Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Observance of Trial Project-Group

    Uploaded by

    Ranvids
    The document summarizes the key details and procedural history of a civil appeal case in India. It describes how the appellants filed the appeal in 1988 challenging a lower court's judgment. Over the years, the court issued various orders for submitting documents, responding to filings, and appearing for hearings. However, the appellants failed to comply with multiple court orders, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in 2008 for non-prosecution. In 2015, the appellants filed a restoration petition which was allowed by the court, and the appeal proceedings resumed until the appeal was finally dismissed in 2019 after reviewing evidence and arguments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Observance of Trial Project-Group

    Uploaded by

    Ranvids
    68 views9 pages
    The document summarizes the key details and procedural history of a civil appeal case in India. It describes how the appellants filed the appeal in 1988 challenging a lower court's judgment. Over the years, the court issued various orders for submitting documents, responding to filings, and appearing for hearings. However, the appellants failed to comply with multiple court orders, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in 2008 for non-prosecution. In 2015, the appellants filed a restoration petition which was allowed by the court, and the appeal proceedings resumed until the appeal was finally dismissed in 2019 after reviewing evidence and arguments.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes the key details and procedural history of a civil appeal case in India. It describes how the appellants filed the appeal in 1988 challenging a lower court's judgment. Over the years, the court issued various orders for submitting documents, responding to filings, and appearing for hearings. However, the appellants failed to comply with multiple court orders, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in 2008 for non-prosecution. In 2015, the appellants filed a restoration petition which was allowed by the court, and the appeal proceedings resumed until the appeal was finally dismissed in 2019 after reviewing evidence and arguments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views9 pages

    Observance of Trial Project-Group

    Uploaded by

    Ranvids
    The document summarizes the key details and procedural history of a civil appeal case in India. It describes how the appellants filed the appeal in 1988 challenging a lower court's judgment. Over the years, the court issued various orders for submitting documents, responding to filings, and appearing for hearings. However, the appellants failed to comply with multiple court orders, resulting in dismissal of the appeal in 2008 for non-prosecution. In 2015, the appellants filed a restoration petition which was allowed by the court, and the appeal proceedings resumed until the appeal was finally dismissed in 2019 after reviewing evidence and arguments.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 9

    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    OBSERVANCE OF CIVIL TRIAL


    Submitted by Group
    S.No. Question Answer
    1. Case Number
    TITLE APPEAL NO.

    2. Name of Appellants Mamta Kumari & Others


    3. Name of Respondents

    4. Nature of case Civil Appeal for setting aside the order of 2nd Munsiff ,
    Madhubani
    5. Substantive Law O. 41 of Code of Civil Procedural , 1908
    Applicable Transfer of Property Act, 1882
    Court Fees Act, 1870
    Indian Stamp Act , 1859

    6. Procedural Law Code of Civil Procedure, 1908


    Applicable Indian Evidence Act , 1872
    The Limitation Act, 1963
    7. Before which forum Filed:- Court of District Judge ,Madhubani
    filed/tried Tried:- Court of Additional District Judge VIII, Madhubani

    1
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    8. Different stages 17.07.1988 Registration of Appeal


    transpired as per the
    Order Sheet 28.12.1988 Appeal Admitted

    28.12.1988 A) Issue of Summon by both


    process
    01.12.1991
    B) Compliance

    16.03.1993 Cross Objection Filed

    27.01.2007 Arguments

    03.12.2008 Appeal Dismissed because of


    nonprosecution

    03.01.2015 Petition filed for Restoration of Appeal

    23.04.2016 Restoration of Appeal

    23.04.2017 Arguments

    23.08.2019 Appeal Dismissed

    05.09.2019 Decree Prepare

    9. Minutes of Pleading • Mamta Kumari filed the current appeal dated 17.07.1988
    against the Judgement of learned 2nd Munsiff,
    Madhubani dated 25.05.1988 and Decree dated
    31.05.1988.
    • The Respondents in the present appeal are:-
    1(a). Dinesh Singh

    2
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    1(b). Ganesh Singh


    1(d). Urmila Devi
    1(e). Bina Devi

    3
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    1(f). Amerika Devi 1(g).


    Meera Devi
    3. Surendra Mahto
    4. Lukhana Mahto
    5. Kumari Marani
    6. Jagdanand Singh
    7. Sachhidanand Singh

    • The Appeal is presented under Order XLI, and miscellaneous


    case is presented under Order XLI Rule 17 of Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908.
    • The witnesses in the present case from the Respondent sides
    are :-
    1. Yugal Kishore Singh
    2. Ram Bilas Singh
    3. Ram Chandra Nayak
    4. Krishna Dev
    5. Rameshwar Singh
    6. Kaushal Kishore
    7. Ramchandra Singh
    8. Sukhdev Prasad Singh
    9. Ramashesh Mudai
    10. Formal Witness
    11. Ramchandra Prasad

    The present appeal, i.e., 37/1988, arises from the Title Suit no.
    49 of 1978, which was decided in the favour of Plaintiff. Stating
    the facts of the original suit in brief, Defendant 1, Waman Singh,
    Thakai Singh and Ram Bilas Singh, entered into an Agreement

    4
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    for Sale of a land with Plaintiff on 15.02.1975. Under this


    agreement Plaintiff was required to pay amount of Rs.2500 in
    the same month and remaining Rs.1000, as total value of the
    agreement was Rs.3500, before 31.12.1975. Plaintiff fulfilled
    the first condition by paying Rs.2500 and was ready to pay the
    remaining Rs.1000. However, Defendant 1 decided to sell the
    land to Defendant 2, i.e., Jagdanand Singh and Sachidanand
    Singh, in lieu of Rs.6000. In spite of being aware of the
    Agreement for Sale between Defendant 1 and Plaintiff,
    Defendant 2 decided voluntarily to enter into sale deed with the
    Defendant 1 and the same was executed on 29.05.1978.
    Becoming aware of this, Plaintiff decided to bring a suit in
    Munsiff Court, which was ultimately decided in his favour and
    decree was prepared. Against this, Defendant 2 has brought an
    appeal, the present case, to the Court of District Judge,
    Madhubani stating that Honorable Munsiff Court has erred in
    deciding the case on various points such as overlooking
    Defendant’s witness, accepting the alleged fraudulent
    Mahadanama, etc.

    5
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    10. Analysis of Order


    sheet, in terms of Title Appeal No. 37/1988
    compliance of decision
    made by the Order to remove defects: On 17.09.1988, when the Appellants
    Court filed their appearance in the court; the court found in total two
    defects in their petition and directed them to remove the defects.
    Accordingly, on 28.12.1988, the defects were removed by the
    appellant and the appeal was admitted.
    Order to issue process: On 28.12.1988, the court directed for
    the issue of process to all the Respondents. On 30.12.1989, the
    summons returned un-served due to the incorrect address of the

    6
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    Respondents. Accordingly, the Appellant was directed to


    provide correct address of the Respondents for fresh issue of
    summons. On 20.06.1990, Appellant filed the correct address of
    the Respondents. The court directed to send summons a fresh.
    On 01.12.1991, Appellant submitted that since all Respondents
    are residing together, the acceptance of the summons by
    Respondent number 3 shall be construed as valid service of
    summons. This prayer of appellant was allowed by the court.
    Order to file Cross Objection: On 04.04.1992, the court
    directed the Respondents to file their cross objection. On filing
    time petition for cross objection thrice, the Respondents filed
    their cross objection on 16.03.1993, which was accepted by the
    court.
    Order to file reply: On 03.09.2007, the Respondents filed an
    Application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the court directed the Appellant
    to file their reply. On 03.10.2007 and on 03.11.2007, the
    Appellant failed to file their reply. The court, hence, gave a last
    chance to file the reply. On 26.12.2007, the Appellant failed to
    file the reply yet again and consequently a fine of Rs. 500 was
    imposed on the Appellant for non-compliance of the order.
    Appellant did not file the reply on 02.02.2008, and the court
    directed to comply with order, failing which the appeal shall be
    dismissed. Since then, the Appellants failed to appear before the
    court on three occasions and consequently on 03.12.2008, the
    appeal was dismissed due to non-prosecution.

    Misc. Case No. 01 of 2015


    Arising out of Title appeal No. 37 of 1988

    7
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    Order to file deficit court fee: On 03.02.2015, the court


    directed the petitioner to file the deficit court fee. Accordingly,
    the deficit court fee was filed on 03.03.2015.
    Order to file reply: On 03.11.2015, the court allowed the
    limitation petition by the Petitioner. Accordingly, the court
    directed the Respondents to file their reply. On 03.01.2016, the
    Respondent informed the court that they are not interested in
    filing the reply because this case was filed for evidence of
    Plaintiff’s Witness.
    Order to pay cost to the other party: Due to inordinate delay
    in the petition on behalf of the Petitioner, the court directed the
    Petitioner to pay Rs 5000 as cost to the Respondents.
    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 dismissing the
    appeal on 23.08.2019. Subsequently, on 05.09.2019, the decree
    was prepared.

    11. Final Decision


    The Appeal against the Order of 2nd Munsiff, Madhubani is
    dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has failed to prove
    any defects in the Order, on the basis of oral and other
    documentary evidences.
    From the order sheet, it transpires that on the basis of Evidence
    admitted & Arguments forwarded, Appellants failed to prove
    their contention and hence the appeal made on point of law was
    dismissed.

    8
    P ROJECT RE PO RT ON O BSERVANCE OF T RIAL

    2.

    You might also like