Order Heard the parties. 2. This appeal under letters patent jurisdiction is against the order dated 23.7.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition. 3. A writ petition was filed by Kalawati Devi, wife of late Ganesh Sahu, challenging the order passed in Mutation Revision (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) as well as the order passed in Mutation Appeal dated 30th October, 2007 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), whereby the order dated 2.12.1998 passed by the Circle Officer allowing the mutation in favour of the writ petitioner was set aside. The main ground for challenge of the aforesaid revisional and appellate orders, contained in Annexures-9 and 7 to the writ petition, was that though the appeal against the order passed by the Circle Officer allowing the mutation was hopelessly barred by limitation but without condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the order of the Circle Officer was set aside and this aspect of the matter was totally overlooked by the revisional authority and, therefore, the order passed by them was without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. The learned Single Judge held that once the name of a person entered into the revenue record then there is presumption of the correctness of that entry and such presumption cannot be brushed aside without condoning the delay when the appeal is preferred after several years from the date of mutation entry and consequently, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the appellate authority set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer without condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 5. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it appears that it was submitted before him by the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition, i.e. the appellants herein, that if the writ petitioners and their legal heirs do not transfer the disputed properties by way of sale, mortgage, lease, sub-lease, sub-tenancy or gift etc. then they have no much objection in going to the civil court for establishing their right, title and interest upon the properties in question. 6. then they have no much objection in going to the civil court for establishing their right, title and interest upon the properties in question. 6. On such submissions made by the counsel for the respondents in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, after setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, contained in Annexures-7 and 9 to the writ petition, directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to possession and title of the property since both the parties agreed before him that they want to approach the civil court for availing the remedies and for getting their civil rights decided. The learned Single Judge further observed that all the parties shall not create any new charge upon the properties in question. 7. After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority could not have set• aside the order passed by the Circle Officer in the year 1998 after about seven years that also in absence of any application of the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and without considering the point of limitation. Once the order passed by a court becomes final and an appeal is preferred beyond the period of limitation then until and unless the party appealing explain sufficient cause for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation and unless the appellate authority after accepting the explanation submitted by the appellants condones the delay in filing the appeal, the order passed by the original authority, which has attained its finality, cannot be quashed or set aside. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, having found not merit, this letters patent appeal is dismissed.