Case: Prasadi Devi Vs. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur, (Now Nagar Parishad)

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.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 appellants 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 appellants interest in the suit land.5. The respondent(defendant) is contesting the suit and has filed their written statement. The case is pending for 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 Courts 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 appellants writ petition and affirmed the Trial Courts 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 learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff), it is not necessary to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment on its merits.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. In view of this statement now having been made by the learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff), it is not necessary to examine the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment on its merits.