UTKAL UNIVERSITY

VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR, ODISHA

CODE NO : ………………
For official use only

NAME OF THE EXAMINATION : 10TH SEMESTER ROLL NUMBER : 100206CT16032

SUBJECT: INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE AND INTERNSHIP REGD. NO:

YEAR: 2018 DATE : 12.05.2018

PAPER: X SUBJECT: INTERVIEW TECHNIQUE

AND INTERNSHIP

For official use

CODE NO:

SIGNATURE OF THE LAWYER UNDER

WHOSE GUIDANCE WORK IS DONE

SIGNATURE OF CENTRE SUPERITENDENT

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 10
BY THE ADVOCATE)
3. PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
(PREPARATION OF 10
DOCUMENTS AND COURT
PAPERS)
GRAND TOTAL 50

SIGNATURE OF THE EXAMINER

 CONTENTS
• CERTIFICATE
• ACKNOWLEDMENT
• DECLARATION
• COURT ATTENDANCE (CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL)
• INTERVIEW TO THE CLIENT BY THE
ADVOCATE AT HIS CHAMBER
• RECENTLY DECIDED CASE (CIVIL)
RECENTLY DECIDED CASE (CRIMINAL)
• PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge MY DEEP GRATITUDE TO GUIDE Mr. Debasis Das and Mr. Ras
Behari Mohapatra of Cuttack, who have rendered heartiest co-operation in
order to complete my project work. Despite their busy life schedule, they could
afford me valuable time for their guidance, support and helpful suggestions
which have helped me through my practical training.

My deepest thank to both advocates in their

chamber for their help and guidance.

Signature of the Student

10th semester

M.S Law College, Cuttack

 DECLARATION

I, Miss Pallavi Das, solemly declare that the presentation submitted

by me for the part fulfilment of 10th semester examination of 5 years
Integrated Law B.A.,L.L.B (Hons.) course has been done by me
honestly. I honestly submit that this work is entirely done by me and
the same has not been submitted to Utkal University or any other
institution previously.
CIVIL CASE (DAY-1)
DATE OF COURT VISIT – 10.01.18

TIME OF COURT VISIT – 11:30 A.M

Name of the Court – Civil Judge (Jr) Division, Cuttack

Name of the Hon’ble Judge/Magistrate – Shreemayee Acharya

Name of the parties –

D.K Ray ………………………………………………………………………………… Plaintiff

Vs

Rotary Club, Cuttack and others……………………………………………… Defendant

CASE NO- Civil Suit No 114/96

AREA- Civil

LAW/STATUTE INVOLVED – Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and Section 36 & 38 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963.

BRIEF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT -

Defendant no 2 filed CMP against order in High Court and notice for
appearance.
CIVIL CASE (DAY 2)
DATE OF COURT VISIT – 10.01.18

TIME OF COURT VISIT – 11:30 A.M

NAME OF THE HON’BLE JUDGE/MAGISTRATE – Civil Judge (Jr) Division,

Cuttack

NAME OF THE PARTIES –

D.K Ray ………………………………………………………………………………… Plaintiff

Vs

Rotary Club, Cuttack and others……………………………………………… Defendant

CASE NO – Civil Suit No 114/96

AREA – Civil

LAW/STATUTE INVOLVED – Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC and Section 36 & 38 of
Specific Relief Act, 1963.

BRIEF PROCEEDING OF THE COURT –

Defendant no 2 filed CMP against order in High Court and notice for
appearance.
CRIMINAL CASE
DATE OF COURT VISIT – 12.03.18

TIME OF COURT VISIT – 1:30 P.M

NAME OF THE COURT – In the Court of S.D.J.M, Cuttack

CASE NO. – C.C 374 of CPC

NAME OF THE PARTY –

Rajiblochan sahoo……………………………………………………….. Complainant

Vs.

JayaKrushna Das………………………………………………………………. Accused

Area – Criminal

Law/statute involved – U/s 138 of N.I Act & 420 of IPC.

BRIEF PROCEEDING OF THE CASE :

Case is posted on 04.04.2016 adducing evidence for complainant

 INTERVIEW OF THE CLIENT BY THE ADVOCATE AT HIS
CHAMBER
I was attached to the chamber of Mr. Nilakantha Mishra, Advocate, Puri Court,
Puri. His chamber is situated at Jenari Gachha Chakka near labanikhia Chakka,
Puri. The chamber of the concerned Advocate is a well established chamber
with the well maintained library containing various criminal law journals and
books. Besides these journals and books, the chamber also has a computer
with A.I.R (SCW), A.I.R (SC), SCC and other law journals. I joined the chamber at
10.03.18. I attended his chamber from 11.03.18-31.03.18. During my chamber
visit, I came to learn the Interview Technique between the Advocate and client.
Most of the client appears to be gentle, simple and trustworthy.

On 23.03.18 at about 9 a.m, Mrs. Sonali Panda aged about 28 years,

wife of Sudhanshu Panda at Heragauri Sahi, P.O- Puri town to the chamber of
Mr. Nilakantha Mishra in order to consult pertaining to divorce.

Following are the discussion between Advocate and Client :

Client – May I come in Sir?

Advocate – Yes, please come in.

Client – Good morning Sir.

Advocate – Good morning, please take a seat

Client – Thank you, Sir.

Advocate – What’s your name and how can I help you?

Client – Sir, my name is Sonali Panda and I want to file a divorce against my
husband.

Advocate – What is the name of your husband and what does he do?

Client – Sir, my husband’s name is Sudhanshu Panda and he is a software

engineer.

Advocate – Do you have any child?

Client – Yes Sir, I have a son.

Advocate – What is the reason that you want to file for divorce suit against
your husband.

Client – Sir, my husband has been torturing me both physically and mentally.

Advocate – Why?

Client – At the time of marriage, my in laws demanded Rs 5 lakh, but my father

being retired service holder and I being his third daughter was not able to pay
this lump sum amount. But he gave Rs 2 lakh and necessary household articles
during marriage and promised to pay the remaining amount of Rs 3 lakh some
time after marriage.

Advocate – Then.

Client – Then, as my mother was very ill, my father was unable to pay the
remaining amount. After that my in-laws started torturing me both physically
and mentally.

Advocate – When did you get married?

Client – Sir, 26th July 2013

Advocate – Are you staying with your husband or parents?

Client – Sir, I was unable to bear the torture, so I have been staying with my
parents.

Advocate – So have you finally decided to take divorce from your husband?

Client – Yes, Sir.

Advocate – Do you want maintenance?

Client – Yes, obviously.

Advocate – Do you want to keep your child with you?

Client – Yes Sir, as a mother I can’t survive without him.

Advocate – Do you want your husband and in-laws should be punished?

Client – Yes, I want justice.

Advocate – Ok. We will file a petition u/s 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for
divorce and I will try my best to help you.

Client – Thanks a lot.

Advocate – It’s ok.

EXTRACTS FROM A RECENTLY DECIDED
CASE
(CIVIL)
 In the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri

Name of Judge – Shri A.R Nanda

Civil Suit No – 68/2013

Name of the parties –

Chinmayee Roy Choudhory, aged 34 years

W/O – Sumit Roy Choudhory of plot no 8, N.H. 5, Rasulgarh

Bhubaneswar, P.S Mancheshwar………………………………………………… Plaintiff

Vs

Annapurna Sahoo, aged 56 years

W/O – Khetramohan Sahoo

Resident of Dandimala Sahi, Narendrakona, Puri

P.S/P.O – Puri Town…………………………………………………………………… Defendant

Law and statute involved – Order 18 Rule 4

Date of argument – 10.02.2015

Date of Judgement – 21.02.2015

FACTS OF THE CASE

• In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for specific
performance of contract.

•That the defendant id the owner of suit property and it has been recorded in
her name in major settlement record of rights and she is possessing the same.
One Krushna Chandra Panda, who is the relative of the husband of defendant
and also he is known to the husband of the plaintiff. The said Krushna Chandra
Panda came to the plaintiff along with the husband of defendant with the
proposal to purchase the suit land. Due to the neceesity of the defendant, she
wanted to sell the suit property at Rs 75 lakh and a deed agreement was
executed by the defendant. In the said registered agreement, Krushna Chandra
Panda and K.M Sahoo were attesting witnesses. The husband of defendant was
identifier. The agreement was duly presented before sub- registrar for
registration by the defendant and she also admitted the due execution before
the sub- registrar. The plaintiff paid Rs 1,00,001 /- by demand draft no 675447
dated 16.10.2015 of the SBI Bank, BBSR to the defendant on the date of
execution of agreement and the defendant also endorsed the registration
ticket in favour of plaintiff. It was stipulated in the agreement that after receipt
of balance, consideration amount within a period of 6 months from the date of
agreement, the defendant would execute and register the sale deed. The
plaintiff also paid Rs 4,00,001 /- by bank draft on 18.10.2015 to the defendant.
Thereafter the plaintiff offered the balance amount to the defendant and
requested her to execute and register the sale deed but the defendant
registered post on 11.01.2016 but defendant refused to receive the notice on
14.01.2016 and the plaintiff also asked the defendant to bear the registration
charges. But the defendant did not do anything. Then the plaintiff further by
notice requested to defendant to remain present on 31.01.2013 to receive
balance consideration amount and execute and register the sale deed in the
sub- registrar office, Puri but the defendant did not turn up on that day till the
registration period was over, the plaintiff verbally intimated to the sub-
registrar. Thereafter on the same day, she sent an application to DSR by
registered post.

• The defendant is avoiding to perform her part of contract, So the plaintiff

filed this suit for relief prayed for.

• The Plaintiff filed the agreement dated on 17.01.2012 ROR of suit land.
 LINE OF ARGUMENT
• Defendant has admitted the execution of agreement for sale between her
and the plaintiff on 17.10.2012 an agreement for sale of suit property executed
between the plaintiff and defendant. Pw1 proved Ext1 as the said agreement
for sale. Defendant was admitted his signature. There is clear evidence
showing payment of Rs 4, 00,001 /- as part consideration amount by plaintiff
after payment of Rs 1,00,001 /- admitted in the agreement Ext1 to the
defendant. This argument is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

• Before granting of a decree for specific performance of contract, first it is

required to be proved that there is a valid legally executable contract for sale
between parties. In this case, clearly the defendant has admitted to have
entered into an agreement with the defendant for sale of property. The
defendant has also covered in her as the owner in possession of the suit
property. Hence, there is a dispose as to the owner of suit property.

• During the course of argument, it is argued from the side of the defendant
that the plaintiff has no capacity to pay the money. She is only a house wife
though she has started to receive balance consideration amount in her bank
account. Hence plaintiff cannot be said to be capable of paying balance
consideration amount.

• In view of the above discussion, the suit is maintainable. There is cause of

action for filling the case. Plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of
contract and no other relief. These arguments are answered in favour of
plaintiff.

ORDER
The suit is decreed on contest against the defendant with cost. Defendant is
directed to execute and register sale deed taking balance consideration money
of Rs 69,99,998 /- from the plaintiff within 3 months from the date of this
judgement. Plaintiff is directed to offer rest amount to the plaintiff within
period of 3 months from the date of this judgement.
EXTRACTS FROM DECIDED CASE
(CRIMINAL)
 In the Court of Additional Session Judge, Puri

Name of the Judge = Shri S.S Jena

Civil Revision No – 10-34 of 2016/15

Name of the parties:

• Ramesh Chandra Mallick, aged about 44 years

• Laxmidhara Mallick, aged about 42 years

• Madan Malik, aged about 40 years

All the sons of Late Rama Chandra Mallik and resident of Bamadeipur, PO –
Brahamanapada, PS – Satyabadi, District Puri

………………………… Petitioner

Vs

• Bhanusankar Mishra, aged about 50 years

• Krushnashankar Mishra, aged about 45 years

Both are sons of Gadadhara Mishra

• Ganeswar Mishra, aged about 75 years

S/O – late Jaganath Mishra

All are residents of Bamadeipur, PO- Brahamanapada, PS – Satyabadi, District

Puri

Law/statute involved – U/S 397 (1) CrPC, 7 and 145 CrPC

Date of order- 2.2.2016

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petition filed by the petitioner by first party members through their
Advocate Mr. M.A Khan and association for initiation of proceeding u/s 145,
CrPC against the opposite party members. It speaks that the schedule 1 stands
recorded in the name of predecessor of the opposite party members in the lost
ROR dot the petitioner along with their respective family members are residing
over the scheduled property since the time of their forefather by constructing
the dwelling houses. It further speaks that the grandfather of the petitioner in
presence of all villagers made the dwelling houses and resided there on also
planted many flower and fruit and trees over the land. The scheduled land has
also been converted to “GHARABARI” by investing huge amount of the mioney
by the grandfather and father of the petitioners. The petitioner has allotted
the house under I.A.Y by the Govt. of Odisha over the scheduled 1 and their
house has been connected with the doctic line. The petitioners are in
possession since last more than 30 years excluding the possession of the
forefather without having any inspection. It further speaks that on 08.07.2012
the opposite party along with 50 numbers of hired goods being hired with
deadly weapon came and destroyed household articles and cause many harm
to the Petitioner for which the Petitioner has lodged written report before
Satyabadi Police Station on 12.08.2012 and date 15.08.2012, the opposite
party members are trying to evict the petitioner for which there is serious
apprehension of locality.

ORDER

• This revision has been preferred under section 397(1) CrPC by the
revisionists, who were the 1st party members in Crl. Misc case no 370 of 2012
before the Court of learned sub-divisional Magistrate, Puri challenging the
legality, priority and correctness of the order passed by the learned SDM Puri.

• The criminal misc case no. 370/2012 was instituted before learned sub-
divisional Magistrate, Puri by the 1st party members against Bhanushankar
Mishra and Krushnashankar Mishra with averments that the grandfather of the
1st party members namely Bandhu Mallik was in possession of the disputed
land with the dwelling house constructed thereon from pre-independence
period. On 8.7.2012, the opposite party members along with 40 to 50 hired
goondas armed with deadly weapons destroyed the household articles of the
petitioners on the schedule property for which the petitioners had to lodge
written report at Satyabadi police station. It was stated that the 1st party
members were landless persons.

• In view of such language of Section 145(4) of CrPC, it can be reasonably

stated even if the time petition of the 1st party members in Crl. Misc case no
370/2012 was rejected proceeding initiated by the 1st party members should
not have been dismissed for default. In other words, it was the duty of learned
SDM Puri to declare as to which of the parties was in possession of the case
area.
 PRE-TRIAL PREPARATION

Pre-trial preparation is very indispensable to balance a successful

lawyer. It is also not desirable to attend the Court without pre-trial
preparation. After departure of the client from the chamber, I along
with other Advocates discussed this matter with the Senior-
Advocate regarding the pre-trial preparation. Pre-trial preparation of
cases makes the lawyer very prompt in acquiring sound knowledge in
law and facts. Pre-trial preparation makes the Advocate habituated
for preparation of cases in a regular way. The Advocates advised me
to maintain a diary wherein I should note the case no., the name of
the parties and their address. The nature of the case, when the case
was filed and on what date the steps taken and the order passed by
the Court.