(1) wp-5455-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5455 OF 2024 Seema Abaji Gaikwad, Aged 55 yers, Occ. Household, Residing at Neeldeep Niwas, Jadhav Wadi Behind Saibaba Mandir, Tal. Phaltan, District Satara. ..Petitioner Versus Priya Shankar Ahiwale, Aged 29 years, Occ. Household, Residing at Mangalwar Peth, Near Bhagwan Saw Mill, Phaltan, Taluka Phaltan, Dist. Satara. ..Respondent … Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam a/w Mr. Ashish A. Kadam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Venkatesh Shinde, Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2025. JUDGMENT:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The petitioner impugns order dated 15.02.2024 passed by 5th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Satara below Exhibit-77 in Succession Application No.116/2020, thereby reissuing Writ of appointment of Commissioner as per order below Exhibit-34 to open locker and carry out commission with specific direction to respondents to provide customer keys to Bank Officer in order to complete work of commission. 3. Mr. Abhijit Kadam, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner vehemently submits that deceased Abaji Hiralal Gaikwad had self (2) wp-5455-2024.odt acquired agriculture lands. He was in business of jewellery. The Commissioner cannot be appointed for inspection of his lockers, wherein he use to preserve ornaments and valuable documents. The petitioner being wife of deceased, is alone entitled to operate lockers. In these circumstances, impugned order cannot be countenanced. 4. Mr. Venkatesh Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for respondent submits that application for appointment of Court Commissioner was moved under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure below Exhibit-34 in Succession Application No.116/2020. On 20.07.2023, said application was allowed. In pursuance of order, Commissioner was appointed to execute work. However, petitioner, who was holding keys of lockers, remained absent and created obstacle in execution of work. In this background, application below Exhibit-77 was filed and same has been favourably considered by learned Trial Court. He would submit that original order of appointment of Commissioner is passed on 20.07.2023. The same was not challenged by petitioner. However, when subsequent order dated 15.02.2024 is passed below Exhibit-77, present petition is filed, thereby raising challenge to both orders. Writ Petition is afterthought. The challenge to order of appointment of Court Commissioner need not be entertained at this stage. 5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that Succession (3) wp-5455-2024.odt Application No.116/2020 is filed by respondent/daughter of deceased Abaji Gaikwad. He used to run his business in name of Omkar Jwellers at Faltan. He had opened bank lockers with State Bank of India, Cosmos Bank and Central Bank of India. He used to preserve gold and silver valuables in those lockers. He died on 15.09.2020 during Covid Pandemic. The petitioner is wife of Abaji, whereas respondent is his daughter. The daughter filed application for issuance of succession certificate. So as to make inventory of immovable property left in lockerd, application Exhibit-34 was moved for appointment of Court Commissioner. The Trial Court was pleased to allow said application vide order dated 20.07.2023 below Exhibit-34. 6. Although, Court Commissioner was appointed, petitioner failed to co-operate. The Bank Authorities informed to Court that petitioner was not present for execution of commission or she had withhold customer keys with her. 7. In aforesaid background, subsequent order dated 15.02.2024 below Exhibit-77 is passed by issuing further direction for execution of commission. 8. It can be observed that original order appointing Court Commissioner is passed in year 2023. It was not challenged, belatedly challenge is sought to be raised in this petition. The delay and laches in filing present Writ Petition is not explained. The learned Trial Court (4) wp-5455-2024.odt is justified in appointing Court Commissioner to make inventory of ornaments preserved in Bank lockers by deceased. The respondent being daughter would entitle to succeed property left behind by deceased alongwith petitioner as per Hindu Succession Act. The substantive rights of parties would not be decided in proceeding for succession certificate. However, it is necessary to make inventory of immovable properties left by deceased. 9. In this background, no jurisdictional error is pointed out in impugned order. Hence, Writ Petition stands rejected. 10. Rule stands discharged. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/September-2025