A Neeraja

Page Nos.1 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 9th day of November, 2023

Present :- Smt A.Neeraja, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No.30 of 2019

Between:- Maharani Santhosh S/o Godavari, Age: 38 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.22-6-53, Vanama Colony, Paloncha town and mandal, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District. .…Plaintiff

AND

Polimetla Nageswara Rao S/o Ram Sheshaiah, Age: 53 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.8-2-5/4, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town and mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 05.10.2023 in the presence of Sri M.S.R.Ravichandra, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri K.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, this Court made the following:-

::J U D G M E N T::

1. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the suit till realization and to award costs of the suit.

Page Nos.2 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

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

That the defendant is close acquainted with the plaintiff and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 03-08-2016 for his family necessities and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Paloncha town in the presence of attestors and scribe, wherein defendant agreed to repay the same together with agreed interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, plaintiff made several demands, but the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. Finally, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant on 30-1-2019 to repay the amount and the defendant issued an evasive reply and that the cause of action arose at Vanama Colony, Paloncha town on 3-8-2016 and also on 30-1-2019 when plaintiff made oral demand to the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount. Hence, the suit.

3.Written statement of the defendant is as follows:-

The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. He denied that the defendant is acquainted with the plaintiff and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 03- 08-2016 for his family necessities and executed promissory note in

Page Nos.3 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019 favour of the plaintiff on the same day at Paloncha town in the presence of attestors and scribe, wherein defendant agreed to repay the same together with agreed interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, plaintiff made several demands, but the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. Finally, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant on 30-1- 2019 to repay the amount and the defendant issued an evasive reply and that the cause of action arose at Vanama Colony, Paloncha town on 3-8- 2016 and also on 03-1-2019 when plaintiff made oral demand to the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1.“Whether the suit promissory note dt.3-8-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether the suit promissory note is rank forged ?

3.Whether the suit is hit by Section 9 of A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit promissory note amount of Rs.8,00,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization as prayed for ?

5.To what relief ?

Page Nos.4 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

TRIAL:-

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the Plaintiff, P.W.1/Maharani

Santhosh and P.W.2/E.Venkateswar Rao were examined and got marked

Ex.A.1/promissory note. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant.

ISSUES Nos.1 to 5:

7.These issues are interlinked with each other. As such, these issues are discussed together to give common findings. The case of the plaintiff and the evidence of PW.1 is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.08.2016 for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1/promissory note and the same was attested by M.Venkateswarlu/P.W.2 and G.Narender Reddy and one

D.Ravinder Reddy, scribed Ex.A.1 and the said consideration was passed

before these witnesses. In-spite of several demands made by the

plaintiff, the defendant did not return the borrowed amount.

Page Nos.5 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

8.In order to prove his contention, the plaintiff apart from himself examined as P.W.1, he also examined P.W.2/E.Venkateswara Rao, one of the attestor of Ex.A.1. He also relied upon Ex.A-1, which is promissory note, dt.3-8-2016,

9.Pw.2 also deposed in his chief examination affidavit that he knows plaintiff and defendant and that the defendant out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for his family necessities on 3-8-2016 and executed promissory note under Ex.A-1 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum and that he attested Ex.A-1 along with G.Narender Reddy, as another attestor and that one D.Ravindra Rerddy scribed Ex.A-1 and the consideration was passed before them.

During the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is elicited from P.W.1 that he is working as private Electrician, his family is joint family and that his wife working as Private Teaches and she is getting a salary of

Rs.10,000/- per month and that he has bank account in SBI Paloncha branch, that the defendant runs chicken shop and defendant is having a big house in costly locality. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he paid cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and that he is not income tax assessee and that

Rs.5,00,000/- consisted of Rs.500/- currency notes. He clearly mentioned the names of attesting witnesses of Ex.A-1 as G.Narender Reddy,

Page Nos.6 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

E.Venkateswara Rao and scribe as D.Ravinder Reddy. He denied the suggestion that the said attesting witnesses and scribe are doing money lending business and there are nearly 40 cases pending in the Court involving them. He denied the suggestion that out of jealousy towards flourishing business of the defendant, he filed false suit. P.W.1 clearly stated that the defendant at the house of the plaintiff/P.W.1 executed

Ex.A-1 in the presence of attestors and Ex.A-1 was scribed by D.Ravinder

Rerddy. He denied the suggestion that he has never seen Rs.5,00,000/- till now in his life. He admitted that he is a ration card holder.

10.P.W.2 in his cross-examination clearly stated that he was called by the defendant on the date of transaction and not by the plaintiff and he was present when the defendant put his signature on Ex.A-1 and that plaintiff has shown him the cash given to the defendant. He denied all other suggestions put by the learned counsel for defendant.

11. Mere suggestions by learned defendant counsel will not take place of some evidence that suit promissory note is forged and transaction under Ex.A-1 is not genuine. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.2 is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 in all aspects coupled with Ex.A-1. Thus, plaintiff proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence.. Thus, the plaintiff discharged his burden and now the onus is shifted on the defendant to prove that plaintiff is illegal

Page Nos.7 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019 money lender without license and that suit promissory note is rank forged document.

12. In support of his case, the defendant himself got examined as

D.W.1. No documents are marked on behalf of the defendant. It is the evidence of the defendant as D.W.1 that he never borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 3-8-2016 and never executed Ex.A-1 in favour of the plaintiff and that plaintiff is doing illegal money lending business without valid license. The main contention of the learned defendant counsel is that the plaintiff is not having financial capacity to lend Rs.5,00,000/- and that he has filed a false suit against the defendant. A perusal of written statement of the defendant shows that there is no plea in the written statement that plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend Rs.5,00,000/-, as such, he filed false suit. Due to lack of said plea by the defendant, though it is admitted by the plaintiff that he is receiving ration from the

Government, based on it, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is not having financial capacity to lend Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. No suggestion is put to P.W.1 by the learned defendant counsel that P.W.1 is doing money lending business. P.W.2 in his cross-examination clearly stated that he was called by the defendant on the date of transaction and not by the plaintiff and he was present when the defendant put his signature on

Ex.A-1 and that plaintiff has shown him the cash given to the defendant.

The learned defendant counsel though cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2, he

Page Nos.8 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019 failed to elicit anything favourable to the case of the defendant. Mere denial of execution of Ex.A-1 of being forged document does not appear to be any defence. The evidence of defendant failed to rebut the cogent and consistent evidence of the plaintiff.

13.So, the defendant failed to adduce some evidence to show that the transaction under Ex.A-1 is not honest. According to evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, the suit transaction took place at residence at Paloncha town, which is admitted by P.W.2 and the consideration was passed to the defendant in the presence P.W.2 and another attestor and scribe. No material is placed before this Court to show that suit promissory note is fabricated document and that plaintiff is doing private chit business illegally.

14. In view of evidence of P.W.1, which is supported by evidence of

P.W.2 and Ex.A-1, it is held that the suit promissory is true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is supported by consideration and the suit is not hit by Section 9 of A.P (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act and plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit promissory note amount as prayed for.

15.Hence, issue No.1, 4 and 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and issues No.2 and 3 are answered against the defendant.

Page Nos.9 of 11 O.S.No.30/2019

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of November,

2023.

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

P.W.1: M.Santhosh D.W.1 : P.Nageswar Rao P.W.2: E.Venkateswar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A1: Promissory note Dated 03.08.2016

For Defendant:- --Nil--

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page Nos.1 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated, this the 9th day of November, 2023

Present : Smt.A.Neeraja I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kothagudem.

S.C.No. 36 OF 2022

1.Name of the :The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, complainant P.S., Paloncha Rural

2.:1. Mandapati Jyothi W/o Babu, 50 years, R/o Name of the accusedSangam village.

2. Injarapu Naveen S/o Dharmaiah, 27 years, R/o Rayanapeta of Yatapaka mandal, A.P.,

3.Section of Law:Sections 306 r/w 34 IPC

4.Crime No. and P.S.:Cr.No.197/2020 of P.S Paloncha Rural

5.P.R.C.No.:19 of 2021

6.Name of the Officer, :Sri B.Rama Rao, FAC. III Addl. Judl.Magistrate of I who committed the Class, Kothagudem. case 7Prosecution conducted :Smt.P.V.D Laxmi Additional Public Prosecutor. by

8.Defence conducted by :Sri T.S.N.Reddy

9.Plea of the accused:Not guilty 10 Finding of the court:Not guilty 11 Sentence or Order :In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with procedure after appeal time is over.

This case is coming before me on 08.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.P.V.D.Laxmi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.S.N.Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over the consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

Page Nos.2 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

J U D G M E N T

1.The Accused No.1 and 2 are tried for the offence punishable under

Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 and 2.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Paloncha Rural laid charge sheet against the accused persons alleging that prior to 4-12-2020 at 11:00 hours at the outskirts of Sangam village, A-1 and A-2 used to harass the deceased/Mandapati Swathi and subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically and warned the deceased to keep quite otherwise go outside and

I.e., due to which the deceased/Mandapati Swathi got vexed over her life and committed suicide by hanging.

3.Basing on it, a case in Cr.No.197/2020 was registered and investigated into. Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under

Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused persons by the Learned III Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem and it was registered as

P.R.C.No.19/2021.

4.After securing presence of the Accused persons and after furnishing the copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Learned III

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem committed the case to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Khammam by the orders, dated 22.12.2021 since

the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triable by

Hon’ble Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Khammam took the

Page Nos.3 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022 case on file against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under

Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC and registered it as Sessions Case No.36/2022 and made over to this Court for trial and disposal according to law.

5.Charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 and 2 were framed, read over and explained to the

Accused persons. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11.

L.Ws.1 to 3, 5 to 7, 9 to 11 and L.Ws.13 to 20 were given up by the Addl.P.P.

7.P.W.1/K.Sravani is sister of the deceased, deposed that A-1 is her mother. A-2 is also her relative. The deceased/Swathi is her younger sister, who died about three years back. She do not know the reason for the death of her sister. She do not know anything about the case facts. Police did not examine and not recorded her statement. P.W.2/C.Laxminarayana, deposed that he do not know the accused No.1 and 2. He do not know the deceased. He do not know anything about the facts of the case. He scribed the complaint but he do not know its contents. The signature on the complaint as scribe is him i.e., marked as Ex.P-2. Police did not examine and not recorded his statement. P.W.3/Mentam Bhushanam deposed that he do not know the accused No.1 and 2. He do not know the deceased. He do not know anything about the facts of the case. Police did not examine and not recorded his statement.

Page Nos.4 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

8.P.W.4/K.Suman, investigating officer, who filed charge sheet in this case. He deposed that on 4-12-2020 at 11:00 hours he received complaint from A-1. Basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.197/2020 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and recorded the statement of A-1 as L.W.1. Ex.P-6 is the complaint given by A-1/L.W.1. Ex.P-7 is the FIR. During the course of investigation, he visited Government Hospital, Paloncha and observed the deadbody of the deceased and found a ligature mark around the neck and a lacerated injury on her right side of nose, lower lip contained bite mark and he secured the presence of L.W.7 and got photographed the deadbody and recorded his statement. Ex.P-8 is the photos (5) Nos. along with CD.

Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.2, L.W.3, P.W.1,

P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.Ws.5 to 9. Thereafter, he held inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of P.W.2 and L.Ws.14 and 15. Ex.P-9 is the inquest panchanama. He also given requisition to L.W.20/T.Naveen, Medical

Officer, to conduct PME over the deadbody and accordingly he conducted PME and issued PME report. Ex.P10 is the PME report. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of L.Ws.16 and 17 and drafted the

CDF and also seized one Chunny from the scene of offence. Ex.P-11 is the

CDF.

On 10-12-2020 he secured the presence of L.Ws.10, 11, P.W.3 and

L.W.13 and recorded their statements. During the course of investigation he came to know through the statement of L.W.10 that A-1/L.W.1 having illegal intimacy with A-2 and the same was noticed by the deceased and questioned

Page Nos.5 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

A-1/L.W.1, on that a dispute arose between them and both A-1 and A-2 indiscriminately abused the deceased, on that she got frustrated and committed suicide. Basing on the above statement, he altered the Section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 306 IPC and cited L.W.1/complainant as A-1 and Injarapu Naveen as A-2. On 23-2-2021 he secured the presence of

L.Ws.18 and 19 and recorded the confession statement of A-1 and A-2. On the same day he arrested A-1 and A-2 and sent to judicial remand and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A-1 and A-2 under

Sections 306 r/w 34 IPC. P.Ws.1 to 3 stated to me as in Exs.P-1 to P-3.

9.After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused persons in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

ARGUMENTS:

10.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused persons.

11.The point that arises for consideration is as to:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the

Accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 against Accused No.1 and 2 with which the Accused persons stood charged, beyond reasonable doubt “?

Page Nos.6 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

P O I N T :

12.P.W.4/K.K.Suman is the investigating officer. He deposed on the line of charge sheet. All the material witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 not supported the prosecution case. The only incriminating material found against the accused is the evidence of police witness P.W.4. P.W.4 evidence is not corroborated by the evidence of material eye witnesses and also not supported by independent panch witnesses. Due to which, this Court opines that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, the Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, by the stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of November, 2023.

I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Page Nos.7 of 7 S.C.No.36/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: - FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: K.Sravani -None- P.W.2: C.Laxminarayana P.W.3: Mentam Bhushanam P.W.4: K.Suman, Investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. Ex.P-2 : Signature of P.W.2 on complaint. Ex.P-3 : Signatures of P.W.2 on inquest panchanama Ex.P-4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3. Ex.P-5 : Complaint Ex.P-6 : First Information Report. Ex.P-7 : Photos (5) Nos. Ex.P-8 : Inquest panchanama. Ex.P-9 : Postmortem examination report. Ex.P10: Crime Details Form

FOR DEFENCE:-Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

TSBK010000792019

Presented on : 13-02-2019 Registered on : 13-02-2019 Decided on : 09-11-2023 Duration : 4 years, 8 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem. AT ,KHAMMAM

Presided Over by G.Bhanumathi

OS/30/2019

MAHARANI SANTHOSH

Age: 38 Address: H.NO.22-6-53, VANAMA COLONY, PALONCHA TOWN

VERSUS

POLIMETAL NAGESWARA RAO

Address: H.NO.8-2-5/4, GATTAIGUDEM, PALONCHA TOWN AND MANDAL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : RAMAKRISHNA RAO N Advocate for : RAMPRASAD ANUBROLU appearing for POLIMETAL NAGESWARA RAO: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate one) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) together with interest @ 9 per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).

Date : 09-11-2023 (G.Bhanumathi)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK010000292022

Presented on : 21-01-2022 Registered on : 21-01-2022 Decided on : 09-11-2023 Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 19 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

AT ,KHAMMAM

(Presided Over by G.Bhanumathi)

SC/36/2022

SHO PALONCHA RURAL

Through Police Station Officer Paloncha -Rural 197 , SHO PALONCHA

SHO PALONCHA RURAL

VERSUS

MANDAPATI JYOTHI

Age: 50

SANGAM VILLAGE

2:INJARAPU NAVEEN Age: 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: ADD.PP, Advocate for appearing for MANDAPATI JYOTHI Advocate appearing for , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate one) In the result, A-1 and A-2 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with procedure after appeal time is over.

Date : 09-11-2023 (G.Bhanumathi)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK010006832018

Presented on : 29-12-2018 Registered on : 31-12-2018 Decided on : 09-11-2023 Duration : 4 years, 10 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions

Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem. AT ,KHAMMAM

Presided Over by G.Bhanumathi

EP/100172/2018

M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Address: Kothagudem Branch

VERSUS L.Laxmi and 3 others Address: H.No.8-1-183,8-1-184, near Gowtham Model School, Gattaigudem, Paloncha. 2:L. Venkateswarlu Age: 58 3:V. Yesudas Age: 61 4:V. Narsaiah Age: 48 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Ch. Krishna Kumari Advocate for : appearing for L.Laxmi and 3 others: Advocate ,, appearing for 2,3,4 respectively.

ORDER

DHR counsel absent. case is passed over called again at 12.45 PM. DHR counsel absent. sufficient time from 25.09.2023.till date given for filing of fresh E.C and sale papers . it appears , DHR is not interested to proceed with E.P . hence E.P is dismissed for not filing of E.C and sale papers.

Date : 09-11-2023 (G.Bhanumathi)

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant

Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.