Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
DEVANGI, WD/O. LATE BHAVIK ROHITBHAI PANDYA - Appellant
Versus
ROHITBHAI MOHANLAL PANDYA & ORS. – Respondents
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 245 of 2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11275 of 2024 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11276 of 2024
Decided On : 29-11-2024
For the Appellant : MR B.J. TRIVEDI, MS JIGNASA B. TRIVEDI.
For the Respondents: NILAY H. PATEL, RULE SERVED
IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that the appellant's interim relief was satisfied, allowing for the production of documents and opening rights to lead evidence in the ongoing suit.
Headnote:
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 10, Rule 18 - Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023 - Rejection of application for injunction - Suit filed for declaration of illegality regarding change of nominee in LIC policies - Relief sought for production of documents and extension of interim relief - Court found that interim order was complied with and the relief sought was satisfied. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Evidence - Right to lead evidence - The court opened the rights to lead evidence for the parties considering the facts of the case and directed for speedy trial. (Paras 16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit against her father-in-law alleging forgery regarding the change of nominee in LIC policies after her husband's passing. Applications for injunction and production of documents were rejected. (Paras 5-12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the interim order had been complied with and directed the production of relevant documents by the LIC of India. (Paras 13-14)
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the nominee change in the LIC policies and the appellant's right to produce evidence. (Paras 5.4, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the interim relief was satisfied, the appeal was disposed of, and the rights to lead evidence were opened for both parties. (Paras 16)
Result: Appeals disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.
1. All these matters are arising out of the suit instituted by the appellant, therefore all these matters are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 passed below application, Exh.5 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.5 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff came to be rejected.
3. Special Civil Application No.11275 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed below application, Exh.40 by the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.40 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff for production of the documents came to be disposed of.
4. Special Civil Application No.11275 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed below application, Exh.40 by the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.56 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff seeking adjournment came to be rejected as also right of the plaintiff to adduce evidence is also dispensed with.
5. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under,
5.1 The appellant, who is original plaintiff, married with one Bhavik Rohitbhai Pandya at Chalal, Taluka : Dhari, District : Amreli on 22.11.2009 and started residing at her matrimonial home. Out of said wedlock, they have been blessed with one male child viz., Hriday on 15.12.2011.
5.2 After the marriage, the appellant and her husband had taken polices of LIC on 02.04.2011 of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of her husband, wherein the appellant was shown as beneficiary, whereas in another policy of Rs.5,00,000/- taken in the name of the appellant, her husband was shown as beneficiary and such arrangement was made just to secure future for each other. However, the custody of those policies were with the original defendant no.1, who is father-in-law of the appellant.
5.3 However behind the back of the appellant, the name of nominee in the LIC policy has been changed and name of the original defendant no.1 has been entered as beneficiary on or about 23.03.2022.
5.4 Therefore upon coming to know about the said fact, the appellant made inquiry about the change of nominee and was under the belief that forgery has been done in the LIC policies, therefore, the appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.119 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahuva against the defendant no.1 and others inter alia praying for declaration that the original defendant no.1 is not entitled to receive any money under the insurance policy of her husband by declaring the said change in nomination in the policy as illegal and improper and also prayer for permanent injunction.
5.5 Along with the said suit, an application, Exh.5 for injunction was also preferred, however, the said application came to be rejected by impugned order and the said order has been assailed by filing Appeal from Order No.245/2023.
5.6 Pending above suit, the appellant preferred an application, Exh.40 under Order 10, Rule 18 of the CPC for production of the documents, which are in custody of the original defendant nos.2 and 3, however, the said application came to be rejected by an order dated 11.08.2023, against which, aforesaid Special Civil Application No.11275/2024 is preferred.
5.7 Further pending suit, the appellant also preferred an application, Exh.56 for extension of interim relief, however, the learned Judge rejected the said application by an order dated 06.07.2024, which has been challenged by the appellant by preferring Special Civil Application No.11276/2024.
6. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the appellant, learned advocate, the respondent no.1, who appears as Party-in-Person and learned advocate, Mr. Nilay Patel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
7. Learned advocate, Mr. Trive
