permission to examine the power of attorney holder instead of plaintiff - rejected = 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.= 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. = 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. 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.

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