1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 534 OF 2009 1. Shri Umakant Bhalchandra Kenkre, (deceased ) through his heirs: (a) Dr. Sandeep Umakant Kenkre, major, married, Doctor, (b) Dr. Mrs. Ashwini Sandeep Kenkre, major, married, Doctor, both r/o Kenkre Mansion, D. B. Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa. (c ) Dr. Sunil Umakant Kenkre, major, married, Doctor, (d) Mrs. Seema Sunil Kenkre, major, married, housewife, both r/o Nalanda Vihar – E, Flat FF1 & 2, Datta Wadi, Mapusa Goa. 2. Smt. Durgabai U. Kenkre, major, widow, 3. Smt. Vanashree Fotu Kenkre, major, widow of Late Fotu Kenkre, both residing at Kenkre House, Cabeca, St. Cruz, Ilhas Goa. 4. Shri Nitin Fotu Kenkre, major, s/o late Fotu Sinai Kenkre, businessman, 5. Smt. Pratibha Nitin Kenkre, major, housewife, both r/o Kenkre Mansion, D.B. Marg, Miramar, Panaji Goa. ... Petitioners V e r s u s at* 2 1. Dr. Sricrishna Balchandra Kenkre, ( since deceased ) represented by his legal heirs :- (a) Miss Tanya Sricrishna Kenkre, d/o Late Sricrishna B. Kenkre, major, unmarried, (b) Mr. Balchandra Neilesh Kenkre, major, bachelor, both resident of 1913, Garrick Drive, Pittsburg, PA 15235 U.S.A. 2. Mrs. Anasuya Sricrishna Kenkre alias Anasuya Sheila Kenkre, wife of Sricrishna Balchandra Kenkre, resident of 1913, Garrick Drive, Pittsburg, PA 15235 U. S. A. all having their address at C/o The Manager, Hotel Mandovi, Panaji Goa. ... Respondents Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- A. H. JOSHI, J. Date :- 11 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. On first hearing this Court had passed following order :- at* 3 “Issue notice for final disposal calling to show cause as to why production of document at page 99 of Writ Petition should not be allowed, limited to prove the endorsement thereon dated 02.03.1985”. 3. Respondent has appeared. Petition is opposed on the ground that the endorsement at the bottom of the document sought to be produced is an ordinary/typed copy of a power of attorney. Therefore, even if the endorsement is proved, it does not prove the power of attorney and therefore it is urged that the petition be rejected. 4. The question as to how the document of power of attorney should be proved which is not before the Court, has no relevance or is not a question before this Court, particularly when this Court has issued limited notice to the extent of placing reliance of the entry concerned. 5. The said entry being one made by the Registrar in the discharge of his official duties, prima facie there should be no difficulty in allowing the production of said document. 6. Moreover proof of fact thereof and its effect would essentially gone into by the Trial Court in the process of hearing and decision. at* 4 7. In view of this and discussion, this Court finds no impediment in allowing the production as indicated in the order quoted above. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds. 9. Rule is made absolute by setting aside impugned order and permitting the production of document limited to the extent that the petitioner would be free to prove the endorsement dated 02.03.1985 on the copy of power of attorney subject matter. No costs. A. H. JOSHI, J. at* at*