ORDER : Aravind Kumar, J. 1. The correctness and legality of the order dated 10.3.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.8292 of 2019 is under challenge in Letters Patent Appeal No.10 of 2023 filed by the legal heirs of late Mangabhai Vashrambhai contending, inter alia, that by virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, their names have been struck off in the revenue records relating to Survey No.604/1, situated at Village: Sarkhej, District: Ahmedabad and contending, inter alia, that they were not made parties in Special Civil Application though, their right is affected. It is also contended by learned advocate appearing for the applicants/appellants Mr. Jigar P. Raval that appellants being necessary and proper parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge and they having not been arrayed as parties and by virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, names of the appellants which were reflecting in the revenue records having been struck off or deleted, they would be necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. Hence, they have sought leave to appeal. 2. Per contra, Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents viz. writ applicants would submit that since there is already decree passed against the applicants, it was only implementation of said decree by the revenue authorities and there was no need or necessity for the applicants/appellants being joined as parties to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge and as such, he prays for rejection of the application and consequently the appeal also. 3. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have also drawn the attention of the Court to the pleadings laid before learned Single Judge and appeal papers and on perusal of the case papers, we are of the considered view that applicants/appellants would be necessary and proper parties to the proceedings, inasmuch as, writ applicants have sought for mutating the revenue records in respect of Survey No.604/1 referred to hereinabove supra by virtue of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.218 of 1985 as affirmed by the appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 16.10.2018 in First Appeal No.14 of 2012. In both these proceedings, appellants/applicants were parties. That apart, names of the applicants/appellants were appearing in the revenue records insofar as Survey No.604/1 is concerned till their names were deleted by virtue of judgment and decree passed by Civil Court. In both these proceedings, appellants/applicants were parties. That apart, names of the applicants/appellants were appearing in the revenue records insofar as Survey No.604/1 is concerned till their names were deleted by virtue of judgment and decree passed by Civil Court. Hence, we are of the considered view that appellants/applicants are necessary and proper parties and as such, application filed by them seeking leave of this Court to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be allowed and accordingly, Civil Application No.2627 of 2022 is allowed. 4. There is a delay of 83 days in filing the appeal. Cause for delay has been explained in the application in paragraph 3 which would constitute sufficient cause as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Katiji, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 . Hence, in the interest of justice, delay stands condoned and Civil Application No.33 of 2023 is allowed. 5. Now turning our attention to the core issue viz. as to whether the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be sustained or modified or set aside, our answer to the said question would be in favour of the writ applicants, i.e. against the appellants/applicants partly, for the reasons indicated hereinbelow. 6. The case on hand would clearly disclose that in respect of land bearing Survey No.604/1 which is the subject property was also the subject matter of Regular Civil Suit No.218 of 1985, wherein the appellants herein were also parties viz. defendants. The said suit after contest came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein carried the same in First Appeal No.14 of 2012 resulting in decree of that court being affirmed by the first appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 16.10.2018. Said judgment and decree is now said to have been carried by the appellants herein by filing Second Appeal No.36 of 2018 which is said to be pending for admission. Any entry made in the revenue records would be subject to result of civil proceedings. There being a judgment and decree passed in favour of the writ applicants and revenue authorities having mutated the revenue records accordingly, no fault can be found in the exercise undertaken by jurisdictional Mamlatdar at this juncture. Any entry made in the revenue records would be subject to result of civil proceedings. There being a judgment and decree passed in favour of the writ applicants and revenue authorities having mutated the revenue records accordingly, no fault can be found in the exercise undertaken by jurisdictional Mamlatdar at this juncture. Such entry would necessarily be subject to the result of Second Appeal No.36 of 2018. 7. With these observations, appeal stands dismissed. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits and pending applications if any stand consigned to records.