JUDGMENT 1. - As per office report, notice of sole respondent is received but not properly served. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that notices were served upon the wife of respondent-plaintiff and respondent-plaintiff is intentionally avoiding service, therefore, the service effect upon wife of plaintiff- respondent may be treated as sufficient. 3. In the interest of justice, in view of the fact that notice is received by the cohabiting spouse, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby accepted. Service is complete. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on merit. 5. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the order impugned dated 7.8.2012 (Annex.-7) may be quashed by which application filed by the petitioner-defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151, C.P.C. was dismissed. 6. As per facts of the case, the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the present petitioners with a prayer to restrain them from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The present petitioner filed their reply and denied all the averments made in the plaint and, therefore, an application was moved by the petitioner-defendants under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading the Mining Department as party for just adjudication of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of deciding the controversy the Mining Department is necessary because the existence of the site of mine can be explained by the Mining Department but the trial Court rejected the application. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 1997 DNJ (SC) 30, M/s. Azeez Momong and Company v. Laji . 8. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the order impugned. 9. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration entire facts of the case held that dispute is in between the respondent-plaintiff and petitioner-defendants with regard to demarcation of the mine for which licence is issued, therefore, by leading evidence both parties can prove their respective right according to the licence issued to them by the Mining Department, therefore, it is not necessary to implead the Mining Department as party. The trial Court further observed in the order that for just adjudication it is not necessary to implead the Mining Department as party; meaning thereby as per the order impugned the trial Court rejected the plea of the petitioner for impleading Mining Department as party. 10. In the judgment reported in 1997 DNJ (SC) 30, M/s. Azeez Momong & . Company v. Laji , in which, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in the suit for perpetual injunction by the lessee against the Municipal Corporation contesting respondent Nos. 2 to 6 sought to come on record contending that they have direct interest in the property and High Court by the impugned order was upheld; but, in the application has been filed by the petitioner-defendant to implead this case , the Mining Department as party. Therefore, the facts of aforesaid case are altogether different and not applicable in the present case. 11. In this view of the matter, no error has been committed by the trial Court in passing order to reject application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. filed by the petitioners-defendant and grant liberty to lead evidence prove their respective case. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******