IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :4010 of 2009 Between: Mir Shamath Ali Khan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Badurnnisa Begum (died) and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4010 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 15.07.2009 in I.A.No.67 of 2008 in I.A.No.385 of 2007 in O.S.No.1039 of 1988 passed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants before the Court below. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above application seeking to appoint a Commissioner to open Locker No.59 of Mir Ahmed Ali Khan of the Canara Bank, Pattergatti Branch, Hyderabad, on the ground that late Mir Azam Ali Khan in his cross-examination on 1.12.2008 stated that he has no objection to break open the locker viz., part of C schedule and that late Mir Ahmed Ali Khan’s documents are in the lockers in the Canara Bank and that there are 1 to 48 items in plaint B and C schedules, which are with the defendants and they are in the custody of the same and they are making false claim that they have share in A schedule though they do not have and that in order to ascertain the facts about Bank deposits in A & B schedules, the locker contents have to be brought before the Court by opening the same. The Court below having observed that the locker is not part and parcel of the plaint schedule property and that it is admitted by the plaintiff that he made a vain attempt for grant of succession certificate and the said plea was rejected by a Competent Court for non- prosecution of the matter in O.P.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the 8th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and under any circumstances, a commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of physical evidence and it is for both the parties to adduce oral evidence or to file their documents, upon which they rely and the petitioner-plaintiff cannot seek for appointment of a Commissioner, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred by the plaintiff. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants are making a false claim. When such a plea was taken, it is for the plaintiff to adduce oral or documentary evidence to disprove their claim. For collection of evidence, a Commissioner cannot be appointed as rightly observed by the Court below. On a perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the locker is not a part and parcel of the plaint schedule properties and that the plaint ‘C’ schedule does not specify about the Bank Locker. Apart from that, O.P. filed by the plaintiff for issuance of succession certificate was dismissed. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 15th October, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4010 OF 2009 15.10.2009