Sri A.Omkar

CC.No.76/2018 1 Dt.25-04-2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 76 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1 Date of Offence: 10-08-2017 2 Date of Report15-09-2017 3 Date of arrest of A1 and A2 : 13-01-2018(Issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices) 4 Date of release of A1 and A2: ------------- 5 Date of commencement of trial : 04-07-2024 6 Date of close of trial: 20-02-2025 7 Date of Judgment: 25-04-2025 8 Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Komarole Police Station.

9 A1 and A2:

I.Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 48 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 804293382005. (A1) ii.Maramreddy Swarna Latha @ Swarna Latha Devi, W/o. Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 573493856235. (A2)

10. Offence : u/sec.447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. No property is seized and no order is passed with regard to the same.

CC.No.76/2018 2 Dt.25-04-2025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 21-03-2018 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, against A1 and A2. After appearance of A1 and A2 on 07-05-2018, copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 22- 09-2023, A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, got marked Exs P1 to P5. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 11-02-2025 and on 24-02-2025 A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., On behalf of defence side evidence is closed. On 08-04-2025 heard arguments. On 25-04-2025

Judgment Pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.76/2018 3 Dt.25-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

GIDDALUR

Present: Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Friday, this the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of April, 2025. Calendar Case 76 of 2018

Between:

The State,

Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police,

Komarole Police Station.

…….... Complainant

And

1.Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 48 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 804293382005. (A1)

2.Maramreddy Swarna Latha @ Swarna Latha Devi, W/o. Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 573493856235. (A2) ...…..... A1 and A2

This case has came before me on 08-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

P.Raja Sekhara Reddy, advocate for A1 and A2 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Komarole Police Station laid charge sheet against the A1 and A2 in Crime No. 69 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

CC.No.76/2018 4 Dt.25-04-2025

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 10-08-2017 at about 9 AM the A1 was entered in the land of

LW1 Venkata Ramanamma in survey. no. 1399/7 and tried to buried the well with proclainer and damaged their property. In meanwhile LW1

Venkata Ramanamma admonished the A1, then the both accused bet LW1

Venkata Ramanamma and kicked her with their hands and legs by abusing her in filthy language. LW2 Maramreddy Venkata Subba

Reddy/her husband went there, the accused threatened him that they will kill him. On 15-09-2017 at about 7 PM the LW1 Venkata Ramanamma gave report to the police, on the basis of the same the LW6 G.Prabhakar

Reddy, SI registered a case in Cr.No. 69/2017 U/sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. The investigating officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The SI visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, then he issued 41 A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2. Then LW7

SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.

447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec. 207, Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5.A1 and A2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the A1 and A2, its contents were explained to them in telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

CC.No.76/2018 5 Dt.25-04-2025

tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. The evidence of LWs 4, 5 and 7 (i.e., LW4

Muthyala Chinna Venkata Reddy, LW5 R.Sathyanarayana, Head Constable,

LW7 Sk.Abdul Rahaman, SI of Police) closed by the court.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the

guilt against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC ?”

POINT:

10. PW1 M.Venkata Ramanamma, deposed that, at about 7 years back on one day at about 10 a.m. while she was cutting grass in their field. By that A1 and A2 came and closing the Well situated in their land with the help of proclainer. She obstructed them, A1 beat her with his hands and legs by saying that NEEKU EMI SAMBAMDHAM VUNDI and abused her in filthy language. In the meanwhile her husband who was present at some distance from her land, both accused also abused her husband by saying that they will kill him, and also beat her husband with their hands and

CC.No.76/2018 6 Dt.25-04-2025

legs. Due to fear himself and her husband came to their house. On the same day they went and gave the report to the police, Ex.P1. Her husband acquired the disputed land in the family partition. Police examined her.

11. PW2 M.Venkata Subba Reddy, deposed that, at about 7 years back on one day in between 9-10 a.m. this offence took place in their land.

One Well and Bore were installed in their land. The Bore-well fell to his share and he paid Rs.30,000/- for the Bore-well. The accused asked him to give the said Bore-Well to him, but he did not accept the same. A1 and

A2 came and closing the Well with the help of Proclainer, by that time his wife went and obstructed the same. He also went there and obstructed them not to close the Well. They both threatened them by saying that they will kill them and they closed the Well and they also removed the

Current Poll and installed the same in his land. Due to fear himself and his wife went to their house. Then they went to the police station, his wife gave report to the police. He was examined by the police. The disputed land fell to his share, to that effect he filed original unregistered partition list deed Ex.P2.

12. PW3 K.Malleswaraiah, deposed that, he does not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police and turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

13. PW4 G.Prabhakar Reddy, SI of Police, deposed that, on 15-09- 2017 at about 8 PM while he was present at police station, PW1 came and

CC.No.76/2018 7 Dt.25-04-2025

presented a report, which he registered a case in Cr.No. 69/2017, U/sec 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex.P4 FIR. He took up investigation in this case. He visited the scene of offence situated in the fields of survey no. 1399/7 of Yarrabalem village. He observed the scene, prepared rough sketch Ex.P5. He examined PWs 1 to 3, LW4 M.Chinna

Venkata Reddy and recorded their statements. The Head Constable

Satyanarayana LW5 issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to both accused. After completion of investigation LW7 SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

14. As per the version of prosecution, that at about 7 years back on one day at 10 AM while the PW1 was cutting grass in her field A1 and A2 came and closing the well situated in the land of PW1 with the help of proclainer. By that time PW1 obstructed them, in meanwhile A1 bet with his hands and legs and abused her in filthy language. In meanwhile PW2 came there and accused also abused her husband by saying that they will kill him and also bet her husband with their hands and legs, then they gave report Ex.P1 to the police.

15. On the other hand, there is no dispute regarding relationship in between both parties i.e., A1 is the younger brother of PW2. The well is situated towards eastern side of the land of PW2 i.e., in the land of A1.

Admittedly, the civil suit is also pending before PJCJ court, Markapur regarding land situated towards western side of the land of PWs 1 and 2.

Admittedly, during life time of father of A1 and PW2 the disputed well was

CC.No.76/2018 8 Dt.25-04-2025

established. The bore well also installed in their land jointly. Thereafter, the PW1 and PW2 paid Rs. 30,000/- to A1 for purchase of their share regarding bore well.

16. Admittedly, the land in which the well was installed fell to the share of

A1. The PW2 and A1 installed the bore well in Survey.No. 1399/8 fell to the share of PW2, then the PW2 paid Rs. 30,000/- to the A1 for the purchase of installed bore well for his share situated in Survey.No.

1399/8. Admittedly, there is no service number for his borewell. The PW1 and PW2 utilized the current without permission admitted by PW2. The A1 filed civil suit in OS. 326/2014 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ court, Markapur for specific performance and the same was disposed off with a direction to return the advance amount together with interest by PW2 (Defendent).

The A1 also filed appeal on the file of Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge,

Court, Ongole and the same was also disposed of with a direction to PW2 to register the disputed land in favour of A1. Further admitted that, PW2 also filed 2nd appeal before Hon’ble High Court and the same was disposed off with a direction to PW2 not to alienate the said land. Further PW2 admitted that, he executed a gift deed in respect of self-same land in favour of his son. Further admitted that, the A1 and PW2 compromised in the above said matter and the PW2 executed a gift deed in favour of his son regarding disputed land. Further admitted that, the PW2 filed a requisition before Hon’ble High Court, by mentioning that, PW2 and A1 compromised the matter regarding disputed land. Which clearly

CC.No.76/2018 9 Dt.25-04-2025

established that, there are some civil disputes and civil suits were pending in between both parties.

17. PW3 who is independent eyewitness completely turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution. PW4 Investigating officer, after registering this case under Ex.P4 FIR he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared rough sketch Ex.P5 and he examined witnesses and recorded their statements, the investigating officer issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to both accused. Then LW7 SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

18. Admittedly, the incident was occurred on 10-08-2017 and the PW1 gave Ex.P1 report to the police on 15-09-2017 nearly after lapse of one month the PW1 gave report to the police. There is no explanation offered from the prosecution regarding delay of giving Ex.P1 report to the police.

Admittedly, the disputed land belongs to A1. When the investigating officer asked to produce proof of disputed land the PW1 and PW2 failed to produce the same to show that the same belongs to them. The PW1 and

PW2 did not explain about the delay of giving Ex.P1 i.e., after lapse of one month. PW1 and PW2 admitted that civil suits were pending in between both parties which clearly established that the matter relating to Civil in

Nature.

19. As usually, there may be a chance to be present the other coolies in and around the scene of offence. But the investigating officer failed to examine. The names of witnesses which were mentioned in memo of

CC.No.76/2018 10 Dt.25-04-2025

evidence as eyewitnesses not supported with the version of prosecution.

20. As there may be a chance to witness the incident since it was situated in the fields of both parties, and so many coolies were present and witnessed the same but no witness is stated regarding incident and the

PW3 who is the independent eyewitness to the incident completely turned hostile not supported the version of prosecution. So, except the evidence of PW1, PW2 who are wife and husband, no other independent evidence is available on record.

21. The entire evidence depending upon circumstantial evidence, no material is merged by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances not proved by the prosecution that A1 and A2 are the authors of the commission of offence.

22. In view of the above said discussion benefit of doubt goes to A1 and

A2.

23. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. No property is seized and no order is passed with regard to the same.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

CC.No.76/2018 11 Dt.25-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: M.Venkata Ramanamma. - NIL -

PW2: M.Venkata Subba Reddy.

PW3: K.Malleswaraiah.

PW4: G.Prabhakar Reddy, SI of Police.

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 dated 15-09-2017. - NIL -

Ex.P2: Original unregistered partition list deed dated 16-03-2016.

Ex.P3: Contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No. 69/2017 of Komarole PS.

Ex.P5: Rough Sketch dated 16-09-2017.

Material Objects Marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- NIL - - NIL -

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

AJFCM, GDLR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

1

APPR110012932025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Tuesday, this the Twenty eighth (28th) day of April, 2026

O.S. No. 457 of 2025

Between:-

Munaganuri Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Late Bala Rangaiah, aged about 51 years, Hindu, Business, resident of Ambavaram Village, Giddalur Mandal,

Prakasam District.

. . . . Plaintiff

And

Shaik Chinna Madar Saheb, S/o. Madar Saheb @ Darga Madar Saheb, aged about 44 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, resident of near Maseed, Ambavaram

Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District.

. . . . Defendant

This suit came before me on 30-03-2026 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri S.V. Nagendra Babu and Smt. B. Sandhya

Rani, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is remained Exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusing the material papers on record, this court delivered the following:- (Fair) 2

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only) being the principal and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note, dated: 15-07-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum.

02.The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note dated: 15-07-2022 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, later, inspite of repeated demands orally and on issuance of legal notice dated: 07-07-2025, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

03.Paper publication is filed. Defendant is called and he is absent, no representation. Hence, the defendant is set Exparte.

04.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A4.

05.Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Perused the material on record.

06.Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant?” (Fair) 3

07.POINT:-

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only) being principal and interest due on a promissory note,

dated: 15-07-2022 executed by the defendant for Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two

lakhs seventy thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and also marked Exs. A1 to A4. The evidence of P.W.1 and Ex. A1 promissory note discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintiff and he executed

Ex. A1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, later he did not repay Ex. A1 promissory note amount to the plaintiff and plaintiff issued Ex. A2 legal notice to defendant. To prove that plaintiff issued Ex. A2 legal notice to defendant, he filed Ex. A3

Postal Receipt and Ex. A4 Returned Postal Cover. Since the defendant has remained exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A4 are remained unchallenged, hence the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A4 are taken into consideration in toto. Thus, the plaintiff has proved the suit claim against defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

08.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.

2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) from the date of presentation of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till (Fair) 4 the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Munaganuri Jagannadha Rao - Set Exparte -

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex. A1 :Suit promissory note, dated: 15-07-2022 for Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff;

Ex. A2 :Office copy of legal notice, Dated: 07-07-2025;

Ex. A3 :Postal Receipt, dated: 08-07-2025 and

Ex. A4 :Returned Postal Cover addressed to the defendant, dated:

14-07-2025.

For Defendant:- -Nil-

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R., (Fair)

APPR110012932025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Tuesday, this the Twenty eighth (28th) day of April, 2026

O.S. No. 457 of 2025

Between:-

Munaganuri Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Late Bala Rangaiah, aged about 51 years, Hindu, Business, resident of Ambavaram Village, Giddalur Mandal,

Prakasam District.

. . . . Plaintiff

And

Shaik Chinna Madar Saheb, S/o. Madar Saheb @ Darga Madar Saheb, aged about 44 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, resident of near Maseed, Ambavaram

Village, Giddalur Mandal, Prakasam District.

. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only) being the principal and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note, dated: 15-07-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum.

The p laint was presented on 15-07-2025 and filed on 07-08-2025

CAUSE OF ACTION: The cause of action for the suit arose on 15-07-2022, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventy thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note in his favour at Ambavaram Village of Giddalur Mandal and subsequently, when the defendant fails to repay the same along with interest to the plaintiff even though several demands made by him orally and also on issuance of legal notice to the defendant on 07-07-2025 within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued for Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only), on which a court fee of Rs. 6,626/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred and twenty six only) is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act of 1956.

This suit came before me on 30-03-2026 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri S.V. Nagendra Babu and Smt. B. Sandhya

Rani, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is remained Exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusing the material papers on record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 4,15,665/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifteen thousand six hundred and sixty five only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees

Two lakhs seventy thousand only) from the date of presentation of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 13,978/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand nine hundred and seventy eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand with seal of the court, on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

TABLE OF COSTS

Description For Plaintiff For Defendant

Vakalat 2-00--

Plaint fee6,626-00--

Process65-00--

Pleader fee7,085-00(Set Exparte)

Type and Writing Charges200-00–

Total Rs. 13,978-00 --

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

APPR110018262025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Thursday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of April, 2026

O.S. No. 646 of 2025

Between:-

Eddula Srinath Reddy, S/o. Chinna Venkat Reddy, aged about 39 years,

Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 2-56, Ambavaram Village, Giddalur Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... Plaintiff

AND

Perla Bramhananda Reddy, S/o. Late Pedda Subba Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Retired Army, R/o. Ramalayam Street, Racherla Town and

Mandal, Prakasam District.

. . . . Defendant

This suit came before me on 02-04-2026 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri B. Venkateswara Rao and Smt. N. Ahalya,

Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is set Exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusing the material papers on record, this court delivered the following:- (Fair) 2

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) being the principal and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note, dated: 11-11-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum.

02.The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note dated: 11-11-2022 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount.

Hence the suit.

03. Paper publication is filed. Defendant is called and he is absent, no representation. Hence, the defendant is set Exparte.

04. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex. A1.

05.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the material on record.

06.Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant?”

POINT:-

07.The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for (Fair) 3 recovery of Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) being principal and interest due on a promissory note dated:

11-11-2022 executed by the defendant for Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. To prove the suit claim, the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as P.W.1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and also got marked suit promissory note as Ex. A1. The evidence of P.W.1 and

Ex. A1 discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) from the plaintiff and he executed

Ex. A1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum, later he did not repay Ex. A1 promissory note amount to the plaintiff. Since the defendant has remained exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex. A1 are remained unchallenged, hence the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex. A1 are taken into consideration in toto. Thus, the plaintiff has proved the suit claim against defendant and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Hence, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) from the date of presentation of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 06% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur (Fair) 4

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Eddula Srinath Reddy - Set Exparte -

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex. A1 :Suit promissory note, dated: 11-11-2022 for Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

For Defendant:- -Nil- Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R., (Fair)

APPR110018262025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Thursday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of April, 2026

O.S. No. 646 of 2025

Between:-

Eddula Srinath Reddy, S/o. Chinna Venkat Reddy, aged about 39 years,

Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. D.No. 2-56, Ambavaram Village, Giddalur Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... Plaintiff

AND

Perla Bramhananda Reddy, S/o. Late Pedda Subba Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Retired Army, R/o. Ramalayam Street, Racherla Town and

Mandal, Prakasam District.

. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) being the principal and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note, dated: 11-11-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum.

The p laint was presented on 10-11-2025 and filed on 10-11-2025

CAUSE OF ACTION : The cause of action for the suit arose on 11-11-2022, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note in his favour at Ambavaram Village of Giddalur Mandal and subsequently, when the defendant failed to repay the same along with interest to the plaintiff even though several demands made by him within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued for Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) on which a court fee of Rs. 4,826/- (Rupees Four thousand eight hundred and twenty six only) is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act of 1956.

This suit came before me on 02-04-2026 for plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri B. Venkateswara Rao and Smt. N. Ahalya,

Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is set Exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and upon perusing the material papers on record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,37,083/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty seven thousand and eighty three only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 1,54,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty four thousand only) from the date of presentation of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 06% per annum till the date of realization; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 10,894/- (Rupees Ten thousand eight hundred and ninety four only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand with seal of the court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

TABLE OF COSTS

Description For Plaintiff For Defendant

Vakalat 2-00--

Plaint fee4,826-00--

Pleader fee4,406-00(Set Exparte)

Publication Charges1,260-00--

Type and Writing Charges400-00–

Total Rs. 10,894-00 --

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

APPR110005602019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Thursday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of April, 2026

E.P. No. 74/2019 IN O.S. No. 518/2017

Between:-

Shaik Khasim Vali, S/o. Basha, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, R/o.

H. No. 2-10, 2nd Ward, Araveetikota Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam

District.

.... D.Hr/Petitioner

AND

Kakunuti Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Kammi Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu,

Private Employee, R/o. 5th Ward, Akaveedu Village, Racherla Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... J.Dr/Respondent

This petition came before me on 30-04-2026 for consideration in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for

D.Hr./Petitioner and of Sri K. Polaiah, Advocate for J.Dr/Respondent, upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :- (Fair) 2

O R D E R

(IN TERMS OF MEDIATION)

01.This E.P. is filed by D.Hr against the J.Dr under order XXI

Rule 54, 66 and 64 C.P.C. for attachment of the E.P. schedule property to sale the same in public auction for realization of the E.P. amount of Rs. 1,97,624/- (Rupees One lakh ninety seven thousand six hundred and twenty four only).

02.The brief averments of affidavit annexed to petition are that after passing of the decree in O.S. 518/2017 against the J.Dr on 09-08-2018, the D.Hr requested the J.Dr to pay decretal amount to him, but the J.Dr did not pay the decretal amount to him even though, the J.Dr is having land to an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents in Sy. No. 878-1 in Akaveedu Village of Racherla

Mandal and he is the absolute owner of the same. Hence, the D.Hr filed the present E.P. against the J.Dr to realize his E.P. debt amount by auctioning the schedule property.

03.The averments of the counter filed by the J.Dr are that the petition filed by the D.Hr is unjust, illegal and not maintainable under law and denied entire averments of the petition filed by the petitioner and further submitted that the petition schedule property mentioned in the present E.P.

does not belongs to the J.Dr and the said petition schedule property was wrongly entered in the name of J.Dr in 1-B and Adangal. In fact, he has no capacity to pay the E.P. amount to the D.Hr. Hence prayed the court to dismiss the E.P.

04.At the stage of Order XXI Rule 54 of C.P.C., on behalf of the D.Hr, the D.Hr himself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex. P1. On behalf of the J.Dr, none is examined and no document is marked.

(Fair) 3

05.After the attachment of E.P. Schedule property which was effected under Or. XXI Rule 54 of C.P.C. on 03-06-2019, the D.Hr filed S.Ps,

EC and VC and the same were checked and found correct and posted the matter for settlement of terms. Subsequently, Paper publication was filed, J.Dr is called and he is absent. Hence, the J.Dr is set Exparte at the stage of Order

XXI Rule 66 of C.P.C. and the petition was allowed at the stage of Rule 66 of

C.P.C. and posted the matter for proclamation of sale. When the matter is coming up for proclamation and sale of E.P. schedule property by way of

Paper publication, the D.Hr, his counsel and J.Dr are present, requested to refer the matter to the Mediation Centre, Mandal Legal Services, (For brevity

MLSC) Giddalur for amicable settlement. Accordingly, the Chairman,

M.L.S.C., Giddalur appointed a Mediator to conduct Mediation in between the parties.

06.This Court received the file with the report of the Mediator, wherein the D.Hr and J.Dr have settled the matter before the Mediator and entered into Settlement of Agreement with the following terms (Annexure -

D) :-

I.The Decree Holder agreed and received an amount of Rs.

1,95,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only) from the Judgment Debtor towards full and final settlement of the E.P. claim in E.P. 74/2019 in O.S. No. 518/2017 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (J.D.), Giddalur. Both parties agreed to bear their own costs.

07.Thus, as the parties to the present petition settled the case as per the terms of the Agreement of Mediation and in view of the Settlement of Agreement arrived by the parties before the Mediation Centre, Giddalur

before the Mediator, this Court is inclined to dispose off the present petition in

terms of Settlement of Agreement.

(Fair) 4

08.In the result, the E.P. is disposed off as per the terms of

Agreement (Annexure - D) is enclosed herewith. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Decree Holder : For Judgment Debtor:

P.W.1 : Shaik Khasim Vali - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Decree Holder :

Ex. P1 :1-B Namoona, dated: 19-04-2019 obtained through Mee Seva.

For Judgment Debtor: - Nil - Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R., (Fair) 5

APPR110005602019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Thursday, this the Thirtieth (30th) day of April, 2026

E.P. No. 74/2019 IN O.S. No. 518/2017

Between:-

Shaik Khasim Vali, S/o. Basha, aged about 42 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, R/o.

H. No. 2-10, 2nd Ward, Araveetikota Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam

District.

.... D.Hr/Petitioner

AND

Kakunuti Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Kammi Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu,

Private Employee, R/o. 5th Ward, Akaveedu Village, Racherla Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... J.Dr/Respondent

This E.P. is filed by D.Hr against the J.Dr under order XXI

Rule 54, 66 and 64 C.P.C. for attachment of the E.P. schedule property to sale the same in public auction for realization of the E.P. amount of Rs. 1,97,624/- (Rupees One lakh ninety seven thousand six hundred and twenty four only).

6

This petition came before me on 30-04-2026 for consideration in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for

D.Hr./Petitioner and of Sri K. Polaiah, Advocate for J.Dr/Respondent, upon perusing the material on record, this Court passed the order or decretal order as follows:-

i)that the Execution Petition be and the same is hereby disposed off as per the terms of Agreement and ii)that each party do bear their own costs.

(Petition schedule property and the Terms of Agreement (Annexure – D) are herewith appended to decree)

Given under my hand with seal of the Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

TABLE OF COSTS

- CM and FC not filed on either side -

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

1

APPR110003512024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Wednesday, this the Twenty ninth (29th) day of April, 2026

E.P. No. 45/2024 IN O.S. No. 490/2017

Between:-

Shaik Khasim Vali, S/o. Basha, aged about 48 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, R/o.

H.No. 2-10, 2nd Ward, Araveetikota Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam

District.

.... D.Hr/Petitioner

AND

Kakunuti Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Kammi Reddy, aged about 51 years, Hindu,

Private Employee, R/o. 5th Ward, Akaveedu Village, Racherla Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... J.Dr/Respondent

This petition came before me on 29-04-2026 for consideration in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for

D.Hr/Petitioner and the J.Dr/Respondent is set Exparte; upon perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :-

O R D E R

(IN TERMS OF MEDIATION)

(Fair) 2

01.This E.P. is filed by D.Hr against the J.Dr under Order XXI

Rule 22, 37 and 38 of CPC to order for arrest of J.Dr and send him to Civil

Prison for realization of EP amount of Rs. 2,31,540/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty one thousand five hundred and forty only).

02.The brief averments of affidavit annexed to petition are that after passing of the decree in O.S. 490/2017 on 09-08-2018, the D.Hr requested the J.Dr to pay the decretal amount before filing the E.P. But the

J.Dr did not pay the decretal amount in spite of several oral demands made by him, hence he filed the present E.P. against the J.Dr. The D.Hr/petitioner further averred that the J.Dr is having cash of Rs. 4,00,000/-, Gold worth of Rs.

3,00,000/- and Silver articles worth of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Further the J.Dr is earning an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum by doing business. Further the J.Dr is having a house in Akaveedu Village worth of Rs. 5,00,000/- and moreover, the J.Dr is having land to an extent of Ac. 02.00 cents in Akaveedu

Village which is worth of Rs. 2,00,000/- and earning an income of Rs.

1,00,000/- per annum through the said land, but he is intentionally evading to pay the E.P. amount. If not arrested the J.Dr, it is very difficult to realize the

E.P. amount from the J.Dr and prayed to allow the petition. Hence, this petition.

03.At the stage of Order XXI, Rule 22 of C.P.C., Paper publication was filed. J.Dr/Respondent was called and he was absent, no representation. Hence, the J.Dr was set Exparte and allowed the petition at the stage of Order XXI, Rule 22 of C.P.C. and issued arrest warrant against the J.Dr on payment of process. While the petition is coming up for issuing arrest warrant against the J.Dr, on 20-04-2026 both parties are called present and requested to refer the E.P. for mediation. Hence, the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre, Mandal Legal Services, (For brevity MLSC) Giddalur for amicable settlement. Accordingly, the Chairman, M.L.S.C., Giddalur appointed a Mediator to conduct Mediation in between the parties.

(Fair) 3

04.This Court received the file with the report of the Mediator, wherein the D.Hr and J.Dr have settled the matter before the Mediator and entered into Settlement of Agreement with the following terms (Annexure -

D) :-

I.The Decree Holder agreed and received an amount of Rs.

2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs twenty thousand only) from the Judgment Debtor towards full and final settlement of the E.P. claim in E.P. 45/2024 in O.S. No. 490/2017 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge’s Court (J.D.), Giddalur. Both parties agreed to bear their own costs.

05.Thus, as the parties to the present petition settled the case as per the terms of the Agreement of Mediation and in view of the Settlement of Agreement arrived by the parties before the Mediation Centre, Giddalur

before the Mediator, this Court is inclined to dispose off the present case in

terms of Settlement of Agreement.

06.In the result, the E.P. is disposed off as per the terms of

Agreement (Annexure - D) is enclosed herewith. Both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL -

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R., (Fair) 4

APPR110003512024

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Wednesday, this the Twenty ninth (29th) day of April, 2026

E.P. No. 45/2024 IN O.S. No. 490/2017

Between:-

Shaik Khasim Vali, S/o. Basha, aged about 48 years, Muslim, Ex-Army, R/o.

H.No. 2-10, 2nd Ward, Araveetikota Village, Racherla Mandal, Prakasam

District.

.... D.Hr/Petitioner

AND

Kakunuti Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Kammi Reddy, aged about 51 years, Hindu,

Private Employee, R/o. 5th Ward, Akaveedu Village, Racherla Mandal,

Prakasam District.

.... J.Dr/Respondent

This E.P. is filed by D.Hr against the J.Dr under Order XXI

Rule 22, 37 and 38 of CPC to order for arrest of J.Dr and send him to Civil

Prison for realization of EP amount of Rs. 2,31,540/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty one thousand five hundred and forty only).

5

This petition came before me on 29-04-2026 for consideration in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for

D.Hr/Petitioner and the J.Dr/Respondent is set Exparte; upon perusing the material on record, this Court passed the order or decretal order as follows:-

i)that the Execution Petition be and the same is hereby disposed off as per the terms of Agreement and ii)that each party do bear their own costs.

(Terms of Agreement (Annexure – D) is herewith appended to decree)

Given under my hand with seal of the Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

TABLE OF COSTS

- CM and FC not filed on either side-

Ild/- A. O.,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R.,

Note: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked have to be taken back by the parties concerned with in the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.