Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3900 (MAD)

Kathirappan v. N. Vijyanthimala

2018-10-23

P.T.ASHA

body2018
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri in I.A. No. 11 of 2011 in O.S. No. 60 of 2007 dated 18.07.2011 in and by which the learned Judge has partly allowed the application filed by the first respondent herein for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take an inventory of the locker standing in the name of the deceased Narayanan, in the State Bank of India, Marandahalli Branch and to note down the details of the documents, Jewels and other articles in the said locker by taking photographs and to file a detailed report about the same. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: The first respondent had filed a suit in O.S. No. 60 of 2007 for declaration that she is the adopted daughter of late Narayanan and the third defendant and to partition the suit property and to allot one share her. The defence, in brief, to the above petition was that the first respondent/plaintiff is not the daughter of the said Narayanan and that she had also been given some properties, out of mercy. When the matter was posted for trial, the first respondent had come forward with the impugned petition stating that the inventory of the locker would help both her and the defendants to know the contents in the locker and that it would not prejudice the revision petitioners. The petitioners/defendants had filed a counter pointing out that the impugned application was only an attempt to protract the proceedings. The petitioners would contend that the suit was twice dismissed for default and restored and the present application filed was highly belated. 3. The learned Additional District Judge, by his order dated 18.07.2011, partly allowed the petition. He had appointed the Advocate Commissioner to take an inventory of the locker and for recording the availability of documents and file a report to that effect. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 4. Heard, Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the plaintiff/first respondent cannot use the Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence and the impugned application is nothing but an attempt to prolong the proceedings. Challenging the said order, the revision petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 4. Heard, Mr. Sharath Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the plaintiff/first respondent cannot use the Advocate Commissioner to collect the evidence and the impugned application is nothing but an attempt to prolong the proceedings. He would also point out that the first respondent had allowed the suit to be dismissed for default twice and this application is nothing but one more attempt to prolong proceedings. 5. Per contra, Mr. P. Vallippan, learned counsel arguing on behalf of the first respondent would contend that he has made a mention about the existence of documents and Jewels in the locker in the plaint and it would be to the benefit of both parties, if the list of the documents and Jewels in the locker is noted. 6. Heard both sides and perused the documents. It is seen that the impugned application is mainly intended in order to substantiate the first respondents claim with reference to the Schedule property which consists of Jewels, fixed deposit and the other documents. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly disallowed the prayer with reference to the Jewels but has allowed the petition with reference to the documents that have been maintained in the locker. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent, since, the suit is one for partition, it would be advantage to both parties, if inventory and report of the same are before this Court. I therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri. 7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 8. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2007 and ripping for trial, the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Dharmapuri, is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, not later than the period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.