Judgment : Heard Shri Shivan Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri M. P. Almeida, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Quepem dated 27/03/2012 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for recasting of issues came to be dismissed. 4. Shri S. Dessai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has pointed out that the learned Judge whilst framing issue no.2 has framed an issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled for easmentary right over the property belonging to the respondents, but however lost sight of the fact that the petitioners are also claiming such right on the ground that the property of the petitioners is landlocked under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though there are specific pleadings in the plaint to that effect no issue on that count has been framed by the learned Judge. 5. On the other hand, Shri M.P. Almeida, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly did not dispute that the petitioners are also claiming relief under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code, but however, submitted that issue no.4 covers the said aspect. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have gone through the records and the impugned order as also the issues framed by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and I have gone through the records and the impugned order as also the issues framed by the learned Judge. No doubt, prima facie, on plain reading of issue no.4 it appears that right claimed by the petitioners under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code also appears to be covered but to avoid ambiguity in framing the issues, I find it appropriate that the issue no.2 framed by the Court may be read as under: “Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiffs prove that there exists a suit access having a width of 3 metres and length of 190 metres passing through the survey no.50/1 which is the only access available to the plaintiffs to come to the property bearing survey no.50/4 and 50/5 of village of Fatorpa and plaintiffs have an easementary right on the same and in the alternative whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a relief under Article 2309 of the Portuguese Civil Code.” 7. Shri M.P. Almeida, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly does not object to the framing of the aforesaid issue. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 27/03/2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Quepem is quashed and set aside. (ii) Issue no.2 shall be read in the manner stated herein above. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (v) Expedite authenticated copy.