1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 86 OF 2007. SMT. SAROJINI NUNES wife of Shri. Visitacao Nunes, aged 60 years,housewife, residing at House No.163, Arossim, Cansaulim, Salcete Goa. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Lennet Godinho, widow of late Denzil Godinho, of major age, 2. Kum. Sheryl Godinho alias Sheryl Godinho, daughter of late Denzil Godinho, of major age, 3. Smt. Gracy Godinho, widow of late Anthony Godinho, of major age, 4. Kum. Andrea Godinho, daughter of late Anthony Godinho, of major age, 5. Shri Anrich Godinho, son of late Anthony Godinho, of major age, All residing at House No.24/A, Sukbhat, Arossim, Cansaulim, Goa 6. Smt. Flora D'Souza, daughter of late Cruz Godinho, of major age,(resident of House No.9-A, Sukhbhat, Arossim, Cansaulim, Goa.) 7. Shri.Cyril D'Souza alias Cecil D'Souza, 2 of major age, (Since deceased through legal heirs) a) Smt. Merlyn Colaco (daughter of the deceased) b) Shri. Michael Colaco (Son-in-law of the deceased) Both residents of House No.386/1, Cairo Nagar, Navelim, Salcete, Goa. 8. Smt. Rosy D'Costa, daughter of late Cruz Godinho, of major age, and her husband, 9. Shri. Teofile D'costa, of major age (Since deceased through legal heirs) i) Shri Darryl D'Costa, (Son) of major age, married, and his wife, ii) Smt Dinna D'costa, of major age, iii) Smt. Dimple D'costa E Texeira, (daughter) of major age and her husband, iv) Shri Peter Texeira, v) Shri Sunny D'Costa, All residing at House No.176, Costavado, Arossim, Cansaulim, Goa. 10. Smt.Guilhermina Alias Meena Leitao, daughter of late Cruz Godinho & widow of Christopher Leitao, of major age, residing at House No. 3 400-A, Primavaxi, Benaulim, Salcete, Goa. ..... Respondents. Mr.Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J. F. Melo, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4,6,7 & 8. Coram :- S. A. BOBDE, J. Date : - 10th April, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The respondent Nos. 5, 9, 10 though served, remained absent. The only contention raised on behalf the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court ought not to have set aside the petitioner's contention that the respondent's objections did not relate to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and, therefore, there was no need to hold enquiry into the said objections. It appears that the executing Court has not expressed its opinion whether the respondent's objections are pertaining to the execution,discharge or satisfaction of the decree which is the true scope of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. In this view of the matter, I consider it appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and to direct the executing Court that it shall first go into the question whether the objections raised by the respondents are tenable U/s.47 of the Code of 4 Civil Procedure and thereupon if the answer is affirmative, the Court shall make an enquiry as contemplated by the earlier order. The executing Court is, however, at liberty to permit the evidence to be led for the purpose of determining whether the objections are pertaining to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree if it is of the opinion that such evidence is necessary before it can be held that the objections relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree or otherwise. 4. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The writ petition disposed of. S. A. BOBDE, J. SMA