JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Saibal Kr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3. 2. Mr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 submits that the opposite party No.3 herein is defendant No.3 in the said suit. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IX, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.365 of 2022 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the application dated 04.03.2024 filed by the plaintiff in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.114 of 2024 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code filed in the said suit. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the original suit has been filed by the plaintiff who are the opposite parties herein for declaration of Sale Deed No.6702 dated 15.12.1995 for declaration of right, title and interest on the basis of the said sale deed and also for recovery of possession. He submits that upon notice the defendants have appeared and filed their written statement, who is the petitioner and opposite party No.3 herein. According to him, the plaintiffs were knowing about the death of defendant No.2 in spite of that the suit has been instituted against the dead person and when the petition was filed by the defendants disclosing that the defendant No.2 has left for his heavenly abode the petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has been filed and pursuant to that the learned Court has allowed the same. He submits that the learned Court has wrongly allowed the same and in view of the fact that having the knowledge that fact was suppressed and suit was filed. On this ground, he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. 5. Mr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 submits that the petitioner and opposite party No.3 are in possession of the suit property. 6. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, submits that inadvertently that has occurred. 5. Mr. Laik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3 submits that the petitioner and opposite party No.3 are in possession of the suit property. 6. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs, submits that inadvertently that has occurred. He further submits that has also been admitted in paragraph No.15 of the petition of present C.M.P. filed by the petitioner herein and that is said to be a formal defect. He submits that when the fact arose the said petition was filed and the learned Court considering that the legal heirs/successors of the dead defendants are necessary parties has rightly allowed the said petition. He submits that identical was the situation before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 490 SC and he refers to paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which is as under :- 14. In the matter on hand, though the trial court had rightly dismissed the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as not maintainable at an earlier point of time, in our considered opinion, it needs to be mentioned that the trial Court at that point of time itself could have treated the said application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code as one filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, in order to do justice between the parties. Merely because of the non- mentioning of the correct provision as Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for the plaintiff, the parties should not be made to suffer. It is by now well settled that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application would not prohibit a party to the litigation from getting justice. Ultimately, the Courts are meant to do justice and not to decide the applications based on technicalities. The provision under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC speaks about judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of the suit. It can strike out any party who is improperly joined, it can add any one as a plaintiff or defendant if it finds that such person is a necessary or proper party. The provision under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC speaks about judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of the suit. It can strike out any party who is improperly joined, it can add any one as a plaintiff or defendant if it finds that such person is a necessary or proper party. The Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. The expression “to settle all questions involved” used in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code is susceptive to a liberal and wide interpretation, so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject matter thereof. The Parliament in its wisdom while framing this rule must be held to have thought that all material questions common to the parties to the suit and to the third parties should be tried once for all. The Court is clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result with judicious discretion to add parties, including third parties. There cannot be any dispute that the party impleaded must have a direct interest in the subject matter of litigation. In a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed, as mentioned supra, a person who has purchased the property and whose rights are likely to be affected pursuant to the judgment in the suit is a necessary party, and he has to be added. If such purchaser has expired, his legal representatives are necessary parties. In the matter on hand, since the purchaser of the suit property, i.e., defendant no.7 has expired prior to the filing of the suit, his legal representatives ought to have been arrayed as parties in the suit while presenting the plaint. As such impleadment was not made at the time of filing of the plaint in view of the fact that the plaintiff did not know about the death of the purchaser, he cannot be non-suited merely because of his ignorance of the said fact. To do justice between the parties and as the legal representatives of the purchaser of the suit property are necessary parties, they have to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, inasmuch as the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was not maintainable. To do justice between the parties and as the legal representatives of the purchaser of the suit property are necessary parties, they have to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, inasmuch as the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was not maintainable. As mentioned supra, it is only if a defendant dies during the pendency of the suit that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code can be invoked. Since one of the defendants i.e. defendant No.7 has expired prior to the filing of the suit, there is no legal impediment in impleading the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No.7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, for the simple reason that the plaintiff in any case could have instituted a fresh suit against these legal representatives on the date he moved an application for making them parties, subject of course to the law of limitation. Normally, if the plaintiff had known about the death of one of the defendants at the time of institution of the suit, he would have filed a suit in the first instance against his heirs or legal representatives. The difficulty that the High Court experienced in granting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code discloses, with great respect, a hyper-technical approach which may result in the miscarriage of justice. As the heirs of the deceased defendant no.7 were the persons with vital interest in the outcome of the suit, such applications have to be approached keeping in mind that the Courts are meant to do substantial justice between the parties and that technical rules or procedures should not be given precedence over doing substantial justice. Undoubtedly, justice according to the law does not merely mean technical justice but means that law is to be administered to advance justice. 15. Having regard to the totality of the narration made supra, there is no bar for filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10, even when the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed as not maintainable under the facts of the case. 15. Having regard to the totality of the narration made supra, there is no bar for filing the application under Order 1 Rule 10, even when the application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed as not maintainable under the facts of the case. The legal heirs of the deceased person in such a matter can be added in the array of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code read with Section 151 of the Code subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, to be decided during the course of trial. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Trial Court is directed to implead the legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 and bring them on record, subject to the plea of limitation as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 6 of the Code, as well as under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to be decided during the trial. 7. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that there is no error in passing the said order and the legal heirs/successors has been brought on record and that has been done to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation and in the interest of justice. 8. In view of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is an admitted position that the suit was instituted for declaration of right, title and interest and recovery of possession and the defendant No.2 was also made party in that suit, who said to be dead at the time of the institution of the suit itself, however, pointing out by the defendants, the petition of death of defendant No.2 the petition under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC was filed by the plaintiff which has been allowed by the learned Court. 9. It is an admitted fact that the defendant No.2 has left for his heavenly abode and in absence of legal heirs/successors if the suit would have been decided that will be said to be a nullity and at the earliest point of time, if that has been detected and the learned Court has allowed the same it cannot be said the learned Court has exceeded the jurisdiction. 10. 10. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is a discretionary power of the learned Court and at any stage in the ends of justice the learned Court can exercise that power and the Court finds that he has rightly discussed the spirit of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC and further the judgment relied by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is further helping the petitioner as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Court. 11. The contention was made that in the earlier C.M.P. it was also admitted by them that defendant No.2 has died and his widow was not made a party and the earlier C.M.P. was withdrawn with liberty to file the suit and the suit has been filed without arraying legal heirs and successors. Even the said argument is accepted, it is done in light of discussion made herein and in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (supra) , the Court finds that the learned Court has not erred in passing such order and that is necessary as the legal heirs/successors of defendant No.2 were not arrayed as defendants and that has been done at the initial stage that will also save the time of the Court as well as the litigants and it was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation in view of that no case of interference is made out, as such this petition is dismissed.