JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.4/State, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.1 and 2 (School), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.3. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 05.12.2022 passed in Original Suit No.67 of 2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bermo at Tenughat whereby the petition dated 02.09.2019 filed by one Motilal Murmu under Order-I Rule-10 read with Section 151 C.P.C for impleading him a party/defendant in Original Suit No.67 of 2019 has been allowed. 3. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the land measuring 3.16 ½ acres and 1 acre under Khata No.42 in plot no.942 of Village Tarbalidih within Jaridih Police Station now falling in the District of Bokaro (earlier Giridih) where the lands received by Bhudan Yagya being given to the Bihar Bhudan Yagya Committee. He submits that the land was settled in favour of the petitioners by the State Government and the suit was between the petitioners and the O.P.Nos.1, 2 and 4. He submits that during pendency of the said suit, the said petition was preferred by the O.P.No.3 herein and the same was allowed by the learned court without appreciating the fact that the Sada-Hukumnama is not admissible. He further submits that the newly added O.P.No.3 has got no interest in the said property and in view of that, the said order may kindly be set-aside. He submits that the said O.P.No.3 is not the necessary party. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P.Nos.1,2 and 4 submit that on the basis of only Sada-Hukumnama the learned court has passed the said order. 5. The learned court by order dated 05.12.2022 has allowed the petition filed by the O.P.no.3 under Order I Rule 10 on the basis of original Hukumnama and Jamindari rent receipt and find that the O.P.No.3 is necessary party. 5. The learned court by order dated 05.12.2022 has allowed the petition filed by the O.P.no.3 under Order I Rule 10 on the basis of original Hukumnama and Jamindari rent receipt and find that the O.P.No.3 is necessary party. The said power is a discretionary power of the court to order the name of any person whose presence before the court is necessary to settle all the questions involved, to be added by amending defect/error in application in interest of ends of justice, the discretion has to be exercised according to reason and fair play and the expression ‘to settle all the questions involved’ should be interpreted widely and liberally, and hyper-technical approach should be avoided. 6. Further, Order I Rule 10 of the CPC enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceeding if the person whose presence in the 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 the multiplicity of the proceeding is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order I Rule 10 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. 7. In the case in hand on the basis of the documents the learned court has come to the conclusion that newly added O.P.No.3 is necessary party and any document brought on record can be proved in the trial by way of leading evidence. Merely filing of any document is not admissible unless it is proved in the trial and certain documents are there in favour of the O.P.No.3 with regard to the schedule property of the suit and in light of that, the learned court has passed the said order. There is no illegality in the said order. 8. As such, C.M.P. No.296 of 2023 is dismissed. There is no illegality in the said order. 8. As such, C.M.P. No.296 of 2023 is dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the case of either of the parties and the suit will be decided on its own merit on the basis of the evidence brought by the parties. 9. It is open to the parties to take endeavour for early disposal of the suit.