1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.629 of 2010 1. Shri Inacio Ferrao, son of Jose Ferrao, Major in age, married, 2. Smt. Hilda Pereira e Ferrao, wife of Inacio Ferrao, both resident of House no.1276, Raia, Sonarvaddo, Salcete Goa. … Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Shri Camilo R. Ferrao, major, married, 2. Smt. Francisca Ferrao, major of age, wife of Camilo Ferrao, both residing at House No.1276, Raia, Sonarvaddo, Salcete, Goa. …. Respondents Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.A. Lobo, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 13th July, 2011. 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Menezes, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 28/6/2010 passed by the Adhoc District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Margao in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no.23/2010 by which the appeal preferred against the order dated 9/2/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Inventory Proceedings No.13/1987/III has been dismissed. 3. By the impugned orders, the application dated 8/12/2009 filed by the petitioner no.1who is the Cabeca de Casal in the above proceeding to recover the costs allegedly incurred by him, from the interested parties has 3 been rejected. 4. Mr. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no fault can be found with the impugned orders and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners would be to seek relief in terms of Article 2157 of the Portuguese Civil Code and as such, the present application filed by the Cabeca de Casal is premature. 5. Mr. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that liberty be given to the petitioners to file fresh application in terms of Article 2157 of the Code and it may be made clear that the impugned orders would not come in the way of the petitioners from filing such application. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned 4 counsel for the parties, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned orders. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh application at the appropriate stage, if they so desire in terms of Article 2157. In case such an application is filed, the appropriate Court shall decide the same in accordance with law uninfluenced by the findings given in the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed would not come in the way of the petitioners from filing such application at appropriate stage. 7. Interim order dated 27/10/2010 stands vacated. 8. The parties to appear before the Inventory Court on 4th August, 2011 at 10 a.m. 9. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-