NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.)THE plaintiff -appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved with the impugned judgment dated 9th April, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar in Civil Suit No. 5/89, whereby the learned trial court has dismissed his suit for compensation of a sum of Rs. 42,100/ -.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for compensation of a sum of Rs. 42,100/ - in the trial court against the respondent, wherein it was pleaded that the plaintiff got his shop and goods insured with the respondent by taking insurance policy on 11th February, 1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. During the intervening night of 25th and 26th February, 1988, at about 3.00 PM, fire took place in the shop of the plaintiff, the information of which was given by the police at plaintiff's house in the night and thereupon the fire was extinguished with the help of neighbours in about four hours. The FIR was lodged with the police and information was given to the Bank because plaintiff enjoyed credit facility from the bank and the insurance was taken in the joint name of the plaintiff and bank. The Insurance Company deputed Surveyor Shri N.K. Sharma, who conducted the survey on 3rd March, 1988, who gave his report to the Insurance Company and verified the plaintiff's claim for loss by fire. However, instead of passing the claim of the appellant, the Insurance Company appointed another Surveyor, who went at the spot for survey after six months i.e. on 16th August, 1988 and he gave his failure report dated 22nd September, 1988 and in view of his report, the claim of the appellant was repudiated. In these circumstances, it became necessary to file the suit.
The Insurance Company filed its written -statement, wherein the fact regarding fire and survey were admitted, but stated that 'Khandsari' is not an item of Kirana and, therefore, not covered by the policy. It was further stated that the fire was intentional and not accidental, therefore, it was prayed that suit be dismissed.

(3.)ON the basis of pleading of he parties, the trial court framed seven issues, which are reproduced in the order of the trial court. The plaintiff examined himself as PW -1 and PW -2 Santosh Kumar. The defendant examined DW -1 Babu Lal, DW -2 Sanjay Khandelwal (second surveyor) and DW -3 N.K. Sharma. The documentary evidence was also produced. The learned trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff except issue No. 2, which was also decided partly in favour of the plaintiff and in view of finding on remaining part of issue No. 2, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.