JUDGMENT - Dr. (Smt.) PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This civil revision application is filed by the applicants/ original plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order dated 27th September, 1999 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Special Civil Suit No. 50/98/SR(I), whereby the application of the defendants/respondents herein came to be allowed and the plaintiffs' suit was kept in abeyance till further orders. 2. From the pleadings, it appears that the applicants herein/plaintiffs filed Special Civil Suit No. 50/98/SR(I) in the Court of 1st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa against the defendants for declaration and for partition of the suit property, which was mentioned in para 12 of the plaint. The defendants appeared and filed written statement, wherein most of the averments made by the plaintiffs came to be admitted. More significantly, the averment of the plaintiffs with respect to the shares of the parties was admitted. In para 5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have specified the shares of the parties with respect to the suit property as follows:- (a) The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2... 1/3rd share (b) The plaintiffs Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 7... 1/3rd share (c) plaintiffs No. 8 9... 1/6th share (d) Defendants...1/6th share 3. The defendants in para 5 of their written statement submitted that the contents of para 5 were admitted by them. They, however, thereafter made an application dated 8th April, 1999, submitting that since inventory proceedings upon the death of Andre Francisco Geraldo Nunces and Jose Marcelino Silvestre Nunes had not taken place, in view of the judgment of this Court in (Shri Cruz Ferandes anothers v. Smt. Gregorina Estefania Sofia Fernandes others)1, reported in 1991(4) Bom.C.R. 400 , the partition suit cannot proceed further. The plaintiffs opposed the said application by their reply. However, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division passed the impugned order dated 27th September, 1999, allowing the application of the defendants and kept the suit in abeyance. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs have approached this Court now by way of filing the present Civil Revision Application. 4. Mr. The plaintiffs opposed the said application by their reply. However, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division passed the impugned order dated 27th September, 1999, allowing the application of the defendants and kept the suit in abeyance. Being aggrieved the plaintiffs have approached this Court now by way of filing the present Civil Revision Application. 4. Mr. V. Menezes, appearing for the applicants, has submitted that it was erroneous on the part of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, to accept the contention of the defendants and keep the suit in abeyance inasmuch as in the case at hand, the shares of the parties with respect to the subject-matter of the suit are admitted and, therefore, there is no question of initiating the inventory proceedings. He submitted that in the authority relied upon by the defendants and accepted by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division the basic difference was that in the said suit the property was ancestral property and the question was with respect to inheritance of the parties and that in the present case the plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the property, which is acquired by him. He, therefore, submitted that also in view of the fact that the division of the shares is accepted and admitted by all the parties concerned, the exercise of initiating inventory proceedings will be redundant and is not all required. He submitted that reliance on the above mentioned authority by the defendants was totally misconceived. 5. I have heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants at length. I have also gone through the pleadings of the parties in the lower Court, especially the written statement filed by the respondents herein. In the said written statement, in paragraph 5, a specific categorical admission is there that the contents of paragraph 5 are admitted. Paragraph 5 of the plaint specifies the exact shares of the parties in the suit property. Thus, the fact appears to be that the shares of the parties are determined and admitted by all the parties concerned. Thus, inventory proceedings indeed appear to be a formality and redundant procedure leading to delay, which can be avoided. In the authority reported in 1991(2) Goa L.T. 42 (supra), on which reliance was placed by the defendants in the lower Court, the facts were very much different. Thus, inventory proceedings indeed appear to be a formality and redundant procedure leading to delay, which can be avoided. In the authority reported in 1991(2) Goa L.T. 42 (supra), on which reliance was placed by the defendants in the lower Court, the facts were very much different. In that case, although the ancestors of the petitioner and the respondents had jointly purchased the suit property in equal shares, subsequently, the widow of one of the purchasers (plaintiff's mother), had purportedly made a Will dated 22nd December, 1988 of her disposable share in favour of the petitioners. Thus, the necessity arose to determine whether she could validly do so or not. Obviously, therefore, there could not have been any partition in terms of the shares purchased by the ancestors of the petitioners and the respondents until the said Will had been declared null and void, failing which the partition had to be done of the additional rights acquired by the petitioners to the property in terms of the said will. That is not the case here. No doubt the parties are co-owners, but their shares are not only pre-determined, but are also admitted. With respect to this, there is no dispute whatsoever. Therefore, it cannot be said that the ratio of the above-referred authority is applicable to the facts of the present case. The contention of the applicants herein is that after admitting the share of each party in no uncertain terms in the written statement, the respondents could not have raised this point. I am in agreement with this submission made by Mr. Menezes. I, therefore, find substance in the arguments of Mr. Menezes that this stand was taken by the respondents only to delay the proceedings. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it has to be said that it was erroneous on the part of the first Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, to allow the application of the defendants to keep the suit in abeyance solely on the ground that there were no inventory proceedings and, therefore, the parties to the suit could not proceed any further. In view of the abovementioned peculiar facts and pleadings of the parties, the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the following order:-- The Civil Revision Application is allowed. In view of the abovementioned peculiar facts and pleadings of the parties, the impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the following order:-- The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned Order dated 27th September, 1999, passed by the First Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, is hereby quashed and set aside. Application allowed. -----