate to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid observations at the admission stage itself.