UTKAL UNIVERSITY

VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESHWAR, ODISHA

NO. …………………………………. CODE NO:

(FOR OFFICIAL USE)

NAME OF EXAMINATION: 10TH SEMESTER ROLL NUMBER :

COURSE : 5 Years Integrated B.A.,LL.B., (Hons) REGD NO. :

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE DATE : 12.05.2018

YEAR: 2018 SUBJECT : INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE

PAPER: 10 PAPER : 10

DATE: 12.05.2018

CODE NO: SIGNATURE OF THE LAWYER UNDER

WHOSE GUIDE WORK IS DONE
(FOR OFFICE USE)

SIGNATURE OF THE CENTRE

SUPERINTENDENT

………………………………………………….

CONTENTS OF THE RECORD

NO. SUBJECT PAGE FULL MARKS MARKS SECURED

1. TRIAL COURT ATTENDANCE FROM TO
(CASE OBSERVATION) 15
(i)CIVIL CASE
(ii) CRIMINAL CASE 15
2. INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE
(INTERVIEW TO THE CLIENT BY THE 10
ADVOCATE)
3. PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
(PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS AND 10
COURT PAPERS)
GRAND TOTAL 50

SIGNATURE OF THE EXAMINER:

 COURT ATTENDANCE

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

Date/Time of Court Visit : 02.02.2018 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division, Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Sri. Akash Das

Vs.

Lipu Sahoo

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Md. Irshadun Nabi

Case No/Year : 1550/2015

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 6 Rule 17 R/W Section 151 CPC

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

Date /Time of court visit : 06.02.2018, 11:00 A.M.

Name of the Court : The Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Cuttack

Case No/Year : Civil Suit No-28 of 2018

(Arising out of Civil suit No 15 of 2015)

Name of the parties :

1. Bunu Das, 50 years , s/o- Alok Das,

2. Kunu Das, 48 years, s/o- Alok Das

Both by occupation business and cultivation, resident of PO/PS- Mangalabag Civil

Judgeship, Cuttack District.

………………… Petitioners

Versus

1. Mahi Suna, 49 years, S/o- Sripati Suna, occupation- cultivation,

2. Sana Suna, 49 years, S/o- Kalia Suna, occupation- cultivation,

At/ PS-Manglabag, Dist- Cuttack

…………………. Opp. Party

Laws and statutes involved : PETITION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.

The petitioners named above beg to state as follows:-

 1. That, the petitioners are the plaintiffs and the Ops are the defendants No.1 and 2 in
the orginal civil suit no. 15 of 2015 pending before the Civil Judge, Cuttack
2. That, the plaint in Civil Suit No.15 of 2015 pending before the Civil Judge, Cuttack
form part of the petition.
3. That, the petitioners are in joint possession of the land described in the schedule
below hereinafter called the case land in their own right title and interest since the day
of their father.
4. That, the Ops have no any manner of right title and interest over the case land. They
are also not in possession of the case land. They have managed to obtain some void
and sham document in their favour in respect of the case land. So, taking advantage of
those documents, the Ops are now collecting some construction materials like stone
and sand with a view to give boundary wall over the case land they are also
threatening the petitioners to dispossess them from the case land with a view to gather
evidence in their favor and to grab the same.
5. That the petitioners shall be highly prejudices if they will be dispossessed from the
case land in the meantime. They will also put the irreparable loss if the Ops shall
construct boundary wall over the case land.
6. That, there is prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the petitioners
in respect of the case land. There is every chance that they will succeed in the suit. On
the other hand there is no case at all for the Ops and so also no prima facie case and
balance of convience in their favour.
7. That, it is necessary to pass temporary in junction against the Ops in respect of the
case land till disposal of the suit with a view to protect the right of petitioners.

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

Date/Time of Court Visit : 07.02.2018 & 11 A.M. to 1.30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division, CUTTACK

Name of the Parties : Santosh Madhual and others

Vs.

Anil Jena and others

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Md. Irshadun Nabi

Case No/Year : 805/2015

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 39 Rule 3 CPC

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

Date/Time of Court Visit : 09.02.2018 & 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division,

Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Shruti Behera

Vs.

Trupti Behera

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Md. Irshadun Nabi

Case No/Year : 1626/2010

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : U/O 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C.

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

Date/Time of Court Visit : 16.02.2018 & 1:00 P.M. to 3:30 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Senior Division, Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Harihara Mahapatra & Others

Vs.

Rama Sahoo

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Md. Irshadun Nabi

Case No/Year : 215/2011

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

Date/Time of Court Visit : 14.02.2018 & 2:30 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.

Name the Court of : Civil Judge Junior Division, Cuttack

Name of the Parties : Maithili Choudhry

Vs.
Binayak Das

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Hara Prasad Padhy

Case No/Year : 254/2010

Area : Civil

Laws/statutes Involved : Section 151 CPC

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

Date & Time of court visit : 15.02.2018, 2.30 P.M.

Place : Cuttack

Name of the Court : Civil Judge Senior Division,

Name of the Honourable Judge : Md. Irshadun Nabi

Case No. : C.S. 280/2014

Area : Civil

Name of the parties : Monalisa Panda

Vs.

Biraja Panda

Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 37 and Sec. 38 of SpecificReliefAct, 1963.

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

Date & Time of court visit : 19-02-2018, 01.45 P.M.

Place
Name of the Court
Name of the Honorable Judge
Case No.
Area
Name of the parties
Laws and statutes involved
: Cuttack
: Judicial Magistrate First Class
: Miss Somalina Mishra
: GR 2861/2015
: Criminal
: State Vs Tarun Sahoo & another
: Sec. 379, 411, 34

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

One Witness Present Examined, Cross examined & Discharge. The Hon’ble Judge
adjourns court till 03.03.2018 for further Trial.

CRIMINAL CASE NO- 02

Date & Time of court visit : 20-02-2018, 01.20 P.M.

Place : CUTTACK
Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class
Name of the Honorable Judge : Miss Somalina Mishra
Case No. : 1CC 1742/2010
Area : Criminal
Name of the parties : Manash Ranjan Patra
vs
Satya Das
Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 138

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Complainant Examined, Cross examined & Discharge CW1 Executing 1 1/1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6 are marked for complained filled amend for further Evidence. The Hon’ble Judge
adjourns court till 07.03.2018 for further Trial.
 CRIMINAL CASE NO- 03

Date / Time of court visit : 21.02.2018, 11:00 A.M

Name of the Court : JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS

Cuttack

Name of the Honorable Judge : Miss Somalina Mishra

Case No. : GR Case No. 08 of 2012

Name of the parties :

State

.................Prosecution

Vrs.

Ganesh Padhan, Aged about-38 years,

S/o- Bharmara Padhan

Vill-Bandhilipada, PS-Chandaka

Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khordha.

…..............Accused Person

Laws and statutes involved : u/s- 47(a) of B & O Excise Act

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

On 17.01.2012 at about 7 PM, while the then ASI of Police of Chandaka PS was performing
patrolling duty with his other staffs at Bandhalipada area, on receiving reliable information
proceeded to the spot, and raided the Kuchia Shop of the accused- Ganesh Padhan situated at
Bandhalipada and detected 27 nos of CS liquor pouches each containing 180 ml. Of CS
liquor from the possession of the accused. On demand the accused could not produced any
documents of license or authority to possess the same. The ASI seized those liquor and
prepared seizure list, collected sample of 650 ml. and sealed for Chemical Examination,
destroyed the rest at spot. ASI started preliminary investigation of the case, prepared spot
map, arrested the accused and returned to PS and submit the report before IIC, Chandaka PS,
which was registered by IIC, Chandaka PS vide PS case no. 8/2012, u/s- 47(a) of Bihar and
Orissa Excise Act against and directed ASI- P.K.Pradhan to continue investigation. During
investigation ASI visited the spot, prepared the spot map, arrested the accused, forwarded
him to court, examined other witnesses, sent the collected sample liquor to RFSL, BBSR for
chemical examination, received the C.E. Report and after completion of the investigation
submitted CS vide CS No. 32 dtd. 22.03.2012 against the accused person.

Date- 25.03.2012 Accused appeared after submission of Charge Sheet,

Copy of PP supplied to him u/s-207 CrPC,

Charge framed u/s-240 CrPC and trial begins.

Date- 12.04.2012 The accused is absent. The accused is allowed to be represented

u/s-317 CrPC for that day only. APP filed hazira of one witness namely- Alok Padhan. He
was examined by prosecution, cross-examined by defence and then the witness was
discharged as PW-6. Exhibit-2/1, Exhibit-3/1 were marked on behalf of prosecution without
objection of defence. As there was no other witness present in Court, PO directed his Bench
Clerk to issue summons to rest Charge Sheeted Witnesses. Then the case record was posted
to 08.03.2018 for hearing.

CRIMINAL CASE NO- 04

Date & Time of court visit : 22-02-2018, 11.30 A.M.

Place : CUTTACK
Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class
Name of the Honorable Judge : Miss Somalina Mishra
Case No. : GR 6011/2016
Area : Criminal
Name of the parties : State Vs Taslima Jain
Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 341, 221, 323, 294, 427, 506

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Two Witness Present Examined, proceeding & Discharge Prosecution Witness 1 &2
execute for mark. The Hon’ble Judge adjourns court till 09.03.2018 for further Trial.
 CRIMINAL CASE NO- 05

Date & Time of court visit : 23-02-2018, 01.30 P.M.

Place : Cuttack
Name of the Court : Judicial Magistrate First Class
Name of the Honorable Judge : Miss Somalina Mishra
Case No. : 1CC 434/2013
Area : Criminal
Name of the parties : Sritam Mishra Vs Suchitra Sethi
Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 138

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Defence Witness Present Examined, Crossed Examined & Discharge. The Hon’ble
Judge adjourns court till 12.03.2018 for further Trial.

CRIMINAL CASE NO- 06

Date & Time of court visit : 27-02-2018, 11.00AM

Place : Cuttack

Name of the court : 1st Addl. Session Judge, Cuttack

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Bidyut Ku Mishra

Case No. : St- 308/2012

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State Vs. Dinesh Das and 3 Others

Laws & Sections involved : Case u/s: 302/307/34 IPC r/w 25/27 Arms Act and r/w

Section 9(B) of Indian Explosive Act

Name of Complainant: Kishore Kumar Routray

Name of Deceased: Kailash Chandra Routray
Name of Injured: Kishore Kumar Routray
 Name of Accused:
i. Dinesh Kumar Das
ii. Congress Nayak
iii. Sansatei Nayak
iv. Babula Moharana

Date & Place of Occurance: 29-04-2012 at 07.30pm in the village Kalipoi under
Banki Police Station, Cuttack

BRIEF PROCEEDING IN THE COURT:

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

Date & Time of court visit : 28-02-2018, 1.00PM

Place : Cuttack

Name of the court : 3rd Addl. Session Judge, Cuttack

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahoo

Case No. : St- 420/2013

Area : Criminal

Name of the Parties : State vs. Saranya Pati & Others

Laws & Sections involved : 302/144/147/148/149/120(B) of IPC r/w 25/27 of Arms Act

Name of Complainant: Manoj Kumar Rout

Name of Deceased: Jayadev Rout

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

Name of the Advocate: Sohan Mishra

R/O-ram nivas, Nua bazaar

Cuttack-753004

FACT OF THE CASE:

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:

Advocate : What is your name, address and occupation?

Client : My name is Nihar Pallai, aged 48 years,

Bhubaneswar.

Advocate : Are you alone over here or staying with your

family?

Client : With my family.

Advocate : How many years are you being staying over here?

Client : From 1995.

Advocate : How much area do you have?

Client : I have 0.90 decimal.

Advocate : What he wants to claim for?

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.

BOOKS REFERRED BY ME IN CONNECTION:

C.P.C. & Contract Injunction & also Specific Relief Act, 1963.

FEES -
Rs- 3000/- {Rupees three thousand only}
PREPARATION

OF

COURT PAPERS
 CIVIL CASE

Name of the Court : Civil Judge Senior Division, Cuttack

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Smt.Swati Sushmita Samal

Name of the Parties : Sharmistha Mohanty, aged about 41 years

Plot No.- 36, CDA.Cuttack

…. Plaintiff

Vs,

Hari Mahanty, aged about 57 year,chandi chhaka,

cuttack

….Defendant

Case No : I.C.C. NO. – 28/2005

FACT OF THE CASE

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

1. Is the suit maintainable?

2. Has the plaintiff got cause of action to tile suit?
3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Has the plaintiff got right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties?
6. Whether the defendant purchased the suit land from the rightful owner and in
possession of the same on the strength of a valid purchase?
7. To what many other relief, the plaintiff is entitled?

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

Name of the Court : Sub. Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

CUTTACK

Name of the Hon’ble Judge : Shri Satya Sankalp Samal

Name of the Parties : M/s. Mahavir Electronics Representative, aged

about – 29 years

S/O – Biswanath Agarwal,

Managalabag, Cuttack-753004

Vs,

Sri Pratap Kumar Mishra, aged about 36 years,

S/o- Jagannath Mishra, At- Sainto, P.O- Kortal,
Via- Jagatsinghpur, Dist- Jagatsinghpur

Case No / Year : I.C.C. NO. – 2203/2005

Area : Criminal

Laws / Statute involved : 138 of N. I. Act

 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The complainant’s company is the authorized dealer of different electronic items of

different companies. On the request of the accused the complainant’s company gave
some electronic products on credit to discharge the said liability the accused issued a
cheque of Rs. 6900/- in favour of the complainant. After giving the cheque when the
complainant deposited the said cheque for encashment it was dishonoured due to
‘Accounts closed for which the complainant sent a pleader’s notice through AP/DP to
the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount. Hence this case.

ISSUES

1. The plea of the deference is that of complete denial.

2. Whether the accused issued a cheque bearing no. 104527 for Rs. 6900/- on dated. 08.
04. 2005 in favour of the complainant to discharge his liability.
(a) Whether the said cheque was dishonoured due to closer of the account?

(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.