S.

NO QUESTION ANSWER
1. Case Number Title Suit -31 of 1992
2. Name Of Plaintiff Md. Abulais
3. Name of Defendants 1.Dupam Singh
2. Msst. Lal Jharo Devi
3. Bhulan Singh
4. Nature Of Case Civil
5. Substantive Law Applicable
• O. 41 of Code of Civil Procedural , 1908
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882
• Court Fees Act, 1870

• Indian Stamp Act , 1859
6. Procedural Law Applicable
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
• Indian Evidence Act , 1872
• The Limitation Act, 1963

•
7. Before which Forum filed or tried Court of Munsif Sadar Motihari.( sub-judge -1)
8. Different stages transpired as per 03.02.1992 Registration of Plaint
the order sheet 28.02.1992Case Admitted
28.02.1992 Issue of Summon to Defendants under both
process
01.02.1993 Acceptance of summons by the Defendants
16.09.1993 W.S filed by the Defendants
26.12.1993 Both parties produced a list of witnesses before
the Hon'ble Court
02.01.1994 to 03.01.1996 Examination in Chief & Cross
Examination of PWs.
03.03.1996 to 03.01.1999 Examination in Chief & Cross
Examination of DWs.
03.01.1999 Interlocutory application filed by Plaintiffs for
appointment of Advocate Commissioner
03.09.1999 to 03.11.1999 Arguments by both parties on the
Interlocutory Application
03.04.2000 Interlocutory order passed by the court rejecting
Interlocutory Application
30.06.2000 to 13.01.2001 Arguments by both parties on the
original Title Suit
20.01.2001 Judgement passed by the Hon'ble Court
03.02.2002 Decree prepared & signed
9. Minutes Of Pleading • Md. Abulais filled the plaint dated 03-02-1992 in the
Munsif Court Of Motihari, East Champaran
• The Defendants in the present case are :-
1.Dhupan Singh
1(a). Msst. Lal Jharo Devi
2. Bhulan Singh
• The suit is filed under specific performance of
contract in the court of Sub Judge 1 Bhabhua
• The witnesses in the present case from the side of
plaintiff:-
1. Arbind Kumar Srivastav
2. Ainullah
3. Saidullah
4. Formal Witness( Stamp Vendor)
5. Formal Witness(Photographer)
6. Formal Witness(Finger Print Expert)

• The witnesses in the present case from the defendant

sides are
1. Md Immam
2. Bhulan Singh
3. Birendra Narayan Singh
4. Dhirendra Prasad Verma
5. Anil Kumar
6. Formal Witness
7. Md Buzair

The present title suit of 31 of 1992, instituted by the plaintiff

Md. Abulasi on 03-02-1992 in the Sadar Munsif Court of
Motihari,East Champaran. The facts of the issue is ,that
plaintiff filled the suit in order to register an unregistered
deed of sale dated 27-11-1991,excecuted by Dhupan Singh
in Specific Performance of Contract .And also the other
defendants to join the registration. Plaintiff had to give
Rs9000 to Dhupan Singh in order to execute the sale deed of
the land . Plaintiff had given Rs 8000 on the day of
registration of the sale deed ,20-11-1991 and assured to give
Rs 1000 after the deed will be executed, as on that date the
deed was not executed because of the strike. But the original
Defendant died and the heirs of the Defendant denied the
registration of the Sale Deed.So the plaintiff decided to bring
the case before Sub- Judge I, Bhabhua.


10 Analysis of Order sheet, in terms of
compliance of decision made by the
Court
Order to remove defects:
On17.02.1992, when the Plaintiffs filed their appearance,
through advocate in the court; the court found in total two
defects in their petition and directed them to remove the
defects. Further the case was put up on 28-02-1992 for
hearing on the point of admission.
Accordingly, on 28.03.1992, the defects were removed by
the
Plaintiffs and the case was admitted
Order to file requisites:
On 20.02.1992, the court directed the Plaintiffs to file the
requisites within 7 days.
Pursuant to this, the requisites were filed by the Plaintiffs in
the Hon'ble court on 07.03.1992.
Order to issue process:
On 20.02.1992, the court directed for the issue of process to
all the Defendants.On 30.08.1992, the summons returned
un-served due to the incorrect address of theDefendants,
with an information that Defendants are residing in Mumbai.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff was directed to provide present &
correct address of the Defendants for fresh issue of
summons.
On 20.09.1992, Plaintiff filed the correct address of the
Defendants. The court directed to send summons a fresh.
Also, the court directed the Plaintiff to provide the Track
report of registered post available with the postal department
which was filed by the Plaintiff on 01.02.1993.
On 01.02.1993, Plaintiff submitted that since all
Respondents are joint &residing together, the acceptance of
the summons by Respondent number 2 shall be construed as
valid service of summons. This prayer of Plaintiffs was
allowed by the court.
Order to file Written Statement:
On 04.04.1993, the court directed the Defendants to file
their W.S. On filing time petition to file W.S. thrice (third
one was allowed with a cost of Rs. 500), the Defendants
filed
their W.S. on 16.09.1993, which was allowed by the court.
Order to file supporting documents: On 16.09.1993, the
court
directed both the parties to file their supporting documents
which was filed by then on 26.11.1993.
Order to adduce evidence:
 On 26.12.1993, both Plaintiffs & Defendants produced a list
of 13 & 9 witnesses respectively before the Hon'ble Court.
The court allowed the Examination in Cheif & Cross
Examination for the evidence of the plaintiff which started
on 02.01.1994 and was closed on 03.01.1996.
On the same day, the court directed the Defendants to
produce their witnesses from 03.03.1996.
The court allowed the Examination in Cheif & Cross
Examination for the evidence of the Defendants from
03.03.1996 to 03.01.1999.
Interlocutory Order on appointment of an advocate
commissioner: On 03.01.1999, the Plaintiffs filed an
interlocutory application before the Hon'ble Court for the
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose
of measurement of land in dispute.And the court directed a
copy of this application to be served upon the Defendants
which was done on 03.03.1999.
The Defendants filed a reply to this application & the same
was served to the Plaintiffs on 30.07.1999.
On 03.04.2000, the court rejected the interlocutory
application & directed the parties to appear on every date for
argument for the conclusion of the old case.
Final Decision and Decree:
Based on the oral and documentary
evidences put up before the court and on hearing the
arguments
from both the sides, a judgment was passed in the favour of
plaintiffs
on 20.01.2001. Also court directed the Defendants to pay the
fees for lawyer & clerk to the Plaintiffs. Subsequently, on
03.02.2002, the decree was prepared.
Furthermore, a copy of judgement & decree both was
received by the judgement debtor on the same date.
11. Final Decision The court in the case decreed that the plaintiff is allowed
fees of the lawyer and the clerk which is Rs 55 and 12
respectively against the defendant. The first party has been
directed that they should get the sale deed dt 27.11.91
registered after receiving the license consideration money
from the plaintiff within 30 days of this judgement.
The 2nd defendant is also directed to join the deed. The
defendant are also directed that they should pay the cost and
hand the over the possession over the land in dispute to the
plaintiff immediately after the registration of the sale deed
and if they fail to do so the plaintiff shall be entitled to the
execution of the decree through the process of the court.
12. Check which orders are revisable or The order is not revisable under Section 115 of the Code of
 appealable etc. Civil Procedure, 1908, as there is no question
of jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity mentioned
under sec- 115(a),(b),(c) of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908.
However, a second appeal can be filed in the High Court of
Patna as per the provisions of section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

NAME:-

1. SAGARIKA SWAPNIL – 1367

2. KUMAR ABHISHEK -1334
3. NEHA – 1347
4. RAJAT KASHYAP- 1423
5. MEGHA USHA – 1342
6. YOSHITA MULWANI- 131190
7. KUMAR SAURABH- 131133

OBSERVANCE OF CIVIL TRIAL

GROUP –A

DATE 13TH JUNE 2020.