Smt. A.Purnima

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Present: Smt A.Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, the Seventeenth (17th) day of August, 2018

Original Suit No.287/2017

Between:

Gogineni Subbulu, W/o. Venkaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Uppugundur Village and Post, N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District… Plaintiff

And

Gunja Sambamurthy, S/o. Subba Rao, aged about 59 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.3­82, Near Gangamma centre, Uppugundur (V), N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendant

This suit came before me on 16­08­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Subba Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri B. Lakshmi Narayana Rao, Counsel for the Defendant; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: 

J U D G M E N T // //

01.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on three promissory notes and for costs.

02.The Pleadings of the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 12­04­2014, agreeing to repay the same with agreed rate of interest at 24% per annum. Evidencing thereof, he got executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the said date.

Again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 13­04­2014, agreeing to repay the same with agreed rate of interest at 24% per annum. Evidencing thereof, he got executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

2

Again the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 14­04­2014, agreeing to repay the same with agreed rate of interest at 24% per annum. Evidencing thereof, he got executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Later on, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount and postponing the same. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for recovery of suit amount.

3.The defendant filed written statement and denied the pleadings of the plaint. Further stated that, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on three occasions and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The suit promissory notes are rank forged one. Further stated that, the defendant and his elder son are doing civil contract works by taking sub­lease from the last six or seven years in Visakhapatnam area and the defendant is now residing at Hyderabad and doing works in and around

Visakhapatnam area and the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such amount to the defendant. More over, the plaintiff never demanded the defendant to discharge the debt under alleged promissory note.

Further stated that, one G. Ramesh Babu is the adopted son of the plaintiff and said person approached the defendant to do some contract works and then the defendant is also agreed to give some part of work to the said G. Ramesh Babu and the said Ramesh Babu asked guarantee for money invested by him in the said works.

Therefore the defendant given three empty promissory notes to the said G. Ramesh Babu. After completion of work, the accounts have been settled between the defendant, his elder son and the said G.

Ramesh Babu. On final settlement of accounts, the defendant and his elder son became liable to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ and accordingly on 18­07­2016, the son of the defendant transferred

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

3 entire amount from his account to the Axis Bank to the account of G.

Ramesh Babu and therefore, the accounts between them settled.

Further stated that, at the request of G. Ramesh Babu, the amount was transferred from the account of the defendant's elder son to the account of G. Ramesh Babu and on the good faith on the said

Ramesh Babu, the defendant did not insist the said person to return the empty promissory notes, as the G. Ramesh Babu was also promised to return the empty promissory notes. But the said Ramesh

Babu fabricated the suit promissory note in the name of his adoptive mother i.e. the plaintiff herein and then filed the present suit only for wrongful gain. Hence prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.

4.Based on the pleadings and documents, the following issues were framed on 20­11­2017 for the purpose of trial:

1. Whether the three suit promissory notes

dt.12­04­2014, 13­04­2014 and 14­04­2014

respectively are true, valid and binding on the

defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined as Pw1 and exhibited three documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

One of the attestor, got examined as PW­2.

After closure of the plaintiff side evidence, the defendant got examined as Dw1 and exhibited one document which was marked as

Ex.B1.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Issue No:1

Whether the three suit promissory notes dt.12­04­2014, 13­04­2014 and 14­04­2014 respectively are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

4

To prove the execution of promissory notes and passing of consideration under the three suit promissory notes which were marked as Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff filed her chief affidavit and got examined as PW­1. The plaintiff almost all reiterated the plaint pleadings in her chief affidavit.

During the course of cross­examination, PW­1 deposed that, one

Gogineni Ramesh Babu is the son of her brother­in­law and the said

Gogineni Ramesh Babu is doing contract work in Visakhapatnam.

One Shyamprasad is the son of defendant. The said Syam Prasad is also doing contract work. But she do not know his working place.

PW­1 used to lend amounts to the needy people and used to maintain account books. Again PW­1 says that, she is not maintaining any accounts books and she has no objection to examine the said Gogineni

Ramesh Babu on her behalf. Regarding to the securing of the amount under Exs.A1 to A3, PW­1 deposed that, she possessed Rs.50,000/­ in her house as she kept the same to lend the amount to third parties and the remaining Rs.50,000/­ was also possessed by her at her house and lent the same to the defendant. Further deposed that at first instance, the defendant requested her for Rs.1,00,000/­ and she lent

Rs.50,000/­ and again he asked for Rs.50,000/­ and then she lent another Rs.50,000/­ on the next day. So, PW­1 lend an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ under Exs.A1 to A3.

8.One Nasimukku Srinivasa Rao scribed the three promissory notes i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and he was summoned by the PW­1 and then got examined as PW­2. During the course of chief examination, PW­2 deposed that, he do not know Gogineni Subbulu i.e. the plaintiff herein. But he know one Gunja Samba Murthy, who is the defendant in this suit. Both are residents of his village. The attestor of the Ex.A1 is the son of the defendant. He scribed the promissory notes i.e.

Exs.A1 to A3 on 12­04­2014, 13­04­2014 and 14­04­2014

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

5 respectively, but the defendant did not subscribe his signature in

Exs.A1 to A3 in his presence, but he prepared the Exs.A1 to A3 and the son of the defendant was also not subscribed his signatures in

Exs.A1 to A3. Further deposed that one Boyina Ramesh is the adopted son of the plaintiff and son of the defendant approached him and requested him to prepare the Exs.A1 to A3. But he mentioned the different dates in Exs.A1 to A3 at the request of the said persons.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the plaintiff treated the witness as hostile and cross­examined the PW­2. During the course of cross­ examination, PW­2 denied that the son of the defendant is his friend.

9.Coming to the evidence of defendant, he filed his chief affidavit and almost all reiterated the written statement contents and filed one document i.e. the computarized account statement of Syam Prasad

Gunja issued by the Branch Manager, Axis Bank from 01­07­2016 to 31­08­2016. According to the Ex.B1, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ transferred to the account of Gogineni Ramesh Babu on 18­07­2016.

So that the contention of the DW­1 is that, himself, his elder son namely Syam Prasad and adoptive son of the PW­1 namely Gogineni

Ramesh Babu, both were together did civil contract work at

Visakhapatnam area. The adoptive son of the PW­1 approached the defendant and requested him to give said contract civil work and therefore the defendant given some civil works to the Gogineni

Ramesh Babu and the said Gogineni Ramesh Babu requested the defendant to give security in respect of the amount invested by him in the civil contract works. So that, he issued three empty signed promissory notes to the said Gogineni Ramesh Babu. After that, there was some settlement in respect of the amount and so that, the said

Syam Prasad, who is the elder son of the DW­1 transferred

Rs.4,00,000/­ to the account of Gogineni Ramesh Babu towards final settlement and to prove the same, he filed Ex.B1.

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

6

10.But the DW­1 admitted in the cross­examination that, Exs.A1 to

A3 and three so called blank promissory notes are one and the same and again DW­1 deposed that the signatures in Exs.A1 to A3 are not that of him.

11.So, the DW­1 deposed two different versions. On one hand, he deposed that Exs.A1 to A3 herein and three blank promissory notes which were given by him to the adoptive son of the PW­1, are one and the same. On the other hand, he deposed that the signatures in

Exs.A1 to A3 are not that of him.

12. Whereas PW­2 is also deposed in a different way that he do not know PW­1 and DW­1. But the adoptive son of the PW­1 And son of the DW­1 approached him, when he was in shop and requested him to scribe the promissory notes and at their request, he prepared the three promissory notes i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 on one day, by mentioning different dates like 12­04­2014, 13­04­2014 and 14­04­2014 respectively. The elder son i.e. Gunja Syam Prasad subscribed his signature as attestor in Exs.A1 to A3.

13.But the DW­1 did not choose to examine his son on his behalf to prove that consideration was not passed under the Exs.A1 to A3 and the said promissory notes brought into existence in the circumstances stated by the DW­1 in his written statement as well as in his chief affidavit.

14.Further, though the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the passing of consideration and execution of the instruments i.e.

Exs.A1 to A3, but when the PW­1 discharged her initial burden by placing the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A1 to A3, then the burden shifts to the DW­1 and he has to take necessary steps to prove non­ passing of consideration under Exs.A1 to A3. Though there is some business dealings between the DW­1, his elder son, who acted as

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

7 attestor to the Exs.A1 to A3 and adoptive son of the plaintiff namely

Gogoneni Ramesh Babu, but that oral contention and oral evidence of

DW­1 cannot be taken into consideration, so as to thrown the entire transaction took place under Exs.A1 to A3.

No doubt, PW­2 turned hostile to his earlier version, though he admitted that he scribed Exs.A1 to A3 on one day, but PW­2 did not state about the date on which date he prepared the three promissory notes by mentioning the different dates as stated supra.

15.So, when there is sufficient documentary evidence available on record, then the oral contention of the PW­2 and DW­1 cannot be taken into consideration, so as to disprove the contention of the PW­1.

When the DW­1 admitted about his signatures in Exs.A1 to A3, then burden shifts to him and he has to produce sufficient evidence to prove that consideration was not passed under the promissory notes.

But there is no any evidence placed by the DW­1 to support his contention. Therefore, based on the evidence placed by the both parties, this Court is of the opinion that, the three promissory notes dt.12­04­2014, 13­04­2014 and 14­04­2014 respectively are true, valid and binding on the defendant.

16.Issue No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for?

In view of the foregoing discussion on issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for.

17.Issue No.3:

To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.2,57,899­99 ps (Rupees two lakhs fifty seven thousand eight hundred ninety nine and ninety nine paise only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the

OS.No.287/2017 PJCJ

8 suit, till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization on the total principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17 th day of August, 2018.

Sd/­ A. Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, 

Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:­ For Defendant:­ 

PW­1: Gogineni SubbuluDW­1: Gunja Sambamurthy PW­2: Nasimukku Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 is the original 'A' markedEx.B1 is the computerized copy of promissory note dt.12­04­2014 foraccount statement of Gunja Syam a sum of Rs.50,000/­ got executedPrasad from 13­07­2016 to 20­08­ by the defendant in favour of the2016 got issued by Axis Bank, plaintiff.Visakhapatnam Branch. Ex.A2 is the original 'B' marked promissory note dt.13­04­2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ got executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3 is the original 'C' marked promissory note dt.14­04­2014 for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ got executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ild/­ A.P. PJCJ

ONG

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Present: Smt A.Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, the Seventeenth (17th) day of August, 2018

Original Suit No.287/2017

Between:

Gogineni Subbulu, W/o. Venkaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Uppugundur Village and Post, N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District… Plaintiff

And

Gunja Sambamurthy, S/o. Subba Rao, aged about 59 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.3­82, Near Gangamma centre, Uppugundur (V), N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District… Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money based on three promissory notes and for costs.

Valuation: Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is as follows ­ DocumentDate Amount CF paid 1st Pronote 12­04­2014Rs. 86,000­00 Rs.3,106/­ 2nd Pronote 13­04­2014Rs. 85,966­66 Rs.3,106/­ 3rd Pronote 14­04­2014Rs. 85,933­33 Rs.3,106/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ TotalRs.2,57,899­99 Rs.9,318/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total jurisdiction value is Rs.2,57,899­99 ps on which a total court fee of

Rs.9,318/­ is paid under Sec.20 of APCF & SV Act. 

Cause of action: The cause of action for the suit arose on 12­04­2014, 13­ 04­2014 and 14­04­2014 when the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/­ each respectively from the plaintiff and executed three promissory notes, agreeing to repay the same with interest and failed to repay the same and at Uppugunduru village, N.G. Padu Mandal, where the transactions took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

Plaint presented on 12­04­2017 and filed on 27­06­2017.

This suit came before me on 16­08­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Subba Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri B. Lakshmi Narayana Rao, Counsel for the Defendant; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

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

Rs.2,57,899­99 ps with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 12­04­2017 till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till realization on the total principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/­; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.16,737/­ towards costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs; (No C.M. & F.C. filed by defendant)

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the 17th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- A. Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Ongole

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For PlaintiffFor Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2­00­No C.M. & F.C. filed­ Stamp on Plaint9,318­00 Stamp on process80­00 Advocate Fee7,137­00 Type charges200­00 Total16,737­00

Ild/- A.P. P.J.C.J., ONGOLE

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non­exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

APPR000018822026

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS : PRAKASAM DIVISION: ONGOLE

(Before the III Addl.Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: Smt A.PURNIMA,

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Crl.MP No. 202/2026

Crime No.11/2026 of Medarametla Police Station. in

Between:

1. Chintham Durga Prasad S/o.Raghavulu, Aged about 36 Years, R/o.1-52, Bodduvanipalem, Kopperapadu, Prakasam District.

2. Chintham Padma, W/o.Raghavulu, Aged about 57 Years, R/o.1-52, Bodduvanipalem, Kopperapadu, ….Petitioner/ Prakasam District.Accused No.1 and 2.

AND

The Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station, Rep.by Addl. Public ….Respondent/ Prosecutor, Ongole.Complainant

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition came before me on 30.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.Vasista, Counsel for the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 and Sri K.V.Rameswara Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent/complainant, and on perusal of material available on record, stood over for consideration, till this day and this court made the following:-

// ORDER //

1.This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 under Sec.482 Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail to the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in

III AD & SJ Court,Ongole //2//Crl.MP.202/2026 in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla PS

Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that:--

(i)The complainant by name Peddireddy Anjamma gave a statement against the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 while taking treatment alleging that on 13.02.2026 at 9:30 AM while her husband was fetching water to his fields basing on the earlier dispute that the teak plantation shadow is over lapping the fields of the accused, there arose a verbal altercation and that the defacto complainant came to the place and on being questioned the accused beat her with stick and basing on the report the case was first registered under Sections 118(1), 115(2), 351(2) r/w.3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the petitioners were served with Sec.35(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The respondent police after receipt of wound certificate as there was mentioned some grievous injuries and they are threatening arrest and remanding the petitioners. The petitioners are apprehending arrest and maltreatment in the hands of respondent police and as such the petition is being filed seeking anticipatory bail. Further submitted that the petitioners never committed any offence much less the offence alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners duly complied with the Sec.35(1) of Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 notices that were served on them and cooperated with the respondent police in the progress of investigation by attending as and when called.

(ii)Further submitted that, the petitioners are innocent, they never committed any offence, they are having fixed abode and ready to

III AD & SJ Court,Ongole //3//Crl.MP.202/2026 in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla PS produce sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. Hence, prays to enlarge the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 on anticipatory bail.

3.Notice given to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

4.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor filed counter along with Case

Dairy and submitted that, a case in crime No.11/2026 of Medarametla

Police Station was registered against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sec.118(1),115(2),351(2) r/w.3(5) of

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023. Further submitted that, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are in absconding. If the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 are released on anticipatory bail they may threaten the witnesses, cause hindrance to the investigation and there is every possibility to tamper the evidence and investigation is pending for their arrest. A counter case is also registered vide Cr.No.12/2026 under

Sec.118(1), 115(2), 35(2) r/w.3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita(BNS), 2023 in which the Lws 1 and 2 in this case are accused in the said crime. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:-

Whether the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for?

7.POINT:--

This is a case of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, criminal intimidation with common intention that occurred on 13.02.2026 at about 09:30 AM at the fields of both the accused as well as complainant in

III AD & SJ Court,Ongole //4//Crl.MP.202/2026 in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla PS

Bodduvanipalem Village and reported on 15.02.2026 at 5:00 PM and a case in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla Police Station was registered against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 alleging that, the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 beat the complainant by name Peddireddy

Anjamma and her husband by name Dasaradha Ramireddy ie., Lws 1 and 2 with stick, due to which they received severe bleeding injuries and

LW1/Peddireddy Anjamma admitted in the hospital for treatment. As per the version of the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 to 3 the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case and moreover the case on hand falling within the ambit of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Arnesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar and they are having fixed abode and having sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court. As per the counter and Case Dairy, the prosecution examined five witnesses, prepared rough sketch, seized the material object, injured was also discharged from hospital and wound certificate is also received. So, most of the investigation have been completed except apprehension of the accused. Further, the petitioners are wife and husband. Counter case is also there in

Cr.No.12/2026 of Medarametla Police Station. So, there is no use even if the accused No.1 and 2 are arrested and keep them behind bars. Moreover, the offences are comes under the purview of within the imprisonment of seven years. Hence, in the above circumstances, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in the event of arrest, on the following conditions.

i) The petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to surrender before Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station on or before 11.05.2026. On their surrender, the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station is directed to release them on furnishing of personal bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties to the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station.

III AD & SJ Court,Ongole //5//Crl.MP.202/2026 in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla PS ii) The petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 are further directed to ooperate to the Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station during the further course of investigation, if any.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- A.Purnima,

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to:- 1.Sri D.V.Vasista, Counsel for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 2.The Station House Officer, Medarametla Police Station.

III AD & SJ Court,Ongole //6//Crl.MP.202/2026 in Cr.No.11/2026 of Medarametla PS

FAIR ORDER in Crl MP.202/26 in Cr.No.11/26 of Medarametla Police Station.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

ONGOLE

Present: Smt A. Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 16th day of August 2018

Original Suit No.126/2013

Between:

Chakka Venkata Subba Rao (Died) ...... Plaintif

And

1. Chakka Sesharatnam, W/o.Late. Yanadisetty, aged 65 years, R/o.Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Chakka Subbarayudu, S/o.Late. Yanadisetty, Aged 43 years, R/o.Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thallapalli Samantha Kumari, W/o. Srirama Murthy, aged 45 years, C/o.Chakka Sesharatnam, Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Madala Padmasri, W/o. Rama Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o.Vellampalli Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Pydimarri Sarada, W/o.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 37 years, R/o.Main Bazaar, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

6. Nunna Rajasulochana, W/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o. Panchayat Office, Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.….… Defendants

The suit is coming on this day before me for steps, in the presence of Sri M.V. Krupa Sagar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Chunduri Venkata Rao, advocate for defendants 1 and 2; and the suit against defendants 3 and 5 dismissed and the defendants 4 and 6 remained exparte; I.A.No.253/2018 and I.A.No.254/2018 are dismissed for default (Or.32 CPC and Or.22 R 3 CPC) and no representation till 5.00 p.m, hence this court made the following:

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

This suit is filed for declaration that the X X1 marked is the joint wall of the plaintiff and the defendants and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from constructing their new wall adjacent to the joint wall without leaving4 inches place on the western side as per the terms of the agreement dated 01-04-1986 and for costs.

I.A.No.253/2018 and I.A.No.254/2018 are dismissed for default (Or.32 CPC and Or.22 R 3 CPC). No representation till 5.00 p.m. Hence this suit is dismissed as abated

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16 th day of August,

2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

- Nil -

P.J.C.J. ONGOLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

ONGOLE

Present: Smt A. Purnima,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Thursday, this the 16th day of August 2018

Original Suit No.126/2013

Between:

Chakka Venkata Subba Rao (Died) ..... Plaintif

And

1. Chakka Sesharatnam, W/o.Late. Yanadisetty, aged 65 years, R/o.Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Chakka Subbarayudu, S/o.Late. Yanadisetty, Aged 43 years, R/o.Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thallapalli Samantha Kumari, W/o. Srirama Murthy, aged 45 years, C/o.Chakka Sesharatnam, Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Madala Padmasri, W/o. Rama Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 39 years, R/o.Vellampalli Village, Maddipadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Pydimarri Sarada, W/o.Ramesh Babu, Hindu, aged 37 years, R/o.Main Bazaar, Kanigiri Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

6. Nunna Rajasulochana, W/o.Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o. Panchayat Office, Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.….… Defendants

This suit is filed for declaration that the X X1 marked is the joint wall of the plaintiff and the defendants and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from constructing their new wall adjacent to the joint wall without leaving4 inches place on the western side as per the terms of the agreement dated 01-04-1986 and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 26-03-2013 and filed on:26-03-2013

Valuation and Court Fee: Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the relief of declaration and consequential injunction is Rs.20,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.1,386/- is paid under Sec.24(d) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when A series property belongs to plaintiff and ‘B’ series property belongs to the defendants as shown in the plaint plan, when Chakka Yanadisetty entered into an agreement with the plaintiff with regard to joint wall of 2 ½ feet width shown as X, X1 in between ‘A’ and ‘B’ series property; after the death of Chkka Yanadisetty the defendants succeeded to ‘B’ series property and the acts of Late. Yanadisetty are binding on them; when the plaintiff got the northern side portion from his ancestors and the southern side portion under Registered Sale Deed dt.21-11- 1994,when the plaintiff constructed new building in ‘A’ series property leaving 1 ½ feet place from the joint wall and also left 1 ½ feet for ventilation and light; when the 2nd defendant with the support of other defendants high handedly removed the joint wall on 05-01-2013 without informing to the plaintiff and canvassing that they are going to construct a new wall without leaving six inches of place west to the joint wall and planning to construct east margin line of the joint wall and the defendants are not having any manner of right to do so; when the plaintiff questioned the illegal acts the defendants threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences; when the plaintiff is unable to resist the high handed and illegal acts of the defendants where the suit schedule property is situated in Pernamitta Village, Santhanuthapadu Mandal within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is coming on this day before me for steps, in the presence of Sri M.V. Krupa Sagar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Chunduri Venkata Rao, advocate for defendants 1 and 2; and the suit against defendants 3 and 5 dismissed and the defendants 4 and 6 remained exparte; I.A.No.253/2018 and I.A.No.254/2018 are dismissed for default (Or.32 CPC and Or.22 R 3 CPC) and no representation till 5.00 p.m, and this court doth order and decree:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as abated;

and

2.that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 16 th day of August 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

//TABLE OF COST//

-NIL -

P.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

SCHEDULE

Prakasam District Registration – Santhanuthalapadu Sub-

Registration – Pernamitta Village, Door No.6.23 – Extent 40 gadies of site approximately in which building and vacant site bounded by:-

East :Building of Chakka Radha Kumari to some extent and

Property of Chakka Yanadisetty to some extent.

South:Property of Chakka Yanadisetty

West :X, X1 joint wall to some extent and own wall of the plaintiff to some extent.

North:Panchayat Road.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

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

APPR000024992024

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

ONGOLE.

Present: Smt A.Purnima, III-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 1st day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.109/2024

1. From what court the appeal is:II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First preferredClass, Ongole

2. Number of the Case in the Lower:CC No.224/2019 Court.

3. Name and Description of the:Purini Subba Reddy Appellant/ AccusedS/o.Sreeramula Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Business, R/o.Motumala Road, Kothapatnam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Name and Description of the1. The State: Rep.by Addl.Public Respondents/Complainant andProsecutor, Ongole. State

2. Marella Venkata Rao S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged about 66 Years, Business, R/o. Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. The Sentence and law, which: In the result, the accused is was imposed in the lower Court found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted under Sec.255(2) of CrPC. and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//2// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024 and ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the said amount of fine, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) is directed to be paid to the complainant towards compen- sation and rest of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is directed to be remitted to the State forthwith.

6. Whether Reversed/ Confirmed/ :Adjusted at mediation centre. Modified/ if modified the In the result, this Criminal modification.Appeal is disposed off by recording the terms of Mediation Agreement dt.01.05.2026, entered into by the Appellant and Respondent No.2 before Mediator at Mediation Center, District Legal Services Authority, Ongole.

Date of

Presentation:28.11.2024

Filing:28.11.2024

Hearing :--

Judgment :01.05.2026

This Criminal Appeal came before me on 01.05.2026 for final hearing on appellant side in the presence of Sri C.V.Rami Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and Sri K.V.Rameswara Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/State, and Sri S.V.Mallikharjuna Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant, and and on perusal of material available on record, having stood over for consideration, till this day, and this Court made the following:-

//JUDGMENT//

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Accused being Appellant aggrieved by the Judgment dt.13.11.2024 passed in CC No.224/2019 by the

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//3// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024 learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Ongole by convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the said amount of fine, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) is directed to be paid to the complainant towards compensation and rest of the fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is directed to be remitted to the

State forthwith.

2.During pending of the appeal, which is adjourned for hearing on appellant side on 01.05.2026, on that day the Appellant and Respondent

No.2 are present. Cost of Rs.500/- paid to the Respondent No.2 Memo is filed and the same is recorded. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 reported that both parties are compromised the case and requested to refer the case to Mediation Centre. Hence, this case is referred to Mediation

Center today.

3. The matter was referred to mediation vide an order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Coordinator, Mediation Centre, Ongole.

4.The parties agreed that the Mediator would act as their mediator.

5.Meeting was held on 01.05.2026. The parties with the assistance of mediator voluntarily agreed to arrive at an amicable solution resolving the above mentioned dispute.

6.The parties herein confirmed and declared that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement of agreement in the presence of the mediator and as per the terms of mediation.

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//4// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

7.The following settlement has been arrived between the parties hereto:

i)The appellant and 2nd respondent both are compromised this case with the following terms and conditions.

ii)The appellant/accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the 2nd respondent/complainant with regard to dishonoured cheque bearing No.717783, dt.23.05.2018 of Indian Bank, Ongole Branch towards full and final settlement of the above dishonoured cheque. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the 2nd respondent/complainant. The 2nd respondent/complainant received the above said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) from the appellant/accused today. The appellant agreed that he has no objection to receive the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by the 2nd respondent/complainant in lower court, which was deposited by the appellant/accused.

Iii)The 2nd respondent agreed that he has no objection, the appellant/accused to take Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards fine amount paid by him in lower court. Both parties are accepted the same.

8.By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to Crl.A

No.109/2024 on the file of this Court and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties through the process of this mediation.

9.Appellant and Respondent NO.2 are present. Terms of agreement received from Mediation Centre, Ongole. Heard both sides in respect of terms of compromise and they are agreed. Accordingly Judgment is

pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment)

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//5// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

10.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is disposed off by recording the terms of Mediation Agreement dated 01.05.2026 entered into by the

Appellant and Respondent No.2 before Mediator at Mediation Center, District

Legal Services Authority, Ongole. Hence, the appellant/accused is acquitted under Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 01 th day of May, 2026.

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence - NIL-

III AD & SJ,

OGL.

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//6// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

CRL.APPEAL No.109/2024

APPR000024992024

IN THE COURT OF III-ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) ::

ONGOLE.

Present: Smt A.Purnima, III-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 1st day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.109/2024

1. From what court the appeal is:II Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First preferredClass, Ongole

2. Number of the Case in the Lower:CC No.224/2019 Court.

3. Name and Description of the:Purini Subba Reddy Appellant/ AccusedS/o.Sreeramula Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Business, R/o.Motumala Road, Kothapatnam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Name and Description of the1. The State: Rep.by Addl.Public Respondents/Complainant andProsecutor, Ongole. State

2. Marella Venkata Rao S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged about 66 Years, Business, R/o. Throvagunta Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. The Sentence and law, which: In the result, the accused is was imposed in the lower Court found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and convicted under Sec.255(2) of CrPC. and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//2// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024 and ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the said amount of fine, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) is directed to be paid to the complainant towards compen- sation and rest of the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is directed to be remitted to the State forthwith.

6. Whether Reversed/ Confirmed/ :Adjusted at mediation centre. Modified/ if modified the In the result, this Criminal modification.Appeal is disposed off by recording the terms of Mediation Agreement dt.01.05.2026, entered into by the Appellant and Respondent No.2 before Mediator at Mediation Center, District Legal Services Authority, Ongole.

Date of

Presentation:28.11.2024

Filing:28.11.2024

Hearing :--

Judgment :01.05.2026

This Criminal Appeal came before me on 01.05.2026 for final hearing on appellant side in the presence of Sri C.V.Rami Reddy, Counsel for the Appellant/Accused and Sri K.V.Rameswara Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/State, and Sri S.V.Mallikharjuna Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant, and and on perusal of material available on record, having stood over for consideration, till this day, and this Court made the following:-

//JUDGMENT//

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the Accused being Appellant aggrieved by the Judgment dt.13.11.2024 passed in CC No.224/2019 by the

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//3// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024 learned II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Ongole by convicting and sentencing the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakhs and ten thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Out of the said amount of fine, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) is directed to be paid to the complainant towards compensation and rest of the fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) is directed to be remitted to the

State forthwith.

2.During pending of the appeal, which is adjourned for hearing on appellant side on 01.05.2026, on that day the Appellant and Respondent

No.2 are present. Cost of Rs.500/- paid to the Respondent No.2 Memo is filed and the same is recorded. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 reported that both parties are compromised the case and requested to refer the case to Mediation Centre. Hence, this case is referred to Mediation

Center today.

3. The matter was referred to mediation vide an order dated 01.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Coordinator, Mediation Centre, Ongole.

4.The parties agreed that the Mediator would act as their mediator.

5.Meeting was held on 01.05.2026. The parties with the assistance of mediator voluntarily agreed to arrive at an amicable solution resolving the above mentioned dispute.

6.The parties herein confirmed and declared that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement of agreement in the presence of the mediator and as per the terms of mediation.

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//4// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

7.The following settlement has been arrived between the parties hereto:

i)The appellant and 2nd respondent both are compromised this case with the following terms and conditions.

ii)The appellant/accused agreed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the 2nd respondent/complainant with regard to dishonoured cheque bearing No.717783, dt.23.05.2018 of Indian Bank, Ongole Branch towards full and final settlement of the above dishonoured cheque. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) to the 2nd respondent/complainant. The 2nd respondent/complainant received the above said amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) from the appellant/accused today. The appellant agreed that he has no objection to receive the deposited amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by the 2nd respondent/complainant in lower court, which was deposited by the appellant/accused.

Iii)The 2nd respondent agreed that he has no objection, the appellant/accused to take Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards fine amount paid by him in lower court. Both parties are accepted the same.

8.By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to Crl.A

No.109/2024 on the file of this Court and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties through the process of this mediation.

9.Appellant and Respondent NO.2 are present. Terms of agreement received from Mediation Centre, Ongole. Heard both sides in respect of terms of compromise and they are agreed. Accordingly Judgment is

pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment)

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//5// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

10.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is disposed off by recording the terms of Mediation Agreement dated 01.05.2026 entered into by the

Appellant and Respondent No.2 before Mediator at Mediation Center, District

Legal Services Authority, Ongole. Hence, the appellant/accused is acquitted under Sec.320(8) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me

in open Court on this the 01 th day of May, 2026.

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence - NIL-

III AD & SJ,

OGL.

III AD&SJ Court, Ongole//6// Crl.Appeal No.109/2024

FAIR JUDGMENT IN

CRL.APPEAL No.109/2024