OSA/88/2023 of INDIRA Vs S. SUJATHA on 13 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Appeal has been filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed to issue subpoena to the bank authorities to produce certain documents, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The application has been filed by the plaintiffs for suit for partition and separate possession. Since the document has been produced in xerox copies, it is necessary to prove the movables by issuance of summons to the respective bank managers.

3. The very nature of the affidavit filed and relief sought for by the appellants is as follows:- “a) The locker for security register of Indian Overseas Bank attached to Nehru Park Branch, Chennai handled by T.Manimegalai and thereafter by Sujatha Selvakumar and also the

( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023

authorization granted in favour of Sujatha Selvakumar by T.Manimegalai connected with the Saving Bank Account 20032. The deposit was handled to earlier by T.Manimegalai when she was alive and thereafter by Sujatha Selvakumar having key No.95, Locker No.117, closed on 27.08.2012 (Xerox copy produced).

b) The salary particulars of Hemachandran, Roll No.25336- clerk/shroff drawn when he was alive and other loan particulars he had availed while he was in service during 1984 to 1992.

c) The amount of terminal benefit and other DCRG when he died while in service on the death of T.Hemachandran – Bank clerk Roll No.25336- clerk/sheroff.

d) the particulars of the persons, to whom the amounts were settled may have to be furnished before the Court with the letters of disbursement.

e) the particulars of the appointment given to Indira, 1st plaintiff due to the death of her husband T.Hemachandran. The salary fixed initially and the one now in existence.

f) The loan so far availed by T.Hemachandranbank clerk while he was in service. T.Hemachandran (died on 02.08.1992). The authorities before whom the particulars and original records are available are as follows:

1. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Choolai Branch (Code 0245), Chennai 600 007. (joined as messenger from 1984)

2. The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Muthialpet Branch (Code 305) No.230, Thambu Chetty Street, Muthialpet, George Town, Chennai 600 001. (worked as clerk/shroff)

3. The Assistant General Manager, Personal Department / Administration, Indian Overseas Bank, No.962, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002”

4. The learned Single Judge considered the application and dismissed the application on the ground that the application is filed only to harass the Managers of various Branches of Indian Overseas Bank to be present and bring all the documents and further, the documents sought to be relied upon is noway connected to the lis. Challenging the dismissal order, the present application has been filed.

( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that those documents are necessary to prove the movables. When we asked the learned counsel for the appellant as to how it is relevant, according to him, lockers particulars has to be seen. This Court is of the view that the suit itself is not in respect of any movables, now is sought to be proved. It is further to be noted that the appellant wants to establish the salary of her husband, who died long back on 02.08.1982, the petitioner being the wife of the deceased/husband, she is supposed to know about the salary of the husband and further, she wants to prove the salary of her husband from the year 1984 to 1992 and that is not relevant to partition suit.

7. Similarly, with regard to the nature of receiving terminal benefits also she wants to prove now. The plaintiff herself being the wife she ought to have known the same, however, through the bank, now she seeks to produce the documents. With regard to the terminal benefits also, there is no prayer whatsoever, therefore, we are of the view that mere calling the document, particularly security register for locker attached to the banks will not serve any purpose. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the appellants that definite movables are available in the locker.

8. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this appeal and accordingly, this original side appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,

( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023

connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No dhk

( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )

OSA No. 88 of 2023

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR, J. dhk OSA No. 88 of 2023

13-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 02:25:16 pm )