AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of this case.
Brief facts giving rise to this case are that respondent I (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit for Rs. 1.50 lakhs, in the Court of District
Judge, Jammu, wnerein along with the appellant, State of Jammu and Kashmir were arrayed as pro forma defendant. Case of the plaintiff was that
it is running an Industrial Unit in Shed No. 19, Industrial Estate, Digiana, Jammu, and was engaged in manufacturing of Rubber Products. Plaintiff
further claimed that it was a lessee in respect of the Shed in question from pro forma defendant. Parties are not at variance that Policy of Insurance
under No. 11446 was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 - appellant, against fire cover and was valid for the period 19-5-1991 to
18-5-1992. It is also not in controversy that fire broke out on 14-5-1992, when this policy was in force.
Another factor on which parties are one, is that a lease-deed came to be executed between the plaintiff and pro forma defendant on 12-10-
1992 (Annexure P/3 with the appeal). This clearly indicates that this lease deed is subsequent to the period, when the policy was in force and,
according to learned counsel for the plaintiff, it was only after re-construction of the Shed by the plaintiff.
It may be noticed here that case of the plaintiff as is projected in this Court, is that it was in possession of the Shed in question for long before
the Fire broke out, under Government Order and had been regularly paying the rent to it and above-all was gelling it insured with the defendant
No. 1-Insurance company,
Claim of the plaintiff was contested and resisted by defendant No. 1, who besides other things, pleaded that since il had no insurable interest, as
such was not entitled for payment of loss, if any, suffered by it on account of fire. Besides this, reliance was placed by learned counsel for
defendant No. 1, during the course of hearing of this appeal, on the written statement filed by pro forma defendant.
Fact remains that parties had joined issue und in the ordinary course of things unless the claim of plaintiff was admitted by defendant No. I, on
the pleadings of parties, matter was required to be gone into after framing of issues. Admittedly, that has not been done in the present case.
Though, while praying for upholding the decree of the trial Court, learned counsel for the plaintiff made an attempt to pursuade the Court to uphold
the decree, as according to him, result would be the same, even after conclusion of the trial.
Be that as it may, it appears, that the Court below had fallen into an error while passing the impugned decree against the Insurance Company, in
the face of the contentions raised by both the parties, without they having gone to trial.
In the face of the aforesaid factual position, as well as the law applicable in that behalf, it is found that the impugned judgment deserves to be set
aside and it is ordered accordingly.
It is further ordered that the parties shall appear in the trial Court on 2nd of March 1998, on which date issues will be framed by the said Court
and, thereafter, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
It is further ordered that the suit shall be disposed of expeditiously and in no case later than 31 st December, 1998. Learned counsel appearing
in this Court have assured that their respective clients would render all possible assistance for the speedy disposal of the suit by the trial Court.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly, Costs on the parties.
Registry will ensure that the record of the trial Court is sent back so as to reach there well before the date fixed.