Dear Student,

Greeting for the day.

Contents of Project file of VIth Sem. in as follow-

1) Moot Court Problems
Problem no 1 (Complete solution with Plaint, W.S, Issues, Both side Arguments)
Problem no 2 (Complete solution with Plaint, W.S, Issues, Both side Arguments)
Problem no 3 (Complete solution with Plaint, W.S, Issues, Both side Arguments)
Problem no 4 (Complete solution with Plaint, W.S, Issues, Both side Arguments)

2) Court Assignments: Observation of trials (1st Feb. 2017 – 20th May 2017) in four cases
i.e. two civil cases and two criminal cases in Distt. Court with the help of your concern
Advocate.

3) Interviewing Technique No 1
Interviewing Technique No 2
Interviewing Technique No 3
Interviewing Technique No 4

4) Pre- Trial Preparation:- Documents filing in Civil & Criminal cases

Moot Court Problem (1)

Sub- I.P.C, 1860- exceptions of Sec 300
Fact of the case:-

KaramVeer strikes Ram Pal. RamPal, by this provocation becomes to much angry. Suresh
Pal was standing there and seeing all the things which were happening there and with
intention to take advantage of Rampal’s anger, he takes the benefit of this situation and to
cause him to kill Karam Veer, puts knife in to Rampal’s hand for that purpose. Rampal kills
Karam Veer with the knife. Decided the case.

Moot Court Problem (2)

H.M.A- 1955 Sec-9 (Restitution of conjugal rights)
Fact of the case:-
A & B were married. Both were living in a same house with the consent of husband the
wife took up training & succeeded in obtaining a diploma in tailoring. Thereafter she got a
job at a place which was at some distance from the husband’s house. The parties cohabited:
- sometimes the husband went to the wife’s place & lived with her & sometime the wife
went to the husband’s place & lived with him. In this manner parties continued to cohabit
for sometimes then it seems that differences arose between them on some matter, and the
husband asked the wife to resign her job & join him at his house, on wife’s refusal to do so,
the husband filed the petition for restitution. Decide the case.

Moot Court Problem (3)

rF; %& ,d fo|ky; ds vf/kos”ku esa latho fVIi.kh djrk gS fd vfHk;qDr eukst ds firk
gjh”kpUnz vkSj mlds ekek jes”kpUnz izkf/kdj.k dh lHkh lhVksa ij ,dkf/kdkj dj jgs gSa vkSj
os csbZeku gSaA bruk lqudj vfHk;qDr vius ?kj tkrk gS tks fd yxHkx ,d Qykax dh nwjh ij
fLFkr gS vkSj ,d cUnwd ykrk gSA blh le; vf/kos”ku lekIr gks tkrk gS vkSj yksx lM+d izrhr
gks jgs FksA vfHk;qDr eukst mu yksxksa ls nwj gV tkus dks dgrk gS tks latho ds ikl gS
D;ksafd og latho dks xksyh ekjuk pkgrk gSA rc og ,d xksyh pykrk gS vkSj vius y{; ls pwd
tkrk gSA rc latho Lo;a dks cpkus ds nkSM+rk gSA blh nkSjku vfHk;qDr eukst ds ekek
jes”kpUnz mls canwd dk iz;ksx djus ls jksdus ds fy, eukst dh vksj nkSM+sA vfHk;qDr
eukst us mUgsa ihNs /kdsy dj fdlh rjg xksyh pykbZ] ysfdu e`rd jes”k pUnz canwd vkSj
latho ds chp vk x;s vkSj xksyh muds ihB esa yx xbZ vkSj mudh e`R;q gks x;hA eukst
Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds rgr vfHk;ksftr fd;k x;kA

fookn fcUnq

1- D;k feLVj eukst Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 302 ds vUrxZr gR;k dk nks’kh
gS ;k ugha \

Moot Court Problem (4)

Facts of the case :-

The deceased by the name of Smt. Kailash was the daughter of Hari Bhagwan
PWI of Jouala. She was married to Satpal of Madhaliya village about 9km away
from Jouala. The marriage took place on 18th April 1987, Satpal the husband at
the relevant time was serving in the away. His father namely father in law of the
deceased was employed in the railways Accused No-01 Smt. Shanti who was
the mother of Satpal and mother in low of deceased and the other accused Smt.
Krishna wife of the brother of Satpal was another inmate. After marriage the
deceased was living in her matrimonial home with accused 1&2 the appellant
here in. it was alleged that two women was harassing the deceased all the while
after the marriage for not bringing scooter and T.V. as part of dowry and was
treated with cruelty. The marriage of one Munni a cousin of deceased was fixed
on April 30th 1988. Her brother went Madhalya village twice for bringing the
deceased but the accused tolerated him and sent him away without sending the
deceased ultimately PWI himself went to the house of his daughter the deceased
on 25th April 1988. The two appellant misbehaved with him, saying that if he
was fond of his daughter the ought to have arranged scooter and T.V. as a part
of dowry and he was insulted and pushed at of the home.