JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 08.09.2023 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV in Misc. Civil Appl. No.16/2022 arising out of Probate Case No.77/2013 wherein the petition filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the sole opposite party herein instituted a Probate Case No.77 of 2013 for probating an alleged will dated 31.12.2010 said to have been executed by Guru Govind Singh, deceased father of the present petitioners. He submits that during the pendency of the said probate case, a petition was filed by the present petitioners under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for impleading the State represented by the Khas Mahal Officers in the probate case in view of the fact that the property itself is recorded as Khas Mahal Lease Hold Property. He further submits that the property in question appertains to Mauza – Konka, Thana No.198, M.S. Plot No.26 and Khas Mahal Plot No.1027 which was leased out to Guru Govind Singh that remained effective from 1 st April, 1966 and to continue till 1 st April, 1996 i.e. for a period of 30 years duly executed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on behalf of the Governor of the State of Bihar as it then was. He submits that Guru Govind Singh was the father of the petitioners herein and the will has been said to be executed in favour of the sole opposite party. He submits that the said property is a government property and it was khas mahal which has been leased out in terms of the above lease and it is still in his possession in view of that the said petition is filed which has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that in the will learned Court is only required to examine the genuineness of the will and the correct signature on the will. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that in the will learned Court is only required to examine the genuineness of the will and the correct signature on the will. He submits in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order and to buttress this argument he relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon vs. Hardyal Singh Dhillon and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 306. 5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that the case of the sole opposite party is fully covered and this petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record whereby it transpires that Guru Govind Singh is father of the present petitioners and it has been said that Guru Govind Singh has executed the will of the property in favour of sole opposite party. The document brought on the record by way of Annexure-5 which is Register II as well as Annexure-4 which is registered lease deed clearly suggests that the said land was a khas mahal land and it was leased out in favour of Guru Govind Singh and in this background petition under Order I Rule 10 of CPC has been filed and in that view of the matter in light of sub-section (c) of Section 283 the citations are required to be made upon all persons claiming to have any interest on the estate of the deceased and further if the probate case is made contentious Section 295 is attracted and in view of contentious issue it is required to be converted into suit and it will be decided in terms of the provisions made under CPC. 7. Admittedly, the documents brought on the record clearly suggests that the property in question is khas mahal land. There is no doubt that if only the genuineness of the will is required to be decided in the probate case that will be decided on such citation in light of sub-section (c) of Section 283. However, if any dispute is being raised by way of interested person that is further required to be considered by the learned Court and if contentious issue is found it is required to be converted under Section 295. However, if any dispute is being raised by way of interested person that is further required to be considered by the learned Court and if contentious issue is found it is required to be converted under Section 295. Thus, the Succession Act complete statute itself. The Court finds that the State is necessary party in the said probate case and in view of that the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 is hereby set aside. 8. The petition filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 dated 15.01.2022 is hereby allowed. 9. This petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of.