Petition by plaintiff for appointment of commissioner negatived.

1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.5849 of 1997 on the file of the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Madras seeking a decree (i) for declaration that he is the sole licensee of the Locker bearing No.687 in class H of the vault of the first defendant; (ii) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner operating the said Locker and (iii) for a mandatory injunction directing the first defendant to break open the said Locker in the presence of the Power Agent of the plaintiff and hand over all documents and valuables available in the Locker to the plaintiff’s power agent. The said suit was defended by the petitioner/second defendant.

2. Pending suit, at the instance of the first respondent, an order of injunction was passed against the second defendant/petitioner from operating the said Locker, which is still in force.

3. Thereafter the first respondent/plaintiff came forward with the present application in I.A.No.8973 of 1998 to open the petition mentioned locker in the presence of the petitioner and the representatives of the first respondent therein and prepare an inventory of the contents of the locker or alternatively to appoint an advocate-commissioner to break open the said locker and prepare an inventory of the contents of the said locker, and file the same before the court below. The said application was objected to by the petitioner herein by filing a counter.

4. The Court below accepting the case of the first respondent directed to open the locker in the presence of the petitioner and the representatives of the first respondent therein, and the advocate-Commissioner was directed to take inventory of the contents of the locker. It has also given directions to the advocate commissioner regarding the inventory and also given liberty to the advocate-commissioner to break open the locker, if the petitioner is not co-operating. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above Revision.

5. The plaintiff is the son-in-law of the petitioner Second defendant. The marital relationship between the plaintiff and his wife had broken down due to some misunderstanding between the parties. It is the case of the plaintiff that the locker in question was assigned to him and he handed over the key and authorised the petitioner/second defendant to operate the same in his absence. But it is specifically admitted in the plaint that the plaintiff and the petitioner/second defendant had signed and the second defendant is also a co-licensee. It is the case of the plaintiff/first respondent that he is the sole licensee with reference to the locker and the position of the petitioner/second defendant was more or less of a trustee. Since the key was not handed over by the second defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The second defendant contested the suit on the ground that he is also a co-assignee and so the plaintiff cannot claim absolute right. Admittedly, the second defendant/petitioner now cannot operate the locker, in view of the order of injunction granted by the court below.

6. In the present application, the plaintiff has come forward with the prayer to direct the petitioner herein to open the locker or in the alternative to appoint an advocate-commissioner to break open the locker. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, in para 8 it is stated that the equity share certificate for 83, 897 shares of the company, (Oriental Hotels Limited together with other share certificates were deposited in the said locker by the petitioner therein, and the second defendant therein knowing fully well the value of the share certificates belonging to the petitioner therein, unjustly refused the first respondents possession of the same with intention to harass and cause mental agony to the first respondent. It is the further case of the plaintiff/first respondent that he apprehends a drop in the share price and further monetary loss would be caused to hi