The court emphasized the need for early disposal of proceedings and exercised writ jurisdiction to ensure a fair opportunity for all parties involved in the inventory proceedings.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal. Shri J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents waives service.

2. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the District Judge, South Goa, Margao allowing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao dated 5 December 2011.

3. The respondents are legal heirs of one late Raghuir and late Shakuntala Paingankar. The original applicant Shakuntala was appointed as cabeca de casal on the death of Raghuvir. The petitioner no.1 had made an application for intervention as a interested party, which was allowed and a order was passed by the Civil Court to remove the said Shakuntala and appoint petitioner no.1. An Appeal From Order was filed and by order dated 24 July 2009, the matter was remanded back for disposal. In the meanwhile, Shakuntala expired on 11 October 2007. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time. On 24 September 2010 arguments on the point as to who will be the lead the inquiry, as per directions of this Court in the Appeal From Order, were heard. Matter was then adjourned for parties to explore possibility of settlement. The application for adjournment was made on behalf of the respondents. On 1 July 2011, the Civil Judge noted that various adjournments were sought by the respondents and it being an old matter the inquiry needs to be closed and accordingly application for adjournment made by respondents was dismissed and the inquiry of the respondents stood closed. The respondents thereafter filed an application to recall the order of 1 July 2011. According to the respondents there was no order deciding the question regarding commencement of inquiry and they were under mistaken impression. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application for recalling the order dated 1 July 2011 by order dated 5 December 2011. The learned Judge noted that in the roznama of 22 October 2010 and 4 December 2010 notings in the roaznama would show that clear directions were issued to the respondents to commence inquiry, inspite of that they did not do so, therefore order dated 1 July 2011 was rightly passed.

4. An appeal was filed by the respondents before the District Court. The District Court came to the conclusion that there was no order passed directing the respondents to commence the inquiry and having liberally granted adjournments earlier, the learned Civil Judge could not have suddenly dismissed the application for adjournment of the respondents on the ground that the matter is old. Accordingly, the learned District Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 5 December 2011.

5. I have heard Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents. Various arguments are raised by the learned Counsel. First argument is that the appeal rejecting an application for review is not maintainable. Secondly, it is argued that the noting on the roznama was against the respondents and there was no challenge to the same. Mr. Usgaonkar submitted that in the order passed while disposing of the Appeal From Order, clear directions were issued by this Court which would indicate that it was the responsibility of respondents to commence the inquiry. He submitted that conduct of the respondents showed that it was their understanding that they have to commence the inquiry. He also submitted that the ground given in the application for review that they were unaware that there was any order passed is incorrect, but there is an order passed which is stated in the roznama.

6. Mr. Mulgaonkar, relied upon the decision in the case of Arun Devi N. Gaekwad & Ors. V/s. Sanjita Udaisingh Rane Sardessai & Anr. reported in 2000 (2) Goa L.T. 479 to contend that an order passed in inventory proceedings is appealable. He also submitted that relying upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this