IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 742 OF 2008 MR. BABU ALIAS GOPAL DHARMA PEDNEKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Petitioner Versus MRS. VANITA NAIQUE AND ANR., ... Respondents Shri P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 30th January, 2009 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the Order dated 28-8-2008 of the learned C.J.J.D., Pernem by which the Petitioners/Defendants' application for leave to produce a document has been rejected on the ground that the document was incomplete. Shri P. Lotlikar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants submits that the said document was sought to be produced by the Defendants because the Defendants wanted to prove the thumb impression of Savlo Mucunda Beri who according to the Defendants have also executed a lease deed in their favour. He further submits that the said document was also sought to be produced because of certain observations made by the trial Court as well as the District Court at the time of disposal of applications for temporary injunction. The first submission made on behalf of the Petitioners/Defendants is not at all reflected in the very application filed by the Petitioners/Defendants for the production of the said document. On the contrary, it is stated in the said application that the production of the said document was not necessary. In other words that document was not relevant to decide the controversy, according to the Defendants. If that be so, such a document was not required to be produced, only because some observations were made by the Courts at the time of deciding the application for injunction. That apart the production of the document has been disallowed on the ground that it is not accompanied by the plan. A perusal of the said document does show that there was a plan on which various parcels were demarcated. The Petitioners/Defendants will be at liberty to produce a complete document in case they can otherwise satisfy the trial Court that the same is otherwise relevant. For the present and for reasons given by the learned trial Court no interference is called for with the impugned order, in extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.