Dismissed¶18

Sunita Lopes v. Saozinha Maria Do Ceu Antanasio Piedade Lopes and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2025CAREV/5/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CAREV 5 of 2024 / Civil Application (Review) No.5 of 2024 in Second Appeal No.42 of 2022, High Court of Bombay at Goa, Valmiki Menezes, J., decided 7 January 2025. Review of judgment dated 04.09.2023 dismissing... rather, allowing Second Appeal No.42/2022 concerning allotment in inventory proceedings and fraud; Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 commencement date (19.09.2016 vs 21.12.2016); error apparent on the face of the record; scope of review jurisdiction; grounds of appeal vs review grounds; application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Both grounds of the review application constitute grounds of appeal and do not partake of an error apparent on the face of the record. ¶17

Sunita Lopes Vs Saozinha Maria Do Ceu Antanasio Piedade Lopes and 7 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:BHC-GOA:7

CAREV 5 of 2024

Jose

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.5 OF 2024 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.42 OF 2022

¶6

SUNITA LOPES ... APPLICANT Versus SAOZINHA MARIA DO CEU ANTANASIO PIEDADE LOPES AND 7 ORS ... RESPONDENTS

¶7

Mr Gustavo Monteiro, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr Sagar Rivankar, Mr Pancham Phadte, Vinod Korgaonkar and Ms Vaishnavi Sawant, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 8 (Original Appellants). Mr Omkar Parab, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 9(a) and 9(b).

¶8

CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED :- 7th January, 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This application seeks a review of Judgment dated 04.09.2023 whereby this Court was pleased to allow Second Appeal No.42/2022, quashing and setting aside the Judgment of the District Court. The Judgment under review held that an appeal against an Allotment in Inventory Proceedings, on grounds of fraud, was maintainable. By the Judgment sought to be reviewed, the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Court for fresh consideration.

¶11

The two main grounds for review are the following:-

Page 1 of 2

7th January, 2025

CAREV 5 of 2024

(a) That though Judgments were cited to support the submissions that the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 was a special law and the principles applicable to a general law could not be applied to this Special Court, judgments were not considered whilst passing the impugned order.

¶16

(b) That the Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the Goa Succession, Special Notaries and Inventory Proceeding Act, 2012 came into force on 19.09.2016, when in fact it was brought into effect on 21.12.2016 which was the date after the appeal was lodged after the Inventory was commenced (09.11.2016).

¶17

In my opinion, both the above grounds constitute grounds of appeal and are not grounds which partake of an error apparent on the face of the record. Judging the review application on the basis of the above grounds would literally amount to revisiting all the submissions afresh, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction.

¶18

The review application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶20

Signed by: JOSE FRANCISCO DSOUZA Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 07/01/2025 14:50:36

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

7th January, 2025

Sunita Lopes v. Saozinha Maria Do Ceu Antanasio Piedade Lopes and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Lopes v. Saozinha Maria Do Ceu Antanasio Piedade Lopes and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munshi Zulfikar Ahmad vs Angela U. J. De Oliveira and 6 Ors.

Bharatlal Halwai and Anr. vs Mormugao Municipal Council Thr. Its Chief Officer and 2 Ors.

Joana Pinto Barretto and 2 Ors., vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Goa and 23 Ors.

State (P.I. Anti-Narcotic Cell, Panaji Police Staiton) Vs Chhatra Singh

Abdul Kadar Linganmata Vs the Village Panchayat of Assolda Thr Its Sarpanch Secretary and Anr.

Baldev Punaji Neswankar vs Naresh Nanda Gaonkar