Sri A.Karna Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI A. KARNA KUMAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017.

DEBITOR I.P. 2 of 2015.

Between

Pydiparti Muralikrishna, W/o Narasimharao, Hindu, No avocation 50 years, Tekisettipalem, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.… Petitioner.

And

1Katikireddi Durgabhavani, W/o Narayanarao, Hindu, Housewife 53 years, Chintalamori, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.

2Bonam Subbarao, S/o Hanumantharao, Hindu, cultivation, 46 years, Malikipuram, Malikipuram Mandal.

3Seelam Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narasimhamurty, Hindu, cultivation 57 years, Malikipuram, Malikipuram Mandal.

4Raavi Srinivasarao, S/o Venkataratnam, Hindu, cultivation, V.V. Meraka, Gandhinagar, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. … Respondents.

This Petition coming on 18.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.S.S.A. Naidu, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri D. Bhaskar, Advocate for 1st Respondent and of Sri Kodavati P.R.R. Naidu, Advocate for 2nd respondent and R3 & R4 remained exparte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed under Section 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudicate the petitioner as an insolvent and to give necessary directions for distribution of assets of petitioner among General Body of Creditors by vesting the same with the Official Receiver .

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner did prawn cultivation for some years. Even though he sustained heavy loss in the prawn culture, he continued the said business by borrowing amounts from money lenders like the respondents with a hope that the prawn cultivation would fetch him the present year. But he sustained loss consecutively.

The amounts due by the petitioner to the creditors i.e., respondents shown in “A” schedule.

The petitioner tried his level best to discharge the debts. But he could not discharge the same. The liabilities of the petitioner exceeds Rs.500/- as contemplated under the provisions of Insolvency Act. The petitioner has no assets other than wearing apparels as shown in “D” schedule. The petitioner has no outstanding dues recoverable by him from others. The respondents 2 to 4 are threatening the petitioner that they would file suits and get the 2 petitioner arrested before judgment to recover the amounts. The 1st respondent already filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of pronote debt in O.S.No.117/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Razole which was decreed. Thereafter the 1st respondent filed

E.P. for arrest of petitioner vide E.P.No.55/2012. The Junior Civil Judge’s Court ordered the arrest of the petitioner. In pursuance of the warrant, the Field Assistant executed the warrant and produced the petitioner before Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Razole. Then the petitioner filed a memo before the said court that he would file I.P. Accordingly, got released himself. The petitioner has no income from any source and he is not doing any job. He is depending on his relatives and friends. The petitioner has not suppressed any of his assets or liabilities. He has no shares in any company or in any financial institutions. If it is found that the petitioner is in possession of any assets, he has no objection for the same being taken by the official receiver to be appointed by the court to distribute the same among the general body of creditors. The debts of the petitioner are at tune of Rs.8,70,000/- as shown in “A” schedule whereas his assets are shown in “B” schedule i.e., Rs. NIL. The debts due to the petitioner are also NIL. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition.

3.On the other hand respondents 1 and 2 filed their counters and contesting the matter.

The respondents 3 and 4 remained exparte.

4.The brief averments of the counter filed by 1st respondent are that the petitioner set up all allegations for the purpose of filing this petition and to avoid the decree debt of the 1st respondent by colluding with the respondents 2 to 4. In E.P.55/2012 the learned Junior Civil

Judge on merits issued arrest warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner is working as

M.D. Under the Giridhar Lakshmi Narayan Agencies at Malikipuram running through Ome Sai

Professional Detective Security Services PVT. Ltd., at Kakinada and he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month towards salary and the petitioner is also doing rice business. The petitioner has got capacity to discharge the decree debt with intent to avoid the decree amount filed this false petition. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The brief averments of the counter filed by 2nd respondent are that the petitioner is a business man and running a printing press and he has got ancestral property in Malikipuram.

He is also got properties at Antervedipalem and Sakhinetipalli villages. The petitioner suppressed his business and assets and filed the I.P. with false allegations. The learned Junior 3

Civil Judge ordered arrest of the petitioner after satisfying with the means of the petitioner.

The petitioner is a wealthy man and to avoid the arrest , the present petition is filed. There are no merits in the petition. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 examined and no documents are marked on his behalf. On behalf of the 1st respondent , R.Ws.1 and 2 examined. Exs.R1 to

R3 are marked. Respondent No.2 reported no evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is to be adjudicated as insolvent by vesting the assets of the petitioner with the Official Receiver directing him to distribute the assets among the general body of creditors?

9.To prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 by name

Pydiparthi Murali Krishna and he also examined one more witness as P.W.2 by name Mendu

Ramachandra Rao.

10.The P.W.1 deposed that the respondents 1 to 4 are his creditors. Previously, he did prawn cultivation and sustained loss. He borrowed loans from respondents 1 to 4. He also deposed that he is not having any properties to discharge the debts and his debts are more than his assets. He also deposed about the suit filed by 1st respondent and decree of the same, E.P. filed by 1st respondent and arrest of him. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent adopted the cross examination of 1st respondent. As per cross examination, the petitioner is working as watchman at prawn tanks of Gondi village and getting only Rs.200/- per day as daily wages and he has been residing in a rented house at Malikipuram. He was also cross examined regarding suit filed by 1st respondent, decree of the same, E.P. and his arrest in the E.P. proceedings. He also deposed that his elder son studied 10th class and he has been moving along with his brother in law and 2nd son is studying Degree.

11.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent did not elicit anything regarding suppression of assets of the petitioner or regarding working as M.D., under the Giridhar

Lakshmi Narayan Agencies at Malikipuram running through Ome Sai Professional Detective 4

Security Services PVT. Ltd., at Kakinada and he has also not elicited anything about the earnings of the petitioner.

12.The P.W.2 deposed in support of the case of the petitioner and corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. He deposed that the petitioner did prawn cultivation and sustained loss and he borrowed amounts. He also deposed that presently the petitioner is working as daily wages and getting only Rs.200/- per day. He was also cross examined by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent but nothing was elicited regarding suppression of the assets by the petitioner.

13.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 establish that the respondents 1 to 4 are the creditors of the petitioner and the petitioner has no assets. The debts of the petitioner is Rs.8,70,000/- and he is unable to pay the same. The respondents 3 and 4 remained exparte and did not contest the matter stating that they are not the creditors to the petitioner. The respondent

No.2 also even though filed counter but he did not deny that he is not the creditor of the petitioner. Admittedly 1st respondent filed suit against the petitioner and obtained decree.

Therefore, the petitioner establish that respondents 1 to 4 are the creditors of the petitioner and he borrowed money as shown in “A” schedule.

14.On the other hand in order to prove the case of the 1st respondent, 1st respondent has relied on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2.

The R.W.1 Katikireddi Durga Bhavani is the 1st respondent herein. She deposed in support of her case and she got marked Exs.R1 to R3. The Ex.R1 is the certified copy of E.P.

which establish that the 1st respondent filed suit O.S.117/2011 and obtained decree on 09.07.2012 and later 1st respondent filed E.P. for arrest of petitioner under Order 21 Rule 37 of C.P.C., and after enquiry the learned Junior Civil Judge ordered for the arrest of the petitioner and petitioner was produced before the court on execution of warrant and since the petitioner filed memo stating that he would like to file I.P. and he was released on execution of personal bond. The 1st respondent also filed copy of certificate issued by

Giridhar Lakshmi Narayana Agencies stating that the petitioner is working as M.D. Under the

Giridhar Lakshmi Narayan Agencies at Malikipuram running through Ome Sai Professional

Detective Security Services PVT. Ltd., at Kakinada and getting Rs.15,000/- per month. But the 1st respondent did not examine the person who issued certificate under original of Ex.R3.

5

The respondent No.1 examined R.W.2 Rayudu Malleswarao. He deposed that the petitioner is working as M.D. Under the Giridhar Lakshmi Narayan Agencies at Malikipuram running through Ome Sai Professional Detective Security Services PVT. Ltd., at Kakinada and he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month. He deposed that he does not know the contents of his chief examination affidavit and the husband of 1st respondent gave instructions to the counsel for the 1st respondent to draft his chief affidavit. So, evidence of R.W.2 is not acceptable and not believable.

15.The R.W.1 admitted that he did not file any material to show that the petitioner is having properties and petitioner is doing job as contended by her. The R.W.1 also admitted that she did not file any proof to show that the petitioner is doing rice business. The R.W.1 has not adduced any evidence to show that the presently the petitioner is working as M.D.

Under the Giridhar Lakshmi Narayan Agencies at Malikipuram running through Ome Sai

Professional Detective Security Services PVT. Ltd., at Kakinada and getting Rs.15,000/- per month.

16.Therefore, the evidence of 1st respondent does not establish that the petitioner is having assets more than the debts shown in “A” schedule.

As per Section 7 of Provincial Insolvency Act says if a debtor commits an act of insolvency, an insolvency petition may be presented by the debtor and the court may on such petition make an order (herein after called an order of adjudication adjudicating him an insolvent).

Explanation: The presentation of a petition by the debtor shall be due an act of insolvency within the meaning of this section, and on such petition the court may make an order of adjudication.

According to Section 10 (1) of Provincial Insolvency Act - A debtor will not be entitled to present an insolvency petition unless he is unable to pay his debts.

17.The burden lies on the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner is able to pay their debts and the petitioner is having assets to discharge the debts shown in “A” schedule. But absolutely there is no evidence that the petitioner is able to pay their debts and having assets to discharge the debts shown in “A” schedule. There is also no evidence that the petitioner 6 suppressed his assets. Therefore, I hold that the acts committed by the petitioner amounts to acts of insolvency. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to be declared as an insolvent.

18.Accordingly the petition is allowed adjudicating the petitioner as an insolvent vesting the properties of petitioner with the Official Receiver, Rajahmundry directing the Official

Receiver to distribute the assets among the general body of creditors.

19.As a result, the petition is allowed by adjudicating the petitioner as an insolvent vesting the properties of the petitioner with the Official Receiver, Rajahmundry with a direction to distribute the assets among the general body of creditors.

Under the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:

P.W.1: Pydiparthi Muralikrishna P.W.2: Mendu Ramchandra Rao

Respondents:

R.W.1: Katikireddi Durga Bhavani R.W.2: Rayudu Malleswarao

Documents Marked.

For Petitioner: NIL

For Respondents:

Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of E.P. 55/2012 in O.S.117/11 Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 in E.P.55/2012 Ex.R.3 : Certified copy of certificate issued by Giridhar Lakshminarayana Agencies, Malikipuram , dt:27.04.2013

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI A. KARNA KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017.

O.S. 20 of 2016.

Between

Ravula Purushotam, S/o Sri Ravula Sattiraju, 44 years, Hindu, D.No.2-202, Pedapatnam Lanka of Mamidikuduru (M), E.G.Dt. …Plaintiff .

And

Yellamilli Ramadas, S/o Sri Yellamilli Bhushanam, 46 years, employee, D.No.5-146/1, Kothapeta (V & M), E.G.Dt. …Defendant.

This suit coming on 13.04.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Kameswara Rao, Sri PVN Narasimha Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant called absent set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing on plaintiff’s counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,01,333/- with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 27.05.2014 and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Later, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 06.10.2015 to clear of the amount due under the promissory note. Even though received the said notice, he kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand the defendant engaged an Advocate and filed his written statement. But during the course of trial, he remained ex-parte.

4.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 examined. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.

5.Heard arguments of plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim, as prayed for?

2

7.The initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of promissory note,

dt:27.05.2014.

8.To prove the same, the plaintiff has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The

P.W.1 is the plaintiff herein by name Ravula Purushotam. He deposed that the defendant executed promissory note in his favour on 27.05.2014. The same was marked as Ex.A1 through P.W.1.

The P.W.2 is the 1st attestor of Ex.A1 by name Kovvuri Veera Raghavareddy.

He supported the case of the plaintiff and categorically deposed that the defendant had executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and he corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.

9.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 established execution of Ex.A1 promissory note,

dt:27.05.2014 by the defendant. Once the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note is

proved by the plaintiff by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the presumption

U/Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act regarding passing of consideration would come into play which is a rebuttable presumption.

10.The burden lies on the defendant to rebut the said presumption and non- existence of consideration. But the defendant remained ex-parte and there is no rebuttal evidence.

11.So, in view of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and presumption U/Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act I hold that the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and it is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant.

12.Though the plaintiff got issued legal notice under original of Ex.A2, the defendant did not pay anything. The defendant received the said notice under Ex.A3 and he kept quiet. The promissory note Ex.A1 is payable on demand. The Ex.A1 promissory note is enforceable under law. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount under Ex.A1.

3

13.The plaintiff claimed interest @ 24% p.a. from 27.05.2014 to 31.01.2016 on

principal amount which is excessive and against the Section-3 of the Usurious Loans

Act. Therefore, the interest is liable to be scaled down to 12% p.a. from 27.05.2014 to 31.01.2016. The plaintiff is entitled @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The suit for the rest of the claim is dismissed. Accordingly, I answer this point.

14.As a result, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of execution of promissory note, dt: 27.05.2014 to 31.01.2016 and @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only). The suit for the rest of the claim is dismissed.

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff:

P.W.1: Ravula Purushotam

P.W.2: Kovvuri Veera Raghavareddy

Defendant: None

Documents Marked.

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: dt. 27.05.2014: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

Ex.A.2: dt. 06.10.2015: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff

Ex.A.3: dt. ---- : Postal acknowledgment of the defendant

For defendant: NIL

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI A. KARNA KUMAR

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017.

DEBITOR I.P. 2 of 2015.

Between

Pydiparti Muralikrishna, W/o Narasimharao, Hindu, No avocation 50 years, Tekisettipalem, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.… Petitioner.

And

1Katikireddi Durgabhavani, W/o Narayanarao, Hindu, Housewife 53 years, Chintalamori, Sakhinetipalli Mandal.

2Bonam Subbarao, S/o Hanumantharao, Hindu, cultivation, 46 years, Malikipuram, Malikipuram Mandal.

3Seelam Venkateswara Rao, S/o Narasimhamurty, Hindu, cultivation 57 years, Malikipuram, Malikipuram Mandal.

4Raavi Srinivasarao, S/o Venkataratnam, Hindu, cultivation, V.V. Meraka, Gandhinagar, Sakhinetipalli Mandal. … Respondents.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudicate the petitioner as an insolvent and to give necessary directions for distribution of assets of petitioner among General Body of Creditors by vesting the same with the Official

Receiver .

Petition presented on 25.03.2015 and filed on 30.04.2015.

A Court fee of Rs. 10/- is paid under Sch.II Art.II(1) of A.C.. Act.

Cause of action arose when the petitioner sustained heavy loss in the prawn culture, he continued the said business by borrowing amounts from money lenders like the respondents with a hope that the prawn cultivation would fetch him the present year but in vain and the dues by the petitioner to the creditors i.e., respondents shown in “A” schedule and he tried his level best to discharge the debts and the liabilities of the petitioner exceeds Rs.500/- as contemplated under the provisions of Insolvency Act and he has no assets other than wearing apparels as shown in “D” schedule and the R2 to R4 are threatening the petitioner that they would file suits and get the petitioner arrested before judgment to recover the amounts and the R1 already filed a suit against him for recovery of pronote debt in O.S.117/11 on the file of J.C.J. Court, Razole which was decreed then the R1 filed E.P. for arrest of petitioner vide E.P.55/12 and the Court ordered the arrest of the petitioner then the petitioner filed a memo before the said court that he would file I.P. Accordingly, got released himself and he has no income from any source and he is not doing any job and depending on his relatives and friends and he has not suppressed any of his assets or liabilities and the 2 parties are residing at Tekisettipalem, Chinthalamori, Malikipuram, V.V. Meraka (V) are within the jurisdiction of this court. This Petition coming on 18.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Y.S.S.A. Naidu, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri D. Bhaskar, Advocate for 1st Respondent and of Sri Kodavati P.R.R. Naidu, Advocate for 2nd respondent and R3 & R4 remained exparte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed by adjudicating the petitioner as an insolvent and vesting the properties of petitioner with the Official Receiver, Rajahmundry with a direction to distribute the assets among the general body of creditors; and

2)That there shall be no costs.

Copy of petition schedules A to E are herewith attached.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

No costs memo filed on either side.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

Date of Presentation:01.02.2016 Date of Filing:01.02.2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAZOLE.

PRESENT:: SRI A. KARNA KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017.

O.S. 20 of 2016.

Between

Ravula Purushotam, S/o Sri Ravula Sattiraju, 44 years, Hindu, D.No.2-202, Pedapatnam Lanka of Mamidikuduru (M), E.G.Dt. …Plaintiff .

And

Yellamilli Ramadas, S/o Sri Yellamilli Bhushanam, 46 years, employee, D.No.5-146/1, Kothapeta (V & M), E.G.Dt. …Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,01,333/- with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant.

Cause of action arose on 27.05.2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, later, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 06.10.2015 to clear of the amount due under the promissory note he received the same but he kept quiet and the entire suit transaction took place at Kadali (V) which are within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation of the suit:

Principal amount under suit

Pronote, dt.27.05.2014….Rs. 5,00,000-00 ADD: Interest from 27.05.2014 to 31.01.2016 @ 24% p.a.….Rs. 2,01,333-00 ….Rs. 7,01,333-00 -----------------------------

A C.F. of Rs.9,526/- is paid there on U/Sch.I Art.1 (C) of A.C.F. Act.

This suit coming on 13.04.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.

Kameswara Rao, Sri PVN Narasimha Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant called absent set ex-parte and on perusing the material papers on record and upon 2 hearing on plaintiff’s counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1)That the suit be and the same is hereby partly decreed with costs;

2)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of execution of promissory note,

dt:27.05.2014 to 31.01.2016 and @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit to till the date

of realization on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only);

3)that the suit for the rest of the claim is dismissed; and

4)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff Rs.18,115/- (Rupees eighteen thousand one hundred and fifteen only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAZOLE.

Particulars of costs

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalath2-00No costs memo is filed Stamp on Plaint9,526-00 Stamp on process & batta 187-00 Advocate fee8,350-00 Typing charges50-00 Costs allowed18,115-00

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

C.M.O. RAZOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: RAZOLE

Present: Sri A Karna Kumar ,

Senior Civil Judge

28th day of April, 2017

O.S. No. 19 of 2017

Between: Mutyala Padmavathi … Petitioner

And

Mulleti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana.. Defendant

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of counsel for both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The plaintiff filed memo stating that not pressing the suit. Memo recorded. Suit is dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge

Razole

There is no oral or documentary evidence on either side

Senior Civil Judge

Razole