Judgment : Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 present in person. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith. The Respondents waive service. 3. The above Petition challenges an Order passed by the Courts below whereby the Respondent no.2, who is a Moiety Sharer of the Cabeca-de-Casal/Respondent no.1 herein, was permitted to intervene in the Inventory Proceedings as interested party and proceed with the cross examination in an inquiry which is pending before the Inventory Court. 4. During the course of the hearing of the above Petition on the last date of hearing, when asked as to whether the Respondent no.2 was shown as an interested party in the initial statement of the Cabeca-de-Casal, the Respondent no.2, who was present in person, sought time to ascertain the said aspect. When the matter was taken up today, the Respondent no.2 pointed out that the Respondent no.1/Cabeca de Casal has filed additional statements on 30.11.2012, inter alia, stating that the Respondent no.2, being his wife, is also one of the interested parties in the above proceedings. Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that he desires to file their objections to such additional statement. 5. Considering that when the impugned Orders were passed, the Respondent no.1/Cabeca-de-Casal, had not disclosed that the Respondent no.2 was one of the interested parties in the proceedings, I find that the Courts below were not justified to pass the impugned Orders to permit the Respondent no.2 to proceed with the cross examination of the witnesses in the inquiry. But, however, considering that the Cabeca-de-Casal, Respondent no.1, has filed additional statements on 30.11.2012, inter alia, disclosing that the Respondent no.2 is also an interested party, the Respondent no.2 would be permitted to cross examine or take part in the proceedings as an interested party only in case such statement is accepted by the Inventory Court after considering the objections, if any, filed by the Petitioners/other interested parties in accordance with law. 6. On perusal of the impugned Orders passed by the Courts below, I find the provision of Article 2072 of the Portuguese Civil Code have not been considered by the Courts below which, inter alia, contemplates that the Administrator shall declare the names and status of the heirs. 6. On perusal of the impugned Orders passed by the Courts below, I find the provision of Article 2072 of the Portuguese Civil Code have not been considered by the Courts below which, inter alia, contemplates that the Administrator shall declare the names and status of the heirs. The Courts below have also not taken into consideration the import of the provisions of Article 1370 and Article 1371 of the Portuguese Civil Portuguese Code. Considering that in the initial declaration of the Cabeca-de-Casal, the Respondent no.1 had not indicated the name of the Respondent no.2 as also being a party to the said proceedings, I find that the Courts below were not justified to come to the conclusion that the Respondent no.2 was entitled to intervene and cross examine in an inquiry pending before the Inventory Court. The records also do not reveal that any summons in terms of Article 1371 of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code was served on the Respondent no. 2. As such, I find that the impugned Orders passed by the Inventory Court dated 03.02.2012 and by the First Appellate Court dated 31.08.2012, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. But, however, considering that Cabeca-de-Casal/Respondent no.1 has filed an additional statement which the Petitioners and other interested parties intend to object, the learned Judge would decide the objections and proceed to permit the Respondent no.2 to intervene and cross examine in the proceedings on the basis thereof. 7. Subject to the above, the impugned Orders passed by the Courts below deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Impugned Orders dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Inventory Court and 31.08.2012, passed by the First Appellate Court, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The Inventory Court is directed to proceed with the Inventory Proceedings in the light of the observations made herein above in accordance with law. (iii) All contentions on merits with regard to the status of Respondent no.2 in the Inventory Proceedings are left open. (iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (v) Petition stands disposed of accordingly.