IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2009 MRS. SNEHLATA GUPTA AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus COMUNIDADE OF NAGOA THROUGH ATTORNEY ... Respondent Mr. C. Mascarenhas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 20th April, 2009 P.C. Admit. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. This revision application is filed against the order dated 26.03.2009 under which an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint on the ground of bar created under the Code of Communidade has been rejected. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that under Article 9 r/w 349 and 352 of the Code, the suit filed by the Communidade without the consent of the Administrative Tribunal and without any application made to the Administrative Court accompanied by the minutes of the suit is barred. The petitioner has made reference to the judgment in the case of Mrs. Maria Rosa Costa Dias and ors. v. Communidade of Chicolna and ors. {1998 (1) Bombay C.R. 377}, in which the application under Order 7 Rule 11 came to be considered as maintainable and the suit was held to have been barred. 4. In the later judgment relied upon by the respondent in Communidade of Cacoda v. Vishnu Bhikaro Sawant and anr. {2008 (1) Bombay C. R. 806}, the aforesaid Articles have been considered vis-a-vis the provisions contained in Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. The bar under Article 9 and 349 of the Code have been held to be subordinate legislation read along with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is held to be neither a bar on the Civil Court to exercise its jurisdiction, nor a bar on the Communidade from filing the suit of any nature including the suit which was preservatory or conservatory in nature. It was observed that at the highest, if such a suit was filed, by the Communidade and it expends money towards it, the Communidade would not be reimbursed the amount expended towards the filing or prosecution of the suit from its accounts. Consequently the aforesaid Articles cannot be read as a bar created by law, upon which the plaint itself would be rejected. Hence the impugned order cannot be faulted. Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.