JUDGMENT :

The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 26.08.2013 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Probate Case No. 49 of 2012 wherein the petition dated 10.06.2013 filed by the Executor/Respondent No. 1 has been allowed with direction to implead all the named persons in the said petition as Opposite Parties in the proceedings of Probate Case No. 49 of 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, read as under: The respondent no. 1- Lt. Col. Vikas Bajpai filed Probate Case No. 49 of 2012 in the Court of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for grant of probate in respect of Will and testament dated 12.09.2011 executed by Smt. Roop Kumari Tiwary.

On being noticed, the petitioners appeared and filed their show cause on 27.11.2012 disputing the contentions raised by the executor-respondent no. 1 herein and stated that the deceased-Smt. Roop Kumari Tiwary has never executed any Will or signed the same in presence of witnesses and thus disputed the genuinity of the Will itself.

On 10.06.2013, the executor-respondent no. 1 has filed an application to implead all the heirs, both from her husband’s side and father’s side of the testator. Further prayer has been made to implead the purchaser from existing Opposite Parties, who have purchased the portion of the property, which is the subject matter of the Will for which the application for probate has been filed.

Rejoinder to the said petition was filed by Opp. Party No. 1 and 2 [the petitioners herein] on 25.07.2013 stating therein that the petition filed by the applicant is not maintainable, as the husband of the deceased Roop Kumari Tiwary has died leaving behind two Class-I heirs (the petitioners herein) and during the lifetime of the present Opp. Parties (the petitioners herein) no other person would be otherwise entitled for intestate succession. Another ground has been taken that the suit property admittedly is the husband’s property of Roop Kumari Tiwary and as such in case of intestate death of the testator the heirs coming down from the father’s side will not succeed to the same. It has further been stated that the property situated at Jamshedpur 5 Circuit House was the ancestral property of Madhur Tiwary, Laxmi Mishra and Uma Tiwary and other cosharers wherein Roop Kumari Tiwary, Madhur Tiwary, Laxmi Tiwary and Uma Tiwary were impleaded as defendants and a decree for partition was passed by the court of Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur in P.S. Case No. 54 of 1976. Similarly, it has been mentioned that the property situated at Kandarbera, Chandil, Ranchi and Jamshedpur are all coming out from the joint family, being part of the ancestral property i.e. it is the property of late Dwarikadish Tiwary, husband of Roop Kumari Tiwary and as such heirs from the father’s side of the testator will not succeed in case testator died intestate.

In the backdrop of aforesaid fact, submission was made before the Probate Court, by taking the plea that they are neither necessary party nor proper party because under Section 283 of the Succession Act only such person are interested party who have interest in the estate of deceased.

The learned trial Court has passed order, by allowing the application vide order dated 26.08.2013 (order impugned), on the ground that Will in question has been allegedly executed by Roop Kumari Tiwary, genuineness of which is in question in Probate Case. The trial Court has found from paragraph 4 of the Will that the members from the father-in-law’s side are beneficiaries of the family trust created by the deceased. Further, from paragraph 6 of the Will, it transpired that the applicant is the executor of the Will. The succession rights have been mentioned from paragraph 8 onwards. At paragraph 8 of the Will, it has been mentioned that 50% of the property shall be distributed to O.P. No. 1 and 30% to other members of her father-in-law’s family and 20% to t