ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. I.A. No. 5314 of 2016 The present interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 1177 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and also looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 thereof, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this L.P.A. No. 607 of 2015. 3. This interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 607 of 2015 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6424 of 2005 which was dismissed vide order dated 14th June, 2012 as well as against the order passed in Civil Review No. 35 of 2013 which was also dismissed vide order dated 20th August, 2015. 2. Counsel appearing for these appellants submitted that initially, respondent no. 3-Kali Prasad Ojha and three others had instituted Title Suit No. 135 of 1986 before the competent trial court in the State of Jharkhand. The said suit was withdrawn by respondent no. 3 and other plaintiffs vide order dated 20th September, 1991. Application for withdrawal was preferred and the same was allowed by the trial court. The said suit was for plot no. 212 measuring 67 decimals of land. Respondent No. 3-Kali Prasad Ojha and three other plaintiffs were claiming right, title and interest upon the said property. 3. Later on, for 10 decimals of land out of the very same plot i.e. plot no. 212 and application under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was preferred by the respondents for correction in the revenue entries. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in this application reply has been preferred by these appellants, mainly raising a ground that the respondents have not joined the necessary parties. 4. It is further submitted by the counsel for these appellants that thereafter application was preferred by the respondents for joining the necessary parties in their application under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 4. It is further submitted by the counsel for these appellants that thereafter application was preferred by the respondents for joining the necessary parties in their application under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. In the said application another prayer was also made for correction of small errors in their application for which the appellants have no objection, but, so far as allowing the application preferred by the respondents for joining the necessary party is concerned, the appellants had objection. Order was passed by the Settlement Officer on 1st August, 2005 allowing the necessary parties to be joined. 5. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 1st August, 2005, passed by the Settlement Officer these appellants instituted writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6424 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14th June, 2012. Civil Review No. 35 of 2013 was also preferred by these appellants which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20th August, 2015 and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners with a delay condonation application of 1177 days. 6. Having heard counsel for the appellants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the reason that in an application preferred by the respondents under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the appellants had filed a reply. Objection was raised by the appellants that the respondents have not joined the necessary parties. Now the respondents preferred an application for joining the necessary parties. This application was allowed vide order dated 1st August, 2005. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the Settlement Officer as well as by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 6424 of 2005 as well as in Civil Review No. 35 of 2013. Before the lowest available authority under the Revenue Laws, if the error is corrected by the respondents by joining the necessary parties, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Settlement Officer was wrong. 7. It was a desire of these appellants that necessary parties should be joined. Now when the respondents had already preferred an application for joining the necessary parties, these appellants cannot raise an objection. 7. It was a desire of these appellants that necessary parties should be joined. Now when the respondents had already preferred an application for joining the necessary parties, these appellants cannot raise an objection. Even otherwise also, no error has been committed by the Settlement Officer while passing an order on 1st August, 2005, allowing the application preferred by the respondents. Similarly, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(C) No. 6424 of 2005 vide order dated 14th June, 2012. No prejudice will cause to these appellants when they are being joining as parties in an application under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It appears that these appellants do not want to proceed with the case at all. It appears to this Court that these appellants must be in the possession of the property in question and want to continue with it. It appears to this Court that this L.P.A. is nothing, but, is being used to delay the proceedings. By hook or crook, these appellants do not want to proceed with the case and hence, one after another cases have been instituted, initially the writ petition thereafter civil review and thereafter, this Letters Patent Appeal. This Letters Patent Appeal thus, deserves to be dismissed with cost, but, we are restraining ourselves in imposing the cost as no notice has been issued upon the respondents. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.