DIKSHA SAGAR KADAMversusSURESH JAGANNATHRAO KADAM AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40064



                                                   1
                                                                   36-wp-10293-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 10293 OF 2023

                           Diksha Sagar Kadam,
                           Age: 28 years, Occu: Household,
                           R/o: Kopargaon, Tal. Kopargaon,
                           Dist. Ahmednagar,
                           At present: Dombivali, Om Laxmi Sagar
                           Apartment, Flat No.5, Raju Nagar,
                           Dombivali (Best), Dist. Thane.
                                                                   …..PETITIONER
                                                                   (Orig. Plaintiff)
                                 VERSUS
                     1.    Suresh Jagannathrao Kadam,
                           Age: 62 years, Occu: Service,
                           R/o: In front of Om Nagar,
                           Balaji Residency, Old Takali Road,
                           Kopargaon, Tal. Kopargaon,
                           Dist. Ahmednagar.

                     2.    Kusumbai Suresh Kadam,
                           Age: 58 years, Occu: Household.

                     3.    Sagar Suresh Kadam,
                           Age: 34 years, Occu: Service.

                           R/Nos.2 and 3, R/o,
                           Kopargaon, Tal. Kopargaon,
                           Dist. Ahmednagar,
                           At Present: Dombivali, Om Laxmi Sagar,
                           Apartment, Flat No.5, Raju Nagar,
                           Dombivali (Best), Dist. Thane.

                     4.    Branch Officer,
                           District Ahmednagar Central Co-op.
                           Bank Ltd; Ahmednagar Branch Kopargaon
                           (Co-opeartive Courts Building),
                           Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.
                                                              …..RESPONDENTS
                                                              (Orig. Defendants)
                                  2
                                                    36-wp-10293-2023

______________________________________________________
Mr. A. A. Fulfagar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent no.1
Mr. R. A. Tambe, Advocate for Respondent no.4
______________________________________________________

                      CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                      DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026
JUDGMENT :-

.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.    Considering the controversy involved in the petition, the

parties are heard for final disposal of the Writ Petition. The

facts of the case are very peculiar. The petitioner has filed a

Regular Civil Suit No.261 of 2018 in the Court of learned Civil

Judge Junior Division, Kopargaon for the following reliefs:

      v-    oknhpk nkok eatqj dj.;kr ;kok-
      c-     nkok dye 1 e/khy o.kZu dsysys laiq.kZ lksU;kps
      nkfxus gs oknhps L=h/ku vlY;kus rs oknhps ekydhps
      vlY;kps tkfgj Bjowu feGkos-
      d- nkok dye 1 e/khy o.kZu dsysys laiq.kZ lksU;kps
      nkfxus gs izfroknh ua-4 ;kapsdMs ykWdj ua-47 e/;s Bsoysys
      vlY;kus lnjps lksus oknhps L=h/ku vlY;kus ykWdj ua-
      47 gs izfroknh ua-1 ;kl R;kps uohu pkoh d#u
      m?kM.;kl ijokuxh nsow u;s] m?kMw nsow u;s o izfroknh ua-
      1 ;kus lnjps nkfxus ykWdj m?kMwu rkC;kr ?ksÅ u;s o
      R;kps foYsgokV ykow u;s vlk fujarj rkdhn eukbZ gqdwe
      izfroknh ua-1 o 4 fo#n~/k nsookok-
      M-     nkok dye 1 e/khy o.kZu dsysys laiq.kZ lksU;kps
      nkfxus gs oknhps ekydhps o L=h/ku vlY;kus izfroknh
      ua-4 ;kauh ykWdje/;s Bsoysys laiq.kZ nkfxU;kapk rkck gk
                                 3
                                                     36-wp-10293-2023

      oknhdMs gLrkarjhr dj.ksr ;kok] vlk fof’k”V gqdwe
      izfroknh ua-4 ;kapsfo#n~/k Ogkok-
      b-    ;k nkO;kpk laiq.kZ odhy Qh lg [kpZ oknhl
      feGkok-
      bZ-    U;k;kl vuql#u ;ksX; rh U;k;nkn oknhps ykHkkr
      nsookoh-
            gh fouarh- lkscr vWfQMsOghV fnys vkgs-

3.    It is contended that although the suit is filed against the

parents-in-law, the husband and the bank, there is no

controversy in between the petitioner/plaintiff-wife and the

respondent no.3/defendant-husband. It is submitted that the

controversy is in between the daughter-in-law (present

petitioner/plaintiff) and the father-in-law (present respondent

no.1/defendant no.1).

4.    The plaintiff/petitioner contends that she received

several gold ornaments and valuables as Streedhan which are

kept in a safety locker maintained in the name of respondent

no.1/father-in-law with respondent no.4/bank. It is submitted

that the articles were deposited in the safety locker when the

relations between the parties were cordial. Subsequently, the

differences cropped between the father-in-law and the

daughter-in-law, resulting in a breakdown of trust between

the parties which ultimately let to the filing of the suit.
                                   4
                                                       36-wp-10293-2023

Apprehending that the father-in-law might obtain a duplicate

key from the bank and remove or misappropriate the

Streedhan articles, the plaintiff also sought an injunction

against the father-in-law as well as the bank, restraining the

bank from issuing a new or duplicate key to defendant no.1.

5.    Further    the   plaintiff       also   sought    an   injunction

restraining defendant no.1 from opening the locker and

disposing of the articles kept therein. It is also a matter of fact

that respondent no.1/father-in-law has filed an application to

the respondent no.4/bank that no one be allowed to operate

the subject matter-safety locker.

6.    Obviously, this application is on the pretext that

respondent no.1 is the owner/allottee of the said locker and

therefore he is the only person entitled to operate the same.

Its authorization was evidently extended to the present

petitioner when the relations between the parties were

cordial. In the light of the differences cropped between the

parties,   respondent     no.1/father-in-law           addressed    an

application to the bank Manager to disallow the petitioner

from operating the locker.
                                5
                                                36-wp-10293-2023

7.    During the course of hearing of the suit, the plaintiff

filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with

Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking appointment of

a Court Commissioner to inspect the subject matter-safety

locker bearing no.A-47 and to take photographs of the articles

kept therein. It was further prayed that the details of the

contents of the locker alongwith the photographs be produced

before the Court.

8.    The said application was strongly opposed by the

defendants. It was contended that the application was nothing

but an attempt to collect evidence which is impermissible

under the scheme of Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 75

of the Civil Procedure Code.

9.    After hearing the parties, the application stood rejected.

Hence, this Writ Petition is filed by the daughter-in-law.

10.   Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

11.   Mr. A. A. Fulfagar, learned Advocate for the petitioner

reiterates the case of the petitioner in support of the

application seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner. He

expresses an apprehension if bank permits respondent no.1 to

open the locker behind the back of the petitioner, the suit
                               6
                                                 36-wp-10293-2023

itself would be rendered infructuous. He would further submit

that the petitioner merely seeks to have the contents of the

locker recorded and nothing else. He therefore prays to allow

the Writ Petition.

12.   Mr.   S.   S.   Chapalgaonkar,   learned    Advocate    for

respondent no.1 would however submit that all contentions of

his client are very clear. He would submit that the application

addressed by respondent no.1/father-in-law to respondent

no.4/bank is under the authority as an owner/allottee of the

locker and hence, the said application is absolutely justified.

He would submit that respondent no.1 never intended nor

intends to open the subject matter-locker taking law in his

land nor would make any such request to the bank at any

point of time.

13.   He would predominantly pointed out that the said

locker infact contains the articles and gold ornaments of his

wife i.e. defendant no.2 (present respondent no.2) too. He

would further submit that at some point of time, it would be

incumbent to decide the ownership of petitioner and

respondent no.1 corresponding to the articles kept in the

subject matter-locker.
                               7
                                              36-wp-10293-2023

14.   Mr. Chapalgaonkar would conclude his arguments by

contending that the application does not meet any parameter

of Section 75 read with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil

Procedure Code. That the petitioner herself, both in the plaint

and in the present petition has recited all the contents and

details of the ornaments which the petitioner purportedly kept

in the locker. Therefore, for the same purpose, appointment

of a Court Commissioner is not at all warranted. With this,

Mr. Chapalgaonkar, learned Advocate prays to dismiss the

Writ Petition.

15.   Mr. R. A. Tambe, learned Advocate for respondent

no.4/bank would submit that there is no procedure for issuing

a new or duplicate key to any customer/locker holder in the

event of loss of the original key. He would submit that the

Reserve Bank of India has prescribed certain procedures to be

followed in the event of loss of the locker key. He would

further submit that whenever occasion arises, the bank shall

open the locker through its authorized employee pursuant to

an order of the Court, and that the bank would neither

undertake to open the locker behind the back of any party nor

do so in the absence of Court order.
                               8
                                               36-wp-10293-2023

16.   In view of the above, I find that at this juncture, the

application has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The

issue was about ownership of a party on the articles kept in

the locker. At present, there is no clarity as to the contents

kept in the said locker. While the petitioner contends that all

the ornaments belong to her, respondent no.1 contends that

some of the articles belong to his wife. In any event, the

plaintiff will have to establish her ownership over the articles

and would be entitled to claim them only upon establishing

such ownership.

17.   In view of this, I find that the Trial Court has not

committed any illegality while passing the impugned order.

However, taking into consideration the submissions made by

learned Advocate for the respective parties as recorded above,

it would be justifiable to direct that subject matter-locker

no.A-47 shall be operated/opened only pursuant to orders

passed by the Trial Court. Whenever occasion arises, the Trial

Court may either upon an application made by any of the

parties or suo moto direct opening of the subject matter-safety

locker.
                                 9
                                                 36-wp-10293-2023

18.     Whenever the said locker is directed to be opened, the

petitioner, respondent no.1, an official of the bank and two

independent witnesses shall remain present. A panchnama

shall also be prepared. It is within the domain of the Trial

Court as to pass necessary orders as would be required at the

relevant time.

19.     It is also informed that issues are now framed and

evidence is yet to be started. On this count also, the

application is abundantly prematured.

20.     The parties to the petition candidly agree that they shall

not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the matter and shall

co-operate to the Trial Court for early disposal.

21.     In view of this limited controversy, the Trial Court is

requested to conclude the suit proceedings within a period of

six months from today. The impugned order does not call for

any interference as regards to its legality.

22.     With these directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

23.     Rule in above terms.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026