APHC010008992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3299]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 133/2025 Between:

Rednam Venkat Narashimha Prasad Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Bank Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SANTOSH KUMAR U

2.

The Court made the following:

ORDER :

Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. After arguing at full length, leaned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment to file copies of the documents as mentioned in Appendix of Evidence of the order at page-18.

3. Considering the submissions advanced, as also going through the contents of the plaint, filing of those documents is not necessary for decision of this Civil Revision Petition. The request for adjournment on the aforesaid ground is rejected.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S. No. 440 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam, seeking the following reliefs:

(a) For a declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the deceased Rednam Venkat Apparao, for the locker bearing No.548 with the 2^nd defendant ;

(b) For consequential relief of mandatory direction, directing the 2nd defendant to break open locker No.548 in the presence of the plaintiff and hand over all the documents and valuables available in the locker to the plaintiff ;

(c) For a permanent injunction restraining the 3^rd defendant from any manner operating the said locker;

(d) For costs ;

(e) Such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

5. The 1^st and 2^nd defendant herein, are the State Bank of India, represented by its Chairman and State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam respectively.

6. The 3^rd respondent is the brother of the petitioner’s deceased father and is represented by a General Power of Attorney holder.

7. Previously, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.20400 of 2020, seeking a direction to declare the action of the bank in not allowing the petitioner to operate the locker No.548, though he was the son of the deceased and in allowing his uncle to operate the locker. The W.P.No.20400 of 2020 was closed by order dated 04.11.2020. The order dated 04.11.2020 reads as under :

“This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not allowing him to operate the bank locker No.548 and allowing his uncle, 5th respondent, to operate the locker without proving his ownership and title over the belongings and allowing him to clear the locker, as illegal and arbitrary.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2 submits that they are not allowing the 3rd respondent to operate the bank locker, and that if the petitioner and the 3rd respondent appear before the bank authorities, they will decide the issue.

Recording the submission made by the standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.”

8. In O.S.No.440 of 2021, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 67 of

2021, seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to break open locker No.548 in the presence of the petitioner and prepare an inventory of its articles. It is submitted that the locker was originally opened by the petitioner’s father along with his (father’s) brother i.e., 3^rd respondent, and was obtained from the bank on ‘either or survivor’ basis.

9. Along with I.A. No.67 of 2021, the petitioner also submitted a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.20400 of 2020. The application was opposed by respondents 2 and