S.T.CHANDREGOWDA Vs. D.SUMITHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No.32/2004 has challenged the order of the trial Court dated 30.03.2015, whereby application of the defendants filed under Order 13 Rule 9 of CPC has been allowed thereby permitting the defendants to take custody of the deposit receipts Exs.P1 to P3 while granting liberty to the plaintiff to file objections before the concerned bank authority at the time of realization of the amount.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner who is the husband has challenged the impugned order stating that Order 13 Rule 9 of CPC under which provision the application is filed confers power on the Court to return the documents to the person who has produced the documents and the Court does not have power to order for return of the documents to any other person as ordered.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants that the certificate stands in her name. It is contended that the procedural requirements under Order 13 Rule 9 of CPC cannot place any rider on the Courts power regarding the return of documents, where the Court taking note of the substantive rights of the party directs return to any person other than the person who has produced the deposit certificates.