SUKHDEV KUMAR PURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts of the case are that Janak Dulari Puri was the sister of petitioner. She died intestate. Janak Dulari Puri was having her account with respondent No. 2. After the death of Janak Dulari Pun, petitioner obtained succession certificate in respect of other securities of deceased Janak Dulari Puri, which is on record as Annexure P-2. As the respondent No. 2 did not permit the petitioner to operate the locker, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is entitled for operation of locker. This suit was opposed by respondent No. 2 by filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11, C. P. C. , that without seeking consequential relief of possession of locker, suit for mere declaration is not maintainable. The trial Court considering the objection raised by respondent No. 2 dismissed the suit vide order dated 30. 4. 2003. Thereafter petitioner filed this petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is having efficacious alternative remedy by filing appeal against the order Annexure P-9, by which the suit of petitioner was dismissed. In the circumstances this petition may not be entertained. But he could not point out from the rules of Bank, what will be procedure in these circumstances. But considering the fact that objection raised by respondent No. 2, which was sustained by the trial Court and suit for declaration filed by petitioner was dismissed, while for operation of locker only a suit for declaration without seeking relief of possession of locker was maintainable. The objection raised by respondent No. 2 before the Civil Court that suit without seeking consequential relief was not maintainable itself was misconceived. As the petitioner has filed this petition after dismissal of the suit, in the circumstances, on the ground of aforesaid alternative remedy in peculiar circumstances of the case, this petition cannot be dismissed.

(3.) PETITIONER who was granted succession certificate by the Civil Court in respect of other security of deceased Janak Dulari Puri, thereafter, filed suit for declaration that he is entitled to operate the locker No. 507 with respondent No. 2, has been deprived of the relief because of objection raised by respondent No. 2. The petitioner is prima facie entitled for operation of locker, but interest of respondent also deserves to be protected by making provision in respect of any further claimant of property of Janak Dulari Puri. And if the petitioner furnishes security and indemnity bond to the satisfaction of respondent No. 2 that in case in future any other claimant makes a claim in respect of aforesaid locker, the petitioner shall indemnify the Bank in respect of any claim or damages, he will be entitled to operate the aforesaid locker.