Pradeep Gupta vs Dr. (Smt.) Madhulika Gupta

Heard. This petition has been filed for review of the order dated 24-03-2011 passed in W.P. No. 3477/2010.

Respondent No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased-husband Dhanesh Chandra Gupta, who died on 4th May 2004, submitted an application before the Bank to permit her to operate the locker of her husband. The bank refused to grant permission to the wife to operate the locker of the deceased husband. She also filed a succession certificate. She was granted succession certificate in regard to permission to operate the locker. When she was refused to operate the locker of his deceased husband, she filed a writ petition before this Court.

This Court allowed the writ petition. The Court has relied on the judgment of this Court passed in Sharda Chopra and Others Vs. State Bank of India,

This review petition has been filed by Mr. Pradeep Gupta, who is brother of the deceased. He has contended that he was an objector in the succession proceedings but he was not a party in the writ petition. He further submitted that the ornaments of the family were placed in the locker, hence, wife of the deceased had no right to operate the locker.

Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that no succession certificate could be granted in favour of the wife in regard to operation of the locker. In regard to aforesaid submission, he relied on the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in Vimala Devi Vs. Shobha Walia and Others, . He further contended that the review petitioner was a necessary party in the petition, hence, the review petition be allowed.

The present petitioner is brother of the deceased. Prima facie in our opinion, he has no right to claim ownership of certain articles, which were kept by the husband of the deceased. Succession certificate has been granted in favour of the wife by the competent Court. The aforesaid question has already been considered by this Court in the judgment of Sharda Chopra (supra) and on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, this Court issued the directions. If there is any illegality in the order, review petitioner is at liberty to assail the same before the Hon''ble Supreme Court or he can file a suit if he believes that he is the owner of certain ornaments which were kept in the locker.

Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion review petition is not maintainable because there is no apparent error on the face of the record. If the review petitioner files a suit before the competent court, the findings recorded in the Writ Petition would not affect the merits in regard to ownership of the review petitioner. With the aforesaid observations, review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.