1 W.P.No. 391.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2010 Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar and others ... PETITIONERS V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ... Mr. A.G.Talhar,Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P.for respondent-State ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE : 4TH MAY, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Heard Counsel. 2] By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 19.12.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Tuljapur. Their application for withdrawal of the amount to the extent of their shares came to be rejected. The petitioners had applied for release of the amount to the extent of there 5% share each. They claimed to be legal representatives of deceased Sau Gundabai Godsay. By the impugned order their application came to be rejected, only for the reason that, the power of attorney holder i.e. petitioner no.1 did not produce the original 2 W.P.No. 391.10 power of attorney and only xerox copy was filed. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to produce the original power of attorney executed infavour of the petitioner No.1. He further submitted that power of attorney is required for producing in some other matters also, therefore, only xerox copy was produced before the trial Court. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 claimed to be heirs of deceased Madhvi Narayan Godsay. 4] Considering the reason shown the in the impugned order and difficulties expressed by the counsel for the petitioners, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to release the amount infavour of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4, if original power of attorney executed by them infavour of the petitioner No.1 is produced for perusal along with Xerox copy. The xerox copy will be verified from the original power of attorney and original power of attorney may be immediately returned to the petitioners, after due verification. If such condition is complied with by the petitioners, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division shall allow withdrawal of the amount as prayed for in as 3 W.P.No. 391.10 much as they have furnished the security, as is clear from the order dated 09.11.2005. The petition is accordingly allowed and impugned order is quashed, on the conditions mentioned above. Sd/- ( V.R.KINGAONKAR ) JUDGE MTK