COURT ATTENDANCE

I have attended various courts in Cuttack jurisdiction for near about 3 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 very 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 on February, 2024.
 CONTENTS

1. Trial Court Attendance.

a. Civil Cases.
b. Criminal Cases.

2. Interview Techniques and Pre-Trial Preparations.

 CIVIL CASE NO. 01

Date & Time of court visit : 09.04.2024, 12.10 PM

Place : Cuttack

Name of the Court : Civil Judge Junior Division

Name of the Honorable Judge : Mrs. Reeja Ray

Case No. :. IA 189/2007 (C.S.345/2006)

Area : Civil

Name of the parties : Saroja Sahoo

V.

State of Orissa and others.

Laws and statutes involved : Code of Civil Procedure 1908,

. 0rder 39 Rule 3-A

BRIEF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT:

Advocate for the petitioner prayed for time.
The petition was heard by the Honorable Judge. Time was allowed. Case was adjourned
to 21.05.2015 for ex-parte hearing.
 CIVIL CASE NO. 02

Date & Time of court visit : 10.04.2015, 11.20 A.M

Place : Bhubaneswar

Name of the Court : 2nd Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.)

Name of the Honorable Judge : Mrs Rekha Prasad

Case No. : C.S. 335/2005

Area : Civil

Name of the parties : Gurupad Das

V.

Akhil Das & others.

Laws and statutes involved : Suit for declaration of title.

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Advocate for both the parties were

present. The advocate for plaintiff filed the original village map with a petition to mark
the map as exhibit on his behalf. Heard. Since the village map is a public document u/s
74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it was marked as exhibit no.-5. The case was
adjourned to 19.05.2024 for argument.
 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 03

Date & Time of court visit : 16.04.2024, 12:15 P.M.

Place : Bhubaneswar

Name of the Court : Assistant Sessions Judge

Name of the Honorable Judge : Sri R.K.Mohapatra

Case No. : SC 76/2006

Area : Criminal

Name of the parties : State

V.

Bimbadhar Maharathi

Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 323, 354, 341, 506, 436, and 34 of IPC

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Accused persons were present. Their
statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by the Honorable Judge. The accused persons
denied the allegations against them and adjourned the case to 04.05.2024 for defence
evidence. The accused persons were directed to remain present on the date fixed.
 CRIMINAL CASE NO. 02

Date & Time of court visit : 16.04.2024, 02:30 P.M.

Place : Cuttack

Name of the Court : Assistant Sessions Judge

Name of the Honorable Judge : Sri R.K.Mohapatra

Case No. : SC 131/2008

Area : Criminal

Name of the parties : State

V.

Kalia Rout and others.

Laws and statutes involved : Sec. 341, 323, 294, 325, 506 and 34 of IPC

BRIEF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT:

Accused persons were absent. The learned

counsel for the accused person filed a petition u/s 317(1) Cr.P.C to represent the
accused persons for that day which was allowed by the Honorable Court. The learned
defense counsel also filed another petition praying for time for recording their
statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. which was allowed by the Honorable Court. The case was
adjourned to 27.04.2024 for recording statement of accused persons. The Honorable
Court also directed the accused persons to remain on that date.
INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE AND PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
Name of the Advocate : AMIT KUMAR SAHOO, ADVOCATE
(PLOT NO. 1507, MAHATAB ROAD, OLD TOWN,
BHUBANESWAR)
FACT OF THE CASE:

I had joined the chamber of Mr. Amit Kumar Sahoo and observed some proceedings in his
chamber. On the above date at about 1 PM. on the noon a client came to her to take advice
relating to some dispute. 1 had observed the conversation and discussion between the client and
the advocate. 1 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 trees 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. l & 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}

 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 r/o Plot No.36,
CDA.Cuttack
……………..Plaintiff
Vs.
Hari Mahanty, aged about 57 years, Chandichhaka, Cuttack

…………....Defendan
t

Case No. : I.C.C. NO. 28/2005

FACTS 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 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 486 under Khata No.198
corresponding to Ac. 0.60 decimals 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 a 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 nor 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 and 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 P.W. 1 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 P.W. l 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 PS.
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 SankalpSamal
Name of the Parties : M/s. Mahavir Electronics Representative, aged about 29
years S/O Biswanath Agarwal, resident of Managalabag,
Cuttack- 753004
Vs.
Sri Pratap Kumar Mishra. aged about 36 yem, 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

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 as the Accounts related to the cheque was 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. Whether 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 P.W. 1 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 name was
dishonoured due to closer of the account. He then sent a pleader’s notice to the weaned
demanding payment. In cross-examination PW] 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 (I ) Cr.P.C.