##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:39838]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19848/2026 CNR: RJHC020957312026 | URN: CW / 41452U / 2026 Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Shri Man Singh, R/o C-4, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Madanlal S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh, R/o Plot No.45 And 44 (West) Near Roop Nagar, Madrampura, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Since Deceased) Through

1/1. Nangi Devi W/o Late Shri Madanlal, r/o Plot No.45 & 44 (West) near Ropp Nagar Madrampura, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

2. Meera Devi W/o Late Shri Chandra Prakash D/o Late Shri Vijay Singh, R/o Diggi Mohalla, Chandgate, Beawar Rajasthan 305901

3. Ramesh Yadav, S/o Late Shri Vijay Singh

4. Suresh Yadav, S/o Late Shri Madanlal Yadav 5. Dinesh Yadav, S/o Late Shri Madanlal Yadav 6. Rakesh Yadav, S/o Late Shri Madanlal Yadav 7. Deepak Yadav S/o Late Shri Madanlal Yadav, No. 3 To 7 All R/o Plot No. 45 And 44 (West) Near Roop Nagar, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

---Respondents/Defendants

8. Babbu Singh S/o Late Shri Man Singh, 9. Raju Singh S/o Late Shri Man Singh, No.8 & 9 both resident of C-4, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Vyas For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

30/09/2026

1. Aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2026 whereby application under Order 18 Rule 3(A) of CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for permitting the power attorney holder of the plaintiff to appear for examination in place of plaintiff has been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff No.1 is aging 86 years and has also sustained fracture therefore, she was not in a position to appear before the Court for the purpose of examination hence, she appointed her grand-son Devendra Singh as her attorney so as to led evidence in the capacity of plaintiff before the trial Court, however, such application has been rejected by the trial Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it comes out that the suit was filed by three persons, plaintiff No.1 as well as her two sons plaintiff No.2 & 3. No reason has been assigned by the petitioner for not producing plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 before the Court for adducing evidence nor is there anything on record to show that on account of alleged illness and old age of plaintiff No.1, at any point of time, any efforts were made by the plaintiff No.1 to get her statement recorded through Commissioner.

5. In view of above, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity in order dated

18.09.2026 passed by the trial Court. The impugned order does not require any interference and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

7/NEERU