JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.10.2019, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”), vide which impleadment application filed by respondents No.7 to 9 has been allowed. 2. Concised facts pertaining to the present case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction, seeking an order or restrain that respondent No.4-Mining Engineer be restrained from interfering in their mining activities. 3. In the suit aforesaid, the plaintiffs’ cause of action has been the notice dated 01.05.2019 (Annex.4), vide which the Mining Engineer, Makrana had asked the plaintiffs to not to carry on mining activities unless, name of legal representatives of Ahmad Ali are included in the lease and the mine is mutated in their names. 4. The respondents No.7 to 9 filed an application seeking their impleadment in the suit as party – defendant, interalia stating that since 1968, their father Ibrahim Ali, brother-in-law of petitioners’ father namely Farukh Ali were doing the mining business jointly. The applicants placed various documents on record including agreement of 1968 and 1992, Mauka report and Fard Supardaginama to establish that their father was a partner with Farukh Ali and they are having possession of one half (northern side) of the mine. 5. In light of the documentary evidence available on record and in view of the fact that the respondent No.7 to 9 have got their share of mine released from the SHO concerned, learned Court below allowed the impleadment application and impleaded the applicants (respondents No.7-9) as defendant. 6. Mr. V.D. Vaishnav, learned counsel for the petitioners, assailing the order dated 01.10.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, contended that the petitioners’ suit in question is indisputably a suit for injunction, wherein relief has been sought only against the Mining Department. He added that cause of action is notice dated 01.05.2019, whereby the Mining Engineer has asked the petitioners-plaintiffs to stop their mining activities unless the land/mine is mutated in their names in the revenue/mining record. 7. He argued that the question as to whether a particular person is required to be impleaded as party or not is required to be determined on the basis of relief claimed in the suit. 7. He argued that the question as to whether a particular person is required to be impleaded as party or not is required to be determined on the basis of relief claimed in the suit. The petitioners had neither claimed any relief against the respondents No.7 to 9 nor any order passed therein would affect their rights adversely, as such they cannot be impleaded in the suit. 8. Per contra, Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supporting the order impugned, argued that there is enough material available to evince that respondents No.7 to 9 are having possession of one half of the mine (northern side). He asserted that the petitioners have stated wrong facts in the suit filed by them and alleged that they are having possession over the entire mine. 9. Mr. agarwal further submitted that the petitioners and the respondents No.7 to 9 have filed various suits and proceedings against each other and if the present suit is decreed on the basis of incorrect averments of the plaintiffs that they are having possession over the entire mine, their right in the other suit and proceedings are likely to be adversely affected. It was also alleged that there are host of incorrect facts, which are likely to adversely affect the rights of the respondents No.7 to 9. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the impleadment application filed by the respondents No.7 to 9 vis-avis the plaint, this court is of the considered opinion that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs-petitioners is essentially against the Mining Department, wherein an injunction has been sought qua the Mining Department. 11. The respondents No.7 to 9 claiming themselves to be owner/having possession of one half of the mine have been impleaded as defendants on the basis of their possession. Such impleadment has rather led to a very strange situation – they being defendants may not support the plaintiffs’ claim and may even oppose prayer of the plaintiffs seeking injunction against the Mining Department in furtherance of the notice dated 01.05.2019. It is to be noted that in case, the notice dated 01.05.2019 is allowed to stand, even their rights (vis-a-vis half mine) would also be under the threat of closure. 12. It is to be noted that in case, the notice dated 01.05.2019 is allowed to stand, even their rights (vis-a-vis half mine) would also be under the threat of closure. 12. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is not necessary that the respondents No.7 to 9 will oppose plaintiffs’ prayer for grant of injunction, they may even support their case, so far as the relief of injunction and quashment of notice dated 01.05.2019 are concerned. 13. That being so, his argument that if any order is passed on the basis of false averments of the plaintiffs, it is likely to adversely affect their right, turns out to be a mere apprehension. 14. No person can be impleaded as a defendant on the basis of apprehension – he has to show his rights and interest in the suit. 15. In considered opinion of this Court neither any right of respondents No.7 to 9 are in question nor the same are in any manner at risk. If any order is passed in the instant suit, likely to affect rights of respondents No.7 to 9, obviously, the same would be inoperative to the extent of affecting their rights, if they are not impleaded as party. 16. It is settled proposition of law that any order passed in absence of the party or behind back of the party, cannot bind such party. 17. As an upshot of above discussion and in view of the observation made herein above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 01.10.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court is quashed and set aside. 18. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that in case any order is passed in the suit or temporary application, which is against the rights and interest of respondents No.7 to 9, the same shall not affect their rights, including the rights pending consideration in the suits between the parties. Their possession shall not be prejudicially effected, as respondents No.7 to 9 have been obliterated from array of defendants. 19. Stay petition stands disposed of.