JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - CM No. 2329-CII of 2013 1. The application is filed to place on record true typed copies of the zimni orders passed by the trial Court in the place of certified copies which were not readily available with the petitioners. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The application is allowed. C.R. No. 306 of 2012: 4. Gora Singh, his wife and two children filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the application filed by the respondents for grant of succession certificate. The same was dismissed. Hence, the present revision. 5. The revision petitioners contended in their application that Gora Singh along with his family members was joined by Baba Lehna Singh as members of his family and Mahant of Dera/Wadda Gurdwara Sahib village Bugran. His family was treated as family members of Baba Lehna Singh. Baba Lehna Singh had seven savings accounts in Central Co-operative Bank, Phul, in which Gora Singh was shown as nominee of Baba Lehna Singh. A Committee has to be formed by the entire Sangat of village Bugran but the Committee was not formed taking into confidence the entire inhabitation of the Sikh Sangat. Gora Singh was appointed as Mahant of the Dera. The original Will executed by late Baba Lehna Singh is with the revision petitioners. The Will was executed by Baba Lehna Singh in favour of entire Sikh Sangat of the village. The Committee was not formed properly. There was no open election for the formation of the Committee in the village. Therefore, the revision petitioners sought impleadment. 6. The said application was contested by the respondents contending that the revision petitioners were not necessary parties to the succession application filed by the respondents. 7. Trial Court having found that the revision petitioners did not make any claim to the amount involved in the succession application chose to dismiss their application. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the revision petitioners have shown before the Court that they have some interest in the properties left behind by Baba Lehna Singh and therefore, they should be heard before ever the succession certificate was issued. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Committee was formed at the instance of late Baba Lehna Singh. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Committee was formed at the instance of late Baba Lehna Singh. The management of the properties left behind by Baba Lehna Singh is out of purview of the application seeking succession certificate. Inasmuch as the respondents have shown before the Court that the Will was executed by the testator bequeathing the property in favour of Wadda Gurdwara Sahib of village Bugran, the revision petitioners are not necessary parties to the succession application. 10. The succession application shall be determined after receiving objections from all quarters. That was the reason why a wide publication is issued immediately on taking up the application seeking succession certificate. 1st revision petitioner has been shown as a nominee in the deposit which is presently claimed by the respondents through the Will. The revision petitioners have vehemently contended that the Committee for Wadda Gurdwara Sahib of village Bugran has not been properly formed taking into confidence the entire Sikh community in the village. In my considered view, the 1st revision petitioner who has been nominated by late Baba Lehna Singh as a nominee and the other revision petitioners who have been allegedly considered as family members of Baba Lehna Singh are proper and necessary parties to the succession application. 11. Further, their presence for deciding the said application is very much required as they have challenged the very constitution of the respondent-committee for the purpose of receipt of deposit standing in the name of Baba Lehna Singh. It is to be noted that the original Will had been left in the custody of the 1st revision petitioner. As the revision petitioners have come out with serious objections questioning the very authority of the Committee which was allegedly formed, before ever the succession certificate is issued to the respondent-committee, the objections of the revision petitioners will have to be heard. 12. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial Court qua the revision petitioners stands set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the revision petitioners for their impleadment stands allowed.