JUDGMENT :

R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. The issue raised in this petition is whether, foundational pleadings regarding a vital document like "Power of Attorney" are necessary for placing reliance upon and for production at a belated stage?

2. The petitioners submit that Respondent no. 2 (Mohanlal Gindodia) is the original defendant no. 2 in the suit and is fully supporting the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 herein. He is a formal party and can be deleted. Hence, deletion is permitted only for the purpose of the cause of action arising in this writ petition.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

4. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original deceased defendant no.1 (Badrinayaran Palsaniya) in Special Civil Suit No. 222/2009. They are aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Trial Court by which, application exhibit 90 filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to produce one office copy and three original documents, has been allowed and costs of Rs. 2500/- has been imposed upon the plaintiff.

5. The contentions of the petitioners/defendants can be summarized as under:-

(a) After the suit was lodged in October, 2009, the Trial Court fr