IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2885-2026 Date of decision: 06.04.2026 Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulvinder Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus Jagir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Ankur Lal, Advocate for the petitioners.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.02.2026, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pehowa, whereby an application for directing the Manager of Union Bank of India, Pehowa Branch to produce the contents of locker No.32/1 standing jointly in the name of Kulwinder wife of Jajwinder Singh (petitioner No.1) and Jagir Singh (respondent No.1)

has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants has submitted that the Local Commissioner was earlier appointed and he had already prepared an inventory and a videography of all the articles lying in the said locker has already been done and thus, the application filed by the plaintiffs for directing the Bank Manager to produce the contents of locker No.32/1, which is in the name of petitioner No.1-Kulwinder Kaur and respondent No.1-Jagir Singh who is father-in-law of petitioner No.1, is completely uncalled for and the order dated 12.02.2026, allowing the said application, deserves to be set aside.

3. A perusal of the order dated 12.02.2026 would show that the trial Court had observed that it was an undisputed fact that the locker No.32/1 stands jointly in the name of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and it is the claim of plaintiff No.1-respondent No.1 that the articles in the said locker belong to him, whereas, it is the claim of petitioner No.1- defendant No.1 that the articles belong to her. It is the case of respondent No.1-plaintiff No.1 that the videography, which had been done earlier, was not clearly showing the articles and in order to prove the ownership and for identification of the ornaments/articles, clear photographs would be required to be taken after producing the said articles before the Court so that proper evidence can be led in order to establish ownership of each of the said articles. It was further observed that the case was at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence and that every party should be given proper opportunity to lead evidence and since the dispute in the case was regarding the ownership of the articles lying in the locker, thus, in order to give proper opportunity to prove ownership of the articles, the application was allowed and the Bank Manager was directed to produce the contents of the locker before the Court for examination and for taking photographs by the plaintiffs.

4. This Court is of the view that the said order passed by the trial Court would help plaintiff No.1 in properly identifying the items which are there in the locker, which is stated to be a joint locker of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 and once the photographs are taken in the Court then there would be absolute clarity with respect to the articles which are lying in the joint locker. Since it is not disputed that the primary dispute in the present case is with respect to the ownership of the said articles thus, allowing of the said application would help in finally and properly adjudicating the case. Moreover, the suit had been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and any delay caused on account of passing of the impugned order would primarily prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil”, reported as (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also obser