Sri A. Parthasarathy

1 O.S.No.210/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.210/2011

Between:

M/s Divya Electrical Services rep. by its Proprietor Sri Chinta Suryanarayana, S/o late Yerra Appalanaidu, Hindu, aged 36 years, situated at D.No.07-09- 24/5, Opp:Electrical Sub-Station, Pantulugarimeda, NH-5 Raoad, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatam-26.

...Plaintiff

And: M/s Steel Fabs, rep. by its Mg. Partner Sri S.Dharmalingam, S/o Not known, Hindu, aged 62 years, situated at B-9 &10, Block-B, Autonagar, Visakhapatam-12.

...Defendant

This suit coming on 18-9-2015 and 22-9-2015 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.Pattabhi Rama Rao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and

Sri Ch.Tirumala Rao, Advocate on behalf of defendant upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,53,000/- towards arrears of rent for hiring welding machines and claiming damages.

2.It is averred that the plaintiff is doing business of hiring electrical machines and for service in the name and style of M/s Divya Electrical

Services. The plaintiff used to give on hire electrical machines such as

Welding Transformers to the contractors in and around Visakhapatnam. The defendant got the welding transformers on hire on 31-8-2008 on terms and conditions from the plaintiff for execution of fabrication works of the 2 O.S.No.210/2011 defendant at Tsunami work site within the premises of the Vizag profiles site, Seethanagaram, Visakhapatnam, till the completion of work and that the agreement will be effective from 1-9-2008. The defendant issued a cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- bearing cheque No.172231 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas

Bank, Visakhapatnam as security on 31-8-2008. The defendant agreed to pay the rents for the welding machines for each and every month on or

before 10th of every month. It is agreed if there is default in payment of

rents continuously for three months the defendant is liable to pay interest for the balance amount. The defendant has to handover the welding machines to the plaintiff in the working condition and shall obtain proper acknowledgment. If he fails to do so, the plaintiff may initiate legal action for recovering damages.

3.It is averred that the defendant failed to pay the rents to the plaintiff inspite of repeated demands made by him and through mediators.

The defendant issued account payee cheques bearing Nos.627313 dated 1- 11-2008 for Rs.15,000/- and cheque bearing No.670162 dated 28-2-2009 for

Rs.10,995/- towards part payment of due amount. Subsequently the defendant requested the plaintiff not to present the two cheques and he will pay cash. The defendant failed to pay the same, the defendant is liable to pay due amount of Rs.25,995/- upto February, 2009.

4.The defendant violated the terms and conditions of hire agreement and machines of the plaintiff were handed to the defendant in bad working condition on 5-3-2009 and S.Lakshmana Rao @ Lakshmana endorsed on the letter about the missing parts. The defendant intentionally cheated the plaintiff and damaged the machines. The defendant has violated the agreement of hire, the plaintiff sustained damages and huge 3 O.S.No.210/2011 loss. The plaintiff lost his rents since March, 2009.

5.It is further averred that the defendant discussed with the plaintiff on 24-4-2010 and requested for payment of due amount and the plaintiff agreed for three months and the defendant addressed a letter to the plaintiff on 24-4-2010 and agreed to pay amount of Rs.15,000/- through one Madhu Sudhakar. The said Madhu Sudhakar paid an amount of

Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff in June, 2010. The plaintiff sustained damages estimated at the time of Rs.20,000/- per month from March, 2009 to

December, 2010 totalling an amount of Rs.4,40,000/-. The old amount due is Rs.25,995/-. The defendant paid Rs.15,000/- through one

Madhu Sudhakar in June, 2010. The defendant is liable to pay an amount of

Rs.4,50,995/-. The defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque bearing No.172231 for Rs.3,00,000/-drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank towards payment of the above mentioned rents due and the cost of the repairs mentioned. The plaintiff presented the cheque through Indian

Overseas Bank for collection. The cheque was dishonoured as payments were stopped by drawer and the bank of the defendant acknowledged the same on the cheque returned memo dated 1-7-2010. The plaintiff received the cheque from the banker on 9-7-2010 and informed the same to the defendant, defendant postponed the payment on some pretext or the other.

The plaintiff got issued a registered demand notice on 13-8-2010. The same was returned unserved as door locked. Hence the suit.

6.In the written statement on behalf of the defendant, while dealing with the plaint facts in a segregated manger, it is averred that the defendant earlier taken welding machine on rent on 3-11-2006 and issued four cheques towards security. The defendant returned the welding machines on that occasion and the plaintiff also returned the four security 4 O.S.No.210/2011 cheques . It is averred that the defendant issued a security cheque bearing

No.172231 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank for Rs.3,00,000/- on 31-8-2008.

The plaintiff demanded to issue said cheque. The defendant issued the same without date. The same is mentioned in the agreement of lease dated 31- 8-2008. It is mentioned in the said document that the plaintiff shall return the undated security cheques at the time of return 15 welding machine. The plaintiff denied that 15 welding machines were handed over in bad and non working condition on 5-3-2009. In fact 15 welding machines were handed over to the plaintiff in good working condition on 23-2-2009 along with full and final settlement for an amount of Rs.10,995/- i.e., for 22 days paid through a cheque bearing No.670162 dated 28-2-2009 drawn on Indus Ind

Bank. The plaintiff agreed to return the undated cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant in a day or two. As the plaintiff promptly returned the four cheques in the year 2006 the defendant believed the plaintiff. But this time the defendant dragged the matter and expressed his inability to return the cheque by stating that the cheque is misplaced and is not traceable. The defendant gave stop payment instructions on 5-6-2009 to his banker Laksmi

Vilas Bank. The defendant also informed the plaintiff regarding the stop payment letter, even at that point of time, the business relation between the plaintiff and defendant were cordial. After about on year , the defendant was shocked and surprised upon to know from the banker that the cheque

No.172231 for Rs.3,00,000/- was presented to the bank on 1-7-2010 and the said cheque was returned in view of stop payment instructions. The act of the plaintiff was Breach of Trust. The document No.4 dated 5-3-2009 is concocted document created by entering into criminal conspiracy with

S.Laxmana Rao. 15 machines were handed back and full and final payment was released to the plaintiff on 23-2-2009. The plaintiff represented by its

Proprietor Suryanarayana has personally received the same. The plaintiff 5 O.S.No.210/2011 who have personally recorded the defects and repairs if any in the machines and obtained acknowledgement of the defendant. In the legal notice dated 13-8-2010 the plaintiff claim of Rs.97,350/- is not made.

Same is missing in the claims made by the plaintiff. The claim of rental loss of Rs.4,40,000/- at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for 22 months from March, 2009 to December, 2010 is not tenable as all the machines have been handed over to the plaintiff in working condition on 23-2-2009.

There was no claim or communication by the plaintiff to the defendant with regard to the same. The defendant has come to know about the claim of

Rs.4,40,000/- upon reading the plaint. Aforesaid claim of Rs.4,40,000/- plaintiff has claimed rental arrears of Rs.15,000/- due towards the amount of cheque dated 1-11-2008 and Rs.10,995/- being the amount for the cheque dated 28-2-2009 and against the said claim of Rs.25,995/- the plaintiff has consented to receive to receive Rs.15,000/- in June, 2010. Even as per the plaintiff claim shall be only for Rs.10,995/-whereas the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- through cheque dated 16-3-2009 bearing

No.177482 dated 16-3-2009. Thus the defendant has paid excess amount to the plaintiff. There is no due amount payable by the defendant and prayed to dismiss the suit.

7.On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

8. Chinta Suryanarayana the proprietor of M/s Divya Elelctrical

Services got himself examined as Pw1 and examined one Satti Lakshmana

Rao an electrician as PW.2. S.Dharmalingam the managing partner of the defendant firm is examined as DW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 are marked on behalf 6 O.S.No.210/2011 of the plaintiff. Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked on behalf of the defendants.

9. Issue No.1:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

For deciding the said issued it would be appropriate to consider the claim of the plaintiff by leaving aside the plaint averment .

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery Rs.4,53,000/. Out of the said claim Rs.25,995/- is claimed towards the amount due under the cheques bearing Nos.627313, 670162. The plaintiff has deducted Rs.15,000/- from the said amount of Rs.25,995/- by showing that the defendant paid

Rs.15,000/- in June, 2010 and claimed the balance as Rs.10,995/-.

10.The defendant further claimed Rs.4,40,000/- towards damages for 22 months from March, 2009 to December, 2010 at the rate of

Rs.20,000/- per month. He further showed the legal notice charges as

Rs.2,005/-.

11.The evidence of Pw.1 is the reproduction of the plaint facts and is on the same lines. The gist of his evidence is that under the agreement

Ex.A1 dated 31-8-2008 the defendant took 15 welding transformers on lease. The defendant failed to pay rents and issues cheque bearing

No.627313 dated 1-11-2008 for Rs.15,000/- and cheque bearing No.670162

dated 28-2-2009 for Rs.10,995/- towards part payment of rents due. The

defendant requested not to present the cheque , defendant failed to pay the amount. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.25,995/-. It is further the evidence of Pw.1 that the defendant took on hire below mentioned welding transformers on 31-8-2008 (it is to be stated here that numbers is not 7 O.S.No.210/2011 mentioned). He further stated that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of the hire agreement and handed over supra mentioning machines (number is not specified) in bad and non working condition on 5- 3-2009 and one S.Lakshmana Rao @ Lakshmana endorsed on the letter about the missing of parts the defendant intentionally cheated the plaintiff and damaged the machines. The plaintiff sustained damages and huge loss.

The plaintiff lost his rents since March, 2009 as machines were damaged and he was unable to use them. The defendant discussed with the plaintiff on 24-4-2010 plaintiff agreed for three months and addressed a letter on 24-4-2010 and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- through one Madhu

Sudhakar. Said Madhu Sudhakar paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- in

June,2010. Plaintiff sustained damaged at the rate of Rs.20,000/- from

March, 2009 to December, 2010. Defendant requested the plaintiff to present the cheque bearing No.172231 for Rs.3,00,000/- issued towards security. Plaintiff presented the cheque on 30-6-2010 through Indian

Overseas Bank and the cheque returned with the endorsement that payment was stopped by the drawer on 1-7-2010.

12.It would facilitate discussion if the documents for the plaintiff are mentioned here. According to Pw.1 Ex.A1 is a agreement of lease dated 31-8-2008. Ex.A2 is a cheque for Rs.15,000/- dated 1-11-2008. Ex.A3 is a cheque for Rs.10,995/- dated 28-2-2009. Ex.A4 is written endorsement for returning the machines dated 5-3-2009. Ex.A5 is the cheque for

Rs.3,00,000/- towards security. Ex.A6 is pay-in-slip for depositing cheque

dated 30-6-2010. Ex.A7 is a cheque return memo dated 1-7-2010. Ex.A8 is

a debit voucher dated 2-7-2010. Ex.A9 is the office copy of the legal notice

dated 13-8-2010. Ex.A10 consisted of two unserved postal envelops.

8 O.S.No.210/2011

13.Ex.A1 is referred as an agreement by the plaintiff and the defendant in the evidence. Ex.A1 is a letter written on the letter head of the defendant’s company. It is letter acknowledging that the defendant has taken 15 welding machines on rental basis. Ex.A1 shows that an undated cheque bearing No.172231 for Rs.3,00,000/- is kept with the plaintiff as security. It is further shows that when the machines are delivered the cheque shall be returned. It is further mentioned that towards rent for the month of September, 2008 for Rs.15,000/- is paid through postdated cheque dated 10-9-2008. Ex.A1 bears only the signature of Dw.1.

14.Various aspects are involved in the suit. One is whether 20 welding machines were taken or 15 welding machines were taken. While executing Ex.A1 by Dw.1, 15 welding machines were taken. The same is evident from Ex.A1. During cross examination of Pw.1 and Pw.2, there is evidence with regard to number of machines taken and when they were returned, whether they were returned simultaneously or on different dates.

Pw.1 was questioned with regard to document with regard to difference of 5 machines. DW.1 has stated during his cross examination that they have taken 20 welding machines on monthly rental basis from the plaintiff. That clinches with regard to the number of machines taken. Next aspect is whether the machines were returned.

15.Where they were returned and when they were returned whether simultaneously or on different dates. Pw.1 stated that their electrician

Dharmalingam stated that their electrician would sign. S.Lakshmana Rao was an electrician in the defendant’s company. Pw.1 also stated that by 23- 2-2009 some machines were delivered to him but not all the 20 machines.

He cannot say how many machines were given and on which date. By 9 O.S.No.210/2011 5-3-2009 20 machines were given. The 20 machines were not returned in the same condition. He gave a document stating that the machines returned have developed repairs . It is in his evidence that each machines gets rental of Rs.1,000/- per day. But even otherwise the rental for machines is Rs.1,000/- per month. The evidence of Pw.2 is that for showing about the return of machines. He deposed as if he is representing the defendant. But he stated in his chief that he is working as a private electrician in and around Visakhapatnam and other Districts. He worked as a electrician to the plaintiff company during the period from2006 to 2010.

This evidence shows that he is an electrician produced on behalf of the plaintiff. He also stated that they have received 5 extra transformers from the plaintiff company. After completion of the work, they handed over 20 welding transformers on 5-3-2009. Plaintiff verified the welding machines and obtained his signature on acknowledgement and also mentioned the missing parts of the welding transformers. Plaintiff also supplied copy of estimated cost of repairs of welding transformers as Rs.97,350/-.

16.Pw.2 is speaking about Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is written on the letter head of the plaintiff company. It is not written on the letter head of the defendant company . Ex.A4 contained two pages. In is in table form by giving S.No, Machine descriptive number and Missing parts. At the end it is written that” I am handing over the above machines with missing parts.

Our company is liable to pay charges to repair the machines and spares and is signed by S.Laxmana Rao and dated 5-3-2009. It is not bearing at least the stamp of the defendant company. It is shown that in various document in which Dw.1 has signed he put the company rubber stamp and signed as managing partner. The same is not done in Ex.A4. In Ex.A4 missing of big fan, insulators, the top door, front door , switch, medium fan etc., are 10 O.S.No.210/2011 mentioned. There is no other supporting document to show what is the cost of each spare , such as switch, rotor switch, earth cable, fan, insulator primary coil etc., During cross examination he has stated the defendant has taken 15 machines. He has not made any signature when the defendant firm took machines. He has subsequently taken 5 machines on 5-3-2009.

The defendant returned 5 machines on one occasion. He cannot say when he returned. Later he returned 10 machines. He cannot say the date when he returned 10 machines. He mentioned in his chief that the defendant returned 20 machines on 5-3-2009. He denied that the defendant returned 5 machines on 20-1-2009 and returned 15 machines on 23-2-2009. This evidence of Pw.2 is also confusing. In chief it is referred about returning 20 welding transformers on the same day on 5-3-2009. During cross he split them as 5 and10 and stated that subsequently he has taken five machines on 5-3-2005. There is also confusion with regard to taking and returning. Hence the evidence of Pw.2 cannot be relied upon, for deciding the matter either way.

17.Pw.2, as already stated, deposed that on 23-2-2009 some machines were delivered to him but not all the 20 machines . He cannot say how many machines were given and on which date. By 5-3-2009 20 machines were given. He denied that the Dharmalingam returned 15 machines in good condition by 23-2-2009. He further denied that he was given a cheque for Rs.10,995/- dated 28-2-2009 towards full payment.

Dw.1 on the other hand stated during cross examination that he returned 5 machines in January, 2009 and 15 machines on 23-2-2009. He denied that he handed over 20 machines on 5-3-2009 near Panthulugarimeda . He further stated that he issued two cheques Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. He obtained vouchers for the same. He filed voucher dated 28-2-2009 which is Ex.B2.

11 O.S.No.210/2011

18.Ex.B2 is a letter dated 23-2-2009. It is shown to have upon written on behalf of the plaintiff firm. It is written monthly rent for

February, 2009. It is also mentioned that 15 machines were being handed over that day i.e., 23-2-2009. It further reads that rental charges for 22 days for 15 machines in the month of February, 2009 till that day at the rate of Rs.733/- is Rs.10,995/-. It further reads that all the remaining 15 machines are being handed over that day and hence rental amount for the month of February, 2009 till that day worked out to be Rs.10,995/-.

Further it is written “ received the amount of Rs.10,9995/- vide Indus Ind

Bank Ch.No.670162 dt.28-2-2009. It shows a postdated cheque is issued on 23-2-2009. Ex.B2 is supported by Ex.B1. It is a printed payment voucher of the defendant company. It is shown that an amount of Rs.10,995/- towards rental for 15 machines till February, 2009 is paid to M/s Divya

Electrical Services vide cheque No.670162 dated 28-2-2009. It is shown that it is received by making signatures. The signature in Ex.B1is similar to the signature in Ex.B2. In Ex.B2 the name Suryanarayana is written.

19.Dw.1 also admitted that there is difference between the signature of the plaintiff in the plaint and in Ex.B1 and in Ex.B2. He denied that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are fabricated after filing of the suit. He further denied that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were not issued for the plaintiff and that the signatures therein are not that of the plaintiff. Dw.1 stated that he obtained Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 from the plaintiff. In the plaint the name Ch.Suryanarayana is fully written.

In Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 it appears as if they are like initial or short signature. It appears as if the letters in the signature Caps Ch.Suryanarayana above M/s

DIVYA ELECTRICAL SERVICE there is writing of name Suryanarayana . The defendant has shown Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. It is for the plaintiff to show that 12 O.S.No.210/2011 these short signature or initials are not made by the plaintiff and the name

Suryanarayana is not written by the Pw.1. The use of sentence that all the remaining 15 machines are being handed over today would show that five machines were already returned earlier. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the monthly amount for hiring the welding machines from 1-9-2008 to 23-2- 2009 is not paid. Nowhere it is stated in the plaint or in the legal notice

Ex.A9 about non payment of rental during the period when the welding machines were in the custody of the defendant. The signatures of

Ch.Suryanarayana are also therein Ex.A9 the legal notice. The letters

Ch.Suryanarayana in Ex.A9 are similar to the signature portion in Ex.B1 and

Ex.B2. It is difficult to get convinced that the 15 machines were not handed by 23-2-2009.

20.It is further shown that a cheque dated 28-2-2009 and cheque

dated 1-11-2008 for Rs.10,995/- and Rs.15,000/- are produced and filed by

the plaintiff. When the cheque date and cheque number are tallying with what is mentioned in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, it is for the plaintiff to show why these cheques were not presented. Pw.1 deposed that defendant requested him not to present the cheques.

21The learned counsel for the plaintiff has explained when enquired about the difference between welding transformers and welding machines used in the plaintiff case and in his evidence, the learned counsel further submitted that 20 welding transformers were heard with effect from 1-9- 2008. A cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- was also handed towards security. The cheque is undated . It was agreed the rent was paid on or before 10th of every month. The learned counsel also submitted about the issuance of

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 that two cheques. 20 machines were returned through 13 O.S.No.210/2011

Pw.2 on 5-3-2009 and the same is evident by Ex.A4 . All the 20 machines were found with defects. The plaintiff got issued legal notice Ex.A9 on 13-8-2010 before filing the suit. The defendant has stated that he paid

Rs.20,000/- by way of cash in March, 2009 and Rs.15,000/- by cash through one Madhu Sudhakar and averred in the written statement that the defendant paid the excess amount. The learned counsel further submitted that Ex.B3 the account statement is issued without signature of the bank

Manager and without certification. There is no voucher for the cheque issued in March, 2009. The signatures of the plaintiff is fabricated in Ex.B1 and

Ex.B2. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 are not confronted to Pw.2. Hence they cannot be considered.

22.The learned counsel further submitted that the welding machines were returned through Pw.2 who is working in the defendant company. The learned counsel further contended that the contractor or sub contractor has to maintain P.F account for the works engaged by him. Dw.1 also admitted the same, but stated that the P.F account has to be maintained, if more than 20 workers are engaged.

23.In view of recent amendment to the Employee Provident Fund

Act even if one employee is engaged, P.F account has to be maintained. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the plaintiff sustained a loss an extent of Rs.97,350/- for getting the welding machines repaired. The plaintiff is entitled for that amount. Even otherwise the plaintiff sustained loss as he could not hire the defective welding machines. The defendant agreed that the plaintiff may realize Rs.3,00,000/-. But the defendant issued stop payment instructions and the plaintiff could not encash for

Rs.3,00,000/-.

14 O.S.No.210/2011

24.Dw.1 is questioned with regard to his connectivity with various companies and about the work sites etc., the learned counsel submitted that the gate pass has to be obtained for carrying the goods. The defendant himself cannot go and take out the welding machines in the absence of gate pass for person as well as the goods, the Pw.2 was sent by the defendant for handing over the machines on 5-3-2009. As the machines were defective and as the plaintiff could not let out the welding machines, the plaintiff is entitled for the loss sustained of Rs.4,40,000/- in the form of damages at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month from March,2009 to December, 2010,

25.Dw.1 deposed that he has not returned the 20 welding machines to S.Lakshmana Rao to the plaintiff. He personally handed over 20 welding machines at vizag Profiles site. He returned 5 machines in January, 2009 and 15 machines on 23-2-2009. He denied that he handed over 20 machines on 5-3-2009 near 'Panthulugarimeda' through Pw.2 and not at

Vizag Profiles site. Vacillation of Pw.2 with regard to the mentioning of dates and with regard to 20 machines, 5 machines and 10 machines and his evidence that the defendant has subsequently taken 5 machines on 5-3- 2009 would show that the evidence of Pw.2 cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, it is shown that the evidence of Dw.1 is in conformity with the

Ex.B1,Ex.B2 and Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Ex.A3 cheque dated 28-2-2009 for

Rs.10,995/- filed by the plaintiff. Pw.1 also admitted that Dharmalingam has sent an amount of Rs.15,000/- through one Mdhu Sudhakar.

26.As Pw.2 mentioned that he worked as an electrician with the plaintiff company from 2006 to 2010 and that he is not categorical in stating that he is an employee of the defendant company and since Ex.A4 15 O.S.No.210/2011 is on the letter head of the defendant company on Ex.A4 cannot be considered and it cannot considered that the Pw.2 is an employee of the defendant company. Further more the Pw.2 has not filed any pay slip or any other document to show that he was on the payroll of the defendant company or he was an employee of the defendant company or he was authorized by the defendant or Dw.1 to deliver welding machines and to acknowledge about the defects in the machines. As already stated the cost of spare of the any of the parts mentioned in Ex.A4 is not shown. There is no supporting voucher for the same. Pw.1 has stated during his cross examination that in Ex.A4 they mentioned repairing charges will be about

Rs.93,000/-. He has not sent a letter to the defendant regarding the same.

He has not separately claimed repairing charges of Rs.93,000/- in the plaint.

The machines were not repaired he has not filed bills for getting the machine repaired. It was mentioned that an amount of Rs.97,300/- has to be paid towards repair charges in Ex.A9. Till issuing legal notice corresponding to Ex.A9 machines were not got repaired. As asserted by

Pw.1 it is not mentioned in Ex.A4 about the cost of the repairing charges.

Nowhere it is mentioned about the cost of the part in Ex.A4. Even if it is assumed that the machines were returned on 5-3-2009 as asserted by Pw.1 and Pw.2 but not as not stated on 23-2-2009 as shown in Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and has deposed by Dw.1. The legal notice is shown to have been issued on 13- 8-2010. The commercial transaction depend upon the agreement between the parties. They also depend upon written document or agreement if any and the admission made by the parties also to be considered , if there is no oral admission about any aspect. When the machines returned in

February, 2009 or the March, 2009 issuance of legal notice on 13-8-2010 which returned unserved will not carry forward the case of the plaintiff .

The delay dilutes things when there is no promptness and when there is no 16 O.S.No.210/2011 explanation for the delay in issuance of legal notice and the evidence of

Pw.1 that he kept quite all the years till issuance of legal notice without repairing machines cannot be considered. Even Pw.1 has stated that he repairs and weld electrical items and he is running a electrical shop. When the Pw.1 himself is mechanic who can repair a welding machine and the parts required are also known by 5-3-2009 nothing prevents, Pw.1 to repair the welding machines himself. The plaintiff owes an explanation for not repairing the machines for all the period. He owes an explanation for not mentioning about the cost of the spares in Ex.A2. Further there is no supporting document in purchasing the spares and spending that amount.

Even otherwise there is no claim for Rs.97,300/- in the plaint.

27.On the other hand, the plaintiff has claimed that he is entitled for damages for not letting out the machines from March, 2009 to December, 2010 for 22 months on hire. The plaintiff is responsible for his machinery once the same is returned. The plaintiff cannot succeed by claiming presumptive damages without showing the actual damages. DW.1 has deposed against the rental amounts claim of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,995/- i.e., towards cheques which were not presented by the plaintiff. The defendant has paid Rs.20,000/- through a cheque dated 16-3-2009 and also issued cash of Rs.15,000/- through one Madhu Sudhakar who is tenant of the Dw.1 in the Industrial Estate. Dw.1 was cross examined that he was in

Mumbai in 2010 and made Sri Madhu Sudhakar to give cash of Rs.15,000/- to the plaintiff as the plaintiff asked him over phone. The plaintiff never turned up for verification of accounts. DW.1 is not cross examined with regard to the cheque for Rs.20,000/- dated 16-3-2009.

28. With regard to the claim for Rs.15,000/- and Rs.25,995/- the 17 O.S.No.210/2011 plaintiff himself has admitted about payment of Rs.15,000/- in June, 2010.

The balance is shown as Rs.10,995/-. Dw.1 has shown that he has issued a cheque dated 16-3-2009 for Rs.20,000/-. Dw.1 was not cross examined with regard to the same. It is not shown that the said cheque was not issued. With regard to the claim for Rs.97,300/- made in Ex.A9 legal notice the claim is not carried forward till filing of the suit by making claim in the suit. Even otherwise the expenditure incurred for repairing the welding machine for purchasing the spares is not shown.

29.With regard to the claim for Rs.4,40,000/- the claim is presumptive and Hypothetical the claim is not supported by any legally acceptable evidence. The plaintiff contended that the machines were handedover on 5-3-2009. On the other hand it is shown that the machines were returned by 23-2-2009 itself. The same is also supported by Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.A3. Such being the case the question of the sustaining loss from 5-3-2009 and finding that the machines were found defective when they were returned on 5-3-2009 cannot be believed. Considering the totality and facts and circumstances in the suit and considering the oral or documentary evidence on behalf of both parties the claim made by the plaintiff cannot be allowed.

30.The plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained loss. Even it cannot be said that the plaintiff would keep quite for months together i.e., 22 months and would keep the machines idle and without repairing them by Pw.1 himself who is a mechanic who can repair welding machines or getting the welding machines repaired elsewhere by some one else.

Considering all these aspects the claim made by the plaintiff has to fail.

The claim of the plaintiff is hypothetical and presumptive and without basis 18 O.S.No.210/2011 for showing the actual loss and damages. The plaintiff is not entitled for recovery the suit amount as prayed for . Issue No.1 thus answered.

31. Issue No.2:

2).To what relief?

Issue No.1 is answered, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for. The plaintiff has not prayed for any other relief. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Issue No.2 is answered.

In the result. Suit claim is not established, suit is liable to be dismissed . Suit dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer(Grade-II), transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: No. of witnesses examined for: Plaintiff: P.W.1 :Chinta Suryanarayana P.W.2 : Satti Lakshmana Rao

Defendant: DW.1 : S.Dharmalingam

No. Documents marked for:

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is a agreement of lease dated 31-8-2008.

Ex.A2 is a cheque for Rs.15,000/-No.627313 dated 1-11-2008.

Ex.A3 is a cheque for Rs.10,995/- No.670162 dated 28-2-2009.

Ex.A4 is written endorsement for returning the machines dated 5-3-2009.

Ex.A5 is the cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- No.172231 towards security dt.30-6-2010. Ex.A6 is cheque deposit slip dated 30-6-2010.

Ex.A7 is a cheque returned memo dated 1-7-2010.

19 O.S.No.210/2011

Ex.A8 is a debit voucher dated 2-7-2010.

Ex.A9 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 13-8-2010.

Ex.A10 i0s returned covers of the defendant. (2 Nos).

Defendant:

Ex.B1 is statement of final rental account and receipt of welding machines duly signed by plaintiff dt.23-2-2009

Ex.B2 is payment voucher duly signed by plaintiff acknowledging receipt of cheque for final rental amount Rs.10,995/-.

Ex.B3 is Lakshmi Vilas Bank Statement showing honouring of cheque

No.177482 for Rs.20,000/- issued in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.B4 is is stop payment instructions duly acknowledged by the Lakshmi

Vilas Bank dt.25-6-2009.

PSCJ::GWK

Date of presentation :30-4-2011/26-7-2011 Date of filing:19-8-2011

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.210/2011

Between:

M/s Divya Electrical Services rep. by its Proprietor Sri Chinta Suryanarayana, S/o late Yerra Appalanaidu, Hindu, aged 36 years, situated at D.No.07-09- 24/5, Opp:Electrical Sub-Station, Pantulugarimeda, NH-5 Raoad, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatam-26.

...Plaintiff

And: M/s Steel Fabs, rep. by its Mg. Partner Sri S.Dharmalingam, S/o Not known, Hindu, aged 62 years, situated at B-9 &10, Block-B, Autonagar, Visakhapatam-12.

...Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovering a sum of Rs.4,53,000/- from the defendant being the balance of arrears of rent and towards damages for the machinery hired to the defendant (arrears at Rs.10,995/- + damages at

Rs.4,40,000/- @ Rs.20,000/- p.m from March, 2009 to December, 2010 + notice charges RS.2005/-) for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.4,53,000/- and a court fee of Rs.7,026/-- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I(b&c) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Pattabhi Rama Rao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and

Sri Ch.Tirumala Rao, Advocate on behalf of defendant, this Court DOTH order and :

D E C R E E

01. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed.

02.that the plaintiff do pay to the defendant a sum of

Rs.13,435/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00 Stamp on Vakalat- Rs. 2-00 Stamp on plaint - Rs. 7,096-00 Advocate Sr.Fee - Rs.10,000-00 Stamp on petition - Rs. 4-00Advocate Jr.Fee - Rs. 3,333-00 Stamp on process - Rs. 121-00 Type Charges - Rs. 100-00 Advocate Sr.Fee - Rs.15,290-00 --------------- Advocate Jr.Fee - Rs. 5,096-00Total costs allowed - Rs.13,435-00 Type Charges - Rs. 100-00-------------- --------------------- Total Costs certified - Rs.27,709-00 --------------------

PSCJ/GWK

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: SRI A.PARTHASARATHY, B.SC.,M.L.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

O.S.NO.165/2014

Between:

IDBI Bank Ltd., having its registered office at IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai and its Zonal Office at Chennai and branches at various places including one of the Retail Assets Centers, D.No.9-29/6-1, 5(c), 4th floor, Balaji Mangalagiri Chambers, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Asst.General Manager/Authorised Signatory, M.Ramu, S/o.Siva Sankar Rao, Hindu, 37 years, Visakhapatnam.

......Plaintiff

And:

1. Datla Venkata Ramaraju, S/o.Rama Chandra Raju, Qtr.No.203/F, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, working as Technician (M), E.No.108678, R.M.H.P.Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt.Datla Hema, W/o.Venkata Rama Raju, Qtr.No.203/F, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

3. Dulla Rama Krishna S/o.late Uma Maheswara Rao, MIG-2, Block-2, Sujatha Apartments, Visweswara Nagar, Gajuwaka, working as Technician (M), E.No.115682,U.E.R.S.Department,VisakhapatnamSteel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendants

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.Gudivada Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff, and Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for

D1, and D2 & D3 having been called absent and set exparte, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

01.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs Bank against the Defendants for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.7,58,856.91 (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand eight hundred and fifty six and ninety one paise only) as on 12-3-2014 and for passing a Preliminary

Decree by creating a charge over the suit Scheduled property, directing the defendant to pay the suit amount due with interest and costs under mortgage, within the time fixed by the court and in default, for sale of mortgaged property as described in the Scheduled

Annexed hereto and if the amount sale proceeds is not sufficient the plaintiff bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendants for balance amount and for subsequent interest 2 thereon @ 13% pa., (ie BPLR-1.25% pa.,) with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for personal decree against the defendant and for costs.

02.Plaintiff present. Proof affidavit of PW1 filed. PW1 examined further in chief. Exs.A1 to A17 marked. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Suit claim proved. Preliminary decreed passed. The defendants 1 to 3 are ordered to pay the suit amount of Rs.7,58,856.91 (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand eight hundred and fifty six and ninety one paise only) with interest on the principal sum of Rs.6,20,000/- @ 13% p.a., from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of passing the Preliminary decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., The defendants 1 to 3 are ordered to pay the plaintiffs Bank may come for passing of

Final Decree. Time for redemption 15-3-2016.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 23rd Day of September, 2015

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(List of witnesses examined)

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: M.Ramu NIL

LIST OF D0CUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFFS: DEFENDANT:

NIL

Ex.A.1: Original Home loan application submitted by Defendants to the Plaintiffs Bank dated 13-6-2006: Ex.A.2: Photo copy of Identity Card of the Defendant issued by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Ex.A.3: Photo Copy of PAN card bearing No.ACOPD7125R of the defendant issued by Income Tax Authorities Ex.A.4: Photo coy of House hold card (Ration Card) of the Defendant showing family & Residential Particulars Ex.A.5: Photo copy of Payslip for the month of September, 2006 belonging to the 1st defendant Ex.A.6: Original letter given by the Guarantor-D3 to the plaintiff Bank showing residential particulars and willing to stand as guarantor for the 1st defendant dated 13-6-2006 Ex.A.7: Photo copy of Identity card of the 3rd defendant issued by Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Ex.A.8: Photo copy of House hold card (Ration card) of the defendant showing family and residential particulars dated 30-8-2005 Ex.A.9: Original Sanction letter given by the plaintiff bank duly signed by the defendants

dated 4-11-2006

3

Ex.A10:Original Home loan agreement executed by defendants in favour of the Plaintiff bank along with Power of Attorney executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff bank dated 14-11-2006 Ex.A.10a: Original Guarantee Agreement executed by 3rd defendant duly counter signed by other defendants dated 14-11-2006 Ex.A.11: Original Sale Agreement entered between 1st defendant and the vendor dated 15-11-2006 Ex.A.12: Original Request letter given by the 1st defendant to the Plaintiff Bank requesting to disbursed the Loan Amount dated 14-11-2006 Ex.A.13: Regd.Sale deed Doc.No.5843/2006 executed by Jayanti Arunachalam Rep.by GPA holder M.Bhaskara Rao infavour of 1st Defendant dated 29-11-2006 Ex.A.14: Original Acknowledgment of Debt by confirming the Balance executed by 1st defendant infavour of the bank dated 13-4-2013 Ex.A.15: Original Request lette by acknowledging the liability to settle the loan amount given by 1st defendant dated 18-4-2013 Ex.A.16: Certified copy of statement of account of the defendants dated 12-3-2014 Ex.A.17: Attested copy of Power of Attorney of Plaintiff dated 8-1-2013

PSCJ::GWK 4

DATE OF PRESENTATION:19-3-2014/29-4-2014 DATE OF FILING:30-4-2014

IIN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

PRESENT: SRI A.PARTHASARATHY, B.SC.,M.L.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

O.S.NO.165/2014

Between:

IDBI Bank Ltd., having its registered office at IDBI Towers, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai and its Zonal Office at Chennai and branches at various places including one of the Retail Assets Centers, D.No.9-29/6-1, 5(c), 4th floor, Balaji Mangalagiri Chambers, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Asst.General Manager/Authorised Signatory, M.Ramu, S/o.Siva Sankar Rao, Hindu, 37 years, Visakhapatnam.

......Plaintiff

And:

1. Datla Venkata Ramaraju, S/o.Rama Chandra Raju, Qtr.No.203/F, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, workingasTechnician(M),E.No.108678, R.M.H.P.Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt.Datla Hema, W/o.Venkata Rama Raju, Qtr.No.203/F, Sector-8, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

3. Dulla Rama Krishna S/o.late Uma Maheswara Rao, MIG- 2, Block-2, Sujatha Apartments, Visweswara Nagar, Gajuwaka, working as Technician (M), E.No.115682, U.E.R.S.Department, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendants

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs Bank against the Defendants for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.7,58,856.91 (Rupees Seven Lakhs fifty eight thousand eight hundred and fifty six and ninety one paise only) as on 12-3-2014 and for passing a Preliminary

Decree by creating a charge over the suit Scheduled property, directing the defendant to pay the suit amount due with interest and costs under mortgage, within the time fixed by the court and in default, for sale of mortgaged property as described in the Scheduled

Annexed hereto and if the amount sale proceeds is not sufficient the plaintiff bank is at liberty to proceed against the defendants for balance amount and for subsequent interest 5 thereon @ 13% pa., (ie BPLR-1.25% pa.,) with monthly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for personal decree against the defendant and for costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction is Rs.7,58,856.91/- and a court fee of Rs.10,100/- is paid under sec.20 sch.I Art-I (b) and © of APCF Act.

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri.

Gudivada Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff, and Sri K.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for D1, and D2 & D3 having been called absent and set exparte, this Court DOTH order and :

DECREE

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to 19-3-2014 is the sum of Rs. 7,58,856.91 paise/- for principal the sum of Rs. 6,20,000/- towards interest and a sum of Rs.--

NIL-- towards costs (for costs, charges and expenses, other than the costs of the suit) properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgage-security together with interest thereon, the sum of Rs. 16,992/-for costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all sum of Rs.7,75,848.91 paise.

And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

that the defendant do pay into court on or before 15-3-2016 or any later date up to which time for payment be extended by the court on the said sum of Rs 7,75,848.91 paise/- with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of redemption on the principal sum of

Rs.6,20,000/-

That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants or to such persons as he appoints, and the plaintiff, shall if so required, re-convey or re-transfer the said property from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under 6 him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendants quiet and peaceful possession of the said property;

And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgage property, and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereof shall be directed be sold; and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with subsequent interest as may be payable under

Rule 11,of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 at 6% per annum, the subsequent interest, the rate of interest agreed between the parties and that balance if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to received the same;

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed, that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasions, and on such application or otherwise the court may give such direction as it thinks fit.

(A copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached)

TIME FOR REDEMPTION IS Six (6) MONTHS.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 23rd day of September 2015.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

7

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANT:

Stamp on Plaint : Rs. 10,100-00 NIL

Stamp on Vakalat : Rs. 2-00

Petition on Stamp : Rs. 3-00

Process on process: Rs. 38-00

Advocate fee : Rs. 5,000-00

Junior pleader fee : Rs. 1,667-00

Typing charges: Rs. 100-00

Costs allowed: Rs. 16,992-00

PSCJ::GWK 8

1 O.S.No.309/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.309/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India

Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over

India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam,

Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi

Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Smt.Koilkandadai Dhanalakshmi, (After her marriage sur name was changed as Tirumalapeddinti) W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

2.Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, S/o Narasimhachari, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of Sri

CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri

U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.1,95,892.58ps . It is av erred that the 1st defendant approached and applied for personal loan of Rs.2,90,000/-. The 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor. Loan of Rs.2,90,000/- was sanctioned to the 1st defendant and 2 O.S.No.309/2012 both the defendants executed loan documents. The amount is payable with interest at the rate of 12.25%p.a. The 1st defendant failed to clear the loan amount of Rs.1,47,209.58ps which remained outstanding as on 25-8- 2012. Hence the plaintiff filed suit for recovering a sum of Rs.1,95,892.58ps which is over due.

2.In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant. It is averred that the suit documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining the signatures of the 1st defendant without knowledge and consent of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of the defendants on printed forms. The plaintiff has not followed the regulations as per the Banking Rules . The account statement is not correct. The tenure of payment is still subsisting the bank has mischievously filed the suit without any cause of action . The suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and outstanding ?

3.Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

4.Pw1 is examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank. 1st defendant K.Dhanalakshmi is examined as DW.1 on behalf of the defendants and through Pw.1 Ex.B1 is marked.

5. Issue No.1:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

3 O.S.No.309/2012

The evidence of Pw.1 is that 1st defendant applied for personal loan of Rs.2,90,000/- on 5-3-2010 by submitting an application Ex.A1. He executed a personal loan agreement. It is Ex.A2. 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor and executed deed of guarantee. It is Ex.A3. The loan is payable with interest at 12.25%p.a in monthly installments. The 1st defendant has become irregular and failed to pay the installments. A legal notice was issued to the 1st defendant demanding the outstanding amount of

Rs.1,47,209.58ps. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice. Pw.1 is questioned with regard to verification of IT returns while sanctioning a business loan as it is mentioned that loan is for the purpose of house expenses. It is further Pw.1 stated that a letter which is shown for the defendants is addressed by the bank stating that the defendants is not eligible for loan under Saral Loan Scheme and the loan was sanctioned erroneously. Pw.1 was not cross examined with regard to obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank forms . The evidence of Dw.1 is that the documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining his signatures at the time of sanctioning loan by the plaintiff bank without her knowledge and consent and he also stated that the plaintiff obtained her signatures and the 2nd defendant on blank printed forms without her knowledge and consent.

6. The said aspect is not put to Pw.1. DW.1 admitted that she is a business women. Both the defendants are business people. It cannot be believed that they would blindly sign on blank forms and that the plaintiff bank would obtain their signatures on blank forms. Issue No.1 is answered that the contention that the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanctioning of the loan is negatived for the defendants.

4 O.S.No.309/2012

7. Issue No.2:

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and outstanding ?

Pw.1 deposed that as the 1st defendant failed to discharge loan and became a irregular. He was issued a legal notice demanding them outstanding amount of Rs.1,47,209.58ps . The account extract Ex.A5 would show that an amount of Rs.1,95,892.58ps is outstanding. The defendants have not shown that the account extract Ex.A5 is not correct. Issue No.2 has to be answered. The said amount is over due and outstanding.

8. Issue No.3:

3. Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

At the time of cross examination of DW.1 a joint memo is filed that the 1st defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,47,210/- towards full and final settlement within 10days, failing which the defendants are liable to pay the entire suit amount.

9.It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that the defendants also made some credits to the loan account.

Hence Issue No.3 is answered that the plaintiff bank is entitled for decree for the suit mount subject to the rider that the defendants shall pay

Rs.1,47,210/- within 10 days upon which the suit claim stands satisfied.

In the result, suit claim proved. Suit decreed with costs. The defendants 1 and 2 are ordered to pay the suit amount Rs.1,95,892.58ps (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand eight hundred and ninety two and fifty eight paise only) with interest on the principal adjudged of

Rs.1,38,200/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation.

5 O.S.No.309/2012

However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff bank agreed to receive Rs.1,47,210/- provided the defendants pays the said amount within 10days. The defendants are directed to pay Rs.1,47,210/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited if any as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the entire suit amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer(Grade-II), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: No. of witnesses examined for: Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Ch.Satyanarayana

Defendants: D.W.1 : K.Dhanalakshmi

No. Documents marked for: Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is loan application submitted by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A2 is personal loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank dt.5-3-2010.

Ex.A3 is deed of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dt.5-3-2010.

Ex.A4 is office copy of Registered Lawyer's notice issued sent by the plaintiff bank to the defendants dt.19-1-2012.

Ex.A5 is statement of account dt.25-8-2012.

Defendants:

Ex.B1 is the letter addressed by the Bank through marked Pw.1.

PSCJ::GWK

Date of presentation :8-9-2012 Date of filing:20-10-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.309/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Smt.Koilkandadai Dhanalakshmi, (After her marriage sur name was changed as Tirumalapeddinti) W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

2.Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, S/o Narasimhachari, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery a sum of

Rs.1,95,892.58psbeing the balance of personal loan of Rs.2,90,000/- sanctioned to the 1st defendant on 5-3-2010 and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and both the defendants executed necessary documents agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12.25%p.a and for subseqeunt interest and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.1,95,892.58ps and a court fee of Rs.4,426/- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I

Art.I(b&c) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of Sri

CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri

U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH order and :

D E C R E E

1.that the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff bank a sum Rs.1,95,892.58ps (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand eight hundred and ninety two and fifty eight paise only) with interest on the principal adjudged of Rs.1,38,200/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation. However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff bank agreed to receive Rs.1,47,210/- provided the defendants pays the said amount within 10days.

2. that the defendants be and are hereby directed to pay

Rs.1,47,210/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited if any as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the entire suit amount.

03. that the defendants 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.12,174/-(Rupees twelve thousand one hundred and seventy four only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00No costs memo filed Stamp on plaint - Rs. 4,426-00 Stamp on process - Rs. 120-00 Advocate Fee - Rs. 7,576-00 Type Charges - Rs. 50-00 --------------------- Total Costs allowed - Rs.12,174-00 --------------------PSCJ/GWK

1 O.S.No.308/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.308/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India

Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over

India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam,

Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi

Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Tirumalapeddinti Jayachandra Srinivas, S/o Sreeram, Hindu, aged about 29 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, Near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District-500 028.

2.Tirumalapeddinti Dhanalakshmi, W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of Sri

CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri

U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,08,122/-. It is av erred that the 1st defendant approached and applied for personal loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. The 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor. Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned to the 1st defendant and both the defendants executed loan documents. The amount is payable with 2 O.S.No.308/2012 interest at the rate of 12.25%p.a. The 1st defendant failed to clear the loan amount of Rs.1,56,823/-ps which remained outstanding as on 25-8- 2012. Hence the plaintiff filed suit for recovering a sum of Rs.2,08,122/- which is over due.

2.In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant. It is averred that the suit documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining the signatures of the 1st defendant without knowledge and consent of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of the defendants on printed forms. The plaintiff has not followed the regulations as per the Banking Rules . The account statement is not correct. The tenure of payment is still subsisting. The bank has mischievously filed the suit without any cause of action . The suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and outstanding ?

3.Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

4.Pw1 is examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank. 1st defendant T.Jayachandra Srinivas is examined as

DW.1 on behalf of the defendants and through Pw.1 Ex.B1 is marked.

5. Issue No.1:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

The evidence of Pw.1 is that 1st defendant applied for personal 3 O.S.No.308/2012 loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 24-3-2010 by submitting an application Ex.A1. He executed a personal loan agreement. It is Ex.A2. 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor and executed deed of guarantee. It is Ex.A3. The loan is payable with interest at 12.25%p.a in monthly installments. The 1st defendant has become irregular and failed to pay the installments. A legal notice was issued to the 1st defendant demanding the outstanding amount of

Rs.1,56,823/-. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice. Pw.1 is questioned with regard to verification of IT returns while sanctioning a business loan as it is mentioned that loan is for the purpose of house expenses. It is further Pw.1 stated that a letter which is shown for the defendants is addressed by the bank stating that the defendants is not eligible for loan under Saral Loan Scheme and the loan was sanctioned erroneously. Pw.1 was not cross examined with regard to obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank forms . The evidence of Dw.1 is that the documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining his signatures at the time of sanctioning the loan by the plaintiff bank without his knowledge and consent and he also stated that the plaintiff obtained his signatures and the 2nd defendant on blank printed forms without his knowledge and consent.

6. The said aspect is not put to Pw.1. DW.1 admitted that he is a business man . It cannot be believed that they would blindly sign on blank forms and that the plaintiff bank would obtain their signatures on blank forms. Issue No.1 is answered that the contention that the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanctioning of the loan is negatived for the defendants.

7. Issue No.2:

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and outstanding ?

4 O.S.No.308/2012

Pw.1 deposed that as the 1st defendant failed to discharge loan and became a irregular. He was issued a legal notice demanding them outstanding amount of Rs.1,56,823/-. The account extract Ex.A5 would show that an amount of Rs.2,08,122 is outstanding. The defendants have not shown that the account extract Ex.A5 is not correct. Issue No.2 has to be answered. The said amount is over due and outstanding.

8. Issue No.3:

3. Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

At the time of cross examination of DW.1 a joint memo is filed that the 1st defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,823/- towards full and final settlement within 10days, failing which the defendants are liable to pay the entire suit amount.

9.It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that the defendants also made some credits to the loan account.

Hence Issue No.3 is answered that the plaintiff bank is entitled for decree for the suit mount subject to the rider that the defendants shall pay

Rs.1,55,823/- within 10 days upon which the suit claim stands satisfied.

In the result, suit claim proved. Suit decreed with costs. The defendants 1 and 2 are ordered to pay the suit amount Rs.2,08,122/- (Rupees two lakh eight thousand one hundred and twenty two only) with interest on the principal adjudged of Rs.1,56,823/- at the rate of 12%p.a.

from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation. However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff 5 O.S.No.308/2012 bank agreed to receive Rs.1,55,823/- provided the defendants pays the said amount within 10days. The defendants are directed to pay Rs.1,55,823/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited if any as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the entire suit amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer(Grade-II), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: No. of witnesses examined for: Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Ch.Satyanarayana

Defendants: D.W.1 : T.Jayachandra No. Documents marked for: Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is loan application submitted by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A2 is personal loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank dt.24-3-2010.

Ex.A3 is deed of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dt.24-3-2010.

Ex.A4 is office copy of Registered Lawyer's notice issued sent by the plaintiff bank to the defendants dt.19-1-2012.

Ex.A5 is statement of account dt.14-8-2012.

Defendants:

Ex.B1 is the letter addressed by the Bank through marked Pw.1.

PSCJ::GWK

Date of presentation :6-9-2012 Date of filing:20-10-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.308/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Tirumalapeddinti Jayachandra Srinivas, S/o Sreeram, Hindu, aged about 29 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, Near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District-500 028.

2.Tirumalapeddinti Dhanalakshmi, W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalayam, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery a sum of Rs.2,08,120/- being the principal and interest due towards loan of Rs.3,00,000/- sanctioned to the 1st defendant on 24-3-2010 and the 1st defendant executed personal loan agreement 12.25% in monthly installments and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,08,122/- and a court fee of Rs.4,526/- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I(b&c) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of Sri CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH order and :

D E C R E E

1.that the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.2,08,122/- (Rupees two lakh eight thousand one hundred and twenty two only) with interest on the principal adjudged of Rs.1,56,823/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation. However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff bank agreed to receive

Rs.1,55,823/- provided the defendants pays the said amount within 10days.

2. that the defendants be and are hereby directed to pay

Rs.1,55,823/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited if any as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the entire suit amount.

3. that the defendants 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.12,548/-(Rupees twelve thousand five hundred and forty eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00No costs memo filed Stamp on plaint - Rs. 4,526-00 Stamp on process - Rs. 120-00 Advocate Fee - Rs. 7,800-00 Type Charges - Rs. 100-00 --------------------- Total Costs allowed - Rs.12,548-00 -------------------- PSCJ/GWK

1 O.S.No.301/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.301/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India

Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over

India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam,

Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi

Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, S/o Narasimhachari, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

2. Tirumalapeddinti Dhanalakshmi, W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of Sri

CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri

U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,06,069.58ps . It is av erred that the 1st defendant approached and applied for personal loan of Rs.2,90,000/-. The 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor. Loan of Rs.2,90,000/- was sanctioned to the 1st defendant and both the defendants executed loan documents. The amount is payable with 2 O.S.No.301/2012 interest at the rate of 12.25%p.a. The 1st defendant failed to clear the loan amount of Rs.1,55,784.58ps which remained outstanding as on 25-8- 2012. Hence the plaintiff filed suit for recovering a sum of Rs.2,06,069.58ps which is over due.

2.In the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant. It is averred that the suit documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining the signatures of the 1st defendant without knowledge and consent of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of the defendants on printed forms. The plaintiff has not followed the regulations as per the Banking Rules . The account statement is not correct. The tenure of payment is still subsisting. The bank has mischievously filed the suit without any cause of action . The suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and outstanding ?

3.Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

4.Pw1 is examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked on behalf of the plaintiff bank. 1st defendant T.Sreeraman is examined as DW.1 on behalf of the defendants and through Pw.1 Ex.B1 is marked.

5. Issue No.1:

1. Whether the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanction of the loan?

The evidence of Pw.1 is that 1st defendant applied for personal 3 O.S.No.301/2012 loan of Rs.2,90,000/- on 5-3-2010 by submitting an application Ex.A1. He executed a personal loan agreement. It is Ex.A2. 2nd defendant came forward as guarantor and executed deed of guarantee. It is Ex.A3. The loan is payable with interest at 12.25%p.a in monthly installments. The 1st defendant has become irregular and failed to pay the installments. A legal notice was issued to the 1st defendant demanding the outstanding amount of

Rs.1,55,784.58ps. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice. Pw.1 is questioned with regard to verification of IT returns while sanctioning a business loan as it is mentioned that loan is for the purpose of house expenses. It is further Pw.1 stated that a letter which is shown for the defendants is addressed by the bank stating that the defendants is not eligible for loan under Saral Loan Scheme and the loan was sanctioned erroneously. Pw.1 was not cross examined with regard to obtaining the signatures of the defendant on blank forms . The evidence of Dw.1 is that the documents are fabricated and filed by obtaining his signatures at the time of sanctioning loan by the plaintiff bank without his knowledge and consent and he also stated that the plaintiff obtained his signatures and the 2nd defendant on blank printed forms without his knowledge and consent.

6. The said aspect is not put to Pw.1. DW.1 admitted he is a business man. It cannot be believed that they would blindly sign on blank forms and that the plaintiff bank would obtain their signatures on blank forms. Issue No.1 is answered that the contention that the signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank forms at the time of sanctioning of the loan is negatived for the defendants.

7. Issue No.2:

2.Whether the suit amount is over due and 4 O.S.No.301/2012 outstanding ?

Pw.1 deposed that as the 1st defendant failed to discharge loan and became a irregular. He was issued a legal notice demanding them outstanding amount of Rs.1,55,784.58ps . The account extract Ex.A5 would show that an amount of Rs.2,06,069.58ps is outstanding. The defendants have not shown that the account extract Ex.A5 is not correct. Issue No.2 has to be answered. The said amount is over due and outstanding.

8. Issue No.3:

3. Whether the plaintiffs bank is entitled for a decree for the suit amount?

At the time of cross examination of DW.1 a joint memo is filed that the 1st defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,55,785/- towards full and final settlement within 10days, failing which the defendants are liable to pay the entire suit amount.

9.It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel for the defendants that the defendants also made some credits to the loan account.

Hence Issue No.3 is answered that the plaintiff bank is entitled for decree for the suit mount subject to the rider that the defendants shall pay

Rs.1,55,785/- within 10 days upon which the suit claim stands satisfied.

In the result, suit claim proved. Suit decreed with costs. The defendants 1 and 2 are ordered to pay the suit amount Rs.2,06,069.58ps (Rupees two lakhs six thousand and sixty nine and fifty eight paise only) with interest on the principal adjudged of Rs.1,46,525/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation. However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff bank agreed to receive Rs.1,55,785/- provided the defendants pays 5 O.S.No.301/2012 the said amount within 10days. The defendants are directed to pay

Rs.1,55,785/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the suit amount.

Dictated to the Stenographer(Grade-II), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: No. of witnesses examined for: Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Ch.Satyanarayana

Defendants: D.W.1 : T.Sreeraman

No. Documents marked for: Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is loan application submitted by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A2 is personal loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank dt.5-3-2010.

Ex.A3 is deed of guarantee executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank dt.5-3-2010.

Ex.A4 is office copy of Registered Lawyer's notice issued sent by the plaintiff bank to the defendants dt.19-1-2012.

Ex.A5 is statement of account dt.14-8-2012.

Defendants:

Ex.B1 is the letter addressed by the Bank through marked Pw.1.

PSCJ::GWK

Date of presentation :6-9-2012 Date of filing:16-10-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri A.Parthasarathy, B.Sc., M.L.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

Wednesday the 23rd day of September, 2015

O.S.No.301/2012

Between:

State Bank of India a body corporate constituted under State Bank of India Act, 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai and having branches all over India including one branch at Aganmpudi in Visakhapatnam District represented by its Branch Manager Sri B.S.Vijay Shankar, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 39 years, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Aganampudi Branch, Gajuwaka Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:

1.Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, S/o Narasimhachari, Hindu, aged about 56 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

2. Tirumalapeddinti Dhanalakshmi, W/o Tirumalapeddinti Sreeraman, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Vaishnavi Street, D.No.5-14, near Grandhalaym, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District -500 028.

...Defendants

The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery a sum of

Rs.2,06,069.58psbeing the principal and interest due towards loan of

Rs.2,90,000/- sanctioned to the 1st defendant on 5-3-2010 and 1st defendant executed personal loan agreement 12.25% in monthly installments and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Value of the suit is Rs.2,06,069.58ps and a Court Fee of Rs.4,526/- is paid under Sec.20 Sch.I Art.I(b&c) of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on 22-9-205 for arguments in the presence of

Sri CH.S.S.Ramachandrarao, Advocates on behalf of plaintiff and Sri

U.S.V.Prasad, P.Sukumarrao, Advocate on behalf of defendants upon hearing and considering the material on record, the suit having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH order and :

D E C R E E

1. that the defendants 1 and 2 do pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.2,06,069.58ps (Rupees two lakhs six thousand and sixty nine and fifty eight paise only) with interest on the principal adjudged of Rs.1,46,525/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of presenting the plaint till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., till realisation.

However as it is shown that the defendants have made some credits into the loan account and the plaintiff bank agreed to receive Rs.1,55,785/- provided the defendants pays the said amount within 10days.

2. that the defendants be and are hereby directed to pay

Rs.1,55,785/- within 10days by deducting the amounts already credited as agreed into the loan account , failing which the plaintiff bank may realise the suit amount.

3. that the defendants 1 and 2 do also pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.12,630/-(Rupees twelve thousand six hundred and thirty only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJUWAKA.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTs: Stamp on Vakalat - Rs. 2-00No costs memo filed Stamp on plaint - Rs. 4,526-00 Stamp on process - Rs. 120-00 Advocate Fee - Rs.7,882-00 Type Charges - Rs. 100-00 --------------------- Total Costs allowed - Rs12,630-00 -------------------- PSCJ/GWK