A.Manjulatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADIPATRI

Present: Ms. Araveti Manjulatha, M.Com., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Thursday, the 19th day of March,2020

Original Suit No.138/2017

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Tadipatri, Represented by its Branch Manager, Tadipatri, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District. …Plaintiff

Vs.

1. M.Obaiah S/o M.Narayana, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.2/249-A, Harijanawada, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District.

2. Y.Raju S/o Ramaiah, aged 40 years, Hindu, business, resident of GVP colony, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District.

….Defendants

This suit came before me on this day i.e.12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants are being called absent and remained exparte and having heard on the counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Suit for recovery of Rs.61,196/- being the principal and interest due on an agreement of Hypothecation/agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.40,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 10% p.a the defendant also executed revival letters on 09.05.2012 and 08.05.2015 to show that the plaint is within limitation period and D.2 stood as guarantor to D.1 and executed guarantee agreement on 07.03.2009 and inspite of repeated demands the defendants have not paid the suit debt. Hence the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The 1st defendant approached the plaintiff's bank for loan for the purpose of his Kirana Business and accordingly the loan was sanctioned 2 under loan account No.PFTL(Pragathi Flexi Trade Loan) 19025618690 for

Rs.40,000/- in favour of the defendant on 07.03.2009 and the 2nd defendant is stood as guarantor to the loan amount and the 1st defendant executed composite Hypothecation agreement on 07.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest at the rate of 10% p.a.

as per the directions of the RBI or such other rates as fixed by the Bank from time to time the defendants agreed to repay the said loan amount within 42 months on or before 15.10.2012 the plaintiff bank made several demands on the defendants to repay the amount but the defendants failed to pay any amount however the 1st defendant executed a letter of acknowledgment of debt on 09.05.2012 in favour of the plaintiff bank admitting his liability and again the 1st defendant executed another letter of acknowledgment of debt on 08.05.2015 in favour of the plaintiff bank admitting his liability to save limitation later even after repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendants failed to pay any amount. Hence the suit.

3. This court issued summons to the defendant and the same was served on the defendant and Sri Y.Haneef Basha, advocate filed vakalath for the

Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 is called absent and no representation though serving of summons held sufficient hence the defendant No.2 is remained exparte and where as the matter is coming for cross examination of PW.2 the defendant not present though conditions were imposed and this court remained the defendant No.1 as exparte.

4.Now the points for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for?”

5. In support of the plaintiff bank, the chief examination of PW.1 is filed and the same was eschewed and the Branch Manager of Andhra

Pragathi Grameena Bank, Tadipatri examined as PW.2 and Ex.A.1 to 3

Ex.A.5 are got marked. Ex.A1 is the loan agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.40,000/-, Ex.A.2 is the guarantee agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.40,000/-, Ex.A.3 is the acknowledgment of the debt dt.09.05.2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A.4 is the acknowledgment of the debt dt.08.05.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, and Ex.A.5 is true extract of account extract dt.23.5.2017 and his claim was unchallenged by the defendants by approaching the court. Hence the plaintiff bank proved his case by supporting documents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

7.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.61,196/- (Rupees sixty one thousand one hundred and ninety six only), with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.40,000/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 01.06.2017 till the date of the decree and further interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of March,2020.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

Junior Civil Judge (FAC)Tadipatri Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.W.1: R.Uma Maheswar Reddy -NIL-

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: Ex.A.1: Loan agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.40,000/-.

4

Ex.A.2: Guarantee agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.40,000/-. Ex.A.3: Acknowledgment of the debt dt.09.05.2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A.4: Acknowledgment of the debt dt.08.05.2015 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A.5: True extract of account extract dt.23.5.2017. Exhibits marked for Defendant: -NIL-id/AML.,

J.C.J.

5 6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADIPATRI

Present: Ms. Araveti Manjulatha, M.Com., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Thursday, the 19th day of March,2020

Original Suit No.138/2017

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Tadipatri, Represented by its Branch Manager, Tadipatri, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District. …Plaintiff

Vs.

1. M.Obaiah S/o M.Narayana, aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.2/249-A, Harijanawada, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District.

2. Y.Raju S/o Ramaiah, aged 40 years, Hindu, business, resident of GVP colony, Tadipatri town, Anantapuramu District.

….Defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs.61,196/- being the principal and interest due on an agreement of Hypothecation/agreement dt.07.03.2009 executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.40,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 10% p.a the defendant also executed revival letters on 09.05.2012 and 08.05.2015 to show that the plaint is within limitation period and D.2 stood as guarantor to D.1 and executed guarantee agreement on 07.03.2009 and inspite of repeated demands the defendants have not paid the suit debt and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 01.06.2017

Plaint numbered on : 15.06.2017

Value for the purpose of court fee and Jurisdiction is

Rs.61,196-00 and a court fee of Rs.2,626-00 is paid u/sec.20 of A.P.C.F and

S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 07.03.2009 at Tadipatri town when and where the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan to the 1st defendant and on 07.03.2009 when the 1st and 2nd defendants executed composite Hypothecation agreement and Guarantee agreement respectively and on the dates when the plaintiff bank made several demands on the defendants for payment of amount and on 09.05.2012 and on 08.05.2015 2 when the 1st defendant executed letters of acknowledgment of debt and on further dates of demands made by the plaintiff bank and when the defendants failed to pay the amount which is within the jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court.

This suit came before me on this day i.e. on 12.03.2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants are being called absent and remained exparte ; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court doth order and decree:

i)That the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay the suit amount of Rs.61,196/-(Rupees sixty one thousand one hundred and ninety six only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% p.a on the principal sum of Rs.40,000/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 01.06.2017 till the date of the decree i.e. 19.03.2020 and further interest at 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization; and ii) That the defendant be and is hereby further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,543-00 to the plaintiff towards costs of this suit and also do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 19th day of March,2020.

Junior Civil Judge,

Tadipatri.

Table of costs

Plaintiff Defendant Stamp on plaintRs.2,626-00- Stamp on vakalat2-00- Stamp on process108-00- Process writing charges20-00- Typing charges 20-00- Advocate fee 1,767-00-

Total: Rs.4,543-00 -

J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: TADIPATRI

Present: Ms. Araveti Manjulatha, M.Com., B.L.,

Junior Civil Judge, Gooty.

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Thursday, the 09 th day of July, 2020

Original Suit No.56/2020

Between:-

Bro.J.John Karunakaran S/o R.S.Jaes Dorairaj, aged about 62 years, Occ:Paster, Berachah Prayer House, Tadipatri, Ananthapur District.

.. Plaintiff

And

1.M.Surya Kumar S/o not known, aged about 55 years, Occ:Servant of God(Paster), Bethesda Prayer House, Bombay Chowk, Dandeli, Kunwar District, Karnataka-581325. 2.The Indigenous Churches in India Trust, Represented by its Chairman Bro.Y.John Subba Reddy, Hebron, 1-1-574, Golconda Cross Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-500020.

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on 09.07.2020 for summons to the defendants

before me in the presence of Sri P.D.Rathnam and Sri P.Chandrakatha

Reddy, advocates for the plaintiff ; on perusing the material papers on record , this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

Suit for permanent injunction infavour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants, their legal heirs, henchmen, supporters or any one claiming through them from ever interfering with the

Berachah Prayer House, Sanjeeva Nagar, 3rd Road, Tadipatri,

Ananthapur District and the lawful activities of the plaintiff as servant of God(Paster) in the said prayer house pursuant to the letter of appointment dt.13.8.2019 and for costs of the suit.

As per the orders in I.A.No.120/2020 this suit is advanced and posted to today. As per the orders in I.A.No.121/2020 this suit is dismissed as withdrawn, and the I.A of the suit shall stand closed.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this 09th the day of

July, 2020.

Sd/-A.Manjulatha,

Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES : NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BOTH SIDES: NIL.

Id/AML., J.C.J.

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge

Case No. :CC/0000192/2020 Station House officer, Tadipatri Rural UPS Vs Erikula Kavadi Durga Prasad @ Durga

Date : 06-06-2020

Business: The SI of police Tadipatri Rural P.S. filed memo stating that accused died on 20-3-2020 due to heart stroke at Hindupur and filed attested copies of FIR in Inquest reports in Cr.No.99/2020 U/Sec.176 Cr.P.C. Hence case against accused abated as died. Nature of Disposal: ABATED Disposal Date: 06-06-2020 Junior Civil Judge

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Date of disposal : 08­02­2020

O.S. No. 160 of 2019

Between:­

Pandla Jayaramudu … Plaintiff

A N D

A.Nagendra ...Defendant

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff defendant and their respective counsels are present.

Compromised before lok adalath. Both parties agreed and filed terms of compromise and same is recorded. Accordingly award passed as per terms of compromise.

Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.