JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein to quash the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag in Probate Case No.02/2022, whereby, he has been pleased to allow the application filed by the interveners/opposite party nos. 2 to 4 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC for adding them party to the said probate case. 3. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted an application for grant of probate certificate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the properties which were received by her from Matishwari Devi, wife of late Vidha Singh, who executed a will on 17.12.2017 for the properties which were acquired by her in terms of registered deed of sale no.315 of 1946 from Nandkeshwari Kumari, wife of Ayodhya Singh. He submits that the testator remained in absolute ownership and exclusive possession throughout her life over the properties. The testatrix has not executed any other will in favour of any other person in respect of the properties which were subject matter of the said probate case. The properties which were subject matter of the said probate case is situated in Khata no.07 of Mouza- Tandih, Pargana Chaiy, Thana- Chouparan, Thana no.131. He further submits that the testatrix Matishwari Devi was aunt-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner had taken care of her every requirement with full devotion and due to that on being satisfied with her behaviour, the testatrix executed the said will in favour of the petitioner. According to him, the testatrix has no child and she had only a step daughter, namely, Gita Devi, who is opposite party no.1 in the present C.M.P. as well as in the said probate case and she has supported the case of the petitioner. He then submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are strangers and they have got no relationship with the said property and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased to allow the application filed by them, which is against the mandate of law. He then submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are strangers and they have got no relationship with the said property and in spite of that, the learned court has been pleased to allow the application filed by them, which is against the mandate of law. He also submits that the right, title and interest cannot be looked into by the learned court in the probate case and that is well settled. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pasupati Nath Das (Dead) v. Chanchal Kumar Das (Dead) by legal representative and others , reported in (2018) 18 SCC 547 . He also submits that the will was executed by the testatrix at the age of 87 years. 4. Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 submits that opposite party no.1 has supported the case of the petitioner by way of filing written statement in the said probate case. 5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 submits that the testatrix is also aunt of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the said property is joint property. He further submits that the testatrix was a teacher and thumb impression has been taken in the will, which cast doubt upon the petitioner. He also submits that the learned court by a reasoned order, has allowed the said application for intervention and there is no illegality in the order of the learned court. 6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires from the record that the dispute is there with regard to genuineness of the will and it has been claimed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4 that the testatrix was aunt of opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and the said property is joint property. 7. Order I Rule 10 of the CPC enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order I Rule 10 of the CPC empowers the court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. 8. When the court finds that in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled, the court would do justice by impleading such persons. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC gives wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit. 9. The expression “to settle all questions involved” used in Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC is susceptive to a liberal and wide interpretation, so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject matter thereof. 10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the genuineness of the will is required to be proved in the probate case. The learned court has taken care of all the aspects while passing the said order saying that so far as right, title and interest is concerned, that cannot be a subject matter of the probate case and only genuineness of the will has to be examined in the said probate case. The learned court has further taken note of the fact that the testatrix being a teacher, has put her thumb impression on the will and he has come to the conclusion that if the jointness is prayed, interveners/opposite party nos. 2 to4 are necessary parties. 11. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is also meant to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The learned court has given cogent reasoning while allowing the said application for intervention filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 12. 2 to4 are necessary parties. 11. Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC is also meant to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The learned court has given cogent reasoning while allowing the said application for intervention filed by opposite party nos. 2 to 4. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, there is no illegality in the impugned order and, as such, this petition is dismissed. 13. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either parties in the said probate case.