JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Ralte, learned counsel for the appellant alongwith Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under section 17(2) (b) of the Mizoram Civil Court’s Act, 2005 read with section 96 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 13 of 2018. 3. Facts of the case in a nut shell is that the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga was a Constable in the 1st IR Battalion, Mualvum. He had married the respondent no.1 on 6th August, 2010 as per the Mizo Customs and Practices. Out of the said wedlock, they had begotten one son namely Lalbiakhlua, respondent No.2, Jacob Zonunsanga then passed away on 24.06.2017 and was survived by his wife respondent No.1 and his son respondent No.2 along with mother plaintiff/appellant No.1, his twin brother plaintiff/appellant No.2 and his nephew, plaintiff/appellant No.3. Respondents No. 4-6 are the proforma respondents being the State Government. 4. On 05.06.2017 the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga suffered from cancer and was admitted to ICU, New Life Hospital, Aizawl, where he died on 24.06.2017. On the death of Jacob Zonunsanga, the plaintiff/respondents produced the nominations of details of family, nomination for General Provident Retirement and Death Gratuity Fund alleged to be signed on 16.06.2017 by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga while he was in the Intensive Care Unit, and State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme signed on 5th February 2015 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no.1. The plaintiff/respondents filed a declaratory suit registered as Declaratory Suit No.13 of 2018 before the Senior Special Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl, to declare the newly made nomination documents dated 16.06.2017 valid and consequently to declare all the previous nominee documents in favour of the defendants/appellants as null and void. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 also produced the nomination dated 06.06.2011 with regards to State Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme, made in favour of defendant/appellant no.2, the nomination of appellant No.1 for benefit of General Provident Fund and nomination of appellant No.3 to receive the Retirement Gratuity, Death Gratuity. 5. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 also produced the nomination dated 06.06.2011 with regards to State Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme, made in favour of defendant/appellant no.2, the nomination of appellant No.1 for benefit of General Provident Fund and nomination of appellant No.3 to receive the Retirement Gratuity, Death Gratuity. 5. The learned Senior Civil Judge had decided to proceed with the case ex parte when the appellant/defendants failed to file their written statements and in the absence of the appellants/defendants framed the following issues: a) Whether the suit is maintainable? b) Whether the nomination paper i.e. Form 3 (Details of Family) dt.16.6.2017 executed by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga during his lifetime is proper and valid and the signature appended therein is the true and correct signature of the deceased? c) Whether the nomination for Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity in Form -I dt.16th June, 2017 executed by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga during his lifetime in favour of the plaintiff is valid? d) Whether the nomination dt. 6th June, 2011 under the General Provident Fund executed by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga in favour of the defendant no. 1 is null and void. e) Whether the nomination of Form 7 for benefit under the State Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme, 1992 dt. 6th June, 2011 executed by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga in favour of the defendant no.2 is null and void? f) Whether the nomination in Form -1, Nomination for Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity dt.6th June, 2011 executed by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga in favour of the defendant No. 3 is null and void? g) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed? 6. Thereafter, the learned trial court after taking evidence of the plaintiff, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2020. The learned lower Court held the nomination for General Provident Fund and Retirement Gratuity and Death Gratuity dated 16.06.2017, valid, since the Nurse, Pw-2 for the respondent No.1 had deposed that she was present when the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga had appended his signature on the nomination papers on 16.06.2017 in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at New Life Hospital. The learned lower Court held the nomination for General Provident Fund and Retirement Gratuity and Death Gratuity dated 16.06.2017, valid, since the Nurse, Pw-2 for the respondent No.1 had deposed that she was present when the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga had appended his signature on the nomination papers on 16.06.2017 in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at New Life Hospital. He had put his signature without any coercion and on his own free will and that the witnesses had also explained the over writing on the signature of the deceased by stating that the ball point pen could not write properly and he had put over write on the said signature. The learned Trial court held that the plaintiff/respondent had produced the Marriage Certificate dated 06.07.2010, the Family Ration Card wherein it clearly shows that the deceased was the husband of the respondent. The learned Trial Court also held that the two documents namely Nominations dated 06.06.2011 in respect of the General Provident Fund in favour of the defendant/appellant No.1 and Nomination in respect of State Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme in favour of the appellant no.2 and the nomination for Retirement Gratuity/death Gratuity in favour of defendant No.3, invalid, since in the nominations dated 06.06.2011, the two witnesses had not apprehended the signature whereas in the Nomination dated 06.06.2017 the two witnesses had apprehended the signature. 7. The learned trial court also observed that the Appellant No.1/Defendant No.1 was not included in the details of family dated 16.06.2017 and that the defendants/appellants no.2&3 were not eligible to be included as family as per the CSS Rules and thus any nomination made in their favour was invalid. The learned trial court also held that the deceased had executed afresh nomination at a later date and therefore previous nominations are to be declared void. 8. Aggrieved by this Judgment & Order the respondents /appellants had preferred the instant appeal. 9. Mr. Joseph Lalchhanhima Renthlei, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has approached this court under section 98(2) CPC and challenged the ex parte order passed by learned Court dated 27.11.2018 on merits. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had declared the alleged nomination papers dated 06.06.2017 valid, while there were patent errors in the said the nomination papers. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court had declared the alleged nomination papers dated 06.06.2017 valid, while there were patent errors in the said the nomination papers. He submits that though the nomination papers was said to be signed in the ICU as testified by the plaintiff witness No.2, the Nurse on duty. However, on scrutiny of the nomination papers it is seen that the place where the nomination papers was signed is noted as Mualvum, and the witnesses to the nomination papers were not examined while they are the necessary witnesses to prove the documents. He further submits that the documents which were exhibited before the Court were not compared with the original documents and even though they are shown to be attested, they were not compared with the original attested documents. He also submits that the signatures of the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga in the documents dated 16.06.2017 are different from his signature on the previous documents/nominations which he had made earlier on 06.06.2011 in respect of GPF in favour of the appellant no. 1, GIS in favour of appellant no.2 and Death gratuity in favour of appellant no.3. That since the genuineness of the signatures on the nomination papers dated 16.06.2017 was highly questionable, the appellants had file a Criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate which is still pending for disposal. He further submits that the contents of the nomination have to be proved even in the absence of any written statement. 10. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the appellant has cited Maya Devi vs. Lalta Prasad reported in (2015) 5 SCC 588 , Sait Tarajee Khimchand and others vs. Velamatgri Satyam and others reported in (1972) 4 SCC 562 . 11. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that at the later stage the department of Department of Personal & Administrative Reform (DP&AR) was also impleaded as a necessary party, however, the provision of section 80 of Civil Procedure Code was not followed and no notice was issued to the said Department, in support of his submission he has cited in Bihari Chowdhary and another vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (1984) 2 SCC 627 . The learned counsel for the appellant also mentions that though DP & AR has been impleaded, it is actually the Home department which should have been impleaded and if the Home department was impleaded then notice should be issued as per the mandatory provisions under section 80 Civil Procedure Code. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant in all fairness also submits that he does not wish to raise any claim over the nomination dated 06.06.2011 made for Retirement, Death Gratuity since the deceased had nominated his nephew appellant no.3, who cannot be not included as a family member under the CCS rules. With regard to the nomination dated 06.06.2011 in favour of his twin brother/appellant no.2 for State Government Employee Group Insurance Scheme, the learned counsel submits that though the brother being an adult is not included as a family member under the CCS Rules, the mother of the deceased has also been entered as the second nominee and thus is a valid nomination. 13. Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the documents which were produced before the Court are attested copies and therefore they are certified by the competent authority and need not be compared with the original. He mentions sections 61, 63(3), 74, 77 & 79 of the Indian Evidence Act which shows that the nomination papers are public documents which have been duly attested. He further submits that the nomination made by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga dated16.06.2017 was witnessed by Pw-No.2 who is a Nurse on duty who has clearly stated that she saw the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga put his signature on the document and that he had put his signature without any coercion and on his own free will. Therefore, the genuineness of the documents is proved since the witness is a direct witness. The criminal complaint which was filed against the present respondents has also been disposed vide the order of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class in Criminal Complaint No. 139/2017, where cognizance of the matter was not taken since the matter was pending before the Civil Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that since the defendants/Appellants no. 2&3 are not “family” in terms of Rule 50(6) CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, the trial court has rightly decided that the nominations made in favour of them as invalid. 14. The learned counsel further pointed out that since the defendants/Appellants no. 2&3 are not “family” in terms of Rule 50(6) CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, the trial court has rightly decided that the nominations made in favour of them as invalid. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that notice need not be issued to the later impleaded Government i.e. DP & AR since they are simple proforma parties and were made a party only to make them aware of the case pending in the Court. That previously this court vide order dated 09.07.2018 in CMA No.257 of 2018 arising out of Declaratory Suit No.13/2018 had dispense with issuing of notice to the government under section 82 of the CPC. He further submits that they are no grounds for interfering with the judgment and the order of the Civil Court. 15. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this court finds that the findings of the learned trial court that the respondent no.1 is the wife of the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga and that the respondent no.2 is the son of the deceased out of the wedlock is not challenged, thus, the points for consideration in this appeal are : i. whether the learned trial court had erred in deciding that the nominations dated 16.07.2017 made by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga for Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity, General Provident Fund in favour of the respondents, valid without examining the witnesses who appended their signatures on the nomination forms. ii. whether the trial court had erred in declaring the nomination dated 06.06.2011 for State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme in favour of defendant/appellant no.2 invalid. iii. Whether the nomination documents produced in the court should have been compared with the original copies. iv. Whether the Home Department is necessary party in the suit and whether notice should have been issued to DP & AR Department under section 80 CPC. 16. With regards to the first point, on careful perusal of the family declaration made on 16.07.2017 and nominations with regards to the General Provident Fund, the learned trial court has relied on the testimony of the plaintiff witness/PW2, who was the nurse on duty, she has deposed that she saw the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga put his signature on the nomination forms which he did on his own free will. It is seen that the nomination document has the signatures of two witnesses, namely C. Lalhmingsanga and Sh. Lalhmangaihzuala, and the said witnesses were not examined before the learned trial court. However nominations made for service benefits are not in the same footing as the execution of an Will, the signature of the witnesses in nomination forms are usually signed to confirm that the nominations were made by the said person. The nominations dated 16.07.2017 have also been accepted by the Commandant/Head of Office. For this reason, this court does not find it fit to interfere with the reasoning made by the learned trial court in accepting the nomination dated 16.07.2017 made by the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga in favour of his wife to be a valid nomination. 17. With regards to the Nomination for Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity, as fairly admitted by the counsel for the appellant, since the appellant/defendant no.3 is the nephew of the deceased and ‘nephew’ is not in the definition of the family in Rule 50 (6) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned trial court decided that the benefits for Retirement Gratuity/Death Gratuity in favour of the respondent no.1 since the respondent no.1 was in the nomination paper i.e Form -3 (Details of Family) dt.16.06.2017. I find no reason to interfere with this finding since no rebuttal is made on this point. 18. Likewise, with regards to the nomination dated 06.06.2011 made in favour defendant/appellant no.2 for Group Insurance scheme, this court finds that the defendant/appellant no.2 is the twin brother of the deceased and there is nothing on record that shows that he is dependent on the deceased Jacob Zonunsanga and that his name is not shown to be included in the family declaration form. I find the reasoning of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the nomination is valid since the name of the mother has been enter as recipient of the GIS in the event of his death or lunacy, unsustainable. Moreover, it is seen that the deceased had thereafter nominated the respondent no.1, his wife on 5th February 2015, for the Group Insurance scheme which is not under challenge. Thus the later nomination dated 05.02.2015 in favour of the respondent no.1 for will prevail over the nomination dated 06.06.2011 in favour of appellant no.2. 19. Moreover, it is seen that the deceased had thereafter nominated the respondent no.1, his wife on 5th February 2015, for the Group Insurance scheme which is not under challenge. Thus the later nomination dated 05.02.2015 in favour of the respondent no.1 for will prevail over the nomination dated 06.06.2011 in favour of appellant no.2. 19. This court also finds that in the instant case, the nomination papers are public documents as defined under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore attested copies of the nomination papers produced before the trial court will suffice in the instant case. 20. This court is also of the considered view that this Declaratory suit can be effectively adjudicated without impleading the Home Department and since the involvement of DP&AR in the Declaratory suit is not found, it would have been more appropriate if they were dropped from being arrayed as a party. 21. In view of the above findings, this court finds no substantial grounds to set aside the findings of the Judgment & Order dated 27.07.2020 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-III, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Declaratory Suit No. 13 of 2018. 22. Accordingly RFA No.24 of 2020 stands dismissed and disposed.