IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15423 of 2011 Date of Decision: August 23, 2011 Nishi. ….Petitioner Versus Rominder Pal Singh and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition has arisen out of the mutation proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that three different civil suits were pending for declaration and permanent injunction between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He has further stated that civil suit for Village Abohar Mandi was decreed on 16.05.2001, therefore, revenue authorities were bound to carry out mutation as per the Civil Court decree dated 16.05.2001. Record reveals that regular second appeal is pending against the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2001 CWP No.15423 of 2011 passed by learned Trial Court, as well as, judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed by learned First Appellate Court. In the opinion of this Court, mutation proceedings are summary in nature; it is settled proposition of law that mutation does not confer any title and it is the source of title which is to be seen; any observation, finding or order passed by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings shall not be res judicata and shall not have any adverse effect in the regular suit for declaration; ultimately mutation has to be carried out strictly as per the final outcome of the suit for declaration. It goes without saying that since regular second appeal is pending and matter is still subjudice before this Court, therefore, ultimately mutation is to be carried out as per final decision in the regular second appeal or by the Apex Court if it is taken to the Supreme Court and any alienation made pursuant to the impugned mutation shall be void and hit by principle of lis pendis, thus, I am not inclined to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to look into the correctness of the impugned mutation. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. August 23, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2