JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

CLINICAL COURSE IV

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. QAZI M. USMAN

ASSOCIATE PROFFESSOR

SUBMITTED BY:

YASIR AHMAD
X SEMESTER
BA LLB (H) (SF)
20166163
ROLL NO. 58

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

SL. NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1. Work and Experiences (Court Diary) 1
2. Assignments 13
3. Case Brief 14
4. Case Analysis (Criminal Proceeding) 17
5. Case Analysis (Civil Proceeding) 20
6. Interview Session of Client (Criminal) 29
7. Interview Session of Client (Civil) 34

INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE

2
I performed my Clinical Course under the guidance and supervision of legal luminary Mr. Fahim
Khan, Chamber No. 184, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi

Details of my daily Court visit are as follows:

DAY 1 – 15th February, 2021:

On First day of my Clinical Course programme I was asked to report to my Advocate’s Chamber
at sharp 10:00 AM. I was handed over a bunch of papers which had the heading:

“THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DISTRICT SOUTHEAST,

SAKET, NEW DELHI”

“Daily Case List for February 15, 2021”

The Book-Keeper then explained me way to analyze the case list. Then I was asked to
accompany my Advocate to the District Court Saket, in the Court of Ms. Shriya Agrawal, Civil
Judge in Room No. 04.

Our case was listed on the Serial No. 12. It was a suit for the deceleration of Title and Recovery
of Possession.

It was originally filed as O.S. No. 282 of 2018. This petition was coming on 15/02/2021 for the
final hearing.

Advocate for defendant was my Supervisor. He was heard and stood over for consideration till
this day. The suit against the defendants was dismissed.

Savitri W/o Late Jeevan Ram, Aged about 60 years, Occupation: House Wife, R/o H. No:
534/56, jeevan Prakash Building, New Delhi

....Plaintiff

Versus

Malti Devi W/o Late Ratibhan, Aged about 56 years, Occupation: House Wife, R/o H. No:
543/56, Mayur Vihar East, Delhi

3
 ....Defendent

STEPS OBSERVED BY ME:

1. The petition under Order 41 Rule - 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 r/w Sec. 5 of the
Limitation Act was filed on behalf of the defendants by my Advocate.
2. It is a petition filed to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal, in the interest of
Justice.
3. The Court accepted the petition filed and considered.

DAY 2- 16th February, 2021:

Holiday on account of Vasant Panchami

DAY 3 – 17th February, 2021:

1. The case was called for hearing.

2. The plaint was presented by my Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff, in the Court of Civil
Judge Junior Division.
3. The plaint was heard and considered and the suit was instituted.
4. It was said by Hon’ble Judge it shall be unlawful and end of Justice to pass any order or
decree without issuing a notice to the next party i.e., defendant.
5. Therefore a notice was sent to the defendant with an order to produce document for
inspiration.
6. The case was dated to 15/07/2021.

Details of the Case:

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT TIS HAZARI.
Civil Suit No. 517 of 2021.
Rajendra Kumar S/o Ramniah, aged about 37 years, R/o Vasant Vihar, Delhi.
....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation New Delhi.

4
 ....Defendant
Facts of the Case:
i. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant has mingled a public pathway with his own property
and he is boundering the said property, pathway and is making a gate on the same.
ii. That after the construction of the said gate the same public pathway shall be permanently
obstructed.
iii. That the same pathway is a way which is connected to the main road i.e., Collectorate Road.
iv. That after said construction there shall be irreparable loss to the public at large.

DAY 4 – 18th February, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MITTAL.

Complaint No. 644 of 2021.

Sumit Thakur

Versus

Rajendra Singh

Charges have been framed upon Rajendra Singh for stealing Rs. 20,000 and for giving challenge
that if you will file a case, then I will kill you.

Some witness has been produced by my advocate.

Witness No. 1: Rajesh Thakur

When at the night I was going for toilet, I saw Rajendra Singh was going in the house of Sumit
Thakur with the help of rope. He was trying to climb on the roof of the Sumit Thakur. But I
feared so I kept silent on that moment.

Witness No. 2: Dinesh Mishra

5
I heard, that Rajendra Singh was saying to Sumit Thakur that I have stolen your money, what
you will do? If you will go to Police Station. Then I will kill you. When Sumit Thakur went to
Police Station, Inspector refused to take the case.

Witness No. 3: Sanjeev Yadav

When I was walking on the roof, I saw that a person, who was Rajendra Singh jumped from the
roof of Sumit Thakur through rope and entered his home.

These statements of the witnesses have been produced by the prosecution. Court has been
adjourned after that.

DAY 5th – 19th February, 2021:

As there was no hearing of any case on this day, So on this day 2 works are assigned to me by
my Supervisor Sir. (Mentioned in this diary under Heading ‘Assignments’)

DAY 6- 20th February, 2021: Saturday Holiday

DAY 7 – 21st February, 2021: Sunday Holiday

DAY 8 – 22nd February, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA MEHTA JSCC-CUM-ASCJ

ROOM NO. 21

Complaint Case No. 690 of 2020.

Mohd. Sajjad

Versus

Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

A witness statement has been recorded. His name is Mohd. Shahid.

6
STATEMENT OF THE WITNESS: Mohd. Shahid

Sir, I live at a government land. I had come to my home for the purpose of marriage of my sister.
But Mohd. Yunus, Mohd. Arazul, Mohd. Mukhtar and Mohd. Ajju came to my house and said
just get out from the house and Mohd. Ajju snatched the ornament of my sister and also struck
on the head of my sister. My sister felled on the place. I went forward to resist but I have been
beaten by the lathi. All of them were armed with lathi and they had beaten me and my brother.
We went to Police Station but they didn’t take our complaint after that we went to the hospital
and I came here for the complaint.

To The Court: Actually Sir, they are antisocial elements of the society and also they were
involved in many criminal activities. For the purpose of taking ornaments, they had beaten me
and my family.

DAY 9 – 23rd February, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF MM MS. VASUNDHARA CHHAUNKAR.

Anil Wadhwa

Versus

Tarun Kumar

Proceedings: -

Today in the Court of Metropolitan Megistrate, Saket a bail petition was filed. In this case the
accused was arrested for the offence of forgery and simple fighting. The Session Judge
transferred the case to the Court of R.K. Sharma, J.M. 1st Class. The Counsel pleaded that the
defence lawyer is not able to provide proper evidence from his side.

The Judicial Magistrate, R.K. Sharma refused to give the bail to the accused.

7
DAY 10 – 24th February, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SH. HIMANSHU SEHLOT

Civil Suit No. 352 of 2021.

Smt. Kamla Devi

Versus

Shivaiah

Acts/Rules/Orders: -

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXII; Rule - IV).

Proceedings: -

1. The case was called for the hearing.

2. Both the parties were present with their counsels.
3. This was the date for the submission of the commission’s report and considerations on it.
4. The Commission’s report was submitted under Order XXIII - Rule 9 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
5. Hon’ble learned Judge has listed the case for the submission of objection on 05/07/2021.

DAY 11 – 25th February, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF VISHAL GOGNE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI.

Complaint No. 237 of 2021.

Manoj Kumar

Versus

Mithilesh Singh

8
Today under Section 202 of Cr.P.C has been worked against accused person Manoj Kumar and
statement of evidence has been recorded of a witness who’s name s Raghu Goswami. He said:

Sir, I am servant of Manoj Kumar, Mithilesh Singh has directed me to go to my warehouse and
bring the goods, which were in warehouse. I brought the goods, which were in godown. I went
for that but near warehouse I found Mithilesh Singh, who has said to me, just get out from here. I
will not allow you to go in godown. If you will go, then I will beat you. I tried to open the
godown but he strucked me and I falled on that place. He has also said that I will take all the
goods of the Godown. After that I flew away from there and I come to my owner Manoj Kumar
and told him the whole incident.

To the Court: Sir, I don’t know anything about the godown and the good’s kept there. After the
incident I left the work of Mithilesh Singh. So I don’t know what happened after that.

DAY 12 – 26th February, 2021:

Today my advocate haven’t visited the Court but gave me his old case files to analyze the
Judgment and study thoroughly regarding the ratio of the Judgement. So, I decided to State that
case in the Case Analysis portion in upcoming pages.

DAY 10 – 27th February, 2021:

On this day second week of my Internship started so I in consultation with my supervisor

selected the case for the study. Thereafter, I discussed and analysed a case (which was on a
recent Rajasthan High Court Judgement), given in this Diary under the Heading Case Briefs.

DAY 11- 27th February, 2021: Saturday Holiday

DAY 12- 28th February, 2021: Sunday Holiday

9
DAY 13 – 1st March, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF KANWALJEET ARORA JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SAKET

Court No. 205.

Neelam

Versus

Brijesh Kumar Tiwari

Today in the Court cross examination is going on with regards to the accident.

Hon’ble learned Judge heard all the arguments very carefully and said that just clear the matter if
every evidence and documents were presented and examination is over.

So far the decision of the Hon’ble Judge is concerned judge gives the date of 25/07/2021 for the
decision.

DAY 14 – 2nd March, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF K.J. ARORA MACT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT

Court Room No. 13

Raj Kumar

Versus

Rambabu Yadav

Today in the court this case is listed for the settlement. The opposite party want to settle the case
in only Rs. 70,000/-. But the victim is not agree for the settlement in only Rs. 70,000/-. He says
that he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- in his treatment and he was on the bed for one and half years. He
also presented the slips of the expenditure of his treatment and other related documents.

10
After going through all the documents the Hon’ble Court settled the case in Rs. 1,30,000/- and
ordered the Rambabu to pay to the Raj Kumar on 15th May, 2021 before the court.

DAY 15 TO 26 – 3rd to 14th March, 2021: Self Isolation Quarantine.

DAY 27 – 15th March, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI CIVIL JUDGE.

Court Room No. 16

Vikram Singh

Versus

Anil Kumar & Others.

Proceedings: -

Today in the Court statement of Priya Singh was recorded. She said that, “Anil Kumar and his
friend has come in my house at night, when we were sleeping. Suddenly I awake and saw them,
they were throwing my documents and have taken my passbook. Anil Kumar has taken Rs.
25,000/- from the locker and his friend has taken my ornaments. We were unable to stop them
because they were having gun with them.

Vikram Singh is my husband. He has filed the complaint against the accused persons.

Vikram Singh said that, “Sir we are poor person. Somehow we mange two meals a days. Also I
don’t have any permanent job. They have taken our all essential goods, document, ornaments
and money with them.

Since they are my relatives neighbour so they knew about the ornaments and money which was
kept at home for our personal use. We were unable to stop them due to the fear. We shouted after
that then neighbors came out.

This statement was recorded in the Court Room.

11
DAY 28– 16th March, 2021:

My Supervisor Mr. Saket Chandra Samayar Sir, has gone to attend the hearing in Supreme Court
of India regarding an appeal case. So I could not accompany him.

DAY 29 – 17th March, 2021:

Holiday on account of court sanitization.

DAY 30 – 18th March, 2021:

On this day third and week of my Internship started so I in consultation with my supervisor
selected the case for the study. Thereafter, I discussed and analysed a case (which was on a
recent Madras High Court Judgement), given in this Diary under the Heading Case Briefs.

DAY 31 – 19th March, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF REKHA, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE, SAKET.

Court Room No. 03.

Rupam

Versus

Satyajeet

Proceedings: -

In this case Rupam was the wife of Satyajeet. Now they were divorced. Rupam came to the court
for seeking permission to get payment from Satyajeet for her child’s admission in the School.

In previous hearing the Hon’ble Judge ordered the Satyajeet to deposit the admission fees in the
School. But Satyajeet didn’t deposited the fees and says that he does not know the School in

12
which his child is studying. He also asked for the fee slips of the child’s admission in the School
and he is ready to give all the payments for the admission.

The Hon’ble Judge ordered Rupam to give the slips or any record as required, which contains the
amount of fee for the child’s admission in the School.

DAY 32- 20th March, 2021: Saturday Holiday

DAY 33- 21st March, 2021: Sunday Holiday

DAY 34- 22nd March, 2021:

IN THE COURT OF VIKRAM DHULL, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ROHINI.

Court Room No. 07

Smt. Natasha Rohilla

Versus

Mukesh Rohilla

Proceedings: -

In this case Natasha is the wife of Mukesh. She wants separation with her husband. In this case
the Judge gives the order of Mediation. But Natasha did not agree for the mediation. She said
that the mediation did not help her and she has already gone through the mediation two times. It
had no effect. She wants to over the case as soon as possible and she prayed for the same before
the Hon’ble Court.

After hearing her prayer Hon’ble Judge said that just go for mediation and try to cooperate.
Hon’ble Judge ordered the counsel for mediation and then report to him after two days.

DAY 35 – 23rd March, 2021:

13
 IN THE COURT OF VISHAL GOGNE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATIALA HOUSE
COURT.

Complaint No. 563 of 2021.

Priya Goel

Versus

Sobhit Visnoye.

Petition under:

Secs. 323; 504; 341; 379; 452; 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Proceedings:

Today in the Court the statement of one witness named Yashoda Devi was recorded.

Yashoda Devi, mother of Priya Goel has delivered her statement in the Court.

She said that she had seen the entire incident by her eyes. She is the eye witness of the incident
that happen and told the facts of the case.

DAY 36 to 44 - 24th to 30st March, 2021: I was assigned the research and drafting work from my
Home due to Rise in COVID-19 cases in the Court Premises.

DAY 45- 31st March, 2021:

This was my Last Day of Internship. Sir has not allotted any work as such but on this day I
visited different courts from morning to understand the working of Hon’ble Court and Also
helped Mr. Rajeev Kumar, (Junior to Sir) in various small tasks like searching some of the
relevant cases related to Matrimonial Disputes, etc.

14
 ASSIGNMENTS
 ASSIGNMENT NO. 1 (on 22th June, 2021)

The First Assignment on this day was to apply for copying of a case. Firstly I tried to learnt what
is this concept, so further on this issue I researched and found out that parties to any proceeding
may, on application with the prescribed courtfee made to the Court having the custody of the
record, obtain certified copies of any judgment, order, deposition, memorandum of evidence, or
any other documents filed in the said proceeding. The application may be made by the party
himself or by his recognized agent or by his Pleader or Advocate and may also be sent by post.
The application shall state whether the copy applied for is required for private use or otherwise.
So on this day I applied for copying in the case of –

CB Civil Writ Petition No. 6151/2021 Rajesh Sarpate S/o Tulsi Ram vs State of Rajasthan
through the Secretary, Dept. Of Local Bodies, Rajasthan, decided on 19th December, 2019.

 ASSIGNMENT 2(on 1st March , 2021)

The Second Assignment on this day was to Posting of a Caveat by India Post. By this assignment
I learned what a Caveat is and what are its reasons and where it is mentioned in any statute. I
found out through a research that a Caveat is a notice given by a person, informing the Court that
another person may file a suit or application against him and that the Court must give the
Caveator (person filing the Caveat) a fair hearing before deciding any matter brought before it in
the relevant case. I further researched and As per Order XI A, Section 148A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908:

(1) Where an application is expected to be made, or has been made, in a suit or proceedings
instituted, or about to be instituted, in a Court, any person claiming a right to appear before the
Court on the hearing of such application may lodge a caveat in respect thereof.

Also a caveat is filed for various reasons and this caveat was filed to clarify the Caveator’s
address in District Court Order in case of –

15
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9020/2014 Dr. Kundan Lal Porwal vs. State of Karnataka.

CASE BRIEFS

 CASE BRIEF (of 05th March, 2021)

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Biomass Energy Division) Vs. State of Rajasthan

Decided By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijay Bishnoi on 7th September, 2016

Important Law Point in the Case:

 Policy for Promoting Generation of Electricity from Biomass-2010.

Ratio of the Case:

 Rule of interpretation says that a statute must be read as a whole and the provisions of a
statute should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same statute so as to
make consistent enactment of the whole statute. If the court finds that there is some
inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, then it is the duty of the
court to remove the said inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, so
both the provisions can be made workable.

 If there is any doubt about the words of a statute, then the interpretation which is
harmonious with the subject of the enactment and the object, with which the statute
makers enacted the law, should be adopted.

While interpreting the Policy for Promoting Generation of Electricity from Biomass-2010,
Hon'ble Court has held that rule of interpretation says that a statute must be read as a whole and

16
the provisions of a statute should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same
statute so as to make consistent enactment of the whole statute. If the court finds that there is
some inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, then it is the duty of the
court to remove the said inconsistency between the two provisions of the same statute, so both
the provisions can be made workable.

Another rule of interpretation is that in case of a doubt, it is always safe to take aid of the
object and purpose of the statute or the spirit behind it. If there is any doubt about the words of a
statute, then the interpretation which is harmonious with the subject of the enactment and the
object, with which the statute makers enacted the law, should be adopted.

 CASE BRIEF NO. 2 (of 12th March, 2021):

Anisha Bano (Smt.) Vs. Hisar Mohammad

Decided by Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Navin Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhandari of
the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan.

Important Law Point in the Case:

 Section 114(e) of Indian Evidence Act.

 Section 5 of Limitation Act.

Ratio in the Case:

 There is a presumption that a registered letter has reached its destination by delivery to
the addressee under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. But the presumption is not
absolute. If it is rebutted, evidence has to be led in proof of delivery. Such evidence inter-
alia can be of the Postman who had gone to deliver it. Service can be said to be complete
when the registered notice has either been delivered or it is returned with endorsement of
the Postman that it was refused acceptance. In the latter event, evidence would again have
to be led off the concerned, including the Postman. A mere endorsement on the envelope
that information had been given to the Appellant without even examining the Postman in

17
 question cannot lead to an absolute presumption of delivery as all possibilities remain
open with regard to the time and manner in which the endorsement may have actually
been made.

 The Court further held that the law of limitation has to be interpreted so as to advance the
cause of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice by relying on hyper-technicalities.

CASE ANALYSIS

(CRIMINAL PROCEEDING)

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, SAKET

Present: Mr. Shrikant Rai, Additional Session Judge, Saket

Friday, the 23rd Day of March, 2021

Sessions Case No. 697 of 2021.

Complainant:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station: Kailash, South Delhi. (Cr. 406 of 2021
of P.S. Kailash, South Delhi).

Accused:

A1 - Arvind Singh

A2 - Anjana Singh

18
A3 - Ramesh Singh

A4 - Madhu Singh

A5 - Laksmi Singh

A6 - Rooma Singh

Charges: Section 306, 448, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

PRC No.: 69 of 2021.

Case Committed by: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Saket.

Plea of Accused: Not Guilty

Finding of the Court: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A1 to A6 are not found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 306,
r/w 34 of I.P.C., 448, 354, 506, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and acquitted for the charges u/s 235(1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of the appeal time.

Facts of the Case: On 08/02/2021 at 08:00 am, the de-facto complainant Mr. Krishnakant
Mishra gave the written report stating that he has performed the marriage of his younger
daughter named Madhvi Mishra with Ritwik Dubey. Her neighbour, named Arvind Singh (A1)
used to harass his daughter by telephoning and the same was bought to his notice and also
enquired with A1.

On one evening A4, A5, and A6 went to her daughters house and abused her in filthy language
alleging that why she telephoned to the husband of A4 and beat her with hands and dragged her
caught holding to her hairs and humiliated and also threatened her to kill and the same was
witnessed by Mr. Raju Sahay and his wife Anju Sahay, who saved her from the accused. For the
aforesaid reason his daughter has committed suicide by hanging herself from the fan on the same
day and on information he went to government hospital and found the dead body and sought for
necessary legal actions.

19
After collecting the post mortem examination report and on completion of investigation, Police
has laid the charge-sheet before the court.

Examination of the Witnesses:

P.W.1: The father of the deceased. As the information received over phone by the neighbors of
his daughters is being abused by the neighbours, he immediately went there and found his
daughter hanging with the ceiling fan. He went on unconscious for some time. Some of the
neighbours informed the police. After gaining the consciousness he found Police came over there
then he lodged the complaint.

P.W.2: Is the mother of the deceased. She also deposed the same as been deposed by P.W. 1.

P.W.7: Mother-in-Law of the deceased categorically deposed that A1 used to contact her
daughter-in-law over phone and used to insist her to pay the fees and to teacher his children
properly. She further deposed A2 to A6 came her house to pick up quarrel and beat
indiscriminately and also instigated her to die. Lastly, came to know through phone by the
neighbours about the death of her daughter-in-law.

P.W.8: She is Dr. Jyoti, deposed that she has conducted post mortem examination and opined
that the cause of death is due to the pressure on the wind pipe due to hanging.

During the cross-examination P.W. 1, the Father of the deceased admitted that A1 got admitted
his children in the School of the deceased, where she was working as a teacher and also paid an
amount of Rs. 4000/- towards tuition fees and as A1 felt that said school was not giving good
education as such started insisting to return the amount and used to harass over phone and used
to contact his daughter over phone and insisted to return of the tuition fee. The defence counsel
also suggested that the witness P.W. 10 the Sister-in-Law of the deceased has admitted that the
deceased has committed suicide as her husband developed extra-marital relationship with one
Sarita.

Judgment:

20
On the careful consideration of the entire evidence that of P.W.1 to P.W.10, this court feels that
the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all the
reasonable doubt for which they are charged.

In the light of above discussion at length, this court is not inclined to accept the testimony of
P.W.1 to P.W.10 to base a conviction as it does not inspire any confidence in the court of mind
that the accused has committed the crime with which they are charged. Consequent thereto, the
accused has to be acquitted.

CASE ANALYSIS-II

(CIVIL PROCEEDING)

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, SAKET

O.S. No. 453 of 2021.

Between:-

Mr. Ranjan Rai,

S/o Shri. Moti Chandra Rai, Aged about 37 years,

Occupation: Business

R/o. Sector. 4. D, Shanghmitra Apartment,

21
Near Panas Cinema, GK II

… Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mr. Arvind Kamlakar

S/o Shri. Ratibhan Kamlakar Aged about 45 years,

Occupation: Business

R/o. Puspanjali Kunj, Akbar Road, New Delhi.

…Defendant

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 READ WITH ORDER VII OF CPC

I) DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAINTIFFS:

The address for service of all notices and summons of process to the above named plaintiff is
that of his Counsel.

II) DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANTS:

The address for service of all summons, notices and process on the defendants is as stated above
in ‘Cause Title’.

III. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

22
1. It is submitted that the Defendant having an acquaintance with the plaintiff approached
him and requested to advance a hand loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand Rupees
only) to meet his son’s education needs. The Defendant also proposed to execute a Promissory
Note for the said amount and with a simple interest @ 18% p.a. Due to that acquaintance, the
Plaintiff agreed for the same and thus, the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as hand
loan on 18th January, 2014 from the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s home situated at Hyderabad and
executed a Promissory Note for the said amount in favour of the Plaintiff and promised to repay
the said hand loan within a period of 2 years from the date of execution of the promissory note. It
is respectfully submitted that in spite of repeated oral demands made by the Plaintiff, the
Defendant did not bother to repay the said hand Loan amount.

2. The Plaintiff having vexed with the conduct of the Defendant avoiding the repayment,
got issued a legal notice to the Defendant on 17th February, 2020 through his Counsel by way of
Regd. Post with Ack. Due as well as UCP, to his Residence. The Defendant received the same
but did not reply.

3. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant having borrowed the amount of Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as hand loan and having executed the promissory not is
bound to repay the same to the Plaintiff who is entitled for interest on the suit amount from the
date of demand i.e. 18th January, 2020 till realisation @ 18% p.a. As the Defendant is avoiding
payment, the Plaintiff has left with no option except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of
this suit. In view of the above said facts, the Plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendant.

4. The Plaintiff submits that The Defendant is liable to pay the following outstanding
amount:

(i) Promissory Note Amount : 25,000.00

(ii) Interest on 25,000 @ 18% p.a. From

23
 24.05.2017 as on date filing of the suit : 9,000.00

---------------

34,000.00

----------------

Therefore, the Defendant has to pay a total sum of Rs. 34,000/- (Rupees Thirty Four
Thousands Only) to the Plaintiff as on the date of filing of the present suit. Hence, this suit.

IV. CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 18.01.2019 when the
Defendant borrowed the amount and executed pro-note and on 01.01.2011 when the Plaintiff got
issued a legal notice to Defendant calling upon defendant to repay the amount and still subsists.

V. JURISDICTION: The Plaintiff is residing at Hyderabad and the Defendant borrowed the said
loan amount from the Plaintiff at the residence of the Plaintiff and hence this Hon’ble Court is
having territorial & pecuniary Jurisdictions to entertain the present suit.

VI. DECLARATION: The Plaintiff has not filed any suit against the Defendant and no suit is
pending between the parties in respect of the relief being claimed in this suit.

VII. LIMITATION: The Defendant borrowed the said hand loan amount on 18.01.2019 and the
legal notice issued to the Defendant on 18.01.2019 and therefore the present suit is within the
limitation.

IX. PRAYER:

24
Hence, the plaintiff herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass Order and
Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

(a) To direct the Defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 34,000/- together with future interest thereon,
from the date of this suit, till the date of realization of the entire suit claim;

(b) To award the costs of this suit;

And to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice.

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Ranjan Rai, S/o Shri. Moti Chandra Rai, Aged about 37 years, Occupation: Business, R/o.
Sector. 4. D, Shanghmitra Apartment,Near Panas Cinema, GK II, do hereby declare that the
contents of Para III are true and correct to the best of our knowledge and believed to be true and
correct, and the rest of the paragraphs are on the basis of information and legal advice and
verified on this the 24th day of March, 2021 at Saket.

PLAINTIFF

25
 IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, SAKET

O.S. No. 453 of 2021.

Between:-

Mr. Ranjan Rai,

S/o Shri. Moti Chandra Rai, Aged about 37 years,

Occupation: Business

R/o. Sector. 4. D, Shanghmitra Apartment,

Near Panas Cinema, GK II

… Plaintiff

VERSUS

Mr. Arvind Kamlakar

S/o Shri. Ratibhan Kamlakar Aged about 45 years,

Occupation: Business

R/o. Puspanjali Kunj, Akbar Road, New Delhi

…Defendant

26
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT UNDER ORDER
VIII, R. L. 1, CPC.

1) It is submitted that the defendant has gone through the averments made in the plaint and
affidavit filed in support of the plaint. The averments, which are not specifically admitted, are
denied. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Most of the averments are not correct and
false and the suit is not maintainable.

2) In reply to Para III (1) of the plaint, it is submitted that I have no acquaintance with the
plaintiff and did not approach at any point of time for hand loan to meet my son’s education and
executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. I have sufficient means to support my family.
Hence, there is no question of taking hand loan from the plaintiff and execution of promissory
note in favour of the plaintiff.

3) In reply to para III (2) of the plaint, it is submitted that the notice issued by the plaintiff
was received by me on 17th February, 2021. The contents of the notice are vague and false.
Since I did not approach the plaintiff for any hand loan and executed promissory note, I did not
choose to reply the notice. Hence, the allegations in the notice are denied.

4) In reply to para III (3) of the plaint, it is submitted that I did not borrow any amount from
the plaintiff and executed promissory note in favour of him. The allegation of the plaintiff is
false and I need not bound to pay any amount to the plaintiff. It is not correct to say that I have
borrowed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of
him.

27
5) In reply to Para III (4) of the plaint, it is submitted that since there is no amount is
borrowed from the plaintiff and executed pro-note, the figures of outstanding stated in para
therein is false and fabricated one.

6) It is submitted that I have never approached the plaintiff for any amount said to have been
borrowed by me and executed pro-note. Since we reside in the same street and due to rivalry
between our two families regarding some disputes relating to colony problems, the plaintiff has
fabricated the pro-note and filed the present suit alleging that I have borrowed a sum of Rs.
25,000/- from plaintiff and executed a pro-note. The plaintiff is trying to mislead this Hon’ble
Court and made false allegations in the plaint.

7) The other allegations of the plaint which are not specifically admitted herein are denied.
The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs.

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT

DEFENDANT

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. Arvind Kamlakar, S/o Shri. Ratibhan Kamlakar Aged about 45 years, Occupation:
Business, R/o. Puspanjali Kunj, Akbar Road, New Delhi, do hereby declare that the facts stated
in paras 1 to 7 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and I

28
believe the same to be true and correct. Hence, verified on this the 27th day of March, 2021 at
Saket.

DEFENDANT

INTERVIEW SESSION OF CLIENT

(Criminal)

Name of Client: Brij Bhushan Sharma

Date of Interview: March 6th, 2021

Name of the Statutes- Indian Penal Code, 1860

Sections Involved- 308/323/324/325/326/335/107/34

Question No.1

What is your name?

Answer

Brij Mohan Sharma

Question No.2

What happened with you?

Answer

My father was arrested by police today at 04: 30 PM

Question No.3

29
Why? What was the matter?

Answer

An F.I.R. was lodged against us.

Question No.4

In which Police Station? Did you saw F.I.R.?

Answer

Kotwali Police Station. I did not saw F.I.R. but one of the police officer gave me this paper and
told that these sections are involved. ( I saw the paper in which it was given that F.I.R. involve
Section 308/323/324/325/326/335/107/34 of Indian Penal Code ; hurt, grievous hurt, attempt to
culpable homicide.

Question No.5

What happened? F.I.R. mentions that your father attempted to kill a person. Give me the detail.

Answer

My brother parked his motor cycle in front of my neighbour’s gate. Suddenly, my neighbour
came and he started shouting. My father went there and tried to solve the issue but he punched
on my father’s face, by reason of this he stopped him and slapped him and exchanged hot talk.
His brother came out with a bamboo and tried to hit my brother. My brother then, saved himself
and bamboo hit the neighbour. In between someone called the police, they came and the issue
was resolved.

Question No.6

Where is your brother now? Is he also being searched by the police?

Answer

Yes, Police also searched my brother. At present, he is staying at his friend’s house.

Question No.7

30
Where do you reside?

Answer

Basudeopur, near Ashram.

Question No.8

What is the width of the lane of place of occurrence?

Answer

About 8 to 10 feet.

Question No. 9

Name of your neighbour?

Answer

Sohan Lal Mishra and his brothers name is Rohan Lal Mishra.

Question No.10

Is there any similar case that happened before?

Answer

No, this is the first instance.

Question No. 11

Are there some other persons also, who have been parking their bikes in front of your
neighbour’s gate?

Answer

Yes.

Question No. 12

31
When was your neighbour hit by that bamboo?

Answer

When my brother tried to save himself.

Question No.13

Was there any bleeding?

Answer

Yes, little bit.

Question No. 14

Do you know where they went for treatment?

Answer

Not exactly sure, but may be at Sevayan Hospital.

Question No.15

What was the size of bamboo?

Answer

About 20 to 25 feet.

Question No.16

Was there any eye witness?

Answer

Yes, there were three persons who have seen the whole incident.

Question No.17

When did the police came?

32
Answer

During fight.

Question No.18

Did police talked with eye witnesses?

Answer

No, they only talked to my neighbour and registered the same thing.

Question No.19

Did police record your statements?

Answer

No, police did not register my statement.

Okay, come tomorrow at 11 AM in court for bail.

This interview continued approx 10m and conducted by me, under the supervision of my senior
advocate and with the support of my partner.

INTERVIEW SESSION OF CLIENT-II

(Civil)

Name of Client: Kundan Kumar

33
Date of Interview: March 26th, 2021

Name of the Statutes- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Sections Involved- Order XXXIX

Question No.1

What is your name?

Answer

Kundan Kumar

Question No.2

What happened?

Answer

My neighbour has started construction on my ancestral property.

Question No.3

Why? What was the matter?

Answer

There is land dispute with regard to that property.

Question No.4

What is boundary of the said property?

Answer

East-My neighbour’s house

West- My house

North- PCC Road of about 10 feet.

34
West- House of Mohan l Lal

Question No.5

What happened?

Answer

My neighbour is claiming the said land as his own and against that I have approached the Circle
Officer for land measurement but suddenly my neighbour started construction on the same land.

Question No.6

Who is the owner of the land?

Answer

That land is my ancestral property since long and I as single child inherited the same from my
father.

Question No.7

Whether it is registered or not?

Answer

Yes, in the name of my Grand Father and I have mutated the same in my name.

Question No.8

What is the measurement of the land?

Answer

5 Kattha.

Question No. 9

Name of your neighbour?

Answer

35
Amresh Kumar.

Question No.10

Is there any similar case that happened before?

Answer

Yes, 2 months ago but then after social settlement that matter was settled for some time and
thereafter I approached the Circle Officer.

Question No. 11

Is there any witness from your side?

Answer

Yes. My boundary holder and other neighbours except the said neighbour

Question No. 12

When your neighbour started construction?

Answer

Today morning.

Question No.13

Did you informed the police?

Answer

Yes, but they refused to take any action and told me that this a civil matter, approach the civil
court.

Okay, come tomorrow at 09 AM in court for temporary injunction.

This interview continued approx 20m and conducted by me be under the supervision of my
senior advocate.

36
37