should have pressed the said application and should have demanded the order on it. However, it is unfair and unjust to allow this Application at this stage when original plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is no more and expired on 16th September, 2016. Moreover when the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 demanded the inspection of these documents, it was not given by the defendant-society. Despite the order of production of the documents, the defendants did not produce those documents throughout the trial. If the documents, i.e., resignation letter, refund or any other documents are allowed to be produced, then those documents cannot be read in evidence without its proof and for that purpose, the trial Court will have to be directed to record the evidence. Now the Society is eager to prove these documents, however, in the event of death of original plaintiff, the present respondent, who is the son and power of attorneyholder of the original plaintiff, is not in a position to obtain instructions in respect of the resignation letter or the receipt of refunded money by his mother which has taken place way back in the year 1976-77. The efforts of the plaintiff to bring these documents on record were frustrated because of the defendants denial to produce these documents. Under such circumstances, after the death of original plaintiff, if the Society/respondent now
