VARINDER KATYAL Vs. SIMRET KATYAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.8902/2017 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 267/2017 & CM No.8901/2017 By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 25.05.2016 and 04.11.2016.

(2.) The background facts are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1/respondent No.2 Union Bank of India to substitute the name of the respondent No.1 in place of her late husband Shri Harinder Katyal with respect to operation of a locker. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the bank from letting/permitting operation of the locker by the petitioner.

(3.) The suit was filed in 1995. Evidence of the plaintiff has been completed. On 19.5.2008 a Local Commissioner was appointed by the trial court to prepare an inventory of the articles lying in the locker. The inventory, however, it appears could not be prepared. On 18.10.2012 the respondent No.1 moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC whereby the petitioner sought to add the relief of a declaration to hand over/allow the respondent No.1 to take out the articles of jewellery as contained in the locker and also as declared by the respondent No.1 and her husband in their wealth tax returns as stri dhan. However, the trial court vide its order dated 18.10.2012 dismissed the said application on the ground that the application does not mention what are the articles of jewellery which are part of her stri dhan and are kept in the locker. The trial court also noted that the petitioner has filed the written statement in 1995 and the present application is filed in 2003. She has failed to show due diligence on her part and therefore the present application is dismissed.