LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Prasadi Devi v. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur (Now Nagar Parishad)

Civil Appeal · 2017 INSC 1106Decided 13 Nov 2017
Civil Appeal No. 18499 of 2017, arising from SLP (C) No. 27333 of 2015
Justice R.K. Agrawal · Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre

Background

The appellant, an illiterate woman in her early eighties, had filed a 1983 civil suit against the local municipal body (Nagar Palika, Sawai Madhopur) seeking a permanent injunction to stop it from interfering with her possession of a plot of land or creating third-party rights over it. She had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Mr. Gajanand Goyal and wanted him examined as a witness in support of her case instead of appearing herself, but the Trial Court disallowed this, and the Rajasthan High Court upheld that refusal when she challenged it under Article 227.

Decision Breakdown

Before the Supreme Court, her senior counsel offered a different solution: that the appellant would personally appear and give evidence herself instead of relying on her Power of Attorney holder. Accepting this statement (unopposed by the respondent), the Court held it unnecessary to examine the correctness of the High Court's judgment on merits, set that judgment aside, and directed that the appellant be allowed to testify in person, or, if her old age prevented court appearance, to be examined on commission at her residence through a court-appointed lady lawyer as Local Commissioner, at her own expense. The Court also allowed her to lead other witnesses, directed the long-pending suit (filed in 1983) to be disposed of within six months of the parties' appearance, and fixed 04.12.2017 as the date for the parties to appear before the Trial Court.

Lesson Learnt

Courts can accommodate elderly or infirm litigants by allowing evidence to be recorded at their residence through a court-appointed commissioner, so that advanced age or physical difficulty does not become a barrier to having one's case heard on its merits.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case