NINA SIBO Vs. CHANIE SIBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R.K. Manikant, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms Th. Babita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Amicus Curiae.

(2.) THIS Revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur dated 20.12.2013 in Mat. Declaration Suit No.26 of 2013. From the record, it appears that the mother of the petitioner was receiving family pension and she died on 19.1.2013. The petitioner, claiming herself to be an unmarried daughter, lodged a claim for payment of the family pension. In absence of a declaration from the competent court that she is not married, family pension was not paid to her. Consequently, she filed Mat. Declaration Suit No.26 of 2013 before the Family Court, Manipur for a declaration that she is not married. Her sister, present respondent, was the defendant No.1 in the said suit. The defendant No.2 has not been made party in the Revision. However, it appears that before the Family Court defendant No.1 supported the case of the petitioner and the defendant No.2 did not contest by filing a written statement. At that stage an application was filed by the petitioner under Or.15 r. 1 of the CPC praying for pronouncement of judgment on the basis of the affidavit filed by the respondent, who was defendant No.1 in the suit. In the impugned order the learned Judge, Family Court Manipur directed appearance of the petitioner to verify the contents of her affidavit and cause production of document for the purpose of such declaration.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY , when the case of the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, nothing remains to be adjudicated and therefore issues are not framed. When issues are not framed and nothing remains to be adjudicated, judgment could be delivered and decree could be drawn on the basis of such admission. However, in the present case it appears that the petitioner wants a decree from the Court for the purpose of receiving family pension. The decree involves declaration that the petitioner is unmarried. If the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur thought it proper to examine the petitioner and peruse the documents on the basis of which such a declaration is sought for, I am of the view that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with such order. There may be cases where parties collude and in order to be on the safe side, sometimes Court insists on some evidence for passing an order even if the claim may be admitted. If the Court has used its discretion in directing the petitioner to appear in person for examination, to be on the safe side, before passing judgment and decree, there is no reason for the High Court to interfere in use of such discretion by the trial court. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, since it is question of payment of family pension, I direct the learned Judge, Family Court to complete the proceeding as early as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of communication of this order.