Smt.A.Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.A.Purnima, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,223 court orders on record since 2014. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

1,223

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/130/2016

State Bank of India, Puttur vs T. Bujji

02 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

PUTTUR

PRESENT:- Smt A. Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Tuesday the Second (2 nd ) day of May, 2016

O.S. No. 130/2016

Between:

State Bank of India, Puttur Branch, represented by its Chief Manager, Puttur, Puttur town, Post & Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:-

T. Bujji, W/o T. Subramanyam, aged about 31 years, Hindu, business, residing at D.No.31-64/1, Netham H/w Village, Puttur town, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendant

This suit came before me on 01-05-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ravi Varma, Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri Gali Ramesh, Counsel for the defendant and after having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff’s bank for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 49,049/- with futrue interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum and also for costs.

02. The pleadings of the plaint are that

The plaintiff’s bank sanctioned term loan of Rs.70,000/- to the defendant on 25-05-2013 under Small Business Finance Category for the purpose of purchase of provisions, fancy and grocery items for petty general store of the defendant. The defendant also executed all relevant documents in favour of the plaintiff’s bank agreeing to repay

OS.NO.130 OF 2016 PJCJ2

PTR the same with interest at the rate of 13.05% per annum with monthly rests. But inspite of repeated demands made by the bank officials the defendant did not pay the loan amount regularly and committed willful default in paying the total loan amount. Therefore the plaintiff’s bank filed the present suit for recovery of loan amount including interest.

Hence the suit.

03. The defendant filed written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaint. Further admitted about the loan obtained by her and contended that she paid Rs.34,000/- to the plaintiff's bank on various dates, but the same was not shown in the account copy and the plaintiff's bank has not deducted subsidy amount given by the

Government. Hence prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.

04.Based on the pleadings and documents the following issues were framed on 02-02-2017 for the purpose of trial:-

1. “Whether the defendant paid Rs.34,000/- (Rupees

thirty four thousands only) to the plaintiff's bank as

pleaded by him in the written statement” ?

2. “Whether the plaintiff's bank is entitled for decree as prayed for”?

3. “To What relief”?

05.During the course of trial, the Branch Manager of plaintiff's bank examined as PW.1 and exhibited three documents which marked as Ex.A.1 to A-3.

After closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence, the learned counsel for the defendant reported no evidence, therefore his side evidence was closed on 18-04-2017. Further a memo filed on 01.05.2017 by stating that the defendant agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.24,000/- out of suit amount as per direction of the bank officials and then the defendant paid Rs.24,000/- by way of Challan on 26.04.2017

OS.NO.130 OF 2016 PJCJ3

PTR and again paid Rs.4,000/- on 27.04.2017 towards full and final settlement. Two receipts were also filed along with memo.

06.Heard both sides.

07.Issue No:1

1. “Whether the defendant paid Rs.34,000/- (Rupees thirty four

thousands only) to the plaintiff's bank as pleaded by him in the

written statement” ?

Undisputedly the defendant availed Small business

Finance Category loan amount of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff's bank.

But the contention of the defendant by way of written statement was that she paid Rs.34,000/- to the plaintiff's bank towards loan amount on different dates, but the same was not reflected by the Statement filed by the plaintiff's bank. But the plaintiff’s bank filed the present suit for an amount of Rs.49,049/-. So it appears that the plaintiff's bank deducted the amount whatever paid by the defendant. As per Ex.A-1 to A-3 which were marked through the Branch Manager, SBI, Puttur who deposed as PW-1 reflects that the defendant availed Rs.70,000/- by executing agreement of loan-cum-Hypothecation dt: 25.05.2013 which marked as Ex.A-1 executed by the defendant by agreeing of the terms and conditions of the plaintiff's bank. Ex.A-2 is the letter of arrangement executed by the defendant on 25.05.2013 by agreeing to repay the loan amount in 36 installments commencing from December, 2013 upto November, 2016 and as per Ex.A-2 the defendant has to pay

Rs. 1,945/- per month. As per Ex.A-3 which is account statement of the defendant from 27.05.2013 to 26.02.2016 the defendant has to pay

Rs.44,465/- and including interest as on 23.05.2013 the defendant has to pay Rs.49,049/-. But during pendency of the suit the defendant paid

Rs.24,000/- as per challans filed along with memo. As per challan dt:

26.04.2017 the defendant paid Rs.20,000/- and on 27.04.2017 she again paid Rs.4,000/-. So defendant paid total amount of Rs.24,000/- out of

OS.NO.130 OF 2016 PJCJ4

PTR

Rs.49,049/-. According to the evidence of PW-1 there was subsidy amount of Rs.25,000/- and the plaintiff’s bank is liable to deduct the said subsidy amount from the loan amount. So the defendant paid

Rs.24,000/- and Rs.25,000/- was already subsidy given by the

Government. So total amount comes under Rs.49,000/-. Therefore the defendant has to pay Rs.49/- + expenses for filing of the suit by the plaintiff's bank against the defendant.

08.So as per Ex.A-3 the defendant paid Rs..80,976/- out of

Rs.89,060/- and balance amount mentioned in 7th column ie., an amount of Rs.49,049/- out of that Rs.25,000/- with bank officials which was subsidy amount given by the Government for the benefit of the persons who are under below poverty. But counter interest was not calculated by the bank authorities and they filed suit for total amount of

Rs.49,049/- without deducting subsidy amount and even there was no pleading in the plaint about the subsidy amount given by the

Government to the defendant. Further the defendant also paid

Rs.24,000/- during pendency of the suit as discussed above, therefore the defendant has to pay Rs.49/- (Rupees forty nine only) out of suit amount with costs.

09.Issue No:2

“ Whether the plaintiff's bank is entitled for decree

as prayed for”?

In view of the foregoing discussion on issue No.1 the plaintiff’s bank is entitled for decree for an amount of Rs.49/- (Rupees forty nine only). Accordingly this issue is answered.

10.Issue No:3 “To What relief”?

OS.NO.130 OF 2016 PJCJ5

PTR

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for remaining suit amount of Rs.49/- (Rupees forty nine only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendant:- PW-1: M. Rajesh-None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff :- For Defendant:

Ex.A.1 is the agreement of loan cum Hypothecation - Nil-

dt: 25.05.2013

Ex.A.2 is the Arrangement letter dt:25.05.2013 Ex.A.3 is the Account Statement copy

Id/- A.P PJCJ PTR.

OS.NO.130 OF 2016 PJCJ6

PTR

OS/38/2014

G.Balakrishnaiah vs G.Srinivasulu

01 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:::

PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Smt A. Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Monday, the First (1 st ) day of May, 2017

O.S.No.38 OF 2014

Between:

G. Balakrishnaiah, S/o late G. Ramachandraiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Cultivation, residing at Thettugundlapalle Village, Devalampeta Post,

Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ..Plaintiff

And:

1. V. Srinivasulu, S/o late G. Chenchaiah, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Cultivation

2. V. Doraswamy, S/o late G. Chenchaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Cultivation

3. V. Chengalrayulu, S/o late G. Chenchaiah, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Cultivation

All are residing at Thettugundlapalle Village, Devalampeta Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

..Defendants

This suit came before me on 20-04-2017, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Modi Sanjeevi, Counsel for the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 remained Exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property against the defendants and also for costs.

02.The Pleadings of the plaint are that:-

The plaint schedule mentioned property is the ancestral property of the family oft plaintiff which was fell to the share of the

OS.NO.38 OF 2014 PJCJ2

PTR plaintiff in the joint family partition under registered partition deed dt:

23.05.2005. Later on the name of the plaintiff also mutated in all concerned revenue records based on the partition deed , as such the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants are nothing to do with the plaint schedule mentioned property and they are strangers to the same. But they were attempting to interfere and to dispossess the plaintiff by stating that they are having right in the plaint schedule mentioned property. While so on 28.02.2014 at about 9.00 AM the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule mentioned property and the same was thwarted by the plaintiff with the help of village elders and then the defendants went away by proclaiming that they would come again and dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule mentioned property. In such circumstances the plaintiff filed this suit for the relief of “Permanent Injunction” so as to protect his possession in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Hence the suit.

03. Suit against 2nd defendant dismissed and against 3rd defendant was not-pressed. The 1st defendant was also set exparte on 06.01.2017 due to non-filing of written statement within stipulated period.

04. During the course of plaintiff side evidence, the plaintiff got examined as PW.1 and exhibited three documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3. One more witness examined as PW-2.

05. Heard.

06. Now the point for consideration is that:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed for”?

07. To prove the possession of plaintiff who gave evidence as

PW-1 he filed three documents which marked as Ex.A-1 to A-3. Ex.A-1

OS.NO.38 OF 2014 PJCJ3

PTR is the original registered partition deed dt: 23.05.2005 among G.

Balakrishnaiah ie., plaintiff, G. Venkataswamy, G. Jayachandraiah, G.

Subramanyam Sons of Gurasala Ramachandraiah, in that Partition 'A' schedule described property which is plaint schedule mentioned property herein allotted to the PW-1 which is an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in S.No.175/2012 which is described as 3rd item in the 'A' schedule of

Ex.A-1. As per the same boundaries were not mentioned for the properties fell to the share of PW-1. As per the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, the defendants are not the boundary holders of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Ex.A-2 is the original pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff under patta No.63 in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property and other properties.

Ex.A-3 is the computerized adnagal for the faslali 1422, but in column

No.14 and 15 it was entered as 'Sale'.

08.PW-2 who is third party deposed about the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and about the partition among plaintiff and his brothers took place on 23.05.2005. As seen the Ex.A-1 to A-3 the plaint schedule mentioned property allotted to the plaintiff herein under

Ex.A-1. Later on mutations also effected in the name of plaintiff/PW-1 in respect of the paint schedule mentioned property. It was also mentioned in the computerized adangals like “Purchase”. So it appears that it was technical mistake.

08. However all documents and evidence of PWs-1 and 2 supporting the contention of the plaintiff and the documents clearly shows that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Though the 1st defendant received suit summons, but he did not choose to contest the suit and he remained exparte on 06.01.2017. However the plaintiff placed sufficient evidence to prove her possession in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of “Permanent

OS.NO.38 OF 2014 PJCJ4

PTR

Injunction” as prayed for as per section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 as prayed for.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. “Permanent

Injunction” is granted restraining the defendants, their men, agents and followers from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule mentioned property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1 st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Puttur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff:- Defendants:- PW-1:G.Balakrishnaiah -Exparte- PW-2: G.Chengalrayulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff :-For Defendants:

Ex.A-1 is the original Registered sale deed dt: - Nil- 23.05.2005 Ex.A-2 is the original pattadar passbook Ex.A-3 is the is the computerized adangal for fasali 1422

Id/- A.P

PJCJ

PTR.

OS.NO.38 OF 2014 PJCJ5

PTR

OS/134/2016

State Bank of India, Puttur vs Chendra Hemalatha

01 May 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

PUTTUR

PRESENT:- Smt A. Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge.

Monday the First (1 st ) day of May, 2017

O.S. No. 134/2016

Between:

State Bank of India, Puttur Branch, represented by Its Chief Manager, Puttur, Puttur town, Post & Mandal.

...Plaintiff

And:-

1. Chendra Hemalatha, D/o C.Subba Rao, aged about 28 years, Hindu,

2. Chendra Subba Rao, S/o C. Ankama Naidu, aged about 50 years, Cultivation & business,

3. K. Siva Kumar, S/o K. Shanmuga Chetty, aged about 47 years, business,

Defendants No.1 and 2 are residing at Veerappa Reddy Palem Village, P.R. Mangalam Post, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District and defendant No.3 is residing at Narayanavanam Main road, Narayanavanam Village, Post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Defendants

This suit came before me on 25-04-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ravi Varma, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and after having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

OS.NO. 134/2016 2 PJCJ

PTR

01. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff’s bank for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 2,23,361/- with future interest at the rate of 12.75% per annum and also for costs.

02. The pleadings of the plaint are that

The plaintiff’s bank sanctioned Education Loan of

Rs.1,60,000/- to the defendants No.1 and 2 under the student loan scheme for the purpose of studying M.SC., Biotechnology Course by 1st defendant at Hindustan College of Arts & Science, Keelambakam,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu and the loan was also sanctioned on 20-09-2008.

The 2nd defendant being father and guardian to 1st defendant jointly executed Term loan and 3rd defendant stood as guarantor and agreed for the conditions of the plaintiff’s bank and executed all necessary documents and also agreed to discharge loan amount in 84 monthly equal installments. But the defendants failed to pay monthly installments as agreed by them even repeated demands made by the plaintiff’s bank and even after legal notice dt: 06-04-2015. Therefore the plaintiff’s bank filed the present suit for recovery of loan amount.

Hence the suit.

03. Suit summons served to the defendants and they engaged counsel and filed written statement by denying the pleadings of the plaint and contended that there is no cause of action to file the present suit and the plaintiff’s bank suppressed the material facts and the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. Hence prays for dismissal of the suit.

04.Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues framed on 08-12-2016, for the purpose of trial.

01.“Whether the plaintiff’s bank is entitled for decree as prayed for?

OS.NO. 134/2016 3 PJCJ

PTR

02. “To what relief”?

05.During the course of trial , chief affidavit of Chief Manager of plaintiff’s bank filed as PW-1 and exhibited six documents which were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-6. The cross-examination of PW-1 deferred at request of learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and adjourned to 25-04-2017, but on 25-04-2017 defendant No.1 called absent and no representation, therefore they remained exparte on the said date.

06.During the course of plaintiff’s bank side evidence, the

Chief Manager of plaintiff’s bank i.e, State Bank of India, Puttur

Branch filed chief affidavit as PW.1 and exhibited six documents which were marked as Ex.A-1 to A-6. Ex.A-1 is the agreement of loan

dt: 20.09.2008 executed by defendants 1 and 2. Ex.A-2 is the

agreement of guarantee executed by 3rd defendant in favour of plaintiff’s bank on 20.09.2008, Ex.A-3 is the Arrangement letter, dt:

20.09.2008 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff’s bank.

Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of Payment voucher for Rs.40,000/- dt:

13.03.2013 paid by 1st defendant, Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of

Payment voucher for Rs.30,000/- dt: 18.04.2015 paid by C. Sumathi on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2 and Ex.A-6 is the Account statement copy of defendants No.1 and 2 from 21.10.2008 to 07.11.2013. So by producing all necessary documents, plaintiff’s bank proved that they sanctioned loan to the defendants for the purpose of studies of 1st defendant and all the defendants executed all necessary documents. But the all defendants failed to discharge the amount as agreed by them. Therefore the plaintiff’s bank is entitled for decree as prayed for.

07. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,23,361/-, with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, thereafter 6%

OS.NO. 134/2016 4 PJCJ

PTR

P.A from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,60,000/- (one lakh and sixty thousands only)

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 1 st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt. A. Purnima

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW.1. Muthyam Rajesh -Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

Ex.A-1 is the agreement of loan dt: -Nil- 20.09.2008 Ex.A-2 is the agreement of guarantee dt: 20.09.2008 Ex.A-3 is the Arrangement letter Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of Payment voucher, dt: 13.03.2013 Ex.A-5 is the certified copy of Payment voucher, dt: 18.04.2015 Ex.A-6 is the Account statement copy

Id/- A.P PJCJ PTR.

OS/117/2016

V.Nagaraju vs Y.Srihari

03 May 2017

Order Record 1,193 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/117/2016	V.Nagaraju vs Y.Srihari	03 May 2017	Judgment	—
OS/130/2016	State Bank of India, Puttur vs T. Bujji	02 May 2017	Judgment	—
OS/38/2014	G.Balakrishnaiah vs G.Srinivasulu	01 May 2017	Judgment	—
OS/134/2016	State Bank of India, Puttur vs Chendra Hemalatha	01 May 2017	Judgment	—
CC/138/2013	S.I.of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs A. Madhu	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/93/2016	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank vs Y.Chiranjeevi	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/109/2011	T. Damodar Reddy vs Minor T. Kiran Kumar Reddy	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/238/2016	Vepa Reddy Nagabhushanamma vs Vepa Reddy Jayachandra Reddy	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/35/2010	M. Sargunam vs The A.P., State Govt., Rtd Employees Association	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/155/2016	Ramaswamy Radha vs Civada Doraswamy Reddy	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/15/2014	P. Suresh Babu @ Suresh vs P. Venkataswamy	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/87/2012	Dega. Jayaramaiah vs Jana. Venkataih	25 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/89/2015	Somindula Subramanyam vs Somindula Hari	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/173/2014	Kummara Krishnamma vs Kariappareddy. Vasudeva Reddy	24 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/211/2013	S.I.of Police, SR Puram P.S. vs M. Nagamani	24 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/59/2012	P. Devarajulu Reddy vs K. Munichandra Reddy	20 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/74/2008	Surbamani Kasturi vs Panagala Chengalmma	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/109/2010	S. Kasthuri vs P. Balaram	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/127/2011	K. Ekambaram vs P. Balaram	20 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/48/2016	M.Munemma @ Lakshmi vs K.Hari	19 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
CC/142/2013	S.I.of Police, Karvetnagar P.S. vs B. Mallikarjuna	19 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/44/2016	Valasala Rajeswari vs Madduru Syamala	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/243/2016	T.Eswaramma vs K.Mohan Reddy	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/26/2017	S.Krishna Moorthy vs K.Padma	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/27/2017	P.Mohana Krishna vs K.Sridhar	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/78/2016	A.G.Sarojamma vs A.Jaya Rao	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/149/2008	Kantipuli Adithi vs Dr. K. Janardhana	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/154/2008	K.Janardhan vs K.Adhithi	13 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/98/2012	M. Kesavulu Reddy vs B. Jayamma	12 Apr 2017	Other	—
CC/177/2013	S.I. of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs B.Subba Reddy	12 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/106/2013	HASTHI. NAGAMANI vs MUPPALA. NARENDRA KUMAR RAJU ALIAS BUJJI	11 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/54/2016	Udaragunta Raja Rao vs Dasari Gopi	10 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/44/2014	G.Jyothi vs G.Damodar Reddy	08 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/244/2016	Pathi Goverdhan Naidu vs Mamidipalle Pandurangappa Naidu	07 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/174/2010	Bathini. Doraswami Mandadi vs The State of AP rep. by Dist. Collector, Chittoor	06 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/139/1991	Kankanala Subramanyam vs Kadirimangalam Chenchu Reddy	04 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/4/2017	Poothalam Rajeswari vs N.Balakrishna	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/151/2016	R.Uma vs S.Venkatamuni	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/198/2016	K.Rama vs Mallisetty Sudhakar Goud	01 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/199/2016	N.Masthanamma vs Mallisetty Sudhakar Goud	01 Apr 2017	Other	—
OS/68/2006	K.Sathyanarayan Sarma vs The District Collector, Chittoor	30 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/239/2016	Vadyaru Bramhaiah vs Parsi Jayamma	30 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/13/2012	Kuppa Ramachandra Reddy vs V. Gunasekhar REddy	28 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/224/2016	Indian Bank, Vedurukuppam Vranch vs B..Ravi	28 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/222/2013	S.I.of Police, Karvetinagaram P.S.AC vs C.Pumala	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/24/2016	The State Bank of India vs M.Venkatesulu	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/95/2016	P.M.Chenchaiah vs V.M.Velu	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/58/2012	P. Devarajulu Reddy vs K. Muni chandraa Reddy	23 Mar 2017	Other	—
OS/210/2016	V.Venkatappa Chetty @ Venkatappa vs Kamasani Prasad Reddy	23 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/20/2014	A. Chenchu Reddy vs M. Krishnaiah	21 Mar 2017	Other	—
EP/29/2015	M.Sunil Kumar vs G.Hymathi	21 Mar 2017	Other	—
OS/176/2014	Sathala Ramachandraiah vs The chairman Managing Director, APSDCL Office, Tir	21 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/61/2012	Ms. Bharati Airtel Limited, Rep., V.Uma Shankar vs Palamangalam Rajamanikyam	20 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/186/2012	G.Parvathi vs N.Neelamma	18 Mar 2017	Other	—
OS/162/2010	Bandi. Munaswamy Reddy vs Bandi. Chengal Rayalu	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/235/2016	Addala Kuppaiah vs Eddala Nagesh	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/109/2012	S.I.of Police, Vadamalapet P.S. vs Midde Pedda Naganna	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/142/2012	S.I. of Policce, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs N. Somu	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/209/2012	S.I.of Police, Vadamalapet P.S. vs A.Muniraja	17 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/71/2011	Mukku. Krishnaiah vs Mukku. Damodaram	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/68/2016	Bodireddy Janakamma vs Bandi Narasimha Reddy	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/152/2016	Punyam Dhanalakshmi vs C.Kannemma	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/39/2014	Bhaduru Dhanalakshmi vs A.Rajeswara Reddy	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/53/2013	V.Srinivasulu Raju vs M.Varadaraju	14 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/58/2013	SI of Police, Karvetinagar P.S. vs Pambola Chakravarthi @ Englishodu	13 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/59/2013	SI of Police, Vedurukuppam P.S. vs Pambola Chakravarthi @ Englishodu	13 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/12/2003	Rajamma vs P.Ranganatha Reddy	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/110/2003	P.Chandrasekhar Reddy vs K.Kasthuriamma	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/183/2016	State Bank of India, Puttur vs Varthala Chenga Mandadi	09 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/324/2005	M Mohan Reddy vs M. Kamakashamma	09 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/26/2016	Minna Murugappa Sridharan vs Arjunagari Subramanyam Reddy	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/13/2013	S.I.of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs K. Chalapathi	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/270/2012	SI of Police, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs Y. Doraswamy Reddy	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/13/2013	P.V.Parthasarathy vs S.Aparna	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/180/2015	M.P.Subbarayalu vs V.Madhava Rao	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/3/2008	A.Neelavathi vs Etukuri Parasuram Naidu	06 Mar 2017	Other	—
OS/26/2010	Devara Lakshmamma vs Emparalla Lokanadha Naidu	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/248/2016	Alapakam Velmurugan vs T.Samaran	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/279/2011	S.I.of Police, Narayanavanam P.S vs A.Nagaraju	06 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
CC/260/2012	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs M.Gopi @ Gopinath	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/30/2016	Thanjavur Subramanyam Reddy @ Subramanyam vs Thanjavur Rosi Reddy	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/255/2016	Chinnannagari Jagadeesan vs L.Govindarajulu	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/74/2016	Defala Gangarathna @ Malleswari vs D.Surendra Babu	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/187/2015	Yaram Sundaramma vs Boddu Somasekhar	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/67/2014	Pakala Krishna Mandadi vs Pakala Neelamma	23 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/77/2008	K.Doraswamy Reddy vs P.Pottanna Boyudu died	23 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/62/2016	S.Bhaskar Reddy vs S.Hari	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/188/2016	Badhuru Vijaya vs Puttur Sarojamma	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/17/2012	Thalari. Lakshmamma vs Jorepalli. Veeraswamy	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/162/2016	Lekkala Sekhar vs Ponnala Prathap Reddy	20 Feb 2017	Decree	—
OS/233/2016	State Bank of India, Puttur vs N.Swapna	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/121/2011	S.I. of Policce, Ramachandrapuram P.S. vs Pulluru Madhu	14 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/161/2016	S.Ravi vs A.Sreeramulu Chetty	13 Feb 2017	Decree	—
OS/226/2016	A.Siva Kumar vs A.Sarath Kumar	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/171/2013	S.I.of Police, Narayanavanam P.S. vs P.Govardhan	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
CC/219/2013	S.I. of Police, Puttur P.S. vs R.Murali	11 Feb 2017	Other	—
EP/99/2007	Uma Magesh Chits and Finance Corportation rep. by vs A.S. Ponnu swamy	10 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/120/2012	S.I. of Police, S.R.Puram P.S. vs Thoti Kuppaiah	10 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/44/2012	Akkipalli Kumaraswamy vs Thammireddy Sadasiva Reddy	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/54/2012	Pungodhai vs Selvi	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,193 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		4
Apr 2017		36
Mar 2017		42
Feb 2017		29
Jan 2017		29
Dec 2016		51
Nov 2016		51
Oct 2016		37
Sep 2016		41
Aug 2016		44
Jul 2016		41
Jun 2016		17

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.A.Purnima handled?

Smt.A.Purnima has handled 1223 court orders since 2014 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 33 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.A.Purnima hear?

Based on available records, Smt.A.Purnima primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka).

Where is Smt.A.Purnima currently posted?

Smt.A.Purnima is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.A.Purnima available online?

Yes. 4 judgments by Smt.A.Purnima are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.A.Purnima dispose cases?

Smt.A.Purnima disposes approximately 33 cases per month, based on 1223 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka).

Since when is Smt.A.Purnima serving?

Smt.A.Purnima has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka) since 2014.

Case Types

OS 64%

EP 26%

CC 10%

EAS 0%

RCC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2014 — May 2017

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 1,223 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. C.janaki

Principal Junior Civil Judge

1,591 orders

K.ramya Sai

Additional Junior Civil Judge

299 orders

Sri S.c Raghavendra

Senior Civil Judge

1,072 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Puttur (Taluka)

Smt.A.Purnima

PUTTUR

Tuesday the Second (2 nd ) day of May, 2016

J U D G M E N T

thirty four thousands only) to the plaintiff's bank as

pleaded by him in the written statement” ?

thousands only) to the plaintiff's bank as pleaded by him in the

“ Whether the plaintiff's bank is entitled for decree

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

PUTTUR.

PRESENT: Smt A. Purnima,

J U D G M E N T

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

Puttur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

PJCJ

PUTTUR

Monday the First (1 st ) day of May, 2017

J U D G M E N T

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

Puttur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PUTTUR.

. ..

JUDGMENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.