IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2010 MS. KUSSUM KHARANGATE AND 5 ORS., THROUGH THEIR CONSTITUTED P.O.A. MR. VILAS KHARANGATE ... Petitioner Versus SHRI BALAJI DATTA NAIK AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Shri Raunaq Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. Ms. R. Kantak, Advocate for Respondent No.8. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 4th August, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. The Petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.1/1996/D. This Writ Petition is directed against Order dated 12-11-2009 by which the plaintiffs have been refused leave to produce three Judgments, two of which are inter parties but are in appeal and the third is the Judgment dated 29-10-1979 of the A.K.R.R.T. Leave appears to have been sought after the plaintiffs had completed their arguments and the case was fixed for arguments of the Defendants. The reasons for rejecting the application may not be very sound but the fact remains that the plaintiffs themselves have averred in para 3 of the application that they had felt that it was not necessary to produce the said documents earlier. In para 4, the plaintiffs had stated that they were producing them by way of abundant caution. Although, Shri R. Rao, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs submits that in case the said documents are allowed to be produced, there will be no occasion to recall the plaintiffs for the purpose of leading further evidence, in my view, considering the stage the said documents were sought to be produced and the averments made by the plaintiffs themselves in the application, refusal to grant leave to produce the same could not be faulted. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned Order in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Writ Petition disposed off. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.