| Sr No. | Scrutiny Date | Objection | Details |
| 1 | 10-Feb-2020 | | All Objections are Complied |
| 2 | 15-Sep-2020 | court fee | ONE e-COURT FE STAMP OF RS. 105/- ONLY PAID, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT. |
| 2 | | vakalatnama | VAKALATNAMA HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO. 02 TO 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 3 | 15-Sep-2020 | court fee | ONE e-COURT FE STAMP OF RS. 105/- ONLY PAID, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT. |
| 3 | | vakalatnama | VAKALATNAMA HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO. 02 TO 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 3 | | other | VILLAGE NAME IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL, DOES NOT FULLY TALLY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 3 | | othre defect | DESIGNATION OF MANAGER, THROUGH WHOM RESPONDENT NO. 05 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL IS APPEARING, HAS NOT BEEN STATED COMPLETELY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 3 | | post office. | NAME OF POST OFFICE IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 01, HAS NOT BEEN STATED AS PER CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 3 | | Other defects | YEAR OF CLAIM CASE AS STATED IN AGGRIEVED PORTION SHOULD BE VERIFIED FROM CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND BE CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| 3 | | Receipt showing service of Copy upon Respondent | RECEIPT SHOWING SERVICE OF COPY UPON RESPONDENT NO. 05 HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 4 | 15-Sep-2020 | court fee | ONE e-COURT FE STAMP OF RS. 105/- ONLY PAID, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT. |
| 4 | | vakalatnama | VAKALATNAMA HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO. 02 TO 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 4 | | other | VILLAGE NAME IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL, DOES NOT FULLY TALLY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 4 | | othre defect | DESIGNATION OF MANAGER, THROUGH WHOM RESPONDENT NO. 05 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL IS APPEARING, HAS NOT BEEN STATED COMPLETELY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 4 | | post office. | NAME OF POST OFFICE IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 01, HAS NOT BEEN STATED AS PER CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 4 | | Other defects | YEAR OF CLAIM CASE AS STATED IN AGGRIEVED PORTION SHOULD BE VERIFIED FROM CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND BE CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| 4 | | Other defect | IN CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, DATE MENTIONED IN THE 4TH CAGE COLUMN DIFFERS VIDE DATE GIVEN BELOW THE SIGNATURE WITHIN SEAL CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE COPY. |
| 4 | | Receipt showing service of Copy upon Respondent | RECEIPT SHOWING SERVICE OF COPY UPON RESPONDENT NO. 05 HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 4 | | | Other Objection : LIMITATION REPORT WILL BE MADE AFTER REMOVAL OF DEFECT NO. 32 MENTIONED ABOVE. |
| 5 | 15-Sep-2020 | court fee | ONE e-COURT FEE STAMP OF RS. 105/- ONLY PAID, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT. |
| 5 | | vakalatnama | VAKALATNAMA HAS NOT BEEN EXECUTED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT NO. 02 TO 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 5 | | other | VILLAGE NAME IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 04 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL, DOES NOT FULLY TALLY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 5 | | othre defect | DESIGNATION OF MANAGER, THROUGH WHOM RESPONDENT NO. 05 OF THIS MEMO OF APPEAL IS APPEARING, HAS NOT BEEN STATED COMPLETELY VIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 5 | | post office. | NAME OF POST OFFICE IN THE ADDRESS DETAIL OF RESPONDENT NO. 01, HAS NOT BEEN STATED AS PER CERTIFIED COPY OF AWARD U/A. |
| 5 | | Other defects | YEAR OF CLAIM CASE AS STATED IN AGGRIEVED PORTION SHOULD BE VERIFIED FROM CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND BE CORRECTED ACCORDINGLY. |
| 5 | | Other defect | IN CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, DATE MENTIONED IN THE 4TH CAGE COLUMN DIFFERS VIDE DATE GIVEN BELOW THE SIGNATURE WITHIN SEAL CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE COPY. |
| 5 | | Receipt showing service of Copy upon Respondent | RECEIPT SHOWING SERVICE OF COPY UPON RESPONDENT NO. 05 HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITH THIS MEMO OF APPEAL. |
| 5 | | | Other Objection : LIMITATION REPORT WILL BE MADE AFTER REMOVAL OF DEFECT NO. 32 MENTIONED ABOVE. |