Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 in this case.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 in Probate Case No.4 of 2008/Title Suit No.3 of 2010, by which the court has reviewed its own order and added Sanjiv Kumar Sinha @ Pappu as a party in the probate proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the court could not have reviewed its own order. In answer to aforesaid submissions, it may be stated that it is amply clear that the court had rejected the intervention petition because of the reason that it was under the impression that the intervenor had purchased the land in 2010, after filing of the probate case, whereas the sale deed was executed in 2007. The year 2010 was a typing mistake and as such the review application was entertained.

3. The second and the more important issue raised in this case is whether transferee can be added as party in a probate case? The facts are that the probate case was filed in the year 2008. The sale deed was registered in favour of the intervenor on 10.7.2007 prior to the filing of the probate case. Under these circumstances the court has allowed the i