10th SEMESTER MOOT COURT & INTERNSHIP

(CLINICAL III) PAPER

(LW 5084)

CIVIL TRIAL ANALYSIS

ANUSHKA SAHU

1883161

BA LLB (B)

10th SEMESTER BATCH OF 2018 - 2023

SCHOOL OF LAW

KIIT UNIVERSITY
1|Page
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION, KHORDHA
AT BHUBANESWAR

Day and Date of Court Visit- 18th February, 2021 (Thursday).

Duration of Stay- 60 minutes.

Court No 2. - HON’BLE JUDGE MRS. SAROJINI PATI

UNIT VI ALUMNI TRUST, BHUBANESWAR

VERSUS

BHUBANESWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHUBANESWAR

TITLE: (CIVIL SUIT 75 OF 2021)

BRIEF FACTS :

In the background of the case, there is a suit land, recorded in the name of the state over which
Government High School Unit - VI, Bhubaneswar along with its playground exists. The school
was established in 1964 and on celebration of Golden Jubilee of the school in 2014, a trust with
old school alumini, parents, teachers was formed who were later investing own funds created
science laboratories inside the school premises. The premises of school and Government hospital
are intervened by a concrete road and for the purpose of the medical college the vendors who had
been given a vending zone inside the said hospital premises are being given a zone inside the
school premises. The opposite party, i.e Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA), taking
law in hand has demolished the boundary wall which is available all around the school and
playground. Thus the suit arouse from that dispute filed under order 39, rule 1&2 Section 151 of
CPC to pass an ad-interim injunction restraining the opposite party. Initially the learned council
filed the suit for the stay of further construction at suit scheduled properties and stay order was
“GRANTED”.

2|Page
 PLEADING OBSERVED :

On that particular day, I observed the judgement of this particular case being pronounced. The
Hon’ble judge was giving focus to the physical activities required for every student. Hence a
school should always be coupled with playground and especially in today’s era, physical activities
should be a routine work to lead healthy life. Also the court observed that in order to promote our
culture and heritage, the Government should promote Odiya medium schools in comparison to
english medium schools just to learn our mother tongue. Hence the order was stated as, “The I.A.
be and the same is the party allowed on contest as against the OP but at the circumstances
without cost.Both the parties are hereby directed to maintain status - quo as on date over the suit
schedule property, till the final disposal of the suit.” Hence the case was dismissed.
This part of the case I observed in the first half of the court. Due to the ongoing pandemic of
Covid- 19, the court was not fully functional. Moreover, the witnesses were not called up to
courts as per the order of Hon’ble High Court . Hence in the first half only I observed the
pleadings and the judgement.

3|Page
 10th SEMESTER MOOT COURT & INTERNSHIP

(CLINICAL III) PAPER

(LW 5084)

CRIMINAL TRIAL ANALYSIS

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,

KHORDHA
AT BHUBANESWAR

22nd March, 2021 – Monday

Duration of Stay - 60 minutes
JMFC (NEW) 3RD FLOOR – JMFC MS. ARUNIMA DASH

PARTIES - 1. SRI SUKANT KUMAR SAHOO ……… COMPLAINANT

2. HIMANSHU MAHAPATRA.....................ACCUSED

TITLE: ICC No. 2698 of 2019

Trial No. - 136 OF 2019

SRI SUKANT KUMAR SAHOO

VERSUS
HIMANSHU MAHAPATRA
4|Page
BRIEF FACTS:

The accused, Himanshu Mahapatra stands charged for commission of an offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant is the owner of TRAFS, a
restaurant business. The accused resides in London, came to India during the last week of June
2010 and issued an account payee cheque of Rs. 13,64,142 on 22 july 2010, payable at SBI,
Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Later the complainant submitted the same cheque to the banker of
Punjab National Bank , Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar. The cheque got dishonoured due to the
insufficient opening balance. The complainant tried to communicate the same to the accused
many times. Later even after legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount within 15 days of
receiving of notice. Hence the complainant filed the present case against the accused.

5|Page
PLEADING OBSERVED :

I have observed in the first half of the court where the business relation between both the parties
and the signature is admitted as facts and also the presence of the accused in Bhubaneswar got
proved. The court hence relied on the material on record and said about the enforceable debt.
The court hence said, “ The complainant has proved all the ingredients of the offence by leading
very clear, cogent and believable evidence and as such the accused is found guilty u/s 138 of NI
Act and is convicted thereof u/s 255(2) of Cr. P.C.

It was found from the record that the convict was found guilty of committing an offence under S.
138, NI Act for dishononouring a cheque amounting to Rs 13,64,162. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case , the convict is directed to pay a fine of Rs 10,000 and in default
to undergo a sentence of six months simple imprisonment. Further, he is directed to pay a sum of
Rs 20,00,000 to the complainant as compensation U/S. 357,CrPC.

Due to the surge of Covid - 19, as per the order of Hon’ble High court of Odisha only urgent
matter cases were being heard. Thus, all the witnesses are restrained from appearing in physical
court. Thus the court was not functional in the 2nd half.

NOTE: FOR FURTHER REFERENCE I HAVE ATTACHED THE

CERTIFIED ORDER COPY OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASE.
6|Page