Interview Technique Paper
Interview Technique Paper
Interview Technique Paper
PAPER: 10 PAPER : 10
DATE: 12.05.2018
………………………………………………….
I have attended various courts in Cuttack jurisdiction for near about 6 weeks as prescribed by
our syllabus. Different cases, both civil and criminal were observed by me in the court of
different judges. It was a nice experience providing great knowledge about the practical
proceedings of the court.
In the subsequent pages I have mentioned the cases which I have personally observed
during my court attendance in the month of February 2018.
CIVIL CASES
CIVIL CASE NO -1
Vs.
Lipu Sahoo
Area : Civil
Brief Proceedings of the Court: Parties are absent. The petition for compromise
is rejected as not passed put up on 11.30 A.M.
for hearing. Later plaintiff is absent on calls. No
steps taken. Hence the suit is dismissed for
default.
CIVIL CASE NO -2
Name of the Court : The Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cuttack
………………… Petitioners
Versus
Laws and statutes involved : PETITION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.
PRAYER
The Opposite party may be restrained to enter upon the case land or Status quo may be
maintained till disposal of the suit for which act of kindness the petitioners shall ever pray.
CIVIL CASE NO -03
Vs.
Area : Civil
Brief Proceedings of the Court: Both the parties are present. The compromise
petition is put up. Heard. During course of
hearing some defects are noticed in the said
plaint pertaining to plot numbers in the schedule
property. Hence put up on 14-02-18 for removal
of defects.
CIVIL CASE NO -04
Cuttack
Trupti Behera
Area : Civil
Brief Proceedings of the Court: The record is put up today. Advocate for the petitioner
files an affidavit along with postal receipt after
completing process under Order 39 Rule 3 of C.P.C.
Hence the notice against opposite party. Date fixed for
service return and postal acknowledgment.
CIVIL CASE NO -05
Vs.
Rama Sahoo
Area : Civil
Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 39, Rule 1 & 2 R/W Section 151 CPC
Brief Proceedings of the Court: Advocate for the parties are present. Opposite party
files objection alongwith a petition to accept the same.
Copy is served. Heard on the petition. No objection is
raised from the side of the petitioner. Hence the petition
is allowed. The objection filed by the opposite party is
accepted. Heard the argument in full on the original.
Called on 05-2-2018 for order. On prayer the interim
order is to continue till then.
CIVIL CASE NO -06
Vs.
Binayak Das
Area : Civil
Brief Proceedings of the Court: Advocate for both the parties are present. The
DW 1 is examined, cross-examined and
discharged. The post envelope is marked as Ext
B/5. Advocate for the defendant files a petition
praying for time. Heard. Time is allowed till 22-
02-2018 for further hearing the suit. In view of
the above order the record need not be put up for
order tomorrow.
CIVIL CASE NO- 07
Place : Cuttack
Area : Civil
Vs.
Biraja Panda
BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT: Advocate for both the parties were present.
Opposite party filed questionnaires. Advocate for the petitioner filed a petition for time.
The Honorable Judge heard on the petition from the learned counsels for both the
parties. Petition was allowed. Suit was adjourned.
CRIMINAL CASES
CRIMINAL CASE NO- 01
State
.................Prosecution
Vrs.
Vill-Bandhilipada, PS-Chandaka
…..............Accused Person
Place : Cuttack
Area : Criminal
Laws & Sections involved : Case u/s: 302/307/34 IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act and r/w
Date & Place of Occurance: 29-04-2012 at 07.30pm in the village Kalipoi under
Banki Police Station, Cuttack
Advocates for both the parties were present on the mentioned date: Charge framed u/s
302/307/34 IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act and r/w Section 9(B) Indian Explosive Act against
all the accused persons who are facing trial before the 1st Addl. Session Judge, Cuttack.
CRIMINAL CASE NO- 07
Place : Cuttack
Area : Criminal
Laws & Sections involved : 302/144/147/148/149/120(B) of IPC r/w 25/27 of Arms Act
BRIEF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT : Advocates for both the parties were present on
the mentioned date. On following given dates witnesses were examined. 08-12-2014: Manoj
Kumar Rout PW- 08, Informant/ Complainant Examined and Cross Examined.
INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE
&
PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE AND PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
Cuttack-753004
I had joined the chamber of Advocate Sohan Mishra and observed some proceedings
in his chamber. On the above date at about 1 P.M. on the noon a client came to her to take
advice relating to some dispute. I had observed the conversation and discussion between the
client and the advocate. I am giving the brief fact of the case.
The client name was Nihar pallai, aged about 48 years. And he is from Bhubaneswar;
he is a Blacksmith in profession and is now in Bhubaneswar away from his native village.
This suit is for declaration of right, title and interest and easementary right valued at 4000/-
(Rupees Four Thousand only). The plaintiff had been shifted to Bhubaneswar from his native
village during 1995 for his livelihood and constructed attached house over the suit property
and resided therein with his family members. The plaintiff made a literate stone wall covering
all sides and plated some valuable trees but in super cyclone some come true were uprooted.
The plaintiff has been in possession in the suit land to the extent of an Area Ac. 0.090 from
1995 till date peacefully and continuously the knowledge of the defendant No. 1 & 2 and
without any interruption for than 35 years. The cause of action arise on dated 12.02.2012
when the agency of defendant No. 1 & 2 had threatened to claimant the houses to the plaintiff
and subsequently on dated 03.02.2003, when the defendant No. 3 threatened to amalgamate
the passage mean for easementary right of the plaintiff to approach the public road with his
possessory right.
Discussion and Interrogation between the advocate and the client observed by me:
Bhubaneswar.
Advocate : How many years are you being staying over here?
Client : He said that the decree should be passed declaring the right, title and
interest of the plaintiff against defendants in as much as the plaintiff has
perfected has title by way of diverse possession against defendant.
C.P.C. & Contract Injunction & also Specific Relief Act, 1963.
FEES -
Rs- 3000/- {Rupees three thousand only}
PREPARATION
OF
COURT PAPERS
CIVIL CASE
Vs,
….Defendant
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for declaration of her right, title and interest
over the suit land extending to Ad. 0-66 decimils appertaining to Plot No. 486 under Khata
No.- 198 corresponding to Ac. 0.60 decimils appertaining to Plot No. 571/1141 under Khata
No. 155 of Sabik Settlement of village Sannai and to confirm her possession in alternative to
recover possession if the plaintiff is found to have been disposes during pendency of the suit
and to issue permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him to create any
disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land.
The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint with
a specific cases that the suit land was piece of jungle land and was reclaimed by Ghana Ho
who remained in possession and the same was settled in favour of Ghana Ho in a Case No.
535 of 1953 and Record-of-right was issued in his favour and accordingly the suit land was
recorded in the name of Ghana Ho in the Hal settlement of the year, 1983. The suit land was
at that time under the possession under by Ghana Ho for a period of 3 to 4 years, because of
inability of Ghana Ho to cultivate the same properly. The grandfather of the plaintiff no her
father nor the plaintiff herself ever possessed the suit land at any point of time and the
defendant purchased the suit land for value consideration and after purchase the defendant is
in possession over the suit land as its owner. The defendant purchased the suit land after due
permission as per law and after purchase the suit land has been mutated in the name of the
defendant in a Mutation Case No. 1891/95 to the knowledge of all concerned. The plaintiff
has no right, title and interest over the suit land and just with an eye over the property, she
with her husband and sons with an intention to grab the same are filling number of cases
creating some false allegations. The defendant has also challenged the suit on the grounds of
its maintainability; want of cause of action, barred by law of limitation and non-joinder of
necessary parties i.e. Ghana Ho and the State Government of Orissa. Under the circumstances
the defendant submitted to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost in his favour.
ISSUES INVOLVED
LINE OF ARGUMENT
In this regard the PW1 has been examined regarding document purported to have
been executed by Ghana Ho admitting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land but the
said document has not been exhibited, as it has not been properly stamped. The PW1 though
originally belonged to village Badnai but he has settled in village Pimpudia under Sukinda
P.S. about 40 years back and Ghana Ho has also settled in village Bandhapal under the same
P.S. According to this witness Daitari Mohanty, the husband of the plaintiff had been to his
village where a Punch was convened regarding possession of the suit land and in the said
Punch Ghana Ho admitted about the possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and
executed the alleged documents.
JUDGEMENT
The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed on contest with costs in favour of the defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE
CUTTACK
about – 29 years
Managalabag, Cuttack-753004
Vs,
Area : Criminal
ISSUES
(b) Whether the complainant sent a pleader’s notice to the accused demanding
his payment?
LINES OF ARGUMENT
1. To prove its case the complainant has examined himself as PW1 on the other hand; no
one was examined on behalf of the defence.
2. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is found that he knows the accused
who had taken items from his company and had given a cheque bearing no. 104527
on dated. 08.04.2005 for an amount of Rs. 6,900/- in favour of his company but the
same was dishonoured due to closer of the account. He then sent a pleader’s notice to
the accused demanding payment. In cross-examination PW1 has stated that now the
case matter has already been compromised and the accused has paid the entire cheque
amount for which he is not interested to proceed further with the case record.
PRAYER
Further he has prayed to expunge his earlier evidence given nearly two years back.
JUDGEMENT
In view of the facts mentioned above when the matter was comprised and when the
complainant after receiving the cheque amount is not interested to proceed further with the
case matter and without having any evidence to bring home the charge against the accused
the whole of the complainant case falls to ground. Accordingly the accused is acquitted U/s.
255 (1) Cr. P. C.