1. By the order dated 28th August, 2012 notice of the petition was issued to the respondents with a specific note that the petition would be heard and disposed off finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, notices have been served upon the respondents. Respondent no.1 is absent despite service. The name of respondent no.2 has been deleted from the proceedings on account of his death. Respondent no.3 had appeared before the Court to contest the petition.

2. The question that arises for consideration of the Court, in this petition is whether a third party who is not a beneficiary under a Will, can be impleaded as a party respondent to a probate petition.

3. The set of facts within which the question arises is as follows :-

Shri. Narayanrao Ramrao Bhave was the ruler of Ramdurg Sansthan. He died intestate on 10th April, 1996 leaving behind his daughter, the petitioner herein and his wife, Ushadevi (since deceased). Ushadevi expired on 10th April, 2000. In view of death of her parents, the petitioner preferred two applications being Misc. Application No.507 of 2000 and Misc. Application No.508 of 2000 in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune on 11th July, 2000 for issuance of succession certificate in respect of the properties left behind by them. By the letter dated 18th October, 2000, one R.G. Joshi a resident of Kolhapur informed the petitioner about the Will dated 26th March, 2000 left by Ushadevi and forwarded true copy of the Will to her. Respondent no.1 and original respondent no.2 filed Misc. Application No.707 of 2001 before the same Court for probate of the Will of Ushadevi as the executors and administrators appointed under the Will. The petitioner was made a party respondent to the application. Then, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No.1505 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune against the executors and Shri. R.G. Joshi to challenge the Will of Ushadevi contending that the same was a false and fabricated document. It was also her contention that, her father having died intestate, she was entitled to succeed to one-half of his properties and her rights could not have been be quested by her mother in the Will.

4. Later, the petitioner and the executors of the Will settled the dispute as regards the Will. They filed joint compromise purshis dated 4th March, 2004 at Exhibit-20 in Regular Civil Suit No.1509 of 2003 and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise purshis. In accordance with the terms of compromise, the petitioner withdrew Misc. Application No.507 of 2000 and Misc. Application No.508 of 2000. Similarly, the executors withdrew Misc. Application No.707 of 2001 filed by them for the probate.

5. It would be convenient at this stage, to note the details of the Will so as to understand the terms of compromise between the parties. The Will of Ushadevi listed immovable and movable properties left by Narayanrao. The immovable properties consisted of (i) the Rajwada property at Ramdurg (Karnataka) and the open land around it (ii) the property at Wai-Satara with Vyankateshwar Mandir, houses and open land, (iii) the property at Nargund, Karnataka with a temple and open land, (iv) 15 pieces of land at Ratnagiri and (v) a flat at Ramkunj Society, Pune. The movable properties consisted of household articles, jewelleries and ornaments, silverware, cash, a car, amounts in bank accounts, fixed-deposits, shares etc. Ushadevi expressed a wish that the petitioner be given the Flat at Ramkunj Society minus the articles therein. As regards two of the immovable properties, the Will mentions that Ushadevi had formed a trust in respect of the temple at Nargund. She was the Chief Trustee of that trust. She wished that a trust should be formed also of the temple at Wai, Satara, with the executors of the Will as it's trustees. All other properties, movable and immovable, were to be sold by the executors. The sale proceeds of the lands at Ratnagiri were to be invested in a fixed-deposit wit