Supreme Court Allows Elderly Plaintiff to Testify Via Commission: Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 987

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can an elderly, illiterate plaintiff, who is unable to attend court, be allowed to present their evidence through a commission at their residence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal. The core issue was whether the High Court was correct in denying the plaintiff’s request to examine her Power of Attorney holder and whether the plaintiff could be allowed to present her evidence through a commission, given her age and health. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the opinion authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case involves a civil suit filed by Prasadi Devi (the appellant), an elderly and illiterate woman, against Nagar Palika, Sawai Madhopur (the respondent), concerning a plot of land in Sawai Madhopur. The suit was filed in 1983 and renumbered as C.S. No.40/2013. Prasadi Devi sought a permanent injunction to prevent the Nagar Palika from interfering with her possession of the land and from creating any third-party rights that would harm her interests. The Nagar Palika contested the suit by filing a written statement. The case was pending for the recording of evidence.

Prasadi Devi had executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favor of Mr. Gajanand Goyal and wanted to examine him as a witness. The Trial Court rejected this request, which was upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, Prasadi Devi filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court had rejected the appellant’s request to examine her Power of Attorney holder. The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court, challenging the Trial Court’s order. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Trial Court’s decision. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.

Legal Framework

While the judgment does not explicitly cite specific sections of any statute, it implicitly deals with the procedural aspects of evidence and the rights of a litigant to present their case effectively. The case touches upon the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing, which are fundamental aspects of the Indian legal system. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to exercise superintendence over subordinate courts is also implicitly relevant.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel initially sought to examine the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the appellant. However, during the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel made a statement that the appellant would personally appear to give her evidence. The counsel for the respondent did not object to this statement. The arguments revolved around the procedural aspects of presenting evidence, particularly in the context of an elderly and illiterate plaintiff.

Innovativeness of the argument: The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s willingness to personally appear and give evidence, while also seeking an alternative method (commission) given her age and health condition. This approach allowed the Supreme Court to address the practical difficulties faced by elderly litigants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the implicit issue was:

1. Whether the appellant, an elderly and illiterate plaintiff, should be allowed to present her evidence personally, and if not, whether she should be allowed to present her evidence through a commission at her residence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or legal provisions. The decision is based on the principles of natural justice and the court’s inherent power to ensure a fair trial. The Supreme Court focused on the practical aspects of the case, keeping in mind the appellant’s age and health.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court allowed the appellant to appear and give her evidence. If she was unable to appear due to her age, she was permitted to get herself examined on commission at her residence. The Court directed the Trial Court to appoint a lady lawyer as a Local Commissioner to record her evidence, if such a request was made. The Court also allowed the appellant to examine other witnesses. The Court directed that the case be disposed of within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the practical difficulties faced by the appellant due to her age and illiteracy. The Court emphasized the need to ensure that the appellant had a fair opportunity to present her case. The Supreme Court also noted that the case was quite old and directed the Trial Court to dispose of it expeditiously.

“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.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with ensuring that an elderly and illiterate litigant had a fair chance to present her case. The Court focused on the practical difficulties faced by the appellant due to her age and health. The Court’s decision was driven by the principles of natural justice and the need to provide a just and equitable outcome.

Key Takeaways

• Elderly and illiterate litigants may be allowed to present their evidence through a commission at their residence if they are unable to appear in court due to age or health.
• Courts prioritize ensuring that all litigants have a fair opportunity to present their case, especially vulnerable individuals.
• The Supreme Court emphasizes the need for the expeditious disposal of old cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The appellant is allowed to appear and give her evidence.
• If the appellant is unable to appear in court due to her age, she is permitted to get herself examined on commission at her residence at her expense.
• The Trial Court will appoint a lady lawyer as Local Commissioner to record the appellant’s evidence, if she makes such a request.
• The appellant is allowed to examine other witnesses.
• The case should be disposed of within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.
• Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court on 04.12.2017.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an elderly and illiterate plaintiff who is unable to attend court can be allowed to present their evidence through a commission at their residence. This case reinforces the principle that courts must ensure that all litigants, especially vulnerable ones, have a fair opportunity to present their case. While not creating a new legal principle, it clarifies the practical application of existing principles of natural justice and fair trial in the context of elderly and disabled litigants.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika Sawai Madhopur allows an elderly and illiterate plaintiff to present her evidence either by appearing personally or through a commission at her residence, if she is unable to appear in court due to her age. This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring fair access to justice for all, especially vulnerable litigants. The Court also emphasized the need for the expeditious disposal of old cases.

Category

Parent Category: Civil Procedure

Child Categories: Evidence, Commission, Elderly Litigants, Fair Trial

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Categories: Article 227, Constitution of India

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Prasadi Devi vs. Nagar Palika case?

A: The main issue was whether an elderly and illiterate plaintiff could be allowed to present her evidence through a commission at her residence, if she was unable to appear in court due to her age.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff to appear and give her evidence. If she was unable to appear due to old age, she was permitted to get herself examined on commission at her residence. The Court also directed the Trial Court to appoint a lady lawyer as Local Commissioner to record her evidence, if such a request was made.

Q: What is a commission in legal terms?

A: In legal terms, a commission refers to the appointment of a person (often a lawyer) to record evidence outside of the court. This is often done when a witness is unable to attend court due to age, health, or other reasons.

Q: What does this case mean for elderly people involved in court cases?

A: This case means that elderly and illiterate litigants who cannot attend court due to age or health can still present their evidence through a commission at their residence. This ensures they have a fair opportunity to present their case.

Q: How quickly should the case be disposed of?

A: The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the case within six months from the date of appearance of the parties.