( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) THIS is a writ petition which clearly exhibits how people of this State are litigation minded. This is a case wherefrom it is clearly borne out that the litigants in the State do not like to see that any order of judicial Court or revenue Court or administrative authorities remain unchallenged. The litigation of this nature which is coming up in the courts is suggestive of the fact that the litigants are not properly advised. It is not as if every adverse order passed by the Courts below or authorities may have effect or result in causing prejudice to the party if it is not challenged. The purpose and object of holding legal literacy camps may also be to see that this class of litigants are made known and understand that every order of the Courts or authorities needs not be challenged.

( 3 ) THIS litigation arise out of transactions, i. e. agreement to sell in respect of the disputed land executed between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents No. 6 and 7 on the other. As usual, the dispute has arisen between the parties aforesaid which gave rise to filing of suit by petitioner being Special Civil Suit No. 72 of 1986 before the Civil judge (S. D.), Junagadh, for specific performance of agreement to sell. That suit is pending. It appears that the owner of the land, on 22nd April, 1988, executed a sale-deed of the land in favour of respondents No. 3 to 5. On the application of the petitioner in the civil Suit, those three persons were impleaded as defendants. In the suit, temporary injunction has also been granted to maintain status-quo in respect of the suit property.

( 4 ) ON the basis of sale-deed, what learned counsel for the petitioner contended that without notice to the petitioner, the respondents No. 3, 4 and 5 got this land mutated in their favour in revenue records. So though whatever orders passed by the revenue Court, on the basis of sale-deed which is the subject matter of challenge in the civil Court are subject to decision of the civil Court, but as what I said earlier, the petitioner has started litigating before the revenue Courts in the matter of correction of entries in the revenue record of this land and which resulted in two appeals, then revision and two special civil applications before this Court, including the present one. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the appellate authority in this case has found that the land has been wrongly entered in the revenue Court, in the name of respondents Nos. 3 to 5, but still that entry was not ordered to be struck of. On being asked by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy how this order will cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the entry made in the revenue record of the names of respondents No. 3 to 5 as holder of this land on the basis of sale-deed is an entry made in summary proceedings. Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this entry is conclusive on the right and interest of the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 5 with respect to land is dispute but it is not correct. Even if this is the nature of entry, the same has been made without notice to the petitioner and the appellate authority should have ordered for its striking of, I fail to see how any prejudice will be caused to the petitioner in case it continues in the revenue records. Only apprehension shown by learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of this entry, in the revenue record the respondents No. 3 to 5 may alienate or transfer this land further. I fail to see any justification in this contention and the reasons are, firstly, that independently of this entry, the respondents No. 3 to 5 can sell this land and secondly, whatever the further transactions are being made, pending the suit filed by the petitioner for specific performance for agreement to sell, wil