spb/- 1 wp4581-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4581 OF 2011 Shri Shailendra Bhaguram Jadhav ... Petitioner. V/s. Smt. Rajasa Pandurang More & Ors. ... Respondents. ----- Mr. Manish D. Alwe i/by Smt.Bhavana Tandel & S.D. Alwe for the Petitioner. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1 Petitioner is the original defendant no. 18. Respondent nos.1 to 12 are the original plaintiffs. Respondent No. 13 onwards are the other defendants. 2 In a suit filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs made an application at Exh. 65 for production of certain documents. By order dated 25th January, 2011 that application has been allowed. That order is impugned in this petition. 3 The suit is not yet ready for hearing. In fact some of the defendants have not yet been served. Issues have not been framed. The stage for production of documents is not yet over. As such, the trial spb/- 2 wp4581-11.sxw court committed no error in allowing the application for production of documents. The contention of the petitioner that the production of documents ought not to have been allowed is rejected. 4 Even before all the defendants are served, the petitioner (original defendant no.18) made an application for deleting his name from the plaint, alleging that the suit against him was false and frivolous. By order dated 25th January, 2011 that Application i.e. the application at Exh. 58 was rejected by the trial court. That order is also impugned in this petition. 5 The suit is for partition of the joint family property. Defendant No. 18 claims to be the purchaser of part of the property. According to him, the joint family is not concerned with the said suit property. This is a matter which would require to be decided at the trial. It cannot be said ex-facie that the petitioner is not a necessary party to the suit as the plaintiffs claim that the property which is purchased by the petitioner is a part of the joint family property. As such, the trial court committed no error in rejecting the application for deleting his name from the plaint. 6 There is no merit in the petition which is hereby rejected summarily. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]