JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

FACULTY OF LAW

TOPIC 1: APPLICATION U/S 13(B) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

Divorce by Mutual Consent
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Case No. D.C. ___ /2026
Rajesh Kumar Singh (Husband) v/s Priya Singh (Wife)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 13(B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

APPLICANTS:
1. Rajesh Kumar Singh (Husband), Aged 38 years, S/o___________, Resident of House No.
45-B, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001.

2. Priya Singh (Wife), Aged 35 years, D/o___________, Resident of House No. 45-B, Shastri
Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001.

TO THE HONOURABLE COURT,

1. The first and second Applicants were duly married on 15th June 2010 at Sri Hanuman
Mandir, Jodhpur according to Hindu rituals and customs.

2. The marriage has permanently broken down and parties have been living separately
since 20th September 2024 (more than 6 months).

3. Both parties have mutually agreed to dissolve the marriage without any disagreement.
4. One child named___________, aged 10 years. Custody agreed to mother with father's
visiting rights.

5. Assets distribution mutually agreed: House to be sold and divided equally (Rs. 12,50,000/-
each), Bank balance Rs. 4,25,000/- each, Jewelry to wife (Rs. 3,00,000/-), Vehicle to husband
(Rs. 6,00,000/-).

6. Maintenance: Rs. 15,000/- per month for wife, Rs. 20,000/- per month for child until age 25
years.

7. No legal bar for dissolution. Both parties have obtained independent legal advice.

PRAYER:
1. Dissolve the marriage between both applicants solemnized on 15th June 2010.
2. Grant custody of child to applicant no. 2 with visitation rights to applicant no. 1.
3. Direct maintenance payment as agreed.
4. Approve the settlement deed regarding asset division.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant No. 1: Rajesh Kumar Singh Applicant No. 2: Priya Singh

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___________

TOPIC 2: WRITTEN SUBMISSION U/S 314 OF CrPC

Memorandum of Arguments of Both Sides [U/s 352 of BNSS, 2023]
SESSION COURT, JODHPUR
Criminal Appeal No. ___/2026
Suresh Verma (Appellant) v/s The State of Rajasthan

MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENTS
Submitted by Counsel for Appellant Suresh Verma

INTRODUCTION:
This memorandum pertains to Criminal Appeal filed against conviction under Sections 447, 323,
506 I.P.C. Key legal issues involve: (i) Validity of FIR; (ii) Admissibility of evidence;
(iii) Sufficiency of prosecution evidence.
BRIEF FACTS:
On 12th March 2024, FIR No. ___ /2024 was registered at Jodhpur City Police Station under
Sections 447, 323, 506 I.P.C. based on complaint by Complainant Ravi Patel. Trial Court
convicted the appellant on 15th March 2025 and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and Rs.
5,000/- fine.

FIRST ARGUMENT - ILLEGAL FIR:

The FIR was registered without proper investigation and is based on ex-facie frivolous
allegations. The complainant failed to produce any independent witness or corroborating
evidence.
Supporting Case Laws: Supreme Court in Jaya Singh v/s State of M.P. (2006) 12 SCC 421;
Bhagwan Singh v/s State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2014.

SECOND ARGUMENT - WEAK PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

The only evidence is complainant's statement which is inconsistent and lacks corroboration.
Medical evidence does not support grievous injury.

CONCLUSION:
The conviction is based on weak evidence and should be set aside. This Appeal may be
allowed and appellant acquitted.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Counsel for Appellant: ___________

Registration No. ___/2019 Contact: ___________

TOPIC 3: APPLICATION U/S 372 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925

Application for Succession Certificate
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Succession Case No. ____/2026
In the Matter of Succession of Late Shri Harendra Singh (Deceased)

APPLICATION FOR SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 372

APPLICANT:
Mohan Singh, Aged 42 years, Resident of House No. 23, Pal Road, Jodhpur - 342001, Son of
Late Harendra Singh.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Late Shri Harendra Singh died on 18th February 2026 at Jodhpur. He left behind no Will.

2. Personal property of deceased consists of:

• Bank Account in State Bank of India: Rs. 15,50,000/-
• Life Insurance Policy (LIC): Rs. 10,00,000/-
• Securities: Rs. 5,00,000/-
• Total: Rs. 30,50,000/-

3. Heirs of deceased:
• Mohan Singh (Son) - Applicant
• Rajesh Singh (Son)
• Savitri Devi (Widow)
• Geeta Singh (Daughter)

4. Death Certificate attached (Certified Copy).

5. Applicant is entitled to Succession Certificate to collect and deal with personal property on
behalf of all heirs.

GROUNDS:
Succession Certificate is necessary to deal with deceased's personal property. All required
documents are attached.

PRAYER:
Grant Succession Certificate to Applicant to collect and deal with personal property of
deceased.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant: Mohan Singh

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ____/2020
TOPIC 4: SUIT FOR DECLARATION U/S 34 OF SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
For Declaration of Title to Property
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Civil Suit No. _____/2026
Ram Kumar Sharma v/s Vijay Kumar Singh and Ors.

PLAINT (SUIT FOR DECLARATION)

PLAINTIFF:
Ram Kumar Sharma, Aged 45 years, Resident of House No. 156, High Court Road, Jodhpur -
342001.

DEFENDANTS:
1. Vijay Kumar Singh, Resident of House No. 157, High Court Road, Jodhpur - 342001.
2. Rajesh Singh, Resident of Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. Plaintiff is rightful owner of immovable property:
Property Address: House No. 156, High Court Road, Jodhpur
Survey No.: _ /B Plot Area: 500 sq. ft. Market Value: Rs. 40,00,000/-

2. Plaintiff's title based on:

• Original Purchase Deed dated 20th January 2010 from Late Ramesh Gupta
• Continuous possession and occupation for last 16 years
• Municipal tax receipts in Plaintiff's name since 2010
• Property registered in Plaintiff's name in Land Record

3. Defendants wrongfully claim ownership without any legal title or deed.

4. Defendants have threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff has no other adequate remedy except declaration of title from this Court.

GROUNDS:
1. Plaintiff is true owner with valid deed and continuous possession.
2. Defendants' claims are baseless and without foundation.
3. Declaration necessary to clear clouds on Plaintiff's title.

PRAYER:
1. Declare that Plaintiff is rightful owner of the property.
2. Declare that Defendants have no right or title over the property.
3. Pass further orders as deemed fit.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Plaintiff: Ram Kumar Sharma

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2018

TOPIC 5: COMPLAINT U/S 133 OF [Link]

[U/s 152 of BNSS] - For Nuisance or Obstruction in Public Way
MAGISTRATE COURT, JODHPUR
Complaint No. _____/2026
Ravi Patel (Complainant) v/s Mohit Enterprises (Respondent)

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 133 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

For Nuisance/Obstruction in Public Way

COMPLAINANT:
Ravi Patel, Aged 38 years, Resident of House No. 89, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001,
Shopkeeper.

ACCUSED/RESPONDENT:
Mohit Enterprises (Proprietor: Suresh Mohit), Warehouse at Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Respondent is engaged in marble and stone business and causes severe nuisance to
public.

2. The Respondent is causing following nuisances:

• Obstructing public way by stacking marble slabs on road for last 6 months
 • Causing severe dust pollution affecting residents and shops
• Making unbearable noise through cutting machines from 5 AM to 11 PM daily
• Dumping stone waste in public area
• Blocking water drainage system with waste material

3. These acts cause severe inconvenience to public, health hazards, and obstruction in
movement.

4. Complainant and other residents have submitted written representations to Respondent on

15th March 2026 but no action taken.

5. Municipal authorities have also issued notice dated 10th April 2026.

PRAYER:
1. Take cognizance and initiate proceedings under Section 133 [Link].
2. Issue notice to Respondent to appear and answer.
3. Pass orders to immediately remove the nuisance.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Complainant: Ravi Patel (Signature & Thumb Impression)

Advocate: __________, Reg. No. __ /2019

TOPIC 6: APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CPC

For Rejection of Plaint
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Civil Suit No. ___/2026
Sunita Devi (Plaintiff) v/s Abhishek Singh (Defendant)

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

For Rejection of Plaint

APPLICANT/DEFENDANT:
Abhishek Singh, Resident of Flat No. 45, Maharaja Tower, Jodhpur - 342001.
GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT:

1. LACK OF JURISDICTION:
The plaint itself shows that the subject matter of dispute falls within the jurisdiction of Small
Causes Court (value of suit less than Rs. 1,00,000/-) whereas present suit is filed in District
Court with jurisdiction of suits exceeding Rs. 1,00,000/-. The plaint shows value of Rs. 85,000/-
only.

2. LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION:

The plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Applicant. The facts alleged do not
constitute any legal ground for relief claimed.

3. LIMITATION:
The suit is barred by limitation. The cause of action arose on 15th December 2022 and suit was
filed on 18th April 2026, which is beyond 3-year limitation period prescribed under Limitation
Act.

4. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE:

Plaintiff has adequate alternative remedy under Rent Act, 2001 as the dispute concerns tenancy
matter. This suit is not maintainable.

5. IMPROPER PARTIES:
Necessary parties have not been impleaded. The property owner is not a party to suit.

PRAYER:
Reject the plaint in limine under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant/Defendant: Abhishek Singh

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2020

TOPIC 7: COMPLAINT U/S 156(3) OF [Link]

[Now U/s 175(3) of BNSS] - Magistrate's Power to Order Investigation
MAGISTRATE COURT, JODHPUR
Complaint No. ___/2026
Meera Gupta (Complainant) v/s Suresh Verma (Accused)
 COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 156(3) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
For Investigation of Cognizable Offence

COMPLAINANT:
Meera Gupta, Aged 32 years, Resident of House No. 78, Fort Road, Jodhpur - 342001,
Business Woman.

ACCUSED:
Suresh Verma, Aged 45 years, Resident of House No. 120, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur - 342001.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Complainant had given Rs. 5,00,000/- to Accused on 10th January 2026 for starting a
garment business with mutual partnership agreement.

2. Contrary to agreement, the Accused misappropriated the entire amount and disappeared.

3. The Accused has committed offence of:

• Criminal Breach of Trust under Section 406 IPC
• Cheating under Section 420 IPC
• Misappropriation of Property under Section 403 IPC

4. The Complainant attempted to register FIR with Police on 20th March 2026, but police
refused to register on grounds that matter is civil.

5. Complainant has no access to police investigation and hence seeks this Court's intervention.

EVIDENCE AVAILABLE:
• Partnership Agreement dated 10th January 2026
• Bank Statement showing Rs. 5,00,000/- transfer
• Witness: Rajesh Kumar (Accountant of Accused)
• Witness: Seema Singh (Complainant's business associate)

PRAYER:
Order investigation into above matter as complainant has no access to police investigation.
Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Complainant: Meera Gupta (Signature & Thumb Impression)

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2018

TOPIC 8: PETITION FOR PROTECTION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP U/S 482

CrPC
[Now U/s 528 of BNSS] - Anticipatory Bail
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, JODHPUR
Criminal Petition No. ____/2026
Arjun Yadav (Petitioner) v/s The State & Ors.

PETITION FOR PROTECTION IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP/ANTICIPATORY BAIL

PETITIONER:
Arjun Yadav, Aged 36 years, Resident of House No. 234, Station Road, Jodhpur - 342001,
Software Professional.

RESPONDENTS:
1. The State of Rajasthan
2. Neha Sharma, Aged 28 years (In relationship with Petitioner)
3. Shri Rajesh Sharma (Respondent No. 2's Father)

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Petitioner is in a consensual live-in relationship with Respondent No. 2 (Neha Sharma)
for last 3 years with intention of matrimony.

2. Both parties are major, mentally sound, and in genuine relationship without any duress.

3. Respondent No. 2 had given written consent letter dated 12th April 2026 confirming voluntary
live-in relationship with Petitioner.

4. One child has been born out of this relationship: Aditya Yadav, Aged 2 years, now recognized
by Petitioner.
5. Respondent No. 3 (Father of Respondent No. 2) is deeply opposed to this relationship and
has threatened to register false FIR against Petitioner under:
• Section 498-A IPC (Cruelty to Wife) - False claim that she is his wife
• Section 406 IPC (Criminal Breach of Trust)
• Section 420 IPC (Cheating)

6. Petitioner has not caused any injury or harassment to Respondent No. 2. She is living
independently and happily.

7. Petitioner is Computer Engineer, resident of Jodhpur for last 15 years, with clean criminal
record.

8. Petitioner apprehends imminent arrest on false grounds and seeks anticipatory bail and
protective orders.

GROUNDS FOR PRAYER:

1. Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 are in consensual live-in relationship.
2. No offence has been committed. Threat is from Respondent No. 3 out of personal animosity.
3. Respondent No. 2 is alive, safe, and with Petitioner willingly.
4. This Court should protect Constitutional rights of Petitioner.

PRAYER:
1. Grant anticipatory bail to Petitioner.
2. Direct police not to arrest Petitioner.
3. Direct Respondents not to harass Petitioner.
4. Pass such other orders as deemed fit.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Petitioner: Arjun Yadav

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2021

TOPIC 9: APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 CPC

For Separation of Causes of Action / Non-Joinder of Parties
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Civil Suit No. ____/2026
 Vikram Singh v/s Rajesh Kumar & Ors.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

For Separation of Causes of Action / Non-Joinder of Parties

APPLICANT/DEFENDANT:
Vikram Singh, Resident of House No. 234, College Road, Jodhpur - 342001.

STATEMENT OF GROUNDS:

1. MIS-JOINDER OF PARTIES:
Following parties have been unnecessarily impleaded in the suit:
• Defendant No. 2 (Ashok Kumar) - No connection with Applicant's dispute
• Defendant No. 3 (Ravi Singh) - His name added wrongly, actually different person
These parties have no common or separate interest in the matter.

2. NON-JOINDER OF NECESSARY PARTIES:

Following necessary parties have not been impleaded:
• State Bank of India (mortgagee of property in dispute) - Necessary party
• Property Owner (as property is rented property) - Necessary party
Without these parties, suit cannot be properly adjudicated.

3. SEPARATE CAUSES OF ACTION:

The suit contains distinct and separate causes of action which should be tried separately:
• Cause of Action No. 1: Recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- loan given in 2020
• Cause of Action No. 2: Possession of property dispute (different matter)
• Cause of Action No. 3: Breach of contract regarding garment business
All three are distinct and require separate trials.

4. PREJUDICE TO APPLICANT:
Applicant will suffer serious prejudice due to mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non-joinder
of necessary parties, making the suit improperly constituted.

PRAYER:
1. Separate Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 from the suit.
2. Implead SBI and Property Owner as necessary parties.
3. Separate the causes of action for individual trials.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant/Defendant: Vikram Singh

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. __ /2019

TOPIC 10: APPLICATION FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES U/s 23

RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT, 2001
Before Rent Tribunal - Re-establishment of Essential Facilities
RENT TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR
Rent Case No. ____/2026
Pradeep Verma (Tenant) v/s Rajesh Deshmukh (Landlord)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 23 RAJASTHAN RENT CONTROL ACT, 2001

For Re-establishment of Essential Facilities

APPLICANT (TENANT):
Pradeep Verma, Aged 38 years, Resident of Flat No. 12, Rajendra Tower, High Court Road,
Jodhpur - 342001, Businessman.

RESPONDENT (LANDLORD):
Rajesh Deshmukh, Resident of House No. 567, Nai Sadak, Jodhpur - 342001.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
[Link] Applicant is a tenant of Flat No. 12, Rajendra Tower, High Court Road, Jodhpur.
Monthly Rent: Rs. 15,000/-
Period of Tenancy: Last 5 years (since 20th March 2021)

2. Following essential facilities have been wrongfully withdrawn by Respondent:

• Water Supply: Cut off since 15th February 2026
• Electricity Supply: Disconnected since 20th February 2026
• Sewage Facility: Blocked since 10th March 2026
• Building Maintenance: Not done for 6 months
3. The withdrawal of facilities is unauthorized, sudden, and without notice or valid reason.

4. Applicant has written representations to Respondent on 25th February 2026 and 12th March
2026 but no action taken.

5. The Applicant has paid rent regularly without any default. No rent is overdue.

6. The Applicant has two children aged 5 and 8 years who suffer from water and electricity
shortage.

7. These facilities are essential for human habitation and livelihood.

GROUNDS FOR RE-ESTABLISHMENT:

1. Landlord has no right to withdraw essential services.
2. These facilities are warranty of habitability.
3. Tenant is not in default of payment.
4. Withdrawal is breach of covenant of lease.

PRAYER:
1. Order re-establishment of water, electricity, and sewage facilities immediately.
2. Award relief for period facilities were unavailable: Rs. 10,000/- (proportionate rent reduction).
3. Impose penalty on Respondent for wrongful withdrawal.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant/Tenant: Pradeep Verma

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2018

TOPIC 11: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PETITION

Under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
MAGISTRATE COURT (FAMILY COURT), JODHPUR
DV Case No. ____/2026
Kavya Singh (Aggrieved Person) v/s Rajesh Singh (Perpetrator)
 PETITION UNDER PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

PETITIONER (AGGRIEVED WOMAN):

Kavya Singh, Aged 30 years, Resident of House No. 89, Rajendra Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001,
Homemaker.

RESPONDENT (PERPETRATOR):
Rajesh Singh, Aged 35 years, Resident of House No. 89, Rajendra Nagar, Jodhpur - 342001,
Husband of Petitioner.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
1. The Petitioner has been subjected to persistent domestic violence by Respondent (her
husband) since their marriage in January 2018.

2. PHYSICAL VIOLENCE - Respondent has inflicted bodily injuries:

• Incident 1 (12th January 2026): Beat petitioner with belt causing bruises on back and arms
• Incident 2 (8th February 2026): Slapped petitioner, causing facial injury
• Incident 3 (18th March 2026): Pushed petitioner down stairs, causing fracture in left arm
• Incident 4 (15th April 2026): Beat with wooden stick causing multiple injuries
Medical Certificate from Dr. Priya Pathak dated 16th April 2026 attached.

3. VERBAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE:

Respondent regularly abuses petitioner with filthy language, hurls insults, and calls her
'worthless' and 'useless'.
He has threatened to kill her and her children multiple times.

4. ECONOMIC ABUSE:
Respondent withholds household money, does not provide for children's education.
He has forced petitioner to give him all her jewelry and savings.

5. CHILDREN:
Two children: Aarav Singh (aged 6 years) and Ananya Singh (aged 4 years).
Both children are also psychologically traumatized by daily violence.

6. The violence has caused severe physical injuries, mental trauma, and health deterioration.
Petitioner has suffered: Anxiety, Depression, Sleep disorder, and PTSD.
7. WITNESSES:
• Sunita Singh (Neighbor) - Heard screams multiple times
• Mohan Sharma (Relative) - Has seen injuries

RELIEFS SOUGHT:

1. PROTECTION ORDER:
Restraining Respondent from:
• Committing any act of violence against Petitioner
• Attempting to contact, communicate, or meet Petitioner in any manner
• Entering Petitioner's residence, workplace, or school of children
• Attempting to remove children from school/care

2. RESIDENCE ORDER:
Grant exclusive possession of House No. 89 to Petitioner.

3. COMPENSATION:
Compensation for physical injuries: Rs. 50,000/-
Compensation for mental trauma and suffering: Rs. 2,00,000/-
Maintenance for children: Rs. 20,000/- per month until they attain majority
Maintenance for Petitioner: Rs. 15,000/- per month

4. CUSTODY ORDER:
Sole custody of both children to Petitioner.
Supervised visitation to Respondent only with social worker present.

PRAYER:
Grant all reliefs as mentioned above for protection and safety of Petitioner and children.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Petitioner: Kavya Singh (Signature & Thumb Impression)

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2020

TOPIC 12: APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 127 OF [Link]

[Now in 146 of BNSS] - For Discharge and Dismissal of Case
MAGISTRATE COURT, JODHPUR
Criminal Case No. ____/2024
State v/s Vikram Kumar (Accused)

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 127 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

For Discharge of Accused and Dismissal of Case

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:
Vikram Kumar, Aged 42 years, Resident of House No. 156, Station Road, Jodhpur - 342001,
Shopkeeper.

OPPOSITE PARTY:
The State of Rajasthan / Complainant Rajesh Patel

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS:

1. PENDENCY OF CASE:
This case has been pending since 12th April 2024 (more than 24 months) for alleged offence
under Section 447 and 323 IPC.
No substantive progress has been made in investigation or prosecution.

2. LACK OF CREDIBLE EVIDENCE:

After 20 months of investigation, police have not collected any credible evidence.
The only statement is from Complainant Rajesh Patel which is vague, inconsistent, and lacks
independent corroboration.

3. NO PRIMA FACIE CASE:

Statements recorded and investigation report shows no prima facie case against Accused.
No independent witness has corroborated Complainant's version.

4. PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED:
Extended pendency has caused severe prejudice:
• Mental agony and anxiety: Unable to move freely
• Damage to reputation: Loss of business (40% turnover reduction)
• Economic loss: Rs. 3,50,000/- in lost business earnings
 • Family suffering: Wife underwent surgery due to stress (medical bills: Rs. 45,000/-)

5. SETTLEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES:

The Complainant Rajesh Patel and Accused Vikram Kumar have amicably settled the dispute.
Complainant willing to withdraw case and execute deed of settlement (Annexure-A attached).

6. ABUSE OF PROCESS:
The case appears to be filed out of personal vendetta rather than genuine grievance.
Continued prosecution would be abuse of court's process.

PRAYER:
1. Discharge the Accused Vikram Kumar from present case.
2. Dismiss the complaint against Accused.
3. Award compensation to Accused for wrongful prosecution: Rs. 2,50,000/-

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant/Accused: Vikram Kumar

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2019

TOPIC 13: APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 145 OF [Link]

[Now in 164 of BNSS] - Dispute Over Land / Immovable Property
MAGISTRATE COURT, JODHPUR
Property Dispute Case No. ____/2026
Mohan Singh v/s Suresh Verma

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 145 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

For Prevention of Breach of Peace / Dispute Over Land

PETITIONER:
Mohan Singh, Aged 55 years, Farmer, Resident of Village Balesar, Jodhpur District.

OPPOSITE PARTY:
Suresh Verma, Aged 52 years, Contractor, Resident of House No. 234, Jodhpur.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1. DESCRIPTION OF DISPUTED PROPERTY:

Property Address: Agricultural land in Village Balesar, Jodhpur District
Survey No.: 234, 235, 236 (Contiguous plots)
Area: 4 Bigha 8 Biswa (approximately 2.5 acres)
Total Estimated Value: Rs. 25,00,000/-
Location: On outskirts of village with road frontage

2. BASIS OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM:

• Ancestry: Land inherited from father Late Ram Singh vide Will dated 1990
• Possession: Continuous cultivation and occupation for last 35 years
• Revenue Records: Registered in Petitioner's name in latest revenue survey
• Tax Payment: Property tax paid regularly by Petitioner since 1990
• Witnesses: Entire village aware of Petitioner's ownership

3. BASIS OF OPPOSITE PARTY'S CLAIM:

Opposite party claims purchase through deed dated 15th March 2024 from one Rajesh Yadav.
Petitioner disputes the authenticity of this deed.
Opposite party has no documentary evidence of ancestral possession.

4. DISPUTED POSSESSION AND THREAT TO PEACE:

On 10th April 2026, Opposite party entered the property with hired labourers (about 15 persons)
and:
• Removed stone boundary markers
• Threatened Petitioner with physical harm
• Announced intention to demolish Petitioner's structures and construct building
• Obstructed Petitioner's access to his agricultural land
Opposite party hired armed guards (3 persons) on 15th April 2026.

5. THREAT OF BREACH OF PEACE:

There is imminent threat to breach of peace due to:
• Armed presence of Opposite party's men
• Violent threats made to Petitioner
• Mobilization of hired labourers and construction equipment
• Trespassing and unauthorized occupation
Nearby residents are also concerned about escalation of violence.

6. ATTEMPTS AT SETTLEMENT:
Petitioner attempted to resolve matter peacefully on 12th April 2026 but Opposite party refused
to listen.

PRAYER:
1. Conduct inquiry into the disputed property ownership.
2. Pass orders to preserve status quo and prevent breach of peace.
3. Direct Opposite party to cease trespassing and occupying the property.
4. Issue notice to Opposite party.
5. Pass final orders declaring Petitioner as rightful owner and directing Opposite party to vacate.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Petitioner: Mohan Singh (Signature & Thumb Impression)

Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. ___/2017

TOPIC 14: DRAFT A CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 63 OF BSA

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (2023) - Electronic Document Authentication
DISTRICT COURT / HIGH COURT, JODHPUR
Civil Case No. ____/2026
Raj Kumar v/s Vikram Singh

CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 63 OF BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

For Authenticity of Electronic Documents

CERTIFICATE NO. BSA-2026-_____

Issued by:
Shri Vikram Kumar Dubey
Chief Information Security Officer
Digital Signatures India Limited (DSIL)
New Delhi - Accredited under Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
Registration No.: DSIL/CERT/2026/______
Date of Issue: 24th April 2026

PARTICULARS OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT:

1. Document Type:
Electronic Partnership Agreement / Contract

2. Document Title:
Partnership Agreement for Solar Energy Business Project

3. Parties to Document:
• Party 1: Raj Kumar (Senior Partner), Email: ___________
• Party 2: Vikram Singh (Junior Partner), Email: ___________

4. Document Hash Value (SHA-___________):

___________

5. Date and Time of Creation:

18th April 2026 at 15:45:30 Hours (IST)

6. Date and Time of Last Modification:

23rd April 2026 at 09:30:15 Hours (IST)

7. Document Size:
254 KB

8. Digital Signature Details:

Digital Signature Class: 2 (Signing with basic authentication)
Signing Authority: DSIL
Signature Algorithm: RSA with SHA___________
Certificate Serial No.: ___________

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT:
I, Vikram Kumar Dubey, Chief Information Security Officer of Digital Signatures India Limited,
hereby certify that:

1. I have examined the electronic document bearing ID '___________' submitted for

authentication.

2. The document appears to be authentic and has not been tampered with, altered, or modified
from its original state.

3. The electronic digital signature affixed to the document dated 18th April 2026 appears to be
genuine and has not been forged or misused.

4. The document was transmitted/created on 18th April 2026 at 15:45:30 IST as per system
records and logs maintained by the Digital Signatures Authority.

5. Both signatories (Raj Kumar and Vikram Singh) have been duly identified and authenticated
through their registered digital signatures.

6. The document and digital signatures comply with all provisions of Section 63 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

7. This certificate is issued based on technical verification and does not constitute legal opinion
regarding the validity or enforceability of the document.

SEAL AND SIGNATURE:

Signature:
Name: Vikram Kumar Dubey
Designation: Chief Information Security Officer
Organization: Digital Signatures India Limited
Date: 24th April 2026

[OFFICIAL SEAL OF DSIL]

TOPIC 15: APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 33 OF CPC
Application by Pauper (In Forma Pauperis) - For Leave to Sue without Payment of Court Fees
DISTRICT COURT, JODHPUR
Civil Suit No. _____/2026 (In Forma Pauperis)
Ramesh Kumar (Pauper) v/s Rajesh Builders Pvt. Ltd.

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 33 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

For Leave to Sue as a Pauper (In Forma Pauperis)

APPLICANT (PAUPER):
Ramesh Kumar, Aged 45 years, Resident of House No. 45, Slum Area near Railway Station,
Jodhpur - 342001.
Occupation: Daily wage labourer

RESPONDENT:
Rajesh Builders Pvt. Ltd., a Company registered under Indian Companies Act, having office at
123 Rajendra Tower, Jodhpur.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION:

1. THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL CONDITION:

The Applicant is an extremely poor person and does not have means to pay court fees required
for filing the suit.

2. MONTHLY INCOME:
• Wage as daily labourer: Rs. 4,500/- per month (earned on 18-20 days per month)
• Irregular income from part-time work: Rs. 800/- (average)
• Total Monthly Income: Rs. 5,300/-

3. MONTHLY EXPENSES:
• Food and basic living expenses: Rs. 2,800/-
• Rent for shelter: Rs. 1,200/-
• Children's education: Rs. 600/-
• Medical expenses (essential): Rs. 400/-
• Utilities (water, small electricity): Rs. 300/-
• Total Monthly Expenses: Rs. 5,300/-

Monthly Deficit: NIL (Just manages to survive)

4. IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES:
Applicant does not own any immovable property except a small rented shelter where he lives.
He does not own any land or house.

5. MOVABLE ASSETS:
Movable assets owned: A few old clothes, a bicycle (valued at Rs. 800/-), old utensils (Rs.
500/-).
Total movable assets value: Less than Rs. 1,500/-
These items are absolutely essential for his survival and livelihood.

6. DEPENDENTS:
Applicant has four dependents:
• Wife: Usha Kumari, Aged 42 years (housewife, no income)
• Son: Akshay, Aged 12 years (school student)
• Daughter: Priya, Aged 10 years (school student)
• Mother: Savitri Devi, Aged 68 years (widow, completely dependent)
All these family members are dependent on Applicant's meagre income.

7. LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION:

Applicant entered into agreement with Rajesh Builders on 10th March 2024 for construction of a
small room.
Applicant paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to Respondent.
Despite 12 months, construction has not started. Respondent refuses to refund money.
Applicant has no other remedy except to sue Respondent.
Amount in dispute: Rs. 1,50,000/- (exceeds small causes limit)

8. NO ALTERNATIVE REMEDY:
Applicant has no alternative remedy available. Suit cannot be avoided.
Respondent is a company and refuses to settle.

9. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
• Affidavit of poverty sworn on oath
• Copy of employment certificate from labourer
• Medical certificate showing financial inability (if applicable)
• Photographs of current residence
• List of dependents

GROUNDS FOR PRAYER:

1. Applicant is destitute and has no means to pay court fees.

2. Applicant has legitimate cause of action and genuine grievance.

3. Exemption from court fees is necessary to ensure access to justice as guaranteed

under Constitution.

4. No alternative remedy is available to Applicant.

PRAYER:
1. Grant leave to the Applicant to sue as a pauper (in forma pauperis).
2. Exempt the Applicant from payment of all court fees.
3. Direct that the suit proceeds without payment of fees or stamps.
4. Allow service of summons at the address given.
5. Pass such further orders as the Court may deem fit and proper.

VERIFICATION:
I, Ramesh Kumar, the Applicant, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the facts stated in
this application are true to my knowledge and belief, and nothing has been concealed. I further
declare that I am unable to pay court fees due to extreme poverty.

Date: 25th April 2026 Place: Jodhpur

Applicant/Pauper: Ramesh Kumar

(Signature/Thumb Impression)
Advocate: ___________, Reg. No. _____/2019
Contact: ___________