Important Point—Review application should be heard by the judge who had delivered the order.

The applicant seeks the review of the order dated 1/10/2013 passed by this Court in the Appeal From Order No.66/2013 which arose from the order of the Trial Court i.e. of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Panaji in the Inventory Proceedings no.70/2010 pursuant to which she had dropped the proceedings and this Court in appeal held that the order impugned cannot be faulted with and dismissed the appeal.

2. Shri S.M. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel came to be heard on behalf of the petitioner who contended at the outset that the points urged before the learned Single Judge namely on Article 1370 of the Family Laws was not considered by the learned Single Judge. His next plank of argument was that assuming without admitting that the applicant had received the amount, it was from the firm and not from the inheritance. He adverted to Article 2042 of the Family Laws to canvass the contention that it was not possible to urge that the receipt of the amount on retirement from the partnership did not amount to a renunciation. He next adverted to the application for initiating inventory proceedings in which the applicant had clearly averred that the deceased had left behind both movable as well as the immovable properties and that the objections were raised by the interested party that an area of 1223 sq. mts. was still available from the property owned by the deceased. He referred to the statement of the Cabeca de Casal on oath which made due reference to the purpose of the gift in favour of the applicant vis-a-vis the order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that the impugned order was vitiated by the errors apparent on the face of the record and called for a review.

3. Shri Sudin M. Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant made due reference to the Deed of Gift dated 29/12/1972, the Deed of Partnership of Renunciation dated 1/09/1979 apart from the Deed of Retirement and Reconstitution as also the Will dated 2/06/1989 to canvass the contention that the learned Single Judge had not at all considered the case of the applicant in its proper perspective and quite on the contrary wrapped up the case by rendering erroneous findings and without considering the principle grounds urged in the appeal. There was no basis for the Trial Court to drop the inventory proceedings and the learned Single Judge of this Court was not justified to dismiss the appeal without considering all the facets of the case reflecting an error in the order under review calling for a review. Therefore as a consequence thereof i.e. of the review, the order of the Trial Court had to be set aside and the matter directed to proceed for inquiry.

4. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Advocate for the respondents no.1 & 2 contended that the conduct of the applicant was reflected from the reply and therefore it was not open to canvass that the points urged before the learned Single Judge of this Court were not considered by the then learned Single Judge. He too adverted to the statement of the Cabeca de Casal dated 13/09/2011 and that of the brother dated 29/01/2011 which was apparently not an objection to the statement of the Cabeca de Casal. Quite on the contrary he had indicated in his statement that the balance area belonged to Carvalho and it was not the case that the balance was available to the estate of the parents. He too adverted to the Partnership Deed between the father, mother and the daughter i.e. the applicant and canvassed that the only statement available was that of the Cabeca de Casal that there were no assets left behind by the deceased. No objection was filed either by the applicant or the brother to the statement of the Cabeca de Casal and therefore no error was committed whatsoever by the Trial Court in passing the order nor by this Court in Appeal From Order as to justify any interference in review. He relied in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and in Laxmi Jairam Dhond Vs. Sushila D. Amonkar & Ors., 2006 (6) Bom.