Interview Technic and Internship
Interview Technic and Internship
Interview Technic and Internship
(i)CIVIL CASE 15
(ii)CRIMINAL CASE 15
2. INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE 10
(INTERVIEW TO THE CLIENT
BY THE ADVOCATE)
3. PRE TRIAL PREPARATION 10
(PREPARATION OF
DOCUMENTS AND COURT
PAPERS)
GRAND TOTAL 50
CIVIL CASES
Case No. – 1
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Civil
Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the petitioner No. 3 filed an affidavit
under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. The Opposite Party filed time petition to adjourn
the case for filing of written objection on behalf of Defendant No. 1. The
Hon’ble Judge heard on the petition of Opposite Party for granting of time was
allowed. The Petition was adjourned to 20.03.2018 for filing of written
objection.
Brief fact of the Case : The Election Petition filed by the petitioner to
declare the Opposite Party No. 2 as illegal and void as Sarpanch of Uttarkula
Grama Panchayat under Nischintakoili Panchayat Samiti and to declare the
petitioner as duly and validly elected sarpanch of Uttarkul Grama Panchayat
under Section 34 of Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964.
Case No. – 2
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Civil
Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit one Sri Baidyanath
Majhi submitted his self sworn affidavit i.e. examination in Chief as provided
under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. Ld. Advocate for the defendant prayed for
adjourned to cross-examine the witnesses. The petition was allowed and
posted to next date for cross-examination.
Brief fact of the Case : The defendant has purchased 31.470 Kgs. of
waste papers @ 451.51 per quintal amounting to Rs. 1, 42, 090/- (Rupees One
Lakh Forty Two Thousand and Ninety) only and cost towards OST @ 12%
amounting to Rs. 17,050.80/- or to say Rs. 1, 59, 141/- out of which the
defendant has paid only Rs. 94,612/- (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand Six
Hundred and Twelve) only leaving a balance of Rs. 64, 529/-. As the defendant
has not paid the outstanding dues i.e. 64,529/- in spite of several official letters
and oral demand of the plaintiff he is liable to pay the same with interest from
the date of institution of the suit. The Plaintiff take the shelter of the Court and
prays that let a decree be passed against the defendant for recovery of Rs.
64,529/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the sate of institution of the suit
till recovery.
Case No. – 3
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Civil
Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Plaintiff filed a
plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC. Ld. Advocate for the defendant prayed for
adjourned to file objection. The petition was allowed and posted to next date
for objection and hearing.
Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for
declaration of right, title, interest and for adverse possession against the
Government that the Plaintiff has a good title of adverse possession in respect
of the suit land against the Government of Odisha for which he is entitled for.
Case No. – 4
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Civil
Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the petitioner filed a petition under
Section 30 and 31 of Orissa Gramapanchayat Act, 1964. The Opposite Party
filed time petition to adjourn the case for filing of objection. The Hon’ble Judge
heard on the petition from the petitioner. Petition of Opposite Party was
allowed. The Petition was adjourned to 27.03.2018 for objection and hearing.
Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for Direct
recounting/re-inspection of the ballot papers of the election to the office of
Sarpanch of Kakhadi Gram Panchayat and to declare the election as illegal and
to declare the petitioner as Elected Candidate.
Case No. – 5
Place : Cuttack.
Name of the Court : Civil Judge (Sr. Division), First Court, Cuttack
Area : Civil
Cuttack.
Brief Proceeding in the Court : Advocate for both the parties were present
and filed Haziras. During my Court visit the Opposite Party filed questionnaires.
Advocate for the petitioner filed a petition for time. The Hon’ble Judge heard
on the petition from the learned counsels for both the parties. Petition was
allowed. Suit was adjourned to 29.03.2018.
Brief fact of the Case : The suit is filed by the Plaintiff for permanent
injunction against the defendants including the Tahasildar, Sadar, Cuttack with
a further prayer in the said suit not to alienate the Scheduled property and not
to disturb the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs.
CRIMINAL CASES
Criminal Case – 1
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Criminal
Date and Place of Occurrence : In the night of 14th of March, 2013 Inside
the Residence of the deceased at Balasore.
Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Defence examined
one defence witness as D.W 1 namely Biswaranjan Mahakud, brother of the
accused as per Section 233 of Cr. P.C. After that the Public Prosecutor cross-
examined the said defence witness under Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act.
After that Advocate for the accused filed a memo declining other witnesses to
be examined. Accordingly the case was adjourned to another date for
argument.
As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
persons Micky @ Priya Ranjan Mohanty and Jyoti Ranjan Mohanty, the I.O
submitted Charge Sheet under Section 302/120-B/201 of IPC to face his trial in
the Court of law.
Criminal Case – 2
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Criminal
Laws and Sections Involved : 47 (a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act.
Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the I.O Samir Kumar
Mohanty was examined in chief by the Prosecution. Exhibited the seizure list,
other relevant documents and articles. He was cross-examined by the defence.
Brief fact of the Case : On 05.01.2017 at about 08.30 A.M while the
excise officials were performing patrolling duty in Khan Nagar area, accused
Muna Behera was carrying a white colour jari bag in a suspicious manner. On
suspicion the I.O detained him on the spot, searched the accused person and
recovered twelve numbers of Aska 40 C.S Liquor bottles each containing 200
ml. After conducting smell test and blue litmus paper test found to know that it
was C.S liquor. On being asked accused failed to furnish any valid license
regarding such possession of liquor. Then the I.O seized all the bottles from the
possession of the accused and prepared a seizure list at the spot in presence of
the independent witnesses. After obtained the signature of the accused
handed over one copy of seizure list to the accused and forwarded him to the
Court on the same day. On 30.01.2017 after completion of investigation I.O
submitted PR against the accused person under Section 47 (a) of Bihar and
Orissa Excise Act.
Criminal Case – 3
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Criminal
Date and Place of Occurrence : In the night of 22/23 of April, 2013 Inside
Matajagapura.
Brief Proceeding in the Court : During my Court visit the Defence examined
one defence witness as D.W 1 as per Section 233 of Cr. P.C. During his
examination he has stated that the police has never arrested the accused in his
village and has never made any disclosure statement with regard to leading to
discovery. After that the Public Prosecutor cross-examined the said defence
witness under Section 137 of Indian Evidence Act. After that Advocate for the
accused filed a memo declining other witnesses to be examined. Accordingly
the case was adjourned to 12.03.2018 for argument.
As prima facie evidence has been well established against the accused
person Bhaskar Nayak, the I.O submitted Charge Sheet under Section 302 of
IPC to face his trial in the Court of law.
Criminal Case – 4
Place : Cuttack.
Place : Cuttack.
Area : Criminal
Routray
Advocate : Your case is very stiff. Accusation made against you appears to
have been proved by the prosecution evidence.
Advocate : Can you give evidence in the court that at the relevant time of
alleged occurrence you were not present at the spot , but someone else.
Advocate : This kind of evidence or plea of the accused is called PLEA OF ALIBI
that means the accused not being present at the spot was not in a position to
commit an alleged offence.
Client : I recall that on the alleged date of occurrence I had been to the house
of my father- in- law along with my wife to attend marriage ceremony of my
sister-in-law. Of course , I returned back leaving my wife there.
Advocate : It may be your wife or any of the family members of your in-law 's
house.