Sau. Sangeeta vs Sarubai And Others

Vrushali V. Joshi, J

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Suit No.9/2017 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, who is the original defendant in the said civil suit to recall her as witness and for production of documents.

The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had filed the civil suit against the petitioner, who was the daughter in law of the plaintiff No.1. The husband of the petitioner Paldeo Naitam died in the Blast of Landmine caused by Naxlites. After the death of her husband, she has got job as a Junior Clerk with Police Department and has received the benefits. As per Government Resolution dated 29.09.2016, the family members of the Police Officers, who lost their lives while fighting Naxlites, were granted an amount of Rs.22,50,000/-. It was applicable to the persons who died even before 2003. After this Government Resolution, respondents i.e. mother and brother of the deceased have filed the suit for declaration as the petitioner herein the defendant has performed marriage in the year 2002 and is no more family members of the deceased, she is not legal heir of said person, and the benefit should not be given to her. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed her written statement. The evidence was over and the matter was fixed for argument. At that time, the petitioner has filed the application for production of documents to prove that she is the legal heir of the deceased and is entitled for the benefits. The documents which she wanted to file on record is of one Suresh Somaji Surkar, who also died in Naxalite attack. His wife has performed the marriage after the death of Suresh Surkar and her name is mentioned. Another document is list of names of persons entitled for benefit, which mentions the name of the petitioner as the wife of the deceased and the certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli declaring her as the legal heir of the deceased.

The Trial Court has considered all these documents stating that the documents are not relevant to the subject matter of the suit. The xerox copies are brought to produce on record, which are inadmissible. The learned Trial Court has considered each and every document and its relevance as the respondents have stated that she was the wife of the deceased and after remarriage, she ceased to be the member of his family and, therefore, in proof that she is the wife of the deceased and entitled for said benefits, the documents are not helpful. The learned Trial Court has rightly considered the relevancy of the documents and rightly rejected the application. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.