DRAFTING, PLEADING &

CONVEYANCE

Of Law School,
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY, VARANASI

Sessession:2019-2020

Under the guidance of

Dr. K.S. Brijwal

Submitted by
Exam Roll Number - 17225BLT039
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
VI Semester

1
 ACKNOWLEGEMENT

They say preparing projects is a lonely task, they lie. An outstanding group of
people have come together to make this project possible. And I would like to
thank them all.

Before all, my family, who provided me with all the materials and resources to
make this project.

Thereafter, our Professor of Drafting, Pleading & Conveyancing, Dr. K.S.

Brijwal for clarifying my doubts about the project and for his invaluable advices
regarding the books and other sources of information to make this project.

Last, but certainly not the least, I would like to thank my outstanding friends
who helped me to organise the collected information in a precise manner and
kept me alert about the deadline of the submission of project.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. CIVIL PLEADINGS............................................................................................4

2. EXECUTION PETITION..................................................................................13

3. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY

BEFORE JUDGEMENT....................................................................................19

4. MEMORANDUM FOR REVISION..................................................................23

5. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL........................................................................26

6. PLAINT.............................................................................................................. 28

7. WRIT OF MANDAMUS...................................................................................31

8. WRITTEN STATEMENT.................................................................................36

9. ANTICIPATROY BAIL APPLICATION.........................................................42

10. BAIL APPLICATION........................................................................................47

11. COMPLAINT.....................................................................................................50

12. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION....................................................52

13. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL........................................................................56

14. MEMORANDUM OF REVISION....................................................................59

15. REVISION APPLICATION..............................................................................62

3
 CIVIL PLEADINGS

PLAINT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLKATA

Suit No. 457 of 2020

Akash Mukherjee, S/o. Peter Mukherjee aged 22 years, R/O House No. 30, Park
Street, Kolkata-700016.

…..(Plaintiff)

Versus

Mohit Dutta, S/o. Kailesh Dutta, aged 40 years, R/O House No. 122, [Link]
Road, Kolkata-700020.

…..(Defendant)

Plaint filed on behalf of the plaintiff under order VII Rule-10 and long cause
title.

The Plaintiff above named begs to submit as follows….

(1) That under a registered general power of attorney executed in March 2-3-2019
Late Peter Mukherjee father of the plaintiff, appointed Mohit Dutta, the
defendant, as his authorised agent to collect rents of his houses property situated
in Kolkata.
(2) That the defendant started collection of rents from the month of April 2018 and
has been doing so till this date.
(3) That the said A died in the month of February 2020 leaving behind only the
Plaintiff, his only heir.

4
 (4) That the particulars and full details of the collection made by the defendant are
not known to the Plaintiff up to this time. The defendant has not rendered any
account of money received by him in behalf of father of the plaintiff.
(5) That the plaintiff several times requested the defendant to deliver up to date the
accounts but he certainly failed to do so deliberately.
(6) That the cause of action arose on March 15 2020 and further on March 23 2020
when the plaintiff demanded up to date accounts from the defendant and
defendant refused to do so.
(7) That the parties reside within the local jurisdiction of this court and the court is
competent to try the same.
(8) That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is ₹ 4000
and requisite court fee being paid of the same.

Prayer

(1) A full and complete account of the amount realised by the defendant on behalf of
the plaintiff.
(2) A decree for the payment of rent collected by the defendant on behalf of the
plaintiff.
(3) Cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
(4) Such other and further relief as the honourable court may deem fit and proper.

__________________ _________________

Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff

Verification

I, Akash Mukherjee, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraph number 1 to

10 of this plaint are true to my personal knowledge and no part of it is false. The
Plaint and the verification clause has been verified by me on 20 August, 2020 at
the court of Junior Civil Judge compound at Kolkata.

5
 Date: 20 August, 2020 _______________

Place: Kolkata Plaintiff

_______________

Pleader

6
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLKATA

Suit No. 457 of 2020

Akash Mukherjee, S/o. Peter Mukherjee aged 22 years, R/O House No. 30, Park
Street, Kolkata-700016.

…..(Plaintiff)

Versus

Mohit Dutta, S/o. Kailesh Dutta, aged 40 years, R/O House No. 122, [Link]
Road, Kolkata-700020.

…..(Defendant)

Affidavit on behalf of Plaintiff

I, Akash Mukherjee, S/o. Peter Mukherjee, aged 22 years, R/o House no.30, Park
street, Kolkata-700016., do hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:

(1) That under a registered general power of attorney executed in march 2-3-2019
Late A father of the plaintiff, appointed Y, the defendant, as his authorised agent
to collect rents of his houses property situated in Kolkata.

(2) That the defendant started collection of rents from the month of April 2019 and
has been doing so till this date.
(3) That the said A died in the month of February 2020 leaving behind only the
Plaintiff, his only heir.
(4) That the particulars and full details of the collection made by the defendant are
not known to the Plaintiff up to this time. The defendant has not rendered any
account of money received by him in behalf of father of the plaintiff.

7
 (5) That the plaintiff several times requested the defendant to deliver up to date the
accounts but he certainly failed to do so deliberately.
(6) That the cause of action arose on March 15 2020 and further on March 23 2020
when the plaintiff demanded up to date accounts from the defendant and
defendant refused to do so.
(7) That the parties reside within the local jurisdiction of this court and the court is
competent to try the same.
(8) That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction is
₹.4000 and requisite court fee being paid of the same.

VERIFICATION

I, X do hereby declare that the contents of Paragraph 1 to 8 are correct to my

knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified

Date: 20 August, 2020 _______________

Place: Kolkata Deponent

8
 WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLKATA

Suit No. 457 of 2020

Akash Mukherjee, S/o. Peter Mukherjee aged 22 years, R/O House No. 30, Park
Street, Kolkata-700016.

…..(Plaintiff)

Versus

Mohit Dutta, S/o. Kailesh Dutta, aged 40 years, R/O House No. 122, [Link]
Road, Kolkata-700020.

…..(Defendant)

Written Statement on behalf of Mohit Dutta, herein after referred as Defendant,

is as follows:-

(1) That the content of Para 3 of the plaint are substantially correct.
(2) That the contents of Para 4 and Para 5 of the plaint are not admitted.
(3) That the contents of Para 6 of the plaint are not admitted.
(4) That the contents of Para 7 of the plaint are denied.
(5) That the contents of Para 8 and Para 10 of the plaint need no reply.

Additional Pleas

(6) That the money and as when received by the defendant was delivered to the
plaintiff.
(7) That the defendant used to give details of accounts every month to the plaintiff
and the plaintiff used to sign on the account book.

9
 (8) That the claim of the plaintiff is false and fabricated and no amount is due on the
defendant.
(9) That the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with dismissal cost to the
defendant.

Verified

Date: 20 August, 2020 _______________

Place: Kolkata Deponent

Verification

I , do hereby verify that the contents of Paragraph 1 to 7 of this written statement

are true to the best of my personal knowledge and the remaining paragraph are
baised on legal advice from my advocate wich I believe to be true

Verified

Date: 20 August, 2020 _______________

Place: Kolkata Deponent

10
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLKATA

Suit No. 457 of 2020

Akash Mukherjee, S/o. Peter Mukherjee aged 22 years, R/O House No. 30,
Park Street, Kolkata-700016.

…..(Plaintiff)

Versus

Mohit Dutta, S/o. Kailesh Dutta, aged 40 years, R/O House No. 122,
[Link] Road, Kolkata-700020.

…..(Defendant)

Mohit Dutta, S/o. Kailesh Dutta, aged 40 years, R/O House No. 122,
[Link] Road, Kolkata-700020 do hereby solemly declare and affirm on oath
as under:

(1) That the content of Para 3 of the plaint are substantially correct.
(2) That the contents of Para 4 and Para 5 of the plaint are not admitted.
(3) That the contents of Para 6 of the plaint are not admitted.
(4) That the contents of Para 7 of the plaint are denied.
(5) That the contents of Para 8 and Para 10 of the plaint need no reply.

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents my above affidavit is true to bet of my knowledge and
belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified

11
 Place: Kolkata. ______________

Date: 22 August, 2020 Deponent

12
 EXECUTION PETITION

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, PATNA

Execution Application No. 552 of 2020

In the matter of Civil Suit No. 1023 of 2019

Saket Rao, son of Shri Sudhanshu Rao aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna

............Decree holder

Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23, Krishna
Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

................Judgementdebtor

An application under Rule 11 of Order XXI of CPC

Respected Sir/Madam,

I, Saket Rao, decree holder do hereby apply for the execution of decree herein below
set forth;

1. That the defendant was a tenant of 1st Floor of S-20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur,
[Link] which plaintiff is the owner.

2. That on 13-07-2019, the plaintiff gave the notice of eviction to the respondent due to
urgent and bonafide need.

3. That the respondent did not take the notice in proper manner and refused to evict the
house, as well as refused to pay the monthly rent.

4. That the plaintiff had filed a suit for the eviction of the defendant and also from the
recovery of the arrears of rent on 15-09-2019.

5. That the matter has been finally decided plaintiff's favour and no appeal has been
preferred till date. Thus, the decree holder wishes to apply for the execution of the
decree.

13
 6. That it is therefore the decreetal amount set forth in proforma attached herein paid to
the plaintiff.

The Decree Holder prays for execution of the Decree/Order, the particulars whereof are
stated in the columns hereunder.

No of Suit 1023 of 2019

Name of Parties (a) Saket Rao, son of Shri Sudhanshu Rao
aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43,
Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

(b) Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra

Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

Date of Decree 25/05/2020

Whether an appeal was filed NO
against the decree / order under
execution
Whether any payment has been NONE
received towards satisfaction of
decree-order
Whether any application was NONE
made previous to this and if so
their dates and results
(a) Possession of 1st Floor of S-20/43,

Amount with interest due upon Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna.

decree or other relief

(b) ₹84,000 against the defendant

Amount of costs if allowed by ₹15,000

Court
Against whom execution is sought Against the defendant
Mode in which the assistance of (a) By delivery of 1st Floor of S-20/43,
the court is required Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

14
 (b) By the recovery of decreetal retail
amount by attachment

Description of Property to be attached

Amount
1. Motorcycle Rs 27,000
2. Refrigerator Rs 11,000
3. Air Condition Rs 14,000
4. Furniture Rs 19,000
5. Television Rs 13,000
Rs 84,000 (Total)

Prayer

I, Saket Rao, son of Shri Sudhanshu Rao, pray that the property and sum of total
amount of money ₹ 84000 together with the interest of 12% p.a. upto the date of
payment and the cost of this execution be released by the attachment of property of the
defendant as per the annexed list and paid to me.

Place - Patna, Bihar ...........................................

Date - 22.08.2020 Signature of decree holder

...........................................

Signature of advocate

Verification

I, Saket Rao, the decree holder do here by verify that the contents of execution
application is true to my knowledge and personal belief. Nothing has been concealed
therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar ...........................................

Date - 22.08.2020 Signature of decree holder

15
 ...........................................

Signature of advocate

16
 (Affidavit in Support of Execution Petition)

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, PATNA

Execution Application No. 552 of 2020

In the matter of Civil Suit No. 1023 of 2019

Saket Rao, son of Shri Sudhanshu Rao aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna

......................Decree holder

Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23, Krishna
Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

................Judgement debtor

I, Saket Rao, son of Shri Sudhanshu Rao aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree Raj
Complex, Danapur, Patna do hereby affirms as follows:

That the plaintiff, decree holder is the applicant in present execution application, is
fully acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case and the proforma attached
with the application contains the true fact. The statements made above are true and
nothing has been concealed.

Verification

I, Saket, do hereby verify the contents of the affidavit are true to my knowledge and
personal belief. Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar ...........................................

Date - 22.08.2020 Signature of decree holder

17
 ...........................................

Signature of advocate

18
 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR ATTACHMENT OF
PROPERTY BEFORE JUDGEMENT

(Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC)

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR JUDGE, AT PATNA

Application No 084/2020
In
Suit No 079/2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

.....Petitioner(Plaintiff)
Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

.....Respondent(Defendant)

Application for attachment of property before judgement.

(Order 38, Rule 5 of CPC)
Sir,
The applicant respectfully states as under:
1. That the plaintiff suit is pending in the hon'ble court for suit for recovery of ₹ 25
lacs against the defendant. The defendant has received summons.
2. That the defendant has given the advertisement in the newspaper for sale of her
agricultural land.
3. That the defendant has no other property therefore suit of the plaintiff will fail.

Prayer

19
 It is therefore prayed to pass an order for conditional attachment of the
defendant.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22.08.2020

...........................................

Signature of applicant

...........................................

Signature of advocate

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43,
Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna, the petitioner do hereby verify that the
contents of the interlocutory application from para 01 to 03 are true and correct
to best of my knowledge and personal belief. Nothing has been concealed
therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22 August 2020

...................................

Signature of applicant
........................................
Signature of the advocate

20
 (Affidavit in Support of the Interlocutory Application)
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR JUDGE, AT PATNA
Application No 084/2020
In
Suit No 079/2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

.....Petitioner(Plaintiff)
Versus

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Rajendra Nagar, Patna

.....Respondent(Defendant)

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna do hereby affirms as follows that
the petitioner is fully acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case and
the proforma attached with the application contains the true fact. The statements
made above are true and nothing has been concealed.

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna do hereby verify that the contents
of this affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and personal
belief. Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place - Patna, Bihar

Date - 22.08.2020

21
 ........................................
Signature of applicant

.........................................
Signature of the advocate

22
 MEMORANDUM FOR REVISION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR

CIVIL REVISION JURISDICTION

Civil Revision Application No. 584 of 2020

Mukesh Kumar, S/o. Rahul Kumar aged 24 years, R/O House No. 17,

Malviya Chowk, Jabalpur

…..(Petitioner)

Versus

Ravi Bhandari, S/o. Prakash Bhandari, aged 29 years, R/O House No. 157,

Prince Street, Galgala, Jabalpur

…..(Respondent)

The honorable Chief Justice and other respected judges of High Court and his
Companion Justice of High Court.

The Petitioner, above plaint submit that:

The revision application of the petitioner against order dated 12th March 2020 in
suit no. 822 of 2017 decided by the court of District Judge at Jabalpur between X
and Y in which the petitioner was plaintiff is preferred on the following grounds
or Revision under the statement of the case in brief as follows:

1. The opposite party had instituted a suit bearing no. 822 of 2017 in the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jabalpur. The court decreed the said suit of the
opposite party on March 12, 2020 and ordered applicant to pay the amount of
decree to the opposite party.

23
 2. The applicant being aggrieved by the said decree and judgment prefers that this
application on the following among other grounds:
(a) That the decree and judgment passed by the learned judge is illegal and
inoperative.
(b) That the learned judge has erred in law by passing the said decree on a sale-
deed which was not properly registered.
(c) That the learned Judge erred in law by not appreciating the petitioner’s
application for leave to produce a material document.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prays that this honourable court may be pleased
to allow the revision petition setting aside the imputed order dated 12th March
2020 in Suit no 822 of 2017 decided in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division.

Any other order which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice may be passed
in favour of the petitioner.

Place: Jabalpur _______________

Date: 22 August, 2020. Petitioner

__________________

Counsel

24
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR

CIVIL REVISION JURISDICTION

Civil Revision Application No.584 of 2020

Mukesh Kumar, S/o. Rahul Kumar aged 24 years, R/O House No. 17,

Malviya Chowk, Jabalpur. …..(Petitioner)

Versus

Ravi Bhandari, S/o. Prakash Bhandari, aged 29 years, R/O House No. 157,

Prince Street, Galgala, Jabalpur. …..

(Respondent)

I, Mukesh Kumar S/o. Rahul Kumar aged 24 years, R/O House No. 17, Malviya
Chowk, Jabalpur hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:-
1. That I am the applicant against the decree passed in above-mentioned suit dated
12 March 2020.
2. That I being aggrieved by the said decree and judgment prefers this application
on the above specified grounds.

VERIFICATION
I, Mukesh Kumar, the above named deponent do hereby declare that the contents
of Paragraph 1 and 2 are correct to my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been
concealed therein.

Place: Jabalpur _________________

Date: 22 August, 2020 Deponent

25
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

(Under Section 96, CPC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 923 OF 2020

Mihir Hamid, S/o. Iqbal Hamid aged 67 years, R/O House No. 39,

Muir Road, Allahabad. …..(Appellant)

Versus

Shoaib Malik, S/o. Hafiz Malik, aged 45 years, R/O House No. 77,

Zero Road, Allahabad. …..

(Respondent)

(Appeal against the judgement and decree passed by Justice. Mukherjee, P, Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad on 01-09-2020)In Suit No. 348 of 2013

The Hon’ble Chief Justice.

And Companion or and other respected Judges of High Court.

The Appellant, most respectfully, humbly, request that:

1. That the respondent has filed the Suit No. 348 of 2013 in the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad against the appellant for the recovery of Rs.80
thousand which sum the appellant allegedly owed to the respondent against a

26
 sale of immovable property by a sale-deed executed by the appellant in favor of
the respondent.
2. The learned Judge heard the said suit and passed a decree of ₹ 1 lakh against the
appellant on 01.08.2020.
3. The appellant being aggrieved by the said decree and judgment prefers this
appeal on the following amongst other grounds:
(i).That the learned Judge erred in holding that the sale-deed was legally valid.
(ii).That the sale-deed was invalid and hence not enforceable against the
appellant.
(iii).That no property was passed from the respondent to the appellant under the
sale-deed.
(iv).That the handwriting expert was not called in spite of the repeated requests
from the appellant.
(v).That the decision of the trial Court is against justice, equity and good
conscience and hence not sustainable.
4. The appellant has not filed any other appeal prior to this in the Hon’ble Court.

It is, therefore, humbly plaid that this honorable court may be pleased to allow
the appeal and set aside the decree and the judgement of the Court of Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad, 1st of August, 2020 in suit no348 of 2013.

Any other order which may be deemed fit in the interest of justice, may be in
past in favoure of appellant.

Place - Allahabad ...........................................

Date - 22.08.2020 Signature of Appellant

...........................................

Signature of advocate

27
 PLAINT

BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE OR DISTRICT JUDGE AT

TRIVANDRUM

CIVIL SUIT NO. 84 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

Arjun Nair, son of Shri Bhagirath Nair aged about 25 Years R/o S-20/43, Shree
Raj Complex, Sastamangalam, Trivandrum

..... Plaintiff
Versus

Sandeep Thomas, son of Shri Nagendra Thomas aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Kowliam, Trivandrum

.....Defendant

SUIT FOR INJUNCTION AGAINST NUISANCE

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the plaintiff is a business man residing at S-20/43, Shree Raj Complex,
Sastamangalam, Trivandrum.

2. That the Defendant is the owner and in possession of Flat No 205 at R/o B-
8/23, Krishna Society, Kowliam, Trivandrum.

3. That on 1 August, 2020, the Defendant has erected upon his aforesaid plot a
cloth washing and colouring unit, which is illegal as per the notification passed
by the Municipal Council and and per Environment law. In the said colouring
unit the Defendant is engaged in washing clothes using machines, colouring it
with the help of machines and use huge quantity of water in the residential area.

28
 As a result huge quantity of waste water is being flowing through the front side
of the house of Plaintiff.

4. The Defendant is using the Flat for commercial purpose without seeking
permission from any authority.

5. That the Plaintiff has sent several complaints to the public authorities to stop
this nuisance and illegal activity, but in vain.

6. That on account of the use of Flat by the Defendant for commercial purpose,
Plaintiff has been unable to peacefully reside in the house.

7. That cause of action has arose on 1 August, 2020 and continues to exist even
at present with use of the Flat for the aforesaid unlawful purpose.

8. That the suit property is situated within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
Having regard to the cause of action, narrated above, this Hon’ble Court has the
Jurisdiction to entertain any try this Suit.

9. The Plaintiff accordingly claims that the Defendant be restrained by way of

decree of injunction from using the suit Flat as a Commercial Property thereby
committing or permitting, any further nuisance.

10. In the facts and circumstances of case mentioned herein above this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:

Prayer

That the Plaintiff, therefore, pray that this Hon'ble Court may pass -

a) A decree restraining the Defendant Permanently from operating his Cloth

Washing and Coloring unit from Flat No 205 at R/o B- 8/23, Krishna Society,
Kowliam, Trivandrum.

29
 b) Any other relief, which the Hon'ble court deems fit, may please be granted to
the plaintiff in the interest of justice.

Date: 22 August, 2020 ………..........

Place: Trivandrum, Kerala Plaintiff

…….………..

Pleader

VERIFICATION

I, Arjun Nair, the above named Plaintiff states on solemn affirmation that
contents of Para 1 to 10 of the Plaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief and those of legal averments are true and correct on the
basis of legal advice received and believed to be true by me.

Date: 22 August, 2020 ………..........

Place: Trivandrum, Kerala Plaintiff

…….………..

Pleader

30
 WRIT OF MANDAMUS

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No 784 of 2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

.............Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector,Patna

2. State of Bihar

..........Respondents

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus.

To

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his companion Judges of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India

The above named Petitioner begs to submit as under:

1. That the Petitioner is the owner of a plot of land numbered 22 in Cantonment at

Patna detailed in Annexure ‘‘A’’ to this petition.

2. That on 22/12/2019 a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, was published that certain land including the Petitioner’s aforesaid
plot was needed for a public purpose.

31
 3. That the Petitioner filed objections to the proposed acquisition of his plot
under Section 5-A of the Act.

4. That the objections filed by the petitioner were heard by the Collector on
01/01/2020 and thereafter he submitted his report with recommendations to the
State Government.

5. That the State Government accepted the report and recommendations of the
Collector and rejected the objections filed by the petitioner.

6. That 13/01/2020 the State Government made the declaration under Section 6
of the Act.

7. That on 15/01/2020 the Petitioner received a notice under Section 9 of the

Act, to state his claim to compensation for his plot which was under acquisition.

8. That on 16/01/2020 the Petitioner filed his claim to compensation claiming

Rs20 lacs as compensation for the acquisition of his plot.

9. That on 21/01/2020 the Collector gave his award determining a sum of only
Rs4 lacs as compensation for the Petitioner’s plot.

10. That the award was filed in the Collector’s Office and notice of the same was
given to the Petitioner.

11. That the compensation awarded by the Collector for the Petitioner’s plot was
grossly inadequate and the Petitioner did not accept it. On 24/01/2020 the
Petitioner made an application under Section 18 of the Act to the Collector
requesting that the matter be referred for determination to the District Judge.

12. That though under Section 18 the Collector was bound to refer the matter of
compensation to the District Judge he has declined to do so.

32
 Prayer

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that a writ, direction or order in the
nature of mandamus be issued to Respondent No. 1 directing him to refer the
matter of compensation for the Petitioner’s plot for determination to the District
Judge.

Place – Patna, Bihar .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of petitioner

....................................

Signature of advocate

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna, do here by verify that the
contents of the above paras no. 1 – 12 are true and correct to best of my
knowledge and personal belief. Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place – Patna, Bihar .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of petitioner

....................................

Signature of advocate

33
 (Affidavit)

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Original Civil Jurisdiction)

Writ Petition No. 784 of 2020

Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna

.............Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector,Patna

2. State of Bihar

..........Respondents

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna, do hereby affirms as follows:

That the petitioner is fully acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case
and the proforma attached with the application contains the true fact. The
statements made above are true and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verification

I, Arjun Sinha, son of Shri Bhagirath Sinha aged about 25 Years R/o S-
20/43, Shree Raj Complex, Danapur, Patna, do hereby verify the contents of
the affidavit are true and correct to best of my knowledge and personal belief.
Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place – Patna, Bihar .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of petitioner

34
 ....................................

Signature of advocate

35
 WRITTEN STATEMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDE (S.D.) FARIDABAD

Original suit no .79 of 2020

Siddhant Sikhawat, S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat. r/o House o. B. 20/40, Mohalla
Bhelupur, Faridabad

---------Plaintiff

Vs.

1- Kumar a/a 48 years S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat r/o House no. B. 20/40, Mohalla
Bhelupur, Faridabad.

2- Nanavati Devi a/a 75 years W/o Late Sunder Das both R/o House no. B. 20/40,
Bhelupur, Faridabad.

3- Bhavna a/a 40 years W/o Sri. Mahesh Kumar D/o Late Sunder Das r/o House no.
200 Shyama Building Gorakhnath Lane Faridabad.

------Defendants

The defendants no. 1 -3 submit as under;

1. That contents of para 1 of the plaint is admitted.

2. That contents of para 2 of the plaint is admitted.
3. That contents of para 3 of the plaint is admitted.
4. That contents of para 4 of the plaint is admitted.
5. That contents of para 5 of the plaint is admitted that in the life time of sunder das
(now deceased) that marriage of defendant no. 3 Bhavna was solemnized . Rest
content of this para is denied subject to additional pleas.
6. That contents of para 6 of the plaint is admitted.
7. That contents of para 7 of the plaint is admitted.

36
 8. That contents of para 8 of the plaint is denied. There was no any oral partition
between the parties at any time. The true fact is that the plaintiff himself got
prepared a memorandum of family settlement as he liked and got signatures of
the defendant on the stamp papers and some other papers. As the defendants had
full trust and confidence on the plaintiff so they signed on the memorandum of
family settlement which is prepared by plaintiff without reading and
understanding the contents of the said family settlement.
9. That contents of para 9 of the plaint is not admitted. True facts are given in
additional pleas.
10. That contents of para 10 of the plaint is denied.
11. That contents of para 11 of the plaint is not admitted. The plaintiff has mention
the wrong cause of action in the plaint only to file a wrong suit.
12. That contents of para 12 of the plaint is denied subject to additional pleas.
13. That contents of para 13 of the plaint is denied. The true facts have been
mentioned in additional pleas.
14. That contents of para 14 of the plaint is denied. The true facts have been
mentioned in additional pleas.
15. That contents of para 15 of the plaint is admitted.
16. That contents of para 16 of the plaint is denied. The plaintiff valued the wrong
plaint and pays very less court fees.
17. That the proposed relief in para 17 of the plaint is denied and the plaintiff is not
entitled to get any relief.

Additional Pleas
1. That the plaintiff thus filed the above noted suit with all together false facts only
with a view to harras and blackmail the defendant as such the said suit is liable
to be rejected.
2. That the true fact is that previously there was joint family of plaintiff, defendants
no. 1-3 and sunder das (now deceased) they were residing jointly.
3. That the plaintiff, defendants no. 1-3 and the deceased jointly purchased the
property in question of the suit with the fund of joint family and

37
 4. That there is no partition between of plaintiff and defendants no. 1-3 in respect
of the disputed property of the suit nor any memorandum of family settlement
ever executed between the parties.
5. That the above mention suit is likely to be rejected.

Prayer

The defendant humbly and most respectfully prays to the court to reject the suit
filed by the plaintiff whose main motive is only to harras the defendant and
provides the defendant any other relief as the court may deem fit and proper.

Place – Faridabad, Haryana .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of defendant

....................................

Signature of advocate

Verification

I, Siddhant Sikhawat, S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat, r/o House no. B. 20/40,
Mohalla Bhelupur, Faridabad do hereby verify that the contents of this written
statement are true and correct to best of my knowledge and personal belief.
Nothing has been concealed therein.

Place – Faridabad, Haryana .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of defendant

....................................

Signature of advocate

38
 Affidavit

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDE (S.D.) FARIDABAD

Original suit no .79 of 2020

Siddhant Sikhawat, S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat. r/o House o. B. 20/40, Mohalla
Bhelupur, Faridabad

---------Plaintiff

Vs.

1- Kumar a/a 48 years S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat r/o House no. B. 20/40, Mohalla
Bhelupur, Faridabad.

2- Nanavati Devi a/a 75 years W/o Late Sunder Das both R/o House no. B. 20/40,
Bhelupur, Faridabad.

3- Bhavna a/a 40 years W/o Sri. Mahesh Kumar D/o Late Sunder Das r/o House no.
200 Shyama Building Gorakhnath Lane Faridabad.

------Defendants

I, Siddhant Sikhawat, S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat, r/o House no. B. 20/40,
Mohalla Bhelupur, Faridabad do hereby affirms as follows that the defendant is
fully acquainted with the fact and circumstances of the case and the proforma
attached with the application contains the true fact. The statement made above
are true and nothing has been concealed

Verification

I, Siddhant Sikhawat, S/o Late Sunder Shikhawat, r/o House no. B. 20/40,
Mohalla Bhelupur, Faridabad do hereby verify that the contents of this affidavit
are true and correct to best of my knowledge and personal belief. Nothing has
been concealed therein.

39
 Place – Faridabad, Haryana .................................

Date -22 August, 2020 Signature of defendant

....................................

Signature of advocate

40
 ANTICIPATROY BAIL APPLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF PATNA

(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

[Link]. 1052 of 2020

In
[Link]. Not known of 2020
(On the file of the Inspector of Police. Police Station, Danapur, Patna)

Ramesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Prem Agarwal , aged about 25 years, R/o A-
45/345, Shree Raj Complex, Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna.

.......Petitioner/Accused
Versus
State of Bihar,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Danapur, Patna
....Respondent/Complainant
FIR No. :______/ Dated 15/08/2020 / Police Station: Danapur, Patna.

Offence Under Sections: 498A of I.P.C.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF

Cr.P.C.

Respected Sir/Madam,
The Petitioner Most Respectfully Submitted As Under:
1. That the petitioner and deceased were a married couple since 19.08.2019.
2. That the deceased died a natural death due to a fire that broke out from the LPG
gas cylinder in the kitchen complex.
3. That the petitioner has never treated the deceased with cruelty and has never
made a demand of dowry from her or family.

41
 4. That the police has wrongfully implicated the petitioner under the Section and
that there is no p[rima facie case against the petitioner.
5. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts
stated in the FIR are fabricated, concocted and without any basis.
6. That the police has falsely implicated the applicant in the present case, as a result
of which arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner and thereby the
petitioner is presenting this anticipatory bail petition before this Hon’ble court.
7. That the applicant is a respectable citizen of the society and is not involved any
criminal case.
8. That the applicant is having very good antecedents, he belongs to good family
and there is no criminal case pending against them.
9. That the applicant is a permanent resident and there are no chances of his
absconding from the course of justice.
10. That the applicant undertakes to present himself before the police/court as and
when directed.
11. That the applicant undertakes that he will not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.
12. That the applicant further undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the
witnesses in any manner.
13. That the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the
Court.
14. That the applicant is ready and willing to accept any other conditions as may be
imposed by the Court or the police in connection with the case.
15. That the Court below has failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of the
case and has wrongly dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
16. That any other anticipatory bail application has not been filed by the applicant
against the same FIR before any other court except for the present bail
application.

42
 17. That all the documents filed before the court below are being filed along with the
present application for anticipatory bail.

PRAYER

It is therefore prayed that the court may direct the release the applicant on bail in
the event of his arrest by the police.
Any other order which the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may be also passed in favour of the applicant.

Place – Patna, Bihar .................................

Date -17 August, 2020 Signature of petitioner

....................................

Signature of advocate

43
 AFFIDAVIT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BILASHPUR
(Criminal Original Jurisdiction)

[Link]. 1052 of 2020

In
[Link]. Not known of 2020
(On the file of the Inspector of Police. Police Station, , Danapur, Patna)

Ramesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Prem Agarwal , aged about 25 years, R/o A-
45/345, Shree Raj Complex, Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna.

.......Petitioner/Accused

Versus
State of Bihar,
Rep. by its Inspector of Police,
Police Station, Danapur, Patna
....Respondent/Complainant

I, Ramesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Prem Agarwal aged about 25 years, Occupation-
Business R/o A-45/345, Shree Raj Complex, Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna, do
hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:

1. That the accompanying application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been drafted at
my instance and under my instructions.

2. That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 7 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

44
 VERIFICATION
I, Ramesh Agarwal do hereby declare that the contents of Paragraph 1 and 2 are
correct to my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified

Place- Patna
Date – 17/08/2020
........................
Deponent

45
 BAIL APPLICATION

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PATNA

Criminal Misc Application No. 1045 of 2020

In

Crime No.....of 2020 of Police Station, Danapur, Patna

Crime Case No......of 2020

Saket Rao, S/o Shri Sudhanshu Rao, aged about 25 years, R/o A-45/345,
Shree Raj Complex, Shaguna Mod, Danapur, Patna.

....................Applicant

vs.

State of U.P

.................Prosecution

Application for Bail Under Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Most Respectfully Submitted As Under:

1. That the applicant is a freelance journalist and engages in the work of writing
articles and blogs for various newspapers and online magazines and websites.

2. That the present FIR has been registered on false and bogus facts. The facts
stated in the FIR are fabricated, concocted and without any basis.

3. That the police has falsely implicated the applicant and arrested him in the
present case, the applicant is a respectable citizen of the society and is not
involved any criminal case.
46
 4. That the state government has been particularly against the work done by the
applicant and has used police force as state machinery in the present case to
suppress the voice of dissent in the state.

5. That the applicant is not required in any kind of investigation nor any kind of
custodial interrogation is required, nor any recovery is to be made at the instance
of the applicant and thus the arrest is not valid.

6. That the applicant is having very good antecedents, he belongs to good family
and there is no criminal case pending against them. On the other side, the
applicant has been constantly doing social work of some nature or the other.

7. That the applicant is a permanent resident and there are no chances of his
absconding from the course of justice.

8. That the applicant undertakes to present himself before the police/court as and
when directed.

9. That the applicant undertakes that he will not, directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer.

10. That the applicant further undertakes not to tamper with the evidence or the
witnesses in any manner. That the applicant shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court.

11. That the applicant is ready and willing to accept any other conditions as may be
imposed by the Court or the police in connection with the case.

Prayer

47
 It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to allow this application and release the applicant on bail during the pendency of
trial.

Any other order which the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may be also passed in favour of the applicant.

Place- Patna
Date – 17/08/2020
..................................
Signature of Applicant

....................................
Signature of Advocate

48
 COMPLAINT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,

SAKET, NEW DELHI

Complaint No. 643 of 2020

Rakesh Agarwal, s/o Shri Yajurved Agarwal, r/o 12/24, Saket, New Delhi

..........Complaina
nt

Versus

Vinod Sinha,S/o Avinash Sinha , R/o F/181 Malviya Nagar, Varanasi.

.............Accused

Offence under section u/s 454/323/504 of Indian Penal Code

May it please your honour, the complainant above named begs to state on
solemn affirmation as follows:

1. That the complainant is permanently residing in Saket, New Delhi and he is a

peace loving person.
2. That on date 20-08-2020 about 11 PM the accused person came to the house of
the complainant with lathi and danda and entered in the house of the complainant
and began to beat the complainant by lathi and Danda as such the complainant
received the serious injuries in his body.
3. That the information of the alleged occurrence was given to the concerned Police
Station at Saket, New Delhi but the police did not lodge the FIR against the
accuse persons.
4. That the complainant went to the Sunder Lal Hospital at Saket, New Delhi on
21-08-2020 at about 8:00 AM and got examined by the doctor on the duty in
emergency room who prepared the medical report. The injury report is annexed

49
 herewith this complaint.
5. That after that the complainant sent an application to the SSP by the registered
post regarding the aforesaid occurrence, but still no step has been taken by the
police concerned against the accused person. The aforesaid application and
receipt of the post office are annexed herewith this complaint.
6. That the complainant is moving the aforesaid complaint before your honour's
court.
7. That the place of occurrence is within your territorial jurisdiction for taking
cognizance of the aforesaid offence.

Prayer
It is, therefore humbly and most respectfully prayed that the accused must be
prosecuted and punished accordindg to the law.

Place – Saket, New Delhi

Date – 22 August, 2020
.................................
Signature of Complainant

50
 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION

IN THE COURT OF SECOND ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

PATNA
[Link] 1026 Of 2020

[Link]. 756 Of 2019

Raju Prasad, s/o Prakash Prasad, aged 25 years, r/o 4 T-Block, Jayanagar,
Patna

...… (Petitioner)

Versus

Somnath Singh, s/o Abhinav Singh, aged 30 years, r/o 24/B, Guttahalli,
Patna.

…..(Respondent)

Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner U/Sec 482 Cr. P.C

(1) The petitioner submits that he filed the above miscellaneous petition for grant
of compensation for criminal defamation against the respondent seeking a sum
of Rs.20000.

(2) The Honorable Court, after due contest, by order dated 10.10.2019 granted
compensation to the petitioner directing the respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.20000.

(3) The petitioner submits that, the respondent has not paid any compensation so
far, and these disobeyed the order of this honorable court.

51
 (4) It is therefore prayed that the honorable court may be pleased to commit the
respondent to prison for such time as the law required or till he paid the
compensation awarded.

Date: 22 August 2020 ............………

Place: Patna, Bihar Counsel

.........................

Petitioner

VERIFICATON

I, the petitioner, to hereby declared that the facts stated above or true and correct
to the best of my knowledge information and belief.

Date: 22 August, 2020 ______________

Petitioner

52
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE COURT OF SECOND ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

PATNA

[Link] 1026 Of 2020

[Link]. 756 Of 2019

Raju Prasad, s/o Prakash Prasad, aged 25 years, r/o 4 T-Block, Jayanagar,
Patna

...… (Petitioner)

Versus

Somnath Singh, s/o Abhinav Singh, aged 30 years, r/o 24/B, Guttahalli, Patna.

…..(Respondent)

I, Raju Prasad, s/o Prakash Prasad, aged 25 years, r/o 4 T-Block, Jayanagar,
Patna do hereby solemnly declare and affirm on oath as under:

1. That I filed petition for grant of compensation for criminal defamation against the
respondent seeking a sum of Rs.20000.

2. That The Honorable Court order dated 10.10.2019 granted compensation to the
petitioner directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.20000.

3. That the respondent has not paid any compensation so far, and these disobeyed the
order of this honorable court.

53
 VERIFICATION

I, X do hereby declare that the contents of Paragraph 1 to 3 are correct to my

knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed therein.

Verified

Date: 22 August 2020 ............………

Place: Patna, Bihar Deponent

54
 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal No. 987of 2020

Rishabh Choudhary, S/o Rajeev Choudhary aged about 45 years, R/o E

55/678, near Hotel Taj, Danapur Cantonment, Patna
.............Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar
.........Respondent

Appeal against the conviction and sentences under section 411 of IPC in Case
No..........of 2020 by the learned Magistrate First Class, Patna

To the Chief Justice of High Court and his/ her companion,

The humble petition of appellant above named most respectfully begs to state as
follows:

1. That the appellant was charged under section 411 of IPC for dishonestly receiving
stolen property at about 2:30 pm on 6-5-2020 at Saket Nagar, Patna.
2. That the prosecution case in brief was that on 06-05-2020 at about 2:30pm the
police acting on FIR lodged on 11-04-2020 came across the appellant having
bicycle and hence caught the appellant on suspicion.
3. That the learned Judge after receiving the evidence did not accept the innocence
plea of the accused and has convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo 6
months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₹ 350. A certificate copy of the
said judgement and order is annexed here to and marked as Annexure "A".

55
 4. That that being aggrieved by the said order and judgement of the learned magistrate
the appellant here in begs to prefer this appeal on the following grounds:
a) That the conviction is bad in eye of law because the learned magistrate erred in not
taking into account the basic principle of presumption of innocence in a criminal
case.
b) That the learned magistrate should have disbelieved the evidence of prosecution
witness because the bicycle was an ordinary and common article and it was a
stupendous task to take identify the same in absence of any special mark on it.
c) That the leaned magistrate should have believed the defence witness who disposed
having seen articles sold to the appellant some five months prior to this incident.
d) That the judgement of learned magistrate is against the weight of evidence and
probabilities and is based on inference which are not sustainable in this Hon'ble
Court.
e) That in any event the sentence is extremely severe and therefore the same should be
reduced.
f) That the appellant submits that he has not filed any appeal in the Hon'ble Court
prior to this.
g) That the appellant has been undergoing sentence and is at present in District prison
Patna.

Prayer
It is most respectfully prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the conviction and
sentence passed may please be set aside and the accused be acquitted.

Place – Patna, Bihar .................................

Signature of appellant
Date – 22 August, 2020 ................................
Signature of advocate

56
 MEMORANDUM OF REVISION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RANCHI

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction

Criminal Application No. 398 of 2020

In the matter of the order of the Session Judge, Ranchi sentencing the opponent to 6
month's rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of ₹ 200 in case No. 487 of 2019

State of Tamil Nadu

at the instance of the District Superintendent of Police, Ranchi.

........Petitioner

Versus

Imran Khan
S/o Naseem Khan, aged 28 years, R/o Ranchi
......Opponent

The humble petition of Your Lordship's petitioner above-named most respectfully

states:

1. The above-named opponent was arrested in Ranchi on a charge under

sections 307 and 326, I.P.C. for an attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapon. He was prosecuted and tried in the Court of the Session in case
No. 487 of 2019 of that Court and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to

57
 convict the accused and sentence him to 6 month's rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of ₹200
2. While passing the final order of sentence after convicting the opponent, the
learned Judge remarked that he was pleased to take a lenient view of the offence
taking into consideration the youth of the opponent.

3. The learned Judge therefore passed a lenient sentence of 6 month's R.I. and a fine
of ₹ 200 on the opponent though the maximum sentence under Sections 307 and
326,1.P.C. is imprisonment for life, or for 10 years. Though the prosecution prayed
for deterrent punishment on the ground that the injuries caused were of a very
serious nature and that the injuries were caused by a dangerous weapon during a
communal riot. The learned Judge turned down the prayer of the prosecution for a
deterrent punishment and showed leniency to the opponent by passing the order of
sentence as stated above. Hereto annexed and marked annexure ‘A' is the copy of
the said order and judgment.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner prefers this application for
enhancement of sentence passed on the opponent by the learned Judge on the
following amongst other grounds:
(a) That the injuries caused by the opponent (accused) were several and of a very
serious nature;
(b) That the injuries were caused by a dangerous weapon, i.e., a dagger which was
possessed and carried by the accused when the possession and carrying of weapons
was banned by the order of the District Magistrate, Ranchi
(c) That the opponent (accused) is a member of a gang of rioters habitually engaged
in communal orgy and riots and has made an attempt to murder by causing grievous
hurt to the complainant intentionally in the furtherance and prosecution of the
common object of a riotous mob.
(d) That the punishment for the offences is life or ten year's imprisonment and fine.

58
 Prayer
In these circumstances Your Lordships' humble petitioner prays that Your
Lordships may graciously be pleased:
(1) to enhance the sentence passed on the opponent by the learned sessions Judge in
case No. 487 of 2019 of his Court; and
(2) to pass such other and further orders as Your Lordships may deem just, fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
(3) And for this act of kindness Your Lordships' Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever
pray.

Place- Ranchi, Jharkhand ..............................................

Date – 22 August, 2020 Signature of Supdt. of police

.....................................

Signature of advocate

59
 REVISION APPLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT SHIMLA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1045 of 2020

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Rajendra Nagar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

…….…..(Petitioner)

vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh

….…..(Respondent)

The revision petition against the order dated 30 th January 2020 by the Court of
Session Judge in Criminal Case no. 784 of 2019 titled as Sandeep Tiwari vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh.

To,

Chief Justice at his companion. Judges of High Court of Shimla.

The petitioner above named A most respectfully submits this revision petition
against the impure order above mentioned on the following amongst other grounds
of revision:

60
 1. The the order learned Judicial Magistrate First Class of the lower court is against
law.

2. That the erect in believing the complaints who were interested witness.

3. That the learned presidency magistrate was wrong in dis-believing the two
respectable and independent witnesses examined on behalf of the defence.

4. The learned magistrate has erred in not complying with the mandatory provisions of
the Cr. P.C. whereby an opportunity to explain away the circumstances appearing
against them was refused.

5. The learned magistrate has not maintained a full record of the evidence and hence,
certain admissions by the prosecution given in their cross examination are not
available.

Prayer

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this honorable court may be pleased to
allow the revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence passes against
the petitioner afford said and in any case convection is mentioned and sentence
imposed may be pleased commuted as may be deemed fit.

Place - Patna, Bihar ...................................

Date – 22 August 2020 Signature of Petitioner

......................................

Signature of Counsel

61
 AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT SHMILA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Revision No. 1045 of 2020

Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23,
Krishna Society, Rajendra Nagar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

…….…..(Petitioner)

vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh

….…..(Respondent)

I, Sandeep Tiwari, son of Shri Nagendra Tiwari aged about 45 R/o B- 8/23, Krishna
Society, Rajendra Nagar, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh hereby solemnly declare and
affirm on oath as under:-

3. That I am the applicant against the decree passed in above-mentioned suit dated 30
January 2018.
4. That I being aggrieved by the said decree and judgment prefers this application on
the above specified grounds.

VERIFICATION
I, Sandeep Tiwari, the above named deponent do hereby declare that the contents of
Paragraph 1 and 2 are correct to my knowledge and belief. Nothing has been
concealed therein.
Place - Patna, Bihar ...................................

Date – 22 August 2020 Signature of Petitioner

62
 ......................................

Signature of Counsel

63