Short Note : 1. On behalf of the defendant-applicant, Shri J.R. Sharma contended that the impugned order is illegal and not warranted by provisions of Order 1, rule 10 read with section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1973. Shri Swami Saran, counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order and also raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the impugned order enures in favour of Mahesh Kumar and three other sons of the plaintiff-non-applicant Trilok. Chandra and that the revision is not properly constituted inasmuch as they have not been joined as party. Therefore, no interference can be made in the revision behind their back. Held; The impugned order enures in favour of Mahesh Kumar and three other sons of the plaintiff-non-applicant. As such, they ought to have been impleaded in the revision. It is a well-know principle of law that no order can be passed behind the back of parties whose interests are likely to be affected adversely. Moreover, the impugned order has attained finality so far as Mahendra Kumar and other sons are concerned. In this view of the matter, the revision is defectively constituted and the preliminary objection deserves to be upheld. Revision dismissed.