JUDGMENT : DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J. 1. All these matters are arising out of the suit instituted by the appellant, therefore all these matters are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023 is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2023 passed below application, Exh.5 by learned Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.5 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff came to be rejected. 3. Special Civil Application No.11275 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 11.08.2023 passed below application, Exh.40 by the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.40 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff for production of the documents came to be disposed of. 4. Special Civil Application No.11275 of 2024 is directed against the order dated 06.07.2024 passed below application, Exh.40 by the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022, whereby the application, Exh.56 preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff seeking adjournment came to be rejected as also right of the plaintiff to adduce evidence is also dispensed with. 5. The facts of the case in nutshell are as under, 5.1 The appellant, who is original plaintiff, married with one Bhavik Rohitbhai Pandya at Chalal, Taluka : Dhari, District : Amreli on 22.11.2009 and started residing at her matrimonial home. Out of said wedlock, they have been blessed with one male child viz., Hriday on 15.12.2011. 5.2 After the marriage, the appellant and her husband had taken polices of LIC on 02.04.2011 of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of her husband, wherein the appellant was shown as beneficiary, whereas in another policy of Rs.5,00,000/- taken in the name of the appellant, her husband was shown as beneficiary and such arrangement was made just to secure future for each other. However, the custody of those policies were with the original defendant no.1, who is father-in-law of the appellant. 5.3 However behind the back of the appellant, the name of nominee in the LIC policy has been changed and name of the original defendant no.1 has been entered as beneficiary on or about 23.03.2022. However, the custody of those policies were with the original defendant no.1, who is father-in-law of the appellant. 5.3 However behind the back of the appellant, the name of nominee in the LIC policy has been changed and name of the original defendant no.1 has been entered as beneficiary on or about 23.03.2022. 5.4 Therefore upon coming to know about the said fact, the appellant made inquiry about the change of nominee and was under the belief that forgery has been done in the LIC policies, therefore, the appellant filed Regular Civil Suit No.119 before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahuva against the defendant no.1 and others inter alia praying for declaration that the original defendant no.1 is not entitled to receive any money under the insurance policy of her husband by declaring the said change in nomination in the policy as illegal and improper and also prayer for permanent injunction. 5.5 Along with the said suit, an application, Exh.5 for injunction was also preferred, however, the said application came to be rejected by impugned order and the said order has been assailed by filing Appeal from Order No.245/2023. 5.6 Pending above suit, the appellant preferred an application, Exh.40 under Order 10, Rule 18 of the CPC for production of the documents, which are in custody of the original defendant nos.2 and 3, however, the said application came to be rejected by an order dated 11.08.2023, against which, aforesaid Special Civil Application No.11275/2024 is preferred. 5.7 Further pending suit, the appellant also preferred an application, Exh.56 for extension of interim relief, however, the learned Judge rejected the said application by an order dated 06.07.2024, which has been challenged by the appellant by preferring Special Civil Application No.11276/2024. 6. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the appellant, learned advocate, the respondent no.1, who appears as Party-in-Person and learned advocate, Mr. Nilay Patel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. 6. Heard learned advocate, Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the appellant, learned advocate, the respondent no.1, who appears as Party-in-Person and learned advocate, Mr. Nilay Patel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned advocate, Mr. Trivedi for the appellant submitted that the appellant and her husband, late Shri Bhavik Rohitbhai Pandya got married and after the marriage, just to secure their future, they had taken two LIC policies in their respective names, wherein in one policy, which was taken in the name of her husband, the applicant was shown nominee, whereas in policy, which was taken in her name, her husband was shown as nominee, however, custody of both those policies were with the respondent no.1 and there was no dispute about the same, however behind the back of the appellant, the respondent no.1 had changed the name of appellant as nominee and entered his name as nominee and the said fact came to the notice of the appellant on or about 23.03.2022, therefore, the appellant made inquiry and came to know about the forgery committed with her, therefore, aforesaid suit came to be filed inter alia praying for declaration to the effect that the original defendant no.1 is not entitled to receive any money under the insurance policy of her husband by declaring the said change in nomination in the policy as illegal and improper and also prayer for permanent injunction and along with the suit, an application for injunction, Exh.5 was also filed but it has been rejected by impugned order. Learned advocate submitted that in fact, the husband of the appellant was detected with cancer in the year 2021 and since December, 2021, he was terminally ill and was not even carry out his dayto- day activities as he was bed-ridden, therefore, it was not feasible for him to make an application for change of nomination, which clearly goes on to show that forgery has been committed with the appellant by the respondent no.1 herein. Learned advocate submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that there were matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife but none of them have filed divorce petition but as the appellant was not residing with her husband and after his sad demise, with her in-laws, advantage has been taken by the respondent no.1 herein and changed the name of the appellant from the nominee. Learned advocate, therefore, submitted that because of the above facts, the appellant is constrained to file suit against the respondent no.1 herein with aforesaid reliefs. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, husband of the appellant had died and the respondent no.1 is trying to pocket the amount of insurance and if such amount is given to him, in that event, purpose of filing suit would be frustrated and it would be difficulty for the appellant to recover the said amount of the suit as prayed is allowed, therefore just to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the injunction as prayed for ought to have been granted. 8. Learned advocate submitted that as stated above, against the rejection of injunction application, aforesaid Appeal from Order has been preferred, wherein while issuing Rule in civil application, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the LIC of India to deposit the said amount in FDR and receipt thereof be handed over to Nazir of the Court concerned and in pursuance to the said order, the amount has already been deposited in FDR, which would serve the purpose of the appellant. 9. Learned advocate further submitted that however pending suit, the appellant had preferred two different applications i.e. an application, Exh.40 filed under Order 10, Rule 18 of the CPC for production of the documents, which are in custody of the original defendant nos.2 and 3, whereas another application, Exh.56 for extension of interim relief, however, both aforesaid applications came to be rejected by the learned Judge, which led to filing of aforesaid two writ petitions challenging those orders. Learned advocate submitted that it is the specific case of the appellant that mischief has been done by the appellants in the original policies of LIC, which are required to be produced on record with a sole intent to bring on record correct picture and if such opportunity is not being given, in that event, great prejudice is going to cause to the appellant. Learned advocate submitted that purpose of filing application, Exh.40 for production of the documents is to see that the said documents can be forwarded to FSL for its verification so that correct fact would come on surface and situation would be crystallized as to whether anybody has committed fraud with system or not? Learned advocate submitted that purpose of filing application, Exh.40 for production of the documents is to see that the said documents can be forwarded to FSL for its verification so that correct fact would come on surface and situation would be crystallized as to whether anybody has committed fraud with system or not? and if fraud is found to be committed, in that event, it would be found out that who has committed forgery and for what?. Learned advocate submitted that for the purpose of proving the said allegations with regard to forgery committed by the respondent no.1, the original documents are required to be produced, which are lying with the respondent – Corporation. Learned advocate submitted that without verifying the veracity of the fact of the matter, the appellant is not in a position to prove her case, which led to filing of said application. Learned advocate submitted that pending these proceedings before this Court, if the proceedings of suit would be undertaken, in that even, it would affect the rights of the appellant, therefore, an application for extension of relief was filed, which was wrongly rejected by the learned Judge. Learned advocate further submitted that even the right to lead evidence has also been closed by the learned Judge concerned, which is required to be opened so as to provide opportunity to the appellant. Learned advocate, therefore urged that considering the above facts of the case, relief as prayed in each matter may be granted by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 10. On the other hand, the respondent no.1, who appears as Party-in-Person, has opposed the present matters with a vehemence and submitted that by filing such proceedings before this Hon’ble Court, a pressurize tactic has been adopted by the appellant and under one pretext or other, the appellant used to bring proceedings before this Hon’ble Court with sole intent to harass him. He further submitted that in fact, he has not committed any forgery as alleged in the suit and if he is found guilty for committing such offence, in that event, he is ready to face the consequences. He further submitted that in fact, he has not committed any forgery as alleged in the suit and if he is found guilty for committing such offence, in that event, he is ready to face the consequences. He further submitted that matrimonial proceedings have been instituted by the parties against each other and the appellant (daughter-in-law) started residing separately from his son, therefore, the son has taken decision to change her name as nominee from the policy and accordingly, steps were taken and his name was inducted in the nomination paper by deleting the name of the appellant. He further submitted that if the relief as prayed for by the appellant with regard to production of the documents before the learned Judge concerned and inspection thereof, is granted, in that event, he has no objection. He, therefore, urged that appropriate orders may be passed. 11. Learned advocate, Mr. Nilay Patel appearing for the LIC of India has submitted that the dispute is between the appellant and the respondent no.1 herein with regard to LIC policies taken by the spouse i.e. the appellant herein and her husband, wherein LIC of India has nothing to say. Learned advocate, however, submitted that as per interim order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent - Corporation has already deposited the amount with the court concerned and in pursuance thereto, the court concerned has already deposited the said amount in FDR and said FDR is lying with the Nazir of the court concerned. Learned advocate, however at the outset under the instructions, submitted that Corporation is ready and willing to produce the documents as requested by the appellant before the court concerned for its verification in a sealed cover as and when directed by the court concerned. It is, therefore, urged that appropriate order may be passed. 12. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the documents produced on record, it is found out that the appellant and her husband, late Shri Bhavik Pandya both have taken LIC policies in their name respectively and accordingly, they had mentioned name of nominee to each other in the said policies respectively, however, copies of those policies were in the custody of the respondent no.1 herein. However, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent no.1 has played mischief and also committed fraud with the appellant by replacing her name from the nominee in the policy belonging to her father and entered his name as nominee, which is the cause for filing suit against the respondent no.1 and officers of the LIC of India. However, it is an admitted position of fact that though it is alleged that forgery has been committed by the respondent no.1, no criminal complaint has been filed by the appellant. Thus the suit is filed inter alia praying for declaration that the original defendant no.1 is not entitled to receive any money under the insurance policy of her husband by declaring the said change in nomination in the policy as illegal and improper and also prayer for permanent injunction and along with the suit, application for injunction, Exh.5 was also filed, which had been rejected by the court concerned, against which, aforesaid Appeal from Order has been preferred. Further pending suit, two different applications had been preferred, one is for production of documents and another is for extension of injunction and both applications had been rejected by impugned orders, which have been assailed before this Court by filing two different writ petitions. 13. However on examination of the facts and the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties, it is found out that in Appeal from Order, wherein the order rejecting injunction application is challenged, the Coordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the appeal, issued Rule in the Civil Application filed for stay and directed the LIC of India to deposit the amount of policy in FDR and copy of receipt be handed over to Nazir of the Court concerned and in pursuance thereto, as stated by learned advocate appearing for the Corporation, the said amount has already been deposited in FDR and copy of the receipt is handed over to the Nazir of the court concerned. Therefore the apprehension shown by learned advocate for the appellant does not survive as it is already fulfilled. 14. Therefore the apprehension shown by learned advocate for the appellant does not survive as it is already fulfilled. 14. So far as another contention raised by learned advocate for the appellant with regard to production of document i.e. the policies, is concerned, as fairly submitted by learned advocate appearing for the Corporation that the Corporation is ready and willing to produce the LIC policies as also documents related thereto before the court concerned in a sealed cover as and when the court concerned directs and they have no objection for the same. Thus in view of the above facts, relief as prayed for is satisfied. 15. Now so far as last contention with regard to extension of interim relief is concerned, it also does not survive in view of the compliance of the interim order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Application No.1 of 2023 filed in aforesaid Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023. 16. Thus in view of the above factual position, it is observed that in view of the compliance of the interim order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, relief as prayed for in Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023 stands satisfied. Whereas in view of the statement made by learned advocate appearing for LIC of India showing their willingness to produce the documents before the court concerned in a sealed cover, the order dated 11.08.2023 passed below application, Exh.40 by the Additional Civil Judge, Mahuva in Regular Civil Suit No.119 of 2022 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is directed the respondent – Corporation to submit the documents of policies in question along with all other relevant documents before the court concerned in a sealed cover. So far as relief as prayed for in Special Civil Application No.11276/2024 is concerned, in view of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Civil Application No.1 of 2023 in Appeal from order No.245 of 2023, the said relief has has been justified, therefore, no further order is required to be passed at this juncture. So far as relief as prayed for in Special Civil Application No.11276/2024 is concerned, in view of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Civil Application No.1 of 2023 in Appeal from order No.245 of 2023, the said relief has has been justified, therefore, no further order is required to be passed at this juncture. Further so far as the submission of learned advocate for the appellant with regard to sending of the documents to FSL, it cannot be considered at this stage in the present proceedings but it is open for the appellant to move appropriate application before the court concerned after production of the documents by the officers of the LIC of India. Over and above that, the rights to lead evidence of the parties are also hereby opened considering above facts of the case. Therefore considering the controversy involved in the matter, it is expected that the learned Judge concerned to see to it that the trial of Regular Civil Suit No.119/2022 shall be concluded as early as possible and the parties to the proceedings are expected not to seek unnecessary adjournment and cooperate in the trial in speedy disposal. 17. With the above observation and directions, Appeal from Order No.245 of 2023 as well as Special Civil Application Nos.11275 & 11276 of 2023 stand disposed of accordingly. Connected civil application also stands disposed of.