APHC010008992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION Between: Rednam Venkat Narashimha Prasad Rao, The State Bank Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANTOSH KUMAR U 2. The Court made the following: ORDER : Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. After arguing at prays for adjournment to file copies of the documents as mentioned in Appendix of Evidence of 1 C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 133/2025 Rednam Venkat Narashimha Prasad Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Bank Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): SANTOSH KUMAR U the following: Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner. After arguing at full length, leaned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to file copies of the documents as mentioned in of the order at page-18. (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3299] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) length, leaned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to file copies of the documents as mentioned in 2 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 3. Considering the submissions advanced, as also going through the contents of the plaint, filing of those documents is not necessary for decision of this Civil Revision Petition. The request for adjournment on the aforesaid ground is rejected. 4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 440 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam, seeking the following reliefs: (a) For a declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the deceased Rednam Venkat Apparao, for the locker bearing No.548 with the 2nd defendant ; (b) For consequential relief of mandatory direction, directing the 2nd defendant to break open locker No.548 in the presence of the plaintiff and hand over all the documents and valuables available in the locker to the plaintiff ; (c) For a permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from any manner operating the said locker; (d) For costs ; (e) Such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. The 1st and 2nd defendant herein, are the State Bank of India, represented by its Chairman and State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam respectively. 3 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 6. The 3rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner’s deceased father and is represented by a General Power of Attorney holder. 7. Previously, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.20400 of 2020, seeking a direction to declare the action of the bank in not allowing the petitioner to operate the locker No.548, though he was the son of the deceased and in allowing his uncle to operate the locker. The W.P.No.20400 of 2020 was closed by order dated 04.11.2020. The order dated 04.11.2020 reads as under : “This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not allowing him to operate the bank locker No.548 and allowing his uncle, 5th respondent, to operate the locker without proving his ownership and title over the belongings and allowing him to clear the locker, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that they are not allowing the 3rd respondent to operate the bank locker, and that if the petitioner and the 3rd respondent appear before the bank authorities, they will decide the issue. Recording the submission made by the standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.” 4 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 8. In O.S.No.440 of 2021, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 67 of 2021, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to break open locker No.548 in the presence of the petitioner and prepare an inventory of its articles. It is submitted that the locker was originally opened by the petitioner’s father along with his (father’s) brother i.e., 3rd respondent, and was obtained from the bank on ‘either or survivor’ basis. 9. Along with I.A. No.67 of 2021, the petitioner also submitted a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.20400 of 2020. The application was opposed by respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 2 and 3 in the suit). The 1st respondent/defendant filed a memo adopting the counter affidavit of respondents 2 and 3. After considering the submissions and the order in W.P. No. 20400 of 2020, the learned Court dismissed I.A. No. 67 of 2021 on 05.09.2024. The Court recorded that, pursuant to the order in W.P. No. 20400 of 2020, the bank had addressed letters to both, the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent/defendant, but no progress/development was made, and no action could be taken according to the bank regulations, and in the meantime, the suit was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased in relation to the locker and for the reliefs mentioned. 10. The 3rd respondent contested the petitioner's claim and argued that the suit was not maintainable. 5 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 11. The learned Court dismissed I.A.No.67 of 2021, and observed that unless and until the main suit itself was decided, after full- fledged trial, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought by way of I.A.No.67 of 2021. The locker was taken on ‘either or survivor’ basis. Although an ad interim injunction was initially granted in favor of the petitioner, but it was not extended from time to time. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legal representative of his deceased father. He contends that a joint account was opened in the bank in the name of the petitioner and petitioner’s father and the locker rent was also paid from the said account. He, however does not dispute that the locker is in the name of his father and 3rd respondent and that it is on ‘either or survivor’ basis. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 14. The petitioner specifically states in the plaint and it is also the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the locker was jointly held by his late father and father’s brother, i.e., the 3rd respondent, on ‘either or survivor’ basis. Mere payment of locker rent, from the joint account of the petitioner and petitioner’s father, at this stage, even if it may be correct, though it is to be seen during trial, would not enable the petitioner to allow his I.A.No.67 of 2021. 6 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 15. Neither the impugned order nor the order in W.P.No.20400 of 2020 can be said to be affecting the merits of the plaintiff’s case, at the stage of trial, which depends upon evidence to be led in the suit regarding the prayers made. Depending upon the result of the suit, the trial Court may pass order of preparation of inventory and for opening of the locker as per law at the appropriate time. 16. The learned Court, considering the facts and circumstances, rightfully refrained from appointing an Advocate Commissioner to open the locker and prepare an inventory of its articles, at this stage. 17. I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Court, so as to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date :13.02.2025. RPD. 7 (RNT,J C.R.P.No.133 of 2025) 143 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (DISMISSED) CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 133 OF 2025 Date :13.02.2025 RPD.