IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 349 OF 2010 JAYANT FOTU BHANDARI AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus M/S. TRIMURTI EXPORTS AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 8th June, 2010 P.C.: Heard. The respondents are duly served. None present on their behalf. 2. By the impugned order, the plaintiffs have been directed to supply a copy of a sale deed dated 12/03/2007 which admittedly was executed by defendant no.5 and was not in possession of the plaintiffs. 3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs had indicated in their list of documents, vide item no.4, that they would rely on the copy of the said sale deed which was not in their possession and therefore learned Counsel submits that the Court could not have directed the plaintiffs to give a copy of the same to defendant no.1. 4. In my view, the submission is right. In case the said sale deed was not executed by the plaintiffs nor was in their possession, obviously the learned Civil Judge could not have directed the plaintiffs to furnish a copy of the same to the defendants. 5. With the above observations, the writ petition is bound to succeed. The impugned order to the extent it directs the plaintiffs to produce a copy of the sale deed to the defendants is hereby set aside with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH