IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.58 OF 2023 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.103 OF 2023 DATED: 13^th FEBRUARY, 2026 BETWEEN :

D.Venkata Subrahmanya Seetha Ram … Petitioner-

Petitioner-Plaintiff (in both the CRPs)

AND

1. A.Neelima, W/o.Venkata Dhinakara Reddy, Aged 23 years, Housewife, D.No.3-5-118/11, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and Others.

…Respondents-

Respondents-Defendants (in both the CRPs)

COMMON ORDER

1. Two separate Memorandum of Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order passed by the learned XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District in IA.No.352 of

2022 and IA.No.353 of 2022 in OS.No.110 of 2010.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants.

3. CRP No.58 of 2023.

This CRP is filed against partly allowing IA No.352 of 2022 which is filed under Order 16 Rules 1 & 5 r/w Section 94 & 151 of Civil Procedure code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for production of the documents of Bank locker and to give evidence.

4. CRP No.103 of 2022 This CRP is filed against the dismissal of IA.No.353 of 2022 which is filed under Order 18 Rule 3 (A) and Sections 94 & 151 of CPC with a prayer to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to first examine the Manager, Central Bank of India, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad to prove the existence of the original Will in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property i.e., Bank Locker.

5.1. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed two separate applications vide IA.No.352 of 2022 to summon the Manager for production of the entire documents relating to Bank Locker bearing No.200 stands in the name of Chada Late Maha Lakshmi @ Daita Maha Lakshmi, W/o. D.V.B. Sharma in Central Bank of India, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad including Locker opening proceedings which were done at the instance of respondent No.1-defendant No.1 and panchanama recorded after opening of the said locker before the Court and to give evidence thereon, which application is partly allowed calling for the documents and the rest of the prayer to give evidence is rejected by the learned trial Court.

5.2. Second application is filed vide IA No.353 of 2022 seeking leave of the Court to first examine the Manager, Central Bank of India, Khairatabad Branch, Hyderabad to prove existence of the original Will in respect of plaint ‘C’ schedule property i.e., Bank locker before the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff.

5.3. The affidavits filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in both the IAs is one and the same except the prayer portions.

5.4. Affidavit is sworn by one Veedhi (Devarakonda) Venkata Lakshmi Madhuri, W/o. Vijaya Saradhi, who is the GPA holder of the petitioner-plaintiff. The affidavit goes to show that Maha Lakshmi during her lifetime has nominated the petitioner-plaintiff as her nominee and she got executed a Will on 12.04.2007 bequeathing her entire properties in favour of the petitioner- plaintiff, Maha Lakshmi has also obtained the signatures of the petitioner-plaintiff on the Will on each and every page, she has handed over Xerox copy to him and Maha Lakshmi died on 24.10.2008 in Care Hospital, Kakinada. As per the Will, petitioner-

plaintiff came into possession and enjoyment of the properties left behind her. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are aware of the Will executed by Maha Lakshmi on 12.04.2007. On 27.11.2008, when the petitioner-plaintiff requested the Officials of respondent No.3- defendant No.3 to permit him to operate the locker key, they raised an objection stating that respondent No.1-defendant No.1 raised an objection not to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to operate the locker and that the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed her counter in IA.No.128 of 2018, then he came to know that the Bank locker was opened. In fact, the Bank locker keys are with the petitioner-

plaintiff.

6. The respondent No.1-defendant No.1 has filed her counter for both the IAs