Judgment ( 1. ) IN this appeal filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellants/defendants have called in question the judgment and decree dated 18-7-1995 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Satna in Civil Suit No. 2-A/90. ( 2. ) AS per the appellants, on 5-2-1968 the respondent was appointed as their agent under Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as regulations ). During the existence of his agency, on 21-3-1984 he submitted a proposal form to insure life of Prakash Chandra Agrawal. Alongwith the proposal form dated 21-3-1984 the respondent submitted his report about the proposer. In the said proposal form and report, the respondent suppressed the information regarding previous hospitalization of the proposer due to accident and also about his ailment. As per the appellants, before the proposal could be accepted, proposer Prakash Chandra Agrawal, died on 29-3-84 due to renal failure. For the aforesaid suppression of fact, invoking provisions contained in Regulation 16 of the Regulations, a show-cause notice dated 11-10-1985 was issued to the respondent proposing termination of agency under Regulation 16 (b) of the Regulations. The respondent filed his reply on 26-10-85 denying the allegations. On 19-4-1986 yet another show-cause notice was issued by the appellant proposing forfeiture of his renewal commission under Regulation 19 (i) of the Regulations. ( 3. ) SINCE the reply filed by the respondent was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, his agency was terminated and his premium commission was forfeited vide order dated 1-6-87. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Zonal Manager. The same was rejected vide order dated 25-1-89. ( 4. ) THE plaintiff/respondent filed a suit challenging the order dated 1-6-87 by which of his agency was terminated and his renewal commission was forfeited. The plaintiffs case was that he was working diligently and honestly and put in about twenty years service to the appellants as their agent. It was further averred in the plaint that to his best efforts he made all the possible enquiries and threshed out all the details pertaining to the proposer. The proposer never informed him about his alleged accident or about his ailment nor the plaintiff was knowing this. He made the enquiries under the guidance of K. P. Shrivastava, Field Officer and A. K. Shukla, Senior Branch Manager. The proposer never informed him about his alleged accident or about his ailment nor the plaintiff was knowing this. He made the enquiries under the guidance of K. P. Shrivastava, Field Officer and A. K. Shukla, Senior Branch Manager. The medical health report of the proposer was not given by him but by the Development Officer. Dr. R. B. Patel authorized medical practitioner clinically examined the proposer and found the proposer to be fit. The plaintiff discharged his duties diligently, honestly and to the best interest of the Corporation. The plaintiff, accordingly, prayed for declaration of order dated 1-6-87 to be illegal. ( 5. ) THE appellants/defendants filed their written statement and justified the order dated 1-6-87 on the ground that the plaintiff in his report dated 21-3-84 had stated that proposer was known and related to him. He also stated that the proposer is maintaining good health and had not suffered from any illness or disease and he has not met with any accident in the past. It has also been averred in the written statement that the plaintiff suppressed the material facts and thus involved himself in the conspiracy of defrauding the Life Insurance Corporation. Subsequent, investigation revealed that the proposer had met with a motorcycle accident in March, 1983. It was also revealed that the proposer was suffering from renal disease and was admitted in the nursing home at Rewa, and was also treated in Jaslok Hospital, Bombay. ( 6. ) ON the basis of the aforesaid pleadings the learned Trial Court framed eight issues and recorded evidence of the parties. After hearing the arguments decreed the suit of the plaintiff and set aside the order dated 1-6-87 holding the same to be illegal. ( 7. ) HEARD Shri R. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri L. S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused record. ( 8. ) SHRI R. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable as in such matters the scope of interference by the Trial Court was very limited. The Trial Court should have limited its enquiry as to whether the impugned order is arbitrary, malafide or not. ( 8. ) SHRI R. P. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has argued that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable as in such matters the scope of interference by the Trial Court was very limited. The Trial Court should have limited its enquiry as to whether the impugned order is arbitrary, malafide or not. The respondent who was appointed as agent was expected to act diligently, honestly and in the best interest of the appellants. The respondent has not only failed to make proper enquiries before submitting the proposal but has suppressed the material facts pertaining to the ailment of the proposer and his hospitalization on account of an accident. He further submitted that in view of the reply to show cause filed by the respondent, Ex. P-2 and the report (Ex. D-5), in which questions are answered, in affirmative there remained nothing to be enquired or proved as the guilt was admitted and therefore there was no necessity for the appellants to lead any evidence. In support of his submissions, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Channabasappa v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1972 SC 32 ). ( 9. ) IN reply to the aforesaid submission Shri L. S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the reply to show cause Ex. P-2, can not be termed as admission. The answers filled up in the report (Ex. D-5) can not lead to conclude that the respondent suppressed about the accident and ailment of the proposer. He further submitted that it was for the appellants to prove the allegations levelled against the respondent that he was knowing that the proposer was earlier admitted in the hospital for accidental injury or was suffering from mal functioning of the kidney. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the appellant establishing the charge against the respondent. He accordingly supported the judgment of the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 10. ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, the evidence led by the parties has to be seen. He accordingly supported the judgment of the Trial Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. ( 10. ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, the evidence led by the parties has to be seen. Plaintiff Gulabchand (P. W. 1) in his evidence had deposed that in the month of March, 1984, he alongwith K. P. Shrivastava, Field Officer and A. K. Shukla, Branch Manager went to Village Uchehra. He filled up the form and as per the information given by proposer to K. P. Shrivastava, Field Officer. Thereafter, the proposers medical check up was done by Dr. R. B. Patel in the presence of A. K. Shukla, Branch Manager. Dr. R. B. Patel filled up the medical form after clinical examination. He further deposed that the proposer died on 27th March, 1984 in an accident while coming to Satna from Uchehra by motorcycle. No sum was paid, as the proposer died before the acceptance of proposal. In cross objection, he denied that the proposer was related to him. He also denied that before filling form of proposer he knew that the proposer was hospitalized for the injuries caused to him in an accident in the year 1983 and was treated in hospital at Rewa. He also denied that the proposer died due to renal failure. In support, the plaintiff examined Dr. R. B. Patel, Assistant Surgeon who clinically examined the proposer as P. W. 2. In his evidence, R. B. Patel (P. W. 2) deposed that on 21-3-84 he examined the proposer. He found proposers blood pressure, heart and lungs to be in normal condition. He found him to be healthy. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the pathology urine report of the proposer was also normal. Jawaharlal (P. W. 3) resident of Village Uchehra deposed that he was knowing proposer Prakash Chandra since long. He was keeping very good heath. Except a day or two prior to his death his health was good for all the time. He further deposed that Prakash Chandra was not suffering from any ailment nor he was ever hospitalized. In his cross-examination he has denied that Prakash Chandra was ever injured in any accident. He also denied that he was taken to Rewa or Bombay Hospital for treatment. ( 11. ) AS against this, defendants examined Jaisingh Bhandari (D. W. 1 ). He further deposed that Prakash Chandra was not suffering from any ailment nor he was ever hospitalized. In his cross-examination he has denied that Prakash Chandra was ever injured in any accident. He also denied that he was taken to Rewa or Bombay Hospital for treatment. ( 11. ) AS against this, defendants examined Jaisingh Bhandari (D. W. 1 ). He deposed that he made an enquiry about the proposal sent by the plaintiff. His report is Ex. D-7. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not received any complaint about the plaintiff. He further stated that on being asked to make investigation, he went to Uchehra where Prakash Chandra was residing. He enquired in Village Uchehra and on enquiry it was revealed that Prakash Chandra was not keeping good health. It also came to his knowledge that in March, 1983 Prakash Chandra was injured in an accident. He admitted that the aforesaid information was received from the neighbours of Prakash Chandra and he did not collect any evidence from the doctors or hospitals. ( 12. ) COMING to the documentary evidence (Ex. D-2 and Ex. D-5) strongly relied by the appellants, I find that there is no suppression or concealment in the declaration made in form (Ex. D-3) and report (Ex. D-5), moreover, the same could be said to be suppression of material fact only when it is proved that the aforesaid fats exists. The answers of the questions can not lead to infer or presume that the plaintiff was knowing that the proposer was hospitalized for any accident and also that he was suffering from some ailment. From the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, I find there is absolutely no material or any justification to hold that the deceased was admitted in hospital for injury sustained by him in any accident or he was suffering from some ailment or he died of renal failure. The document (Ex. D-7) a report on the enquiry of Jaisingh Bhandari (D. W. 1) the basis on which alleged show-cause notice was issued and action was taken is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence but is based on hearsay evidence. The appellants could have easily collected the documents establishing the admission of the proposer in the hospital due to the alleged accident and also about his death due to kidney failure. The appellants could have easily collected the documents establishing the admission of the proposer in the hospital due to the alleged accident and also about his death due to kidney failure. The said evidence was neither collected during the enquiry conducted by Jai Singh (D. W. 1) nor the same was produced before the Trial Court. In the absence of any evidence to that effect submission of form (Ex. D-2) and report (Ex. D-5) can not be said to be for any ulterior purpose. There is no admission of guilt in reply of show cause. On the other hand, the respondent has justified the reason for filling the form in the manner as has been filled. Thus, since there is no admission of facts constituting the charges the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in case of Channabasappa (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The appellants having failed to establish the charge levelled against the respondent, the Trial Court has committed no error setting aside the order dated 1-6-1987 and decreeing the plaintiffs suit. ( 13. ) IN this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.