(1.) HEARD . This is a plaintiffs' writ petition directed against an interlocutory order dated 19 08.2011 passed by the Court of the XXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting their application -I.A. No. 9 filed in the suit in O.S. No. 796/2003 for summoning of the original Will from another Court. The impugned order reads as follows: Perused the LA No. 9, sworn affidavit of the plaintiff No. 2. After considering the LA, affidavit of plaintiff and submission of plaintiffs counsel, this court held that, allowing of this LA is not necessary for call for the original Will dt: 19.12.1953 produced by the plaintiffs in O.S. 8988/96 and 8989/96 pending on the file of C.C.H. -28. Because as per the affidavit of plaintiff No. 2 said Will deed is already marked as exhibit in that suit. So he can produce the certified copy of that Will deed before the court and take back that original Will deed and to produce it before the court. Because there is no bar under the law to get the original document from the concerned court and to produce its certified copies. If that file is record and further proceedings of that suit are stayed for that reason then it causes hindrance to the said court. When the law permits the plaintiffs to take back the original documents from the concerned court by producing its certified copies before the court, so this application is rejected with a direction to the plaintiffs to collect that original Will deed from that court, by producing its certified copies before the said court. For production of that original Will deed and for plaintiffs further evidence call on 12.9.2011. (Underlining supplied)2. On the facts of the case, I find no legal infirmity in the impugned order to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.