The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary jurisdiction of the court in adding a necessary party or proper party in a proceeding, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the interests of parties based on the facts of each case.

I have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sandeep Kumar on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Bishwanath Choudhary on behalf of the respondent.

2. The present petitioner, Ekta Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Limited, Patna has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge VI, Patna in Title Suit No.9 of 2003 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. for review of the order dated 12.01.2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being added as party in the aforesaid proceeding was rejected by the Court below. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 12.01.2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is purchaser of portion of the property involved in the Will by registered sale deeds and, therefore, he was necessary party. The property belonged to late Ram Parichan Singh who died on 20.05.1999 leaving behind his widow, Mostt. Jipato Devi. Mostt. Jipato Devi on 04.12.2000 sold 60 decimals of her land by registered sale deed and put the petitioner in possession of the property. The respondent nos.2 and 3, Chhotan Prasad Singh and Meena Devi filed probate case no.71 of 2000 for the grant of probate of alleged Will said to have been executed on 08.10.1997 by late Parichan Singh. In the said probate proceeding, they did not make Mostt. Jipato Devi as party. She subsequently appeared and filed caveat on 26.06.2001 and then the probate case was converted and it was registered as title suit no.9 of 2003. The present petitioner filed application for being added as party on 09.09.2005 and then subsequent to filing of this application, the said Jipato Devi died on 23.10.2006. In view of the above facts if the petitioner is not being added as party in the probate proceeding, the petitioner shall suffer serious loss and he will not be able to protect his interest in the property. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that he is a purchaser of part of the property, he is necessary party in the probate proceeding. According to the learned counsel, notice of the probate proceeding was issued after 20.02.2001. After receiving notice, Jipato Devi filed application for supply of copy on 20.04.2001 and, therefore, she had no knowledge about the probate proceeding earlier prior to selling of the property. She had filed objection challenging the genuineness of the alleged Will and after her death, the petitioner became necessary party in the proceeding.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that purchaser is not a necessary party in the probate proceeding and, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application for being impleaded as party and, therefore, there was no question of reviewing the order arises.

5. In view of the above submission of the parties, it is admitted fact that the property originally belonged to late Ram Parichan Singh. He died on 20.05.1999 leaving behind only his widow, Jipato Devi. Jipato Devi sold the property to the petitioner on 04.12.2000. It is also admitted fact that in the probate proceeding, Jipato Devi was not shown as opposite party in the probate application. At paragraph 10, Jipato Devi was shown as only near relative. From perusal of the supplementary affidavit which is not controverted by the respondent, it appears that although the probate application was filed much earlier but then the same was defective and no duty money was paid. On the direction of the Court, the defects were removed and duty money was paid and thereafter the probate case was admitted on 17.03.2001. Thereafter, notices were issued on the near relatives as notice of general citation and then Jipato Devi appeared on 20.04.2001. Therefore, prior to that, she had no knowledge about the proceeding and she had already sold the property to the petitioner. On her objec