( 1 ) HEARD Sri Koka Raghava Rao, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Arbitration representing the respondent. ( 2 ) THE C. R. P. is filed as against an order dated 23-8-2000 made in S. O. P. No. 5/2000 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at yellamanchili. The revision petitioner had filed S. O. P. No. 5/2000 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge at yellamanchili under Section 372 of the indian Succession Act for the purpose of obtaining Succession Certificate. The case of the petitioner is that as per term No. 7 incorporated in the compromise decree made in A. S. No. 1468/82 dated 22-9-95, the petitioner is entitled to obtain a succession certificate and accordingly, the S. O. P. 7 stated supra, had been filed. The other factual details may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of the present C. R. P. ( 3 ) THE Court below purporting to and in exercise of suo motu power had directed the district Collector, Visakhapatnam, to be added as a party under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is preferred by the revision petitioner. ( 4 ) SRI Koka Raghava Rao, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had vehemently contended that the Court below had erroneously directed the District collector, Visakhapatnam, to be impleaded as a party to the proceeding, though the Government is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the very O. P. was instituted by the revision petitioner in terms of the compromise entered into in a. S. No. 1468/82, dated 22-9-1995 on the file of this Court and hence, the Court below had totally erred in issuing such a direction. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the observations of the Court relating to the provisions of the hindu Succession Act,, 1956 are totally irrelevant and unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also had submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is only summary in nature and parties are not entitled to raise contentions regarding the title to the property or such other complicated questions in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate. The learned counsel also had submitted that the procedure laid down under Section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is only summary in nature and parties are not entitled to raise contentions regarding the title to the property or such other complicated questions in the proceedings for grant of succession certificate. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for arbitration had tried to sustain the order stating that Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates even exercise of suo motu power and hence, the court below had rightly exercised the said power by directing the District Collector, visakhapatnam, to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings. The learned government Pleader also had drawn my attention to Section 29 of the Hindu succession Act, 1956 and had contended that in this view of the matter, the District collector, Visakhapatnam is a necessary and proper party. ( 6 ) ORDER I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure reads as follows:"the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. " ( 7 ) IT is, no doubt, true that under order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil procedure, the words employed are "either upon or without the application of either party". Hence, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court can exercise powers under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure suo motu also. However, this power to be exercise only in a case where "whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit". Part X of the Indian succession Act, 1925 deals with succession certificates . However, this power to be exercise only in a case where "whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit". Part X of the Indian succession Act, 1925 deals with succession certificates . Section 372 of the Indian succession Act, 1925 deals with application for certificate and Section 373 of the said act deals with procedure on application . In V. K. Kamalam v, Panchali Amma. , it was held that the procedure laid down under section 373 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is summary in nature and it contemplates a summary enquiry into the matter of the application after service of notice to the opposite side and lengthy and detailed investigation is not contemplated under this section. It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the interest of the government is not involved at all. Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 deals with the aspect of failure of heirs and the said provision reads as follows:"if an intestate has left no heir qualified to succeed to his or her property in accordance with the provisions of this Act, such property shall devolve on the Government; and the Government shall take the property subject to all the obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject". ( 8 ) IN the present case, such a situation does not arise at all and hence, the contention raised by the learned government Pleader for Arbitration in this regard, in my opinion, is unsustainable in law. Where a party is neither a necessary nor a proper party, the Court having jurisdiction cannot direct such party to be impleaded as a party to the proceeding. It is needless to mention that the plaintiff in the suit is a dominus litus, no doubt, subject to certain exceptions in such cases. As already observed, the very proceeding for obtaining the Succession Certificate under indian Succession Act, 1925 is a summary trial. Further, it is a case where the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court below in pursuance of the terms of the compromise recorded in A. S. No. 1468/82, dated 22-9-1995. As already observed, the very proceeding for obtaining the Succession Certificate under indian Succession Act, 1925 is a summary trial. Further, it is a case where the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Court below in pursuance of the terms of the compromise recorded in A. S. No. 1468/82, dated 22-9-1995. In such a case, I am of the considered opinion that the court below had exceeded its jurisdiction in invoking suo motu power by issuing a direction to implead the District Collector, visakhapatnam, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order is one made without jurisdiction by the Court below and it suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 23-8-2000 made in s. O. P. No. 5/2000 on the file of the Principal junior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, is hereby set aside and the C. R. P. is allowed. But, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.