Final Moot Court Diary by Prateek Arya

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, LUCKNOW
Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

BSR/TS – 60/08
Proceeding on : 15.05.2017
MOI Basar Plaintiff
Vs
Marken Bagra Defendant
Counsels :
1. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the appellant
2. Shri Mukesh Rana, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/RULES/ORDERS
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Proceedings of the day :
It was a land dispute case. The village level local settlement was in favour
of the present appellant and the Bango level local settlement was again in
favour of the appellant but the District level local settlement was in favour of
the respondent. The present appellant challenged the decision of the District
level local settlement in this court. NO COST of service was paid by the
appellant. The case remained pending till the next date of the hearing.
BSR/CA – 81/09
Satish Singh appellant
Vs
Charan Singh respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the appellant
2. Shri Anurag Srivastava, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
Both the parties were present. Altogether, as many as 14 consensus issues

were listed. Next Date for cross examination of the witnesses.
Both parties shall submit their list of witnesses and no diversion from
their list.
For speedy disposal, appellant and respondent shall submit the copies of
deposition in the form of affidavit.
BSR/MS – 322/08
Mahendra Khanna Appellant
Vs
Satish Pradeep Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri R.S Rathore, for the appellant
2. Shri Hari Govind, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
Appellant and his learned counsel were present. Respondent was absent.
The learned counsel for the respondent explained to the court the reason for his
absence being health problem and produced a medical certificate in support of
the respondent.
Case pending till next date of hearing i.e. 30th August 2017
BSR/MS – 281/03
Branch Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rural Bank Petitioner
Vs
Larka Nada & Others Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Husain Shekh, for the petitioner
2. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
Respondents are continuously appearing while petitioner, the Branch

Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rural Bank is repeatedly absent. If no appearance is
entered by the Branch Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rural Bank, appropriate order
dismissing the suit will be issued.
BSR/CA – 91/10
Tojo Ete Appellant
Vs
Marge Ete Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri R.S Rathore, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
Appellant was present along with his learned counsel. Respondent was
also present but his learned counsel was absent. In absence of the respondent’s
counsel, no issue could be listed out. Since both parties are present, no notice
will be issued.
BSR/MS – 384/09
Ankit Sharma Petitioner
Vs
Manoj Sharma Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Ashutosh Sharma, for the petitioner
2. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The case was set for cross examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for
petitioner examined one Shri S Tyagi who highlighted the decisions of various
local level settlements in the past. The case was regarding possession of
traditional ornaments.
BSR/TS – 77/09
Anjani Misra Petitioner
Vs
Ujjwan Singh Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the petitioner
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The case was set for additional written statement but the plaintiff had not
incorporated the plaint in compliance of the order of the court. The plaintiff
asked for more time to submit the additional written statement. The court
granted a reasonable time and ordered to modify the plaint. Next date of hearing
was fixed for 30th August 2017
BSR/MACT – 7/10
Jai Ram Petitioner
Vs
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the petitioner
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner Jai Ram was present along with his learned counsel.
Respondent was absent. The hearing was postponed to 28th June 2017. Again
the respondent was absent. The court ordered to issue notice to the respondent.
BSR/CA – 101/12
Jaishankar Nath Petitioner
Vs
Kartik Suresh Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri Husain Shekh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
It was a land dispute case. The village level settlement was in favour of
the respondent. The district level settlement was also in favour of the
respondent. The present petitioner challenged the decision of the village level
local settlement and the district level local settlement. On the first hearing on
28th May 2017 both the parties were present in the court. And the next date of
hearing was fixed as 26th July 2017.
BSR/CA – 102/12
Sunil Rathore Petitioner
Vs
Amartya Tyagi Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Amitabh Sarkar, for the petitioner
2. Shri Dhanush Pal, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
It was a family maintenance case on 2nd May 2017. The village level local
settlement under the head gaon burah, H.G.B. of Shri Marge Joseph of village
Bangla Bazarwas in favour of the present respondent (wife). The present
petitioner (husband) challenged the decision of the village level local settlement
by a petition in the court. The first date of hearing was 29th May 2017.
BSR/CA – 84/09
Kumar Santosh Petitioner
Vs
Pavitra Tripathi Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the petitioner
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
On this day, the parties were asked to submit the original documents so
that the court can frame the issues. But the plaintiff did not submit the original
documents and asked for another date. In this regard, the court fixed 28th
September 2017 as the next date for filing of original documents.
BSR/MS - 242
Ajit Thakur Petitioner
Vs
C.E. NHPC Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Anurag Srivastava, for the petitioner
2. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner was present along with his learned counsel. The
respondent was present but his learned counsel was absent. In the absence of the
learned counsel of the respondent, no issue could be listed out.
BSR/CS – 04/10
Rashid Ansari Petitioner
Vs
Nagma Ansari Respondent
Counsels :
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner and his learned counsel were absent. Respondent was
present. The petitioner and his learned counsel explained to the court the reason
for their absence being health problem and a medical certificate of the petitioner
and his learned counsel was given. Pending till next hearing on 30 th August
2017.
BSR/MS – 417/02
Tasor Doke Appellant
Vs
Subedaar Singh Respondent
Counsels :
2. Miss G. Padak, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
On this day, the parties were asked to submit the original documents so
that the court could frame issues. But the appellant did not submit the original
documents and asked for another date. The court the next date of hearing on 28th
September 2017 for filing of original documents.
BSR/MS – 403/10
Tapasum Singha Petitioner
Vs
Suresh Mahato Respondent
Counsels :
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner, Tapasum Singha, present along with her learned counsel.
But respondent was absent. The hearing was postponed on 29th September 2017.
The court ordered to issue notice to the respondent.
BSR/MS – 414/11
Prakhar Mahanta Petitioner
Vs
Vinod Rai Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The case was set for cross examination of the witnesses. The learned
counsel for the petitioner examined one Miss Tarun Khanna who highlighted
the decisions of various local level settlements and district level settlements in
the past. The case was regarding possession of traditional ornaments.
BSR/MS – 288/06
Prakash Raj Petitioner
Vs
Pradeep Raj Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri R.S Rathore, for the petitioner
2. Shri D. Padu, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The case was settled in local Bango Settlement and District level
settlement in favour of the respondent under the chairmanship of head gaon
burah Shri Pradeep Raj. The petitioner challenged the local level settlement.
Respondent was absent.
BSR/MS – 161/06
Nagraj Singh Petitioner
Vs
Anurag Basar Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Satish Mishra, for the petitioner
2. Shri Amitabh Sarkar, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The case was of a pineapple garden dispute, the local village level
settlement was in favour of the respondent. The petitioner filed in the court,
challenging the local village level settlement. But the respondent’s learned
counsel was repeatedly absent from the court. The court ordered the next
hearing on 26th September 2017.
BSR/CA – 90/10
Husain Ahmad Appellant
Vs
Bhakhtiyar Khan Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Mukesh Rana, for the appellant
2. Shri K. Sikri, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
This case was that of a land dispute. Under the family discussion or
distribution, settlement was in favour of respondent with complete documents.
But the appellant was not satisfied with the settlement and challenged it in the
court. The court ordered both the parties to bring the documentary settlement.
But respondent and his learned counsel were absent. The court fixed the next
date of hearing as 24th September 2017
BSR/CA – 204/12
Vinod Rai Petitioner
Vs
Devendra Jai Pal Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the petitioner
2. Shri Satish Mishra, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
This case was a dispute of the land plot for the construction of the
Aanganwadi house. The local village level settlement and the circle magistrate’s
order was in favour of the petitioner. And district level settlement was in favour
of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the district level settlement in the
court. The respondent was repeatedly absent from the court. The court ordered
the next date of hearing as 26th August 2017
BSR/TS – 75/09
Damin Lollen Petitioner
Vs
Joseph John Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri Husain Shekh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The respondent Mr. Joseph John was present along with his learned
counsel. But the petitioner and his learned counsel were absent. The court
ordered the next hearing be on 24th August 2017.
BSR/MS – 393/08
Anil Kant Petitioner
Vs
Mahendra Dev Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri T Rathore, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner was present along with his learned counsel. But the
respondent and his learned counsel were absent. The court asked the reason for
absence. The respondent gave the reason as health being weak and produced a
medical certificate in support of his reason.
BSR/MS – 394/10
Anurag Sushant Petitioner
Vs
Secretary WRD Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Anurag Thakut, for the petitioner
2. Shri Pandit Singh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
Settlement was made in the district court in favour of the respondent. The
petitioner filed in the first fast track court challenging the settlement. But the
respondent was repeatedly absent from the court. The court fixed the next date
of hearing as 28th September 2017.
BSR/MS – 392/09
Sanjeev Singh Petitioner
Vs
Aksha Jain Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri Aksha Aggarwal, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The local village level settlement was in favour of the petitioner. And the
Bango local level settlement under chairmanship of circle magistrate was in
favour of petitioner. But the district level settlement was in favour of the
respondent. This settlement was challenged in the court by the petitioner. But
the respondent was absent. The next date of hearing was fixed as 26 th August
2017
BSR/MACT – 60/11
Ashish Pal Petitioner
Vs
Manoj Misra Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Anurag Thakut, for the petitioner
2. Shri O Padak, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner Ashish Pal was present along with his learned counsel. But
the respondent was absent due to a road accident enroute. The hearing was
postponed to 28th September 2017. The court ordered a notice to be issued to the
respondent.
BSR/MS – 413/11
Poonam Pal Petitioner
Vs
Hiten Pal Respondent
Counsels :
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The petitioner was present in the court along with his learned counsel.
The respondent was present but his learned counsel was absent. The court fixed
the next date of hearing as 28th September 2017.
BSR/MS – 398/11
Vikas Jaiswal Petitioner
Vs
Karan Singh Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Amitabh Sarkar, for the petitioner
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
On this day, the parties were asked to submit the original documents. So
that the court can frame the issues. But the petitioner didn’t submit the original
documents. The court fixed 29th September 2017 as the date for submission of
original documents.
BSR/MACT - 01/10
Shilpa Thakur Appellant
Vs
Manoj Tiwari Respondent
Counsels :
1. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the appellant
2. Shri Pandit Singh, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
The respondent and his learned counsel were present. But the petitioner
was repeatedly absent from the court. The court ordered that order dismissing
the suit shall be issued.
BSR/CA – 70/07
Nyati Bagra Petitioner
Vs
Varun Bagra Respondent
Counsels :
2. Shri Anurag Srivastava, for the respondent
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
This case was about the ownership of a horse. The village level local
settlement as well as the district level settlement was in favour of the
respondent. The petitioner challenged this settlement in the court. But the
respondent was absent. The court fixed the next date of hearing as 29th
September 2017.
BSR/TS – 71/07
Kashis Kumar Petitioner
Vs
Mayank Singh Respondent
Counsels :
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES
This case was concerned with the dispute on an orange garden. The head
of the family gave the ownership in favour of the petitioner. The village local
level settlement was also in the petitioner’s favour. But the district level
settlement was in favour of the respondent. The petitioner challenged this
settlement. But the respondent and his learned counsel were absent.
BSR/TS – 62/08
Jayant Mahato Petitioner
Vs
Vinod Yadav Respondent
Counsels :
Subject : Civil
ACTS/ORDERS/RULES

Judge: Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh
BSR/TS-62/08
Proceeding on: 30.06.2017
Name of Case:
Jayant Mahato Petitioner
Vs.
Vinod Yadav Respondent
Counsels:

Subject: Civil
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
Proceedings of the day:
The case was set for cross examination of witness. The learned counsel for
petitioner examined one Shri Montek Walia who highlighted the decisions of
various local village level settlement and Bango Local Level Settlement in the
past. The case was regarding possession of traditional ornaments.
CASE ANALYSIS
BSR/TS-27/04
Judgement on: 20.05.2010
Name of Case:
1. Shri Kashish Pandey

Bangla Bazar
PO/PS- Bangla
District Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
2. Shri Shahank kumar
3. Smt. Alok Kumar
…. Appellants
Vs.
Lt. Tarun Kumar
Represented by- Shri Manoj Kumar
S/o Lt. Tarun Kumar
Bangla Bazar
PO/PS- Bangla
District Lucknow
Uttar Pradesh
. .…Respondent
Counsels:
1. Shri Yug Singh, for the appellants

2. Shri Mahendra Pal Singh, for the respondent
Date of Hearing:
20/12/07, 24/04/08, 21/05/08, 24/06/08, 29/07/08, 25/09/08, 10/11/08,

15/01/09, 16/02/09, 22/06/09, 22/09/09, 18/01/10, 26/04/10,
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
BRIEF OF THE CASE:
That the appellants and the respondents are the brothers being the son of the
same common father but are the issues of the different mothers, the father
having been married two wives. To be more specific appellant No-1 and No-2
are the children of second wife appellant No-3 being their mother and the
respondent is the child of the 1st wife of Lt. Pratap Raj, who is the father of the
parties in this instant suit, to be more concise the defendant is the eldest son of
the Lt. Pratap Raj being the issue out of the 1st wife. It is also brought in the
record that after the 2nd marriage Lt. Pratap Raj the Father of the parties of
this suit, started living at the Bangla shifting from his original residence, i.e.
Malihabad in order to avoid any confrontation in between his two wives. On
his shifting the father left behind his 1st wife and children at Malihabad but he
started living with his second wife in Bangla wherein the children of second
wife were brought up at Bangla. It is also clear from the records that along
with the 1st wife and her children Lt. Pratap Raj left behind him his all
movable and immovable at Malihabad including the resident house of Semi-
permanent structure to be owned by his 1st wife and her children.
During his stay at Bangla, Lt. Pratap Raj acquired the landed properties from
the government and also from private Individual through allotment and
purchase amongst which plots measuring 115*24:165*115 situated at Bangla
Bazar and Dharamsala area are prominent which he got allotted by the
government in his name. He also purchased a WRC field (Wheat and Rice
cultivation) measuring 5 acres from a local individual located at Rami Village,
another WRC plot measuring 9 Acres situated at ss mission. The parties in this
suit have no contest as to the other properties being possessed by either of
them , however the dispute and claim is in respect of two plot of Government
allotted land situated in the Bangla township area at the Bangla Bazar and
another at Dharamsala area herein already referred to in this judgement at
above. It is submitted by both the parties in their W/S inclusive of their
argument before this court that there has been no dispute as to the possession
and ownership of the said two plots during the lifetime of their late father
Pratap Raj who died in the year 1987.
ISSUE:
It is submitted by both the parties that the dispute arose after the death of
their father wherein a Samishka was held on dated: 13/04/92 on account of
which being aggrieved by the said Samishka decision this present
appellant/respondent filed an appeal before the learned Deputy Commissioner
on dated: 08/09/1999.
OBITER DICTA:
The record conveys that on receipt of the said appeal petition, the learned
Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow District, Bangla called upon the resident to
file W/S in compliance of which the respondent submitted his W/S after which
the learned Deputy Commissioner framed 12 issues to which the parties
examined and cross-examined as many as 4(Four) PWs and 2(Two) DWs.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
This court called upon the parties for their appearance and thereafter fixed a
date of hearing for argument by the parties on the isuues already framed and in
the light of the evidence recorded during trial in the court of the learned
Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow District, Bangla since this present appeal had
been taken up by the Deputy Commissioner as DE-NOVO as such this court
did not feel to take additional evidence.
JUDGEMENT:
I hereby decree and order that Shri Shahank kumar and Smt Alok Kumar shall
have absolute right, possession ownership and interest in the land hereunder
mentioned in the schedule-
1. A plot of land measuring measuring 115*24 feet situated at Bangla

Bazar allotted by the government of Uttar Pradesh.
2. A plot of land measuring measuring 165*115 feet situated at Bangla
Bazar near Dharamsala.
With the above judgement and order this present Civil
Appeal No. 27/04 stands disposed of since this present suit has been
transferred from the court of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow
District, Bangla. A copy of this judgement/order be furnished to the Deputy
Commissioner, Lucknow District, Bangla in compliance of Order XLI Rule-
18 of this said Code. Also copies of this Judgement/Order be furnished to the
parties on payment of requisite fees pronounced in the open court, given under
my hand and seal of this court on this 20th day of May 2010.
Kampta/ P.S./ Case No.: 83/02
BSR/SESS-481/04
Name of Case:
State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs.
Luv Kumar Rana
Counsels:
1. Shri Husain Shekh, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri G. Kamdruk, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 342 and Section 376)
Stage of the Case: Appeal

The case was stated out for hearing copies sheet were not furnished to
accused and the public prosecutor. The court ordered to furnish copies to both
the parties pending the next date of hearing. The case was fixed on
26/07/2017.
However, bail was granted to the accused as the bailor was present and the
P.P. also did not raise any objection.
BSR/SESS-671/08
Name of Case:
Vs.
Akhil Singh
Counsels:
1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri K. Angnihotri, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused was absent thus the next date for appearance of the accused
was fixed on 26/07/2017. The court ordered to issue bailable warrant against
with bailors notice. In the event of failure to execute the warrant, the O.C. P.S,
Bangla Bazaris directed to file a report showing the whereabouts of the
accused.
BSR/SESS-221/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Radam Jini & Ors.
Counsels:

2. Shri M. Pasar, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307) R/W Arms Act, 1959 (Section 27 and
25(1)(a))
The accused Radam Jini appeared and nominated Advocate M. Pasar as

his private defence in his Vakalatnama Co-accused Sumant Mahato and
Kanika Kappor were absent. It was received from the present accused that he
had duly informed Sumant Mahato about the hearing on the date. However,
the other accused is said to be residing in a village distant away from the
village of the present accused. In view of the above issue bailable warrant
against the two absentee co-accused and against their bailor. On 26/07/2017
next hearing is fixed.
Tawang/ P.S./ Case No.: 10/02
BSR/SESS-516/04
Name of Case:
Vs.
Savita Kumari
Counsels:
1. Shri Satish Mishra, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Sunil Srivastava, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307)
Stage of the Case: App.

On this day, the accused Savita Kumari and defence counsel, Sunil
Srivastava were absent. The court fixed 26/07/2017 as the next date for
appearance. The court ordered to issue bailable warrant against the accused
and also against the bailor.
PSG/ P.S./ Case No.: 26/91
BSR/SESS-385/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Ram Tyagi
Counsels:
1. Shri Karan Junjhunwala, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Saket Singh, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406) R/W Essential Commodities Act, 1955

The defence counsel contended that as this case involves provisions under
the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence, it is not triable by theis court.
He also contended that the Deputy Commissioner has no right to transfer the
case to this court. The court fixed 28/07/2017 for hearing on the Jurisdiction
issue of the court.
GNS/ P.S./ Case No.: 63/94
BSR/SESS-123/02
Name of Case:
Vs.
Veer Kumar
Counsels:

2. Shri Anurag Srivastava, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The case was fixed on this day for final arguments. All the accused were
present and both learned counsels were also present. The case was pending
since last many years. The learned P.P. furnished that since the depositions
were voluminous and the depositions of the DWs has not been finished to him,
he was not ready for the final argument. He present for adjournment of two
months.
Therefore, the next date was fixed on 26/02/2017 by the court for the final
argument.
RKN/ P.S./ Case No.: 25/96
BSR/SESS-377/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Muktum Sori
Counsels:
1. Shri I. Ahmed, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Mukesh Rana, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 366, 376 R/W 34)

On this day both the learned counsels were present before the court. The
accused, Muktum Sori was absent. The accused was charged under sections
366, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court ordered to issue the
bailable warrant to both the accused and the bailor.
DRJ/ P.S./ Case No.: 24/02
BSR/SESS-457/03
Name of the Case:
Vs.
Tamana Rai
Counsels:
1. Shri Dhanush Pal, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Tarak Santosh, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

On this day the accused Tamana Rai was absconding and not arrested
till date. The I/O of the case was repeatedly summoned but was not present.
The I/O to be issued summoned through the Director General of Police, Uttar
Pradesh. The I/O to show cause what has led to his failure to appear.
BSR/SESS-328/05
Name of Case:
Vs.
M.B. Rai
Counsels:
1. Shri G. Pasar, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri G. Padak, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

On this day both the learned counsel were present and the accused was
also present. On examination of the two witnesses, the complainant and the
victim, no case has been made against M.B. Rai. There is no case as the P.P.
could not establish the charges of the accused.
The accused M.B. Rai acquitted in the benefit of doubt. Judgement to be

drafted in the separate sheet.
BSR/SESS-749/09
Name of Case:
Vs.
Bipin Chandra
Counsels:
1. Shri M. Pasar, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307, 326, 427, 457 and Section 506(B))
Stage of the Case: CC.

The accused and both the learned counsels were present. The copies of the
case was not furnished to both the learned counsels. The copies to be furnished
and next date fixed on 30/08/2017.
BSR/SESS-318/07
Name of Case:
Vs.
Arun Kumar
Counsels:
1. Shri J. Kamduk, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

On this day the accused Arun Kumar absent repeatedly, thus court issued
bailable warrant standing against the bailor as well as the bailee. The court
ordered to issue fresh bailable warrant against the bailor and the bailee.
BSR/SESS-51/02
Name of Case:
Vs.
Kiran Srivastava
Counsels:
1. Shri Anurag Srivastava, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Satish Mishra, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The learned counsels and the accused were present on this day. The
defence Kiran Srivastava was absent. The accused was charged under the
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court thus ordered to issue
bailable warrant against both the bailor and the accused.
BSR/SESS-780/10
Name of Case:
Vs.
Aditya Yogi
Counsels:
1. Shri Satyendra Misra, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused Aditya Yogi had illicit relationship with the other accused’s
son deceased. The accused was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The learned counsel for the defence contended that there is no case
maintainable against.
BSR/SESS-760/09
Name of Case:
Vs.
Narendra Kumar
Counsels:
1. Shri J. Kamduk, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307, 457 and Section 506(B))
Stage of the Case: PWs

On this day the accused and both the counsels were present. The accused
was charged by the counsel under section 307, 457 and 506(B) of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The defence counsel counters the proposal. However, the
accused was explained to the charges against him.
BSR/SESS-764/09
Name of Case:
Vs.
Anil Kumar Yadav
Counsels:
1. Shri G. Pasar, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307 and 324)

The learned Public Prosecutor contended that Section 307 and 324 may be
added. After hearing from both the counsels, the court was of the opinion that
for the offence under sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
accused persons plead not guilty. The next date for hearing was fixed on
21/09/2017.
BSR/SESS-741/08
Name of Case:
Vs.
Vikas Nath
Counsels:
1. Shri Karan Junjhunwala, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Stage of the Case: PWs

The accused and both the learned counsels were present. The documents of
the case was not provided to the both counsels. The court order to do so and
fixed the next date on 30/09/2017.
YKG/ P.S./ Case No.: 19/99
BSR/SESS-133/02
Name of Case:
Vs.
Satish Karan Singh Rathore
Counsels:
1. Shri Anurag Srivastava, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

On this day the accused and his learned counsel were present in the court
and the copy of the case was furnished. But, the opposition was not present and
his counsel moved the application of absence. The court thus fixed next hearing
on 26/08/2017.
BSR/SESS-231/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Vicky Roy
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused, Vicky Roy was absent repeatedly and his learned counsel
was present. The court order to accused and his learned counsel to provide the
copy of the case on the next date of hearing fixed on 25/08/2017.
KYG/ P.S./ Case No.: 103/04
BSR/SESS-703/08
Name of Case:
Vs.
Kundan Bajpai
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 324, 366, 376 and Section 458)

The case was started out for the hearing copies sheet were not the
furnished to the accused and public prosecutor. The court ordered to furnish
copies to both the parties. The case was pending, thus the next date of hearing
was fixed on 26/09/2017.
BSR/SESS-647/06
Name of Case:
Vs.
Vicky Paron
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused was present and both the learned counsels were also present.
The case was pending since last many years. The date was fixed on 28/09/2017
by the Court for the final argument.
YKG/ P.S./ Case No.: 45/06
BSR/SESS-706/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Nisha Hans
Counsels:
1. Shri K. Angnihotri, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Stage of the Case: Dr.

The accused was repeatedly absent in the court and charged under Section
376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court ordered to issue bailable warrant
to accused.
BSR/SESS-544/05
Name of Case:
Vs.
Pakra Bayor & Ors.
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307) R/W Arms Act, 1959 (Section 27)
The accused, Pakra Bayor and his co-accused Rakesh Malhotra and Ronit
Roy were absent. It was received from the present accused that he had duly
informed Rakesh Malhotra about the hearing on this date. In view of the above
the court issued bailable warrant against the two absentees. The next date for
hearing was fixed on 24/08/2017.
BSR/SESS-659/06
Name of Case:
Vs.
Mahbooba Sheikh
Counsels:
1. Shri G. Padak, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Tarak Santosh, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 306, 407 and 511)

On this day the defence counsel was repeatedly absent in the court. But,
Public Prosecutor was present with the learned counsel. The court ordered and
fixed the next date of hearing on 29/09/2017.
YMCH/ P.S./ Case No.: 01/99
BSR/SESS-104/02
Name of Case:
Vs.
Binaya Roy
Counsels:
1. Shri Satyendra Singh, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri Mukesh Rana, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 325, 333, 447 and 506)

The accused was absconding the arrest and the police was unable to arrest
him till date and charge to accused under sections 325, 333, 447 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, the accused was absent so the case was still
pending. The court ordered the next date of hearing fixed on 20/08/2017.
BSR/SESS-460/03
Name of Case:
Vs.
Rakesh Sinha
Counsels:
1. Shri Husain Shekh, counsel for the state (PP)

2. Shri K. Angnihotri, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused and both the counsels were present. The accused was charged
under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But, Court observed that the
accused was not guilty. The dispute was pending till next date hearing fixed on
20/09/2017.
BSR/SESS-199/02
Name of Case:
Vs.
Kumar Pradeep
Counsels:
1. Shri Tarak Santosh, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The learned counsel of the accused was present in the court. But, the
accused was absent because the accused had met with an unfortunate accident
on the road and thus he died. The case was pending in the court.
BSR/SESS-249/01
Name of Case:
Vs.
Akbhar Ali
Counsels:
1. Shri M. Riba, counsel for the state (PP)

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The both of learned counsels were present in the court with furnished
copies of the case. But the accused was absconding the arrest and he was not
arrested by the police till date. The court ordered to the next date of hearing
fixed on 29/09/2017.
BSR/SESS-482/04
Name of Case:
Vs.
Sudhir Barman & Ors.
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused Sudhir Barman had illicit with the other accused’s daughter
(deceased). Accused was charged under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. The learned counsel for defence contended that there is no
case against the other accused under section 202, as it is barred by law of
Limitation. Hence, the other accused was acquitted. The accused Sudhir
Barman plead not guilty. The court fixed 23/09/2017 as the date for the next
hearing and ordered to issue summon to PWs.
LKB/ P.S./ Case No.: 05/08
BSR/SESS-715/08
Name of Case:
Vs.
Gauri Khan
Counsels:

Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The complainant, S. Mehta was a Junior Teacher in Kaying Middle

School. On 05/09/2006 at around 09:00 pm the alleged accused and his
companions here said to have entered the house of complainant and dragged
him out and assaulted him. In this regard a case was registered under section
448, 367 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On this day, the learned
Public Prosecutor contended that the sections 307 and 34 may be added. After
hearing from both the counsels, the court was of the opinion that for the
offence under section 307 there has to be specific evidence. But there is no
such evidence available. However, the court said that at this stage the sections
448, 367, 323 and 34 under Indian Penal Code is to be considered against all
the accused persons. The accused persons plead not guilty. The next date for
the hearing was fixed on 22/09/2017.
BSR/SESS-756/09
Name of Case:
Vs.
Rakji Natam
Counsels:

2. Shri J. Kamduk, counsel for the defence
Subject: Criminal
ACTS/RULES/ORDER:

The accused and both the learned counsels were present before the court.
The accused was charged under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The defence counsel counters the proposal. However, the court believed that it
is a prima facie case. The charges were explained to the accused. He plead not
guilty. The proceeding were pending till the next date.
CASE ANALYSIS
Ho'ble judge: Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh
DPJ/PS/CASE/NO-53/01
BSR/SESS/NO-524/07
Date of Judgement: 24/11/10
Subject: Criminal
Name of the case:
State
versus
Sri Jitendra Mal
S/O Lt Rakesh Mal
Gomti Nagar
C/O Nitika Mal
PO/PS Gomti Nagar
District Lucknow
UTTAR PRADESH
Advocates:
1. Shri Mukesh Rana, Counsels for the State.
2. Shri O.P Aggarwal, Counsel for the defence.

ACTS/ORDERS/RULES:
UNDER SECTION: 302, IPC
Date of Hearing:-
11/12/08, 27/01/09, 20/03/09,
19/05/09, 22/06/09, 29/07/09,
30/09/09, 24/02/10, 25/03/10,
26/04/10, 23/09/10, 25/10/10,
CASES REFERRED:
1. In Abdul Reham Antulay (supra)
2. US v. Ewell
3. In Kaster Singh v State of Punjab (1991).
4. Common Cause v. Union of India 1996 (4) SCC, 33

FACTS OF THE CASE:
The gist of prosecution case is that in dated 10/06/10 group of students during
argument stabbed one Puneesh Singh in video hall at Gomti Nagar by a potato
pealer. The victim sustained injury on his abdomen and got admitted at Gomti
Nagar hospital for treatment. The victim subsequently died on way to R.K
Mission hospital on dated 19/06/01. During investigation accused and Kashish
Rana were arrested, initially this case was registered u/s - 326/34 IPC but
subsequently after death of victim the charges were allotted to sections- 302/34
IPC. This has been transferred from the court of learned Deputy Commissioner
Lucknow Gomti Nagar on dated 11/12/08 on receipt of the case on transfer this
present case has been re-registered as BSR/SESS-524/09
ISSUE:
The learned PP admits that inspite of fixing 12 date of hearing no PWs
has turned up however he pleads that one more chance be afforded to him to
examine the 1/0/OC.PS concerned so as to know why no PWs has appeared
during the 12 dates of hearing. Countering the arguments of the learned PP, the
defence counsel submits that in absence of the PWs during these period even if
the 1/0/OC.PS is summoned the show-cause he is not going to improve the
prosecution case. Further more, it is received from the learned counsel that the
motive of establishing the Fast Track Courts is to have speedy trial in pending
cases, this case pertaining to 2001 there has been a considerable in-ordinate
delay in disposing of this case.
OBITER DICTA:
The accuseds were minor at the relevant time of the offence being in the eye
group of below 16 years and now they are pursuing their higher studies outside
the state more so there is not a single incriminating evidence against the
accuseds and no intention has been there since offence had happened in a video
hall and the alleged weapon used was a potato peeler. The victim (now since
deceased) had died of poor medical facility but not on account of the injury
caused. The right of speedy trial is a fundamental right granted to its citizen
under Article 21 of Indian Constitution and the delays in the disposal of the
instant case cannot be attributed to the accused who were punctual in their
attendance before this court as and when they were called up.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The in-ordinate delay of almost 10 years has caused time and energy financial
constraints inclusion of disturbance to their vocations and in-ordinate delays
cannot be termed as a systematic delay to condone, hence the accused be
honourably acquitted under the provisions of Article 21 of Indian Constitution
R/W Section 309 Cr.Pc. After hearing the argument of both the learned counsels
it is pertinent to analyse the provision of section 309 Cr.Pc and also the
provision of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to enable this court to close
the prosecution of the accused quashing the charge framed against the accused
U/S-304/34 IPC, framed on dated 19/05/09 in this court.
JUDGEMENT:
In the result in my opinion when the suffering of the accused is balanced and
weighed the several factors of undue delay, the accused cannot be ought to
suffer further since they are pursuing their higher studies outside the state and
their studies cannot be caused to be disturbed on account of this instant case
which is pending disposal almost 10 years. In the conclusion and in finality, I
close the prosecution of the accused, safeguarding the Constitutional provisions
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution R/W sections 309 Cr.Pc
quashing the charged under sections 302/32 IPC considered against him in
connection BSR/SESS-524/07 Gomti Nagar police case No-53/2001. The
accused is honourably acquitted on quashing of the charge and he is set at
liberty forthwith.
CLIENT INTERVIEW
My senior advocate Aksha Aggarwal allowed me to interview one of his client,
one Rahul Pandey, aged about 35 years who was charged under section 307
IPC. The interview is as follows:
Question:- hello Mr. Rahul, can you please give me details of record?
Rahul Pandey:- my name is Rahul Pandey, S/o Sri Bipin Pandey, R/O
Malihabad Village, PO/PS Kampta, age about 35 years, married, having two
children, a farmer by occupation
Question:- ok thank you do you know what charges are made to you?
Rahul Pandey:- yes, attempt to murder
Question:- yes section 307 and it is a very serious crime under Indian penal
code.
Rahul Pandey:- I am aware of that but of did not intended to kill him.
Question:- I believe so, but what made you attack him with your machete?
Rahul Pandey:- I had no other choice. If I had not attacked him, he would have
killed me.
Question:- you mean it was an act of set defence?
Rahul Pandey:- yes and provocation too.
Question:- provocation can be a good defence, if you can prove it. Any
witnesses?
Rahul Pandey:- Many. All of them were matching and later stopped the fight.
Question:- thank you for your time.
Rahul Pandey:- thank you too. May god bless you Mr. Limin Karcho
CLIENT INTERVIEW 1
Interview session with a client, Sir Rahul Pandey in 10/06/2017
Advocate:- Mr. Rahul, I think you understand the need to tell me everything in
respect of the case which is true.
Client:- I do sir.
Advocate:- can you please give me your details for record.
Client:- My name is Rahul Pandey, age 35 years, S/O Sri Binpe Ete, R/O Darka
Village, PO/PS- Kampta, a farmer by occupation.
Advocate:- are you aware of the charges levelled against you?
Client:- yes attempt to murder.
Advocate:- section 307 IPC and it is a very serious crime so tell me what
exactly happened that day?
Client:- sir, on 15/02/2017 at around 1:30 pm I was working in my field. I was

mending my fences. The owner of the adjacent land, Sri Rahul Pandey came
suddenly from no where and start accusing me that i have encroached on his
land. He had a heated argument and when my wife interrupted I went back to
my resting shed then suddenly Mr Rahul Pandey started cutting down my fence
and he was selling at me. I ran towards him to stop him. Mr. Rahul also ran
towards me with is machete in hand. On seeing I stop running and stood there.
The next moment I realised that he is sweeping his machete in air which
fortunately missed my head. I thought of running but it was too and I had to
draw out my machete to protect myself. During this sword battle he received
serious cut in his right arm. He ran away from there.
Advocate:- ok, were there any witnesses?
Client: yes sir many persons of my village witnessed the whole episode and
they are ready to give their statements in my favour.
Advocate:- that's good, that's all for now.
Client:- thank you sir.

CLIENT INTERVIEW 2
Interview session with a client, Smt M Lollen on 15/0602017.
Advocate:- madam, kindly give me your details for record.
Client:- my name is Mijum Lollen, age 40 years, W/O Darken Lollen, PO/PS-
Kampta, R/O Kampta.
Advocate:-please explain in detail what exactly happened. You have to be very

honest with me.
Clients:- yes sir, one Montek Abraham, Engineer, NHPC approached me to

allow him stay in one of my building at Kampta on rent. I agreed to lease out
building on rented basis so I made an agreement with NHPC wherein it was
agreed that the building will be used for dwelling house only. On expiry of the
lease period the lease agreement was renewed on the same terms and
conditions. On 26/01/2017. I received a letter from sir Montek Abraham
wherein it was stated that the building has been vacated on 25/01/2017 on
receipt of the letter, I went to Kampta and visited the place where I found many
of my building given to lesse for use during their stay at the said building were
missing and I also found that my house has been used as store for keeping rod
and cement but no for dwelling purposes as agreed by the parties. The damages
caused is more that Rs 1,00,000/- when I claimed the repairing and maintenance
cost, they asked me to come to their office at Kamna and then to Indira Nagar.
But they have not paid anything to me yet.
Advocate:- ok, we can file civil suit for recovery of maintenance cost. But did
you served any legal notice t them.
Client:- yes I already served them a notice through a lawyer. They even replied
and admitted that they used my building as a store.
Advocate:- ok I will need all document in this regard.
Client:- I have them with me.

DOCUMENT PREPARATION
IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY COMMISIONER LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Non-payment if any amount of Rs 1,17,000/- claimed by the petitioner for

preparing and maintenance of the damaged private building.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Legal Notice issued by the petitioner for the payment of the issued amount.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt M Lollen, w/o Darken Lollen, r/o Kampta, PO/PS, Kampta, District
Lucknow UTTAR PRADESH.
Petitoner
Versus
1. Engineer, NHPC
2. Sri Montek Abraham, Engineer, Civil & Ors.
Camp: NHPC Cololny, Indira Nagar
Circle: Kampta, PO/PS, Kampta
District: Lucknow, Kampta
Uttar Pradesh
Respondent
IN THE MATTER OF:
Suit for recording of Rs 1,17,000/- for maintenance of the building which is

damaged by the respondents and others suit valued at Rs 1,17,000 and the court
fee shall be paid as per direction of the trial court. The above petitioner most
respectfully sheweth as under:
1. That the plaintiff is a resident of Kampta and is having a landed and other
properties at Kampta
2. That the petitioner being resident of Kampta is a bonafide citizen of India
who is protected by the law of State.
3. That the petitioner as stated above is having landed properties and
building at Kampta, hence the respondent approached petitioner to allow
him to stay in one of her building Kampta on rent.
4. That the petitioner when approached by the respondents agreed out her
building on rented basis.
A copy of the lease executed between the parties are annexed here with as
annexure NO.1.1A and 1B to the petition.
5. That the lessee and the lessor i.e. petitioner and the respondent made an
agreement and wherein as per the said lease-deed the lessor agreed to
lease out the said building to be used as dwelling house and the lessee
where upon agreed to use it as dwelling house only.
6. That the parties on expiry of the lease period renewed the lease agreement
but on same terms and conditions as that of previous agreement.
A copy of the second renewed agreement is annexed herewith as
annexure NO 2, 2A and 2B to this petition.
7. That on dated 26/01/2017 the petitioner received a utter from one s=Sri
Montek Abraham wherein it was stated that the said building has been
vacated on 25/01/2017 by the lessee as the staff of NHPC, Kampta are
being shifted to Indira Nagar complex on handing over Siyon project to
the private agency by the State government.
A copy of the said vacating letter is annexed herewith as annexure No 3
to this petition
8. That on receipt of the letter the petitioner went Kampta and visited
thenplace by then the respondent had already vacated the said building
and has shifted to Indira Nagar complex.
9. That on such visit the petitioner found that many of her belonging given
to lessee for use during their stay at the said building and has shifter to
Indira Nagar Complex, where missing and she also learned that her house
has been used store for dwelling purposes as agreed by the parties.
Thereby the lessee respondent has ceased damages to the building of
lessor/petitioner.
10.That the petitioner humbly states that the lessee has caused damages of
the said building to the tune of 1,17,000. This damages would not have
been caused if the said building was used for the dwelling purposes but
since it has been used as store in violation of the said agreement the
damages are caused.
11.That the original estimate for repairing and maintenance for the damage
caused to the said building are prepared.
A copy of the same is annexed herewith as annexure no 4,A and 4B to this
petition.
12.That the petitioner thereafter claimed the repairing and maintenance cost
and accordingly the respondent asked that petitioner to came to their
office at the Kampta and then to Kamkoi.
Be it made clear that the respondent in the beginning did never ever
refused to pay her the maintenance cost rather the petitioner who at
present is residing in Itanagar and who is a helpless widow was made
required to attend the office of the respondent sometime at Kampta and
again sometime at Indira Nagar and thereby she has been to run up and
down many a times in vain.
13.That at last when the respondent started making lot many excuses then
she instructed her lawyer to serve as legal notice telling the respondent
about the legal consequence respondent are giving to face in case of non-
payment of the maintenance amount as claimed by the petitioner.
A copy of the said notice is annexed herewith as annexure no 5 and 6A to
this petition.
14.That on serving of such legal notice through her lawyer the respondent
have submitted the reply to the said legal notice in which they specifically
have admitted to have used the said building as store and thereby caused
damages.
A copy of the same is annexed herewith as annexure no 6 to this petition.
15.That the petitioner therefore humbly state that finding no alternative she
has to file this suit for the recovery of maintenance amount that she is
likely to incurred/invest and she is also claiming some compensation for
the mental and physical agency she has suffered to go their office time
and again because of their false promise and misleading.
In view of aforesaid fact and circumstances your honour may be pleased
to admit this petition and after hearing both the partied and
defendant/respondent may be directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,17,000 for
having suffered psychological and mentally and also a sum of Rs 15,000
only as advocate fees ad for the act of kindness as in duty bound the
petitioner shall pay.
Verification
I Smt M Lollen, w/o Darken Lollen at present posted at Itanager, District
Lucknow of UTTAR PRADESH do hereby solemnly declare that statement
made in Para(1) to (15) of this petitioner are true to best of my knowledge,
belief and records and of sign this verification and this day of 2017 at Kampta,
Lucknow District, UTTAR PRADESH
Date:
Place:
M Lollen
Petitoner
File through and advocate Miss Karken Angu
Advocate

Final Moot Court Diary by Prateek Arya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Moot Court Diary by Prateek Arya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, LUCKNOW

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

MOI Basar Plaintiff

Marken Bagra Defendant

1. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the appellant

2. Shri Mukesh Rana, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Satish Singh appellant

Charan Singh respondent

1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the appellant

2. Shri Anurag Srivastava, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Proceedings of the day :

Both the parties were present. Altogether, as many as 14 consensus issues

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Mahendra Khanna Appellant

Satish Pradeep Respondent

1. Shri R.S Rathore, for the appellant

2. Shri Hari Govind, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Branch Manager, Uttar Pradesh Rural Bank Petitioner

Larka Nada & Others Respondent

1. Shri Husain Shekh, for the petitioner

2. Shri Satyendra Singh, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Proceedings of the day :

Respondents are continuously appearing while petitioner, the Branch

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Tojo Ete Appellant

Marge Ete Respondent

1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the appellant

2. Shri R.S Rathore, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Ankit Sharma Petitioner

Manoj Sharma Respondent

1. Shri Ashutosh Sharma, for the petitioner

2. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Anjani Misra Petitioner

Ujjwan Singh Respondent

1. Shri Satyendra Misra, for the petitioner

2. Shri Mukesh Rana, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh

Jai Ram Petitioner

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent

1. Shri Sunil Srivastava, for the petitioner

2. Shri Mukesh Rana, for the respondent

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Proceedings of the day :

Judge : Shri Harendra Bahadur Singh