NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.             OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.27333/2015)

Prasadi Devi     ...Appellant(s)   VERSUS

Nagar Palika  Sawai Madhopur, (Now Nagar Parishad)        …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.  

1) Leave granted.

2) This  appeal  is  filed  by  the  plaintiff  against  the  final

judgment  and  order  dated  16.04.2015  passed  by  the  High

Court  of  Rajasthan  at  Jaipur  in  S.B.  Civil  Writ  Petition

No.4592 of 2014 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ

petition filed by the appellant herein  and affirmed the order of

the Trial Court.  

1

3) It may not be necessary to set out the entire facts for the

disposal  of  the  appeal  in  detail  except  to  state  those  facts,

which are necessary to appreciate the short issue raised in the

appeal.  This is because the learned counsel for the appellant

(plaintiff)  has  made  a  statement  at  the  Bar,  which  we  are

inclined  to  accept.   Learned  counsel  for  the

respondent(defendant) has no objection to the statement made

by learned counsel for the appellant and indeed rightly.

4) The appellant (plaintiff)  has filed a civil  suit being civil

suit No.248 of 1983 (re-numbered as C.S. No.40/2013) in the

Court of Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur against the respondent

(defendant).   The  suit  relates  to  a  plot  of  land  situated  at

Mantown in village Alampur in Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter

referred to as the “suit land”).  The suit is filed for permanent

injunction restraining the respondent(defendant)-Nagar Palika,

Sawai Madhopur from interfering in the appellant's possession

over the suit land and also for an injunction restraining the

respondent from creating any third party  rights  in  the  suit

land to the detriment of  the appellant's  interest in the suit

land.

5) The respondent(defendant) is contesting the suit and has

filed  their  written  statement.   The  case  is  pending  for

2

recording of the evidence of the parties.    

6) The appellant is an illiterate old lady in her early eighties.

She had executed a General Power of Attorney(GPA) in favour

of one Mr. Gajanand Goyal and wanted to examine the Power

of  Attorney Holder in support of  her case.   The respondent

before the Trial Court opposed this prayer which was upheld

by the Trial Court.  

7) The appellant felt aggrieved of the Trial Court's order and

filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

in the High Court Bench at Jaipur.  By impugned judgment,

the  High  Court  dismissed  the  appellant's  writ  petition  and

affirmed the Trial Court's order. It is against this judgment,

the  plaintiff  felt  aggrieved  and  filed  this  appeal  by  way  of

special leave in this Court.

8) Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel for

the appellant and Mr. Shiv Mangal,  learned counsel for the

respondent.

9) Mr.  Sushil  Kumar Jain,  learned senior counsel  for  the

appellant  (plaintiff)  stated  that  the  appellant,  instead  of

examining  her  Power  of  Attorney  Holder,  would  personally

appear to give her evidence in support of her case.  

10) In view of this statement now having been made by the

3

learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff), it is not necessary

to  examine  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the  impugned

judgment on its merits.

11) We, accordingly,  set aside the impugned judgment and

dispose of this appeal with the following directions.

12) The  appellant  (plaintiff)  is  allowed  to  appear  and  get

herself examined in support of her case set up in the plaint

and lead her evidence.  The appellant,  if  for  any reason, is

unable  to  appear  in  the  Court  due  to  her  old  age,  she  is

permitted  to  get  herself  examined  on  commission  at  her

residence  at  her  expenses.   The  Court  will,  accordingly,

appoint any lady lawyer as Local Commissioner for recording

the  evidence  of  the  appellant,  if  the  appellant  makes  such

request.

13) The appellant is also allowed to examine other witnesses

in addition to her own evidence as she may decide to examine.

All  other  witnesses  of  the  appellant  would  be  examined  in

Court.   After  the  appellant's  case is  closed,  the  respondent

would lead their evidence.

14) Since the case is quite old, the same should be disposed

of in accordance with law within a period of six months from

the date of appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to

4

appear before the concerned Trial Court on 04.12.2017.  

15) With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of.

                     ………...................................J.                [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                   …...……..................................J.              [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; November 13, 2017  

5

ITEM NO.1501               COURT NO.8               SECTION XV (For judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL NO.18499 OF 2017 (@ Special Leave Petition(Civil) No(s).  27333/2015)

PRASADI DEVI                                       Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS NAGAR PALIKA   SAWAI MADHOPUR,  (NOW NAGAR PARISHAD)                   Respondent(s) Date : 13-11-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  judgment today. For Petitioner(s)   Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Puneet Parihar, Adv. Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Adv.

                  for M/S.  Aura & Co., AOR                      

Leave granted. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and His Lordship.     

The  appeal  is  disposed  of  in  terms  of  the  signed non-reportable judgment.

(SWETA DHYANI)                                     (CHANDER BALA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT                          BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)  

6