IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2009 MR. FRANCIS X. RODRIGUES AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. ANA MARIA BARRETO AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. V. Parsekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 2nd August, 2010 P.C.: Heard Shri Parsekar, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. The respondents were duly served, but have chosen not to appear before this Court today as well as on 25/06/2010 and on 29/07/2010. 2. The petitioners are the interested parties in Inventory Proceedings which are going on, upon the death of Agostinho Jose Barreto and his wife Piedade Barreto. The said inventory proceedings are initiated by Maria Conceicao Barreto, who is sister of respondent no.1, and mother of respondent no.2. 3. The Administrator had filed lists of assets on 31/01/2000. The dispute between both the parties at present is as regards item no.1 which is a property exclusively claimed by the petitioner as having been willed to him by late Natalino Xavier Barreto and his wife late Rosa Francisca Barreto. In other words, the petitioner herein has objected to the inclusion of the said property as exclusively belonging to him and this Court by judgment dated 15/06/2006, after taking into consideration the provisions of Article 1383 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1939, in force in this State, had directed an inquiry to be conducted into the said claim made by the petitioners. 4. Pursuant to the said order dated 15/06/2006, the parties appeared before the learned Inventory Court on 20/07/2009, whereupon the petitioners were directed to file an affidavit in evidence with advance copy to the other parties. However, when the matter was taken up on the following date i.e. 10/08/2009, it appears that the petitioners' Counsel was not present in as much as the petitioners had also not complied with the earlier order dated 20/07/2009 by which they were required to file an affidavit in evidence. 5. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is the Administrator/Cabeca de Casal who had to lead evidence. This submission needs to be rejected in as much as there is no challenge to the order dated 20/07/2009 by which the petitioners were required to lead evidence and file an affidavit to give such evidence. Moreover, in my view, the onus was clearly on petitioners who had put up a claim that item no.1 exclusively belonged to them. 6. Secondly, Shri Parsekar submits that on the very first day, the evidence of the petitioners was closed by the learned Inventory Court. Counsel further submits that the petitioners could not even make a request for adjournment on that day because the petitioners' advocate was absent. 7. The learned Inventory Court does not appear to have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence in support of the claim made by them. True, the learned Inventory Court had directed the petitioners to file an affidavit which order the petitioners did not comply with. The matter could have been adjourned by imposing some costs on the petitioners on the next date, when the matter was taken up in the absence of the advocate for the petitioners. The impugned order does not appear to have been passed in sound exercise of discretion. 8. Considering the facts of the case, the interest of justice would require that the petitioners be given a fair opportunity to prove the claim made by them. As a result, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The petitioners to lead evidence in support of their claim on the next date. Petitioners to pay costs in the sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents herein before the Inventory Court. Petitioners to appear before the Inventory Court on 23/08/2010 at 10.00 a.m. The learned Inventory Court, thereafter, to proceed with the inventory in accordance with the order of this Court dated 15/06/2006 with notice to the parties to inventory proceedings. 9. Petition, accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH