Karnataka High Court
Sanjay S/O Shantinath vs Smt. Pushpavathi on 23 January, 2014
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2014
Before
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
Writ Petition No.63093/2011 (GM-CPC)
Between:
Sanjay, S/o Shantinath
Malapanavar, Age: 43 years,
Occ: Business,
R/o Mahavir Road, Alnavar,
Tq & Dist: Dharwad. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. V.P.Kulkarni, Advocate)
And:
1. Smt. Pushpavathi,
W/o Shantinath Malapanavar,
Age: 68 years, Occ: Household
Work, R/o Mahavir Road, Alnavar,
Tq & Dist: Dharwad.
2. The Manager,
Alnavar Urban Co.op Bank
Ltd., R/o Mahavir Road,
Alnavar, Tq & Dist: Dharwad. ...Respondents
(By Sri. Madanmohan M.Khannur, Advocate for R1
Sri. Suresh P.Hudedagaddi, Adv., for M/s. SPACE
Law Associates, for R2)
:2:
This petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order passed by the learned II Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC Dharwad in O.S.No.166/2011 dated
23.04.2011 in I.A.No.3 vide Annexure-F.
This petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in
'B' Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code, appointing a Court Commissioner to account for all the valuables present in the suit locker with details of ornaments in the presence of the parties to the suit.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property, according to the plaintiff, is in the suit locker which is locked. Therefore, she wants a Commissioner to be :3: appointed in whose presence the locker could be opened so that he could make an inventory of all the articles found therein and report it to the Court and thereafter, the Court can adjudicate upon the rights of the parties to the entitlement of what is found in the locker. Now, the said application is allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 assailing the impugned order contends that right to privacy is affected; virtually the court below by way of an interim order has granted the main relief which is not proper; moreover, there is an order of temporary injunction passed against the petitioner not to operate the locker. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set aside.
4. The respondent No.1/plaintiff is seeking her legitimate share in the properties which are kept in the suit locker, which, according to the plaintiff, is joint family property. Petitioner/Defendant No.1 is not :4: prepared to disclose as to what are the properties kept in the locker, but contends that it is his property. The question whether the property in the suit locker is joint family property or self-acquired property has to be gone into in the suit by the Court. For the said purpose, it is necessary for the Court below to find out the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, a Court Commissioner is appointed to make an inventory of all the articles found in the suit locker and report it to the Court, so that the Court can decide upon the rights of the parties. The temporary injunction granted is against defendant No.1 not to operate the locker and to remove the articles therein and that would not come in the way of the Court Commissioner to make an inventory. Insofar as right to privacy is concerned, absolutely there is no substance in the said contention. The main relief sought for in the suit is for a declaration that the suit locker belongs to her family, while the interim relief granted by the Court below is appointment of a Commissioner to make an :5: inventory of the articles found in the locker. Therefore, I do not see any substance in the said contention. No merits.
Petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE Kms