Ms. A.salomi

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.1

APGU150003152024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

NARASARAOPET

PRESENT: Smt. A. Salomi, I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Tuesday , this the 28th day of April, 2026.

C.C No.219/2024

[Cr No.13 of 2024 of Narasaraopet I Town P.S.]

Between :

The State: The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet I town Police Station. . . . Complainant.

And

1.Arvapalli Durga Rao, S/o Guravaya, 38 years, C/Budabukkala, R/o Srinivasa Nagar, Narasaraopet.

2.Vaidyudu Baji, S/o Vali, 31 years, C/Muslim, R/o Basavaiah Nagar, Narasaraopet.

3.Meerampally Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Sambasiva Rao, 45 years, C/Raja, R/o Vijayasai Apartment, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet.

4.Ganta Venkateswarlu, S/o Brahmam, 35 years, C/Mudiraj, R/o Srinivasanagar, Narasaraopet.

5.Chadalawada Alluri Reddy, S/o Kashi Reddy, 43 years, C/Reddy, R/o Near Check post Bazar,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.2

Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet.

6.Muvva Sambasiva Rao, S/o krishna Rao, 60 years, C/Kamma, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony, Narasaraopet.

7.Shaik Shahjahan, S/o Baji, 30 years, C/Muslim, R/o Bapanaiah Nagar, Narasaraopet.

8.Sakamuri Krishna, S/o Sambaiah, 43 years, C/Kamma, R/oGuravaiahpalem Village, Narasaraopet Mandal.

9.Pallishetti Venkataramaiah, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 years, C/Telaga, R/o Kondalaraopeta, Narasaraopet.

10.Bandaru kiran, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 30 years, C/Telaga, R/o Kota Centre, Narasaraopet.

11.Shaik Sardhar, S/o Khader Vali, 53 years, C/Muslim, Bapanaya Nagar, Narasaraopet.

12.Shaik ismail, S/o Mastan Vali, 23 years, C/Muslim, R/o Aravakatta, Narasaraopet.

13.Kasukurthi Cinna Anjaiah, S/o Mangaiah, 33 years, C/Mala, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony, Narasaraopet.

14.Kandipati Vinod Kumar, S/o Venkataramaiah, 27 years, C/Telaga, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.3

Narasaraopet.

15.Gaddam Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Pullareddy, 32 years, C/Reddy, R/o HP Gas Godown, Gandhi Nagar, Narasaraopet.

16.Shaik Nagur, S/o kasim, 36 years, C/Muslim, R/o Near Janda Chettu, Barampet, Narasaraopet.

17.Gopishetty Phani, S/o Subbarao, 40 years, C/Telaga, R/o Barampeta, Narasaraopet.

... Accused 1 to 17.

This case came before me on 27-04-2026 for disposal in the presence of learned Senior APP for the State and Sri Sk. Nagoor Hussain, Sri Sk. Johny Mohiddin, Sri M.Chandrasekher, Advocates for accused persons and after perusing the case records available on, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court has delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet I town P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 17 in Cr.No.13/2024 with a prayer to punish the accused persons by alleging that they committed the offences punishable

Under Sections 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act.

[2.] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this:-

As per the instructions of SDPO, Narasaraopet, dated 01-03-2023,

LW6-Ch. Krishna Reddy, Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet I Town P.S.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.4 received credible information about gambling by betting money as a game of chance at room 209 in Vijaya Residence, Narasaraopet Town station road and then LW6 secured the presence of Lw’s 1 to 5 Y. Vinod Kumar, P. Srinivasa

Reddy, Sk. Taj Basha, Ch. Srirambabu, R.V.Ramanjaneyulu went to the above place in Government vehicle bearing No.AP18P 3480 and found a man aged about 38 years was standing outside room No.209 of Vijaya residency and on seeing police he tried to run away and then LW6 caught him with the assistance of Lw’s 1 to 5 and on enquiry he revealed his identity as A1 and further confessed that A1 is running pani puri cart at Tirunalla for his livelihood and he is facing financial troubles and to over come the same he approached

A17 who is manager of Vijaya Residence and offered rent of Rs.1,000/- for a room and further offered that A1 can come to the room and collect whatever you charge from the people who play kotha mukka and give A17 to another

Rs.1,000/- for that A1 accepted and book room No.209 in the said lodge and called A2 to A16 to participate in the game and he had collected Rs.300/- from each person towards entry fees, and stood as guard in the outside room and that LW6 opened the room No.209 and found A2 to A16 and arrested A1 to

A17 and seized Rs.31,500/- and 52 card pieces from them and prepared police proceedings duly attested by LW’s 1 to 6 and A1 to A17 and that LW6 registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.No.13/2024 U/Sec. 3 and 4 of AP Gaming Act, 1974 and served 41-A Cr.P.C. notices to A1 to A17 and after completion of investigation LW6 filed charge sheet.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.5 [3.]After perusal of record available this Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act against the accused 1 to 17.

[4.]On appearance of the A1 to A17 copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused persons.

[5.]A1 to A17 are examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Accusation under Secs. 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried.

[6.] In pursuance of the case of prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and Mo’s.1 and 2.

The evidence of Lw’s 2 to 5 were given up by the learned senior assistant public prosecutor. Accordingly prosecution evidence is closed.

[7.] After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A17 are examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C about the incriminating material against them from the prosecution evidence. They denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

[8.]Heard the arguments. Perused the record.

[9.]For better appreciation of evidence I would like to reiterate the evidence of PW’s 1 and 2 on material aspects.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.6 [10.]P.W.1-Y. Vinod Kumar deposed that on 01.03.2024 at about 7.30 pm LW6 received credible information about the gambling at Room No.209,

Vilava Residence, station road, Narasaraopet, then Lw.6 informed to SDPO,

Narasaraopetandobtainedsearchproceedingsvide

C.No.15/GN/SDPO/NRT/2024, and then he along with Lw.2 to 5 followed Lw.6 and proceeded to Vijaya Residence in Government vehicle and found one person standing beside room No.209 on seeing them he tried to escape then his staff caught hold him and enquired him on enquiry, he revealed his name as Arvapalli Durga Rao/A1 and A1 further revealed that his friend namely

Phani/A17, who is working as manager in Vijaya hotel and taken one room in this hotel to conduct Game of chance by taking commission and also collected of entry fees Rs.300/-from each person the room rent is Rs.1000/- per day and also given commission of Rs.1000/- to his friend namely Phani, then A1 showed the room where 15 members are playing and they opened the door and found A2 to A16 are playing kotha mukka by betting money, then Lw.6 enquired A2 to A16 individually and A1 and A17 also admitted that they were playing kotha mukka, then Lw.6 searched the A1 to A17 and found

Rs.31,500/- cash from A1 to A17 and also 52 cards, then Lw.6 prepared the police proceedings and arrested A1 to A17 and also seized the Rs.31,500/- cash and 52 cards and he also attested in police proceeding and also taken signatures of A1 to A17 and returned to police station along with A1 to A17.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.7 [11.] PW2-Ch. Krishna Reddy deposed that on 01.03.2024 at about 7.00 pm he received credible information about the gambling at Room No.209,

Vijaya Residence, station road, Narasaraopet and then he informed to SDPO,

Narasaraopetandobtainedsearchproceedingsvide

C.No.15/GN/SOPO/NRT/2024, dt.1.3.2024, then Pw.1 along with Lw.2 to 5 followed him and proceeded to Vijaya Residence in Government vehicle and found A1 standing beside room No.209 on seeing them A1 tried to escape then his staff caught hold A1 and on enquiry A1 revealed his name as

Arvapalli Durga Rao/A1 and further revealed that his friend namely Phani/A17 who is working as manager in Vijaya hotel and taken one room in this hotel to conduct Game of chance by taking commission and also collected of entry fees Rs.300/-from each person the room rent is Rs.1000/-per day and also given commission of Rs.1000/- to his friend namely Phani and then A1 showed the room where A2 to A16 were playing and they opened the door and found A2 to A16 were playing kotha mukka by betting money, then he enquired A2 to A16 individually and you also admitted that A2 to A16 were playing kotha mukka, then he searched A2 to A16 and found Rs.31,500/- cash from A1 to A17 and also 52 cards, then he prepared the police proceedings and arrested A1to A17 and also seized the cash and cards and he obtained signature of A1 to A17 and his staff and returned to police station and registered the proceedings as a case in Cr.No.13/2024 U/Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P.

Gaming Act and examined PW1, Lw’s 2 to 5 and recorded their statements,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.8 visited the scene drawn rough sketch and issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to

A17 and filed charge sheet.

[12.]Now the point for germane for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of A1 to A17

for the offence under Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act?

[13.]In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and M.O’s.1 and 2. Pw’s 1 and 2 are the police officials.

POINT:

[14.] To prove the guilt of A1 to A17 the prosecution got examined

Pw’s 1 and 2 who are police officials conducted raid, seized cash, cards and phones and registered the FIR.

[15.]According to the prosecution A1 to A17 were found in room

No.209 of Vijaya Residence by playing kothamukka. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that for statistical purpose only police registered this case against the accused persons without any proof. The learned defence counsel further contended A1 to A17 are daily laborers. Further the defence counsel contended that the scene of offence is busy locality, it is impossible to play game of chance. And more over there is no independent witnesses in this case to support the case of prosecution. Whereas in the cross-examination by

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.9 the learned defence counsel PW1 admitted that there is no CC TV was present in hotel. PW2 who is investigating officer admitted that he did not signed in Column No.14 as he was investigating officer and also complainant in this case. To prove its case prosecution is relied on evidence of Pw’s 1 and 2who are police officials and no independent persons shown as witness. Now the question is whether the evidence of police officials can be relied on without a independent witness. In this contest it is necessary to refer a decision of

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in T. Rambabu Bulli and Another Vs. State of

A.P. 2009 (3) LS340 It is a case wherein the accused therein committed the offence U/Sec. 8(c) r/w 20(b) (I) of the Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that at paragraph No.9 as followed:

“There is no dispute about the proposition that a conviction can be based on the testimony of police witnesses even though no independent witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. However, whether the evidence of police witnesses warrants conviction or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If really, the circumstances indicate that it was not possible for the arresting police officer to secure mediators at a given time, the court cannot find fault with the arresting police officer is not securing the mediators. However, when there is ample opportunities for the police officer to secure the presence of mediators and he fails to do so, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of the investigating agency.”

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.10 [16.]So, as per the above, decision if the witnesses are police officials and if there is opportunities for them to secure mediators and if they did not make any attempt to secure the presence of the mediators. Then it is not safe to rely on the evidence of such police officials.

[17.] In the present case, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 who are police officials. Now it has to see whether PW2 tried to secure mediators or not. PW1 and PW2 no where whispered that they tried to secure the mediators and no notice was given to inhabitants to act as mediators. Thus the evidence of Pw’s1 and 2 requires corroboration from an independent evidence. But the same is lacking in the present case. Further the said act of PW2 that not securing independent mediators at the scene of offence makes the search illegal for non compliance of Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

[18.] The M.O’s.1 and 2 are seized in the place of offence. Whereas the

M.O’s.1 and 2 are present with A1 to A17. But PW2 failed to furnish sufficient evidence to support his version as A1 to A17 were playing kotha mukka by betting amounts.

[19.] In view of the above discussion this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A17 for the charges under

Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and the A1 to A17 are entitled for acquittal.

[20.] In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A1 to A17 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 3 and 4 of

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.11

A.P. Gaming Act and accordingly, A1 to A17 are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A17 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of U/Sec.437-A of

Cr.P.C. The M.O.1-cash of Rs.31,500/- shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time and M.O.2 was 52 playing cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, today, this the 28 th day of April, 2026, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For prosecution:

P.W.1: Y. Vinod Kumar P.W.2: Ch. Krishna Reddy

For defence: -None-

Documents marked:

For prosecution: For defence:

Ex.P.1 : Police proceedings Ex.P.2 : Search proceedings Ex.P.3 : First Information Report Ex.P.4 : Rough sketch Material objects marked:

M.O.1: Cash of Rs.31,500/- M.O.2: 52 playing cards

Sd/- A. Salomi,

// True copy // I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

NARASARAOPET

C.C.No.219 of 2024

Date of:

Offence onComplaint Apph. ofReleasedCommenceClosure ofResult or beforeaccusedon Bailment of TrialTrial 01-03-2024 08-03-2024-- 41-A 16-04-202617-04-202628-04-2026

Cr.P.C.

Complainant:

The State: Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet I town P.S.

Name of the accused:

1.Arvapalli Durga Rao, S/o Guravaya, 38 years, C/Budabukkala, R/o Srinivasa Nagar, Narasaraopet.

2.Vaidyudu Baji, S/o Vali, 31 years, C/Muslim, R/o Basavaiah Nagar, Narasaraopet.

3.Meerampally Veeranjaneyulu, S/o Sambasiva Rao, 45 years, C/Raja, R/o Vijayasai Apartment, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet.

4.Ganta Venkateswarlu, S/o Brahmam, 35 years, C/Mudiraj, R/o Srinivasanagar, Narasaraopet.

5.Chadalawada Alluri Reddy, S/o Kashi Reddy, 43 years, C/Reddy, R/o Near Check post Bazar, Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet.

6.Muvva Sambasiva Rao, S/o krishna Rao, 60 years, C/Kamma, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony, Narasaraopet.

7.Shaik Shahjahan, S/o Baji, 30 years, C/Muslim, R/o Bapanaiah Nagar, Narasaraopet.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.13

8.Sakamuri Krishna, S/o Sambaiah, 43 years, C/Kamma, R/oGuravaiahpalem Village, Narasaraopet Mandal.

9.Pallishetti Venkataramaiah, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 34 years, C/Telaga, R/o Kondalaraopeta, Narasaraopet.

10.Bandaru kiran, S/o Srinivasa Rao, 30 years, C/Telaga, R/o Kota Centre, Narasaraopet.

11.Shaik Sardhar, S/o Khader Vali, 53 years, C/Muslim, Bapanaya Nagar, Narasaraopet.

12.Shaik ismail, S/o Mastan Vali, 23 years, C/Muslim, R/o Aravakatta, Narasaraopet.

13.Kasukurthi Cinna Anjaiah, S/o Mangaiah, 33 years, C/Mala, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony, Narasaraopet.

14.Kandipati Vinod Kumar, S/o Venkataramaiah, 27 years, C/Telaga, R/o Srinivasa Girijana Colony, Narasaraopet.

15.Gaddam Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Pullareddy, 32 years, C/Reddy, R/o HP Gas Godown, Gandhi Nagar, Narasaraopet.

16.Shaik Nagur, S/o kasim, 36 years, C/Muslim, R/o Near Janda Chettu, Barampet, Narasaraopet.

17.Gopishetty Phani, S/o Subbarao, 40 years, C/Telaga, R/o Barampeta, Narasaraopet.

Offence:Under Section 3 and 4 of A.P.Gaming Act

Plea of accused: Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, and for the reasons indicated above, this court find that, A1 to A17 are not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec. 3 and 4 of A.P. Gaming Act and accordingly, A1 to A17 are acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A17 shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from the date of judgment as per the provisions of

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet CC.No.219/2024 Page No.14

U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1-cash of Rs.31,500/- shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time and M.O.2 52 playing cards shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay: This case was taken cognizance on 23-03-2024. A1 to A appear before this court on 30-03-2026 and copies furnished to them and on 20-04-2026 accused were examined U/Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. and from 16- 04-2026 to 17-04-2026 prosecution examined Pw’s 1 and 2 and marked Ex.P1 to P4, M.Os.1 and 2 and prosecution evidence was closed and on 20- 04-2026 A1 to A17 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. they denied the same and reported no defence and on 27-04-2026 heard arguments on both sides and judgment pronounced on 28-04-2026. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. Copy Submitted to:

The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal.

// True copy //

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.1

dt. 30-04-2026

APGU150012522025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

PRESENT:- SMT. A. SALOMI,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 543/2022

Between:

Guntupalli Venkateswarlu, S/o Chinnodu, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, R/o D.No.21-3F, B.C.Colony, Burampet, Narasaraopet Town and mandal, Palnadu District. … Plaintiff

And

Muthyala Rama Krishna, S/o Pedda Ramulu, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, C/o Gude Sivaiah, Beside Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Burmpet, Narasaraopet Town and Mandal, Palnadu District. … Defendant

This Suit is coming on 09-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Subba Rao and Sri D. Bujji Babu, Advocates for the

Plaintiff and of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.2

dt. 30-04-2026

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of ₹4,62,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand only) with subsequent interest and with costs on the strength of the promissory note

dated 25-08-2020 with the following averments.

2. The brief averments of the Plaint in nut shall are that:

On 25-08-2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of ₹ 3,00,000 from the plaintiff for his family expenses at Narasaraopet Village and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with yearly compoundable either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently the plaintiff demanded the defendant several times personally. But the defendant has been postponing the payment and failed to discharge the debt. On 11-11-2022 he got issued legal notice to the defendant and the same was returned due to door locked.

Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit. Hence, the suit.

3. Case of the defendant in brief :-

Per contra, the Defendant filed the Written Statement denying most of the averments in the plaint and submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 25-08-2020 and the suit is barred by limited and the witnesses and scribe are close associates of plaintiff and plaintiff for wrongful gain filed this false suit and further contended that the defendant borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff during dasara festival days

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.3

dt. 30-04-2026

2019 as per his business custom and plaintiff obtained empty signed pronote from him as security with interest at 60% per annum and after one year he discharged the debt and requested the plaintiff to return the empty promissory note but he promised that he will return the same after completion of pongal days and later during sankranthi festival days, 2021 he personally along with mediators demanded the plaintiff to return the empty signed pronote but he did not return the same and later disputes arose between him and plaintiff with regard to return of promissory note due to which the plaintiff for wrongful gain filed this false suit and also managed the postal authorities got returned the legal notice and filed this false suit for wrongful gain and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

4. ISSUES:- Based on the respective pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant, my learned Predecessor settled the following issues for trial on 28- 09-2024:-

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 25-08-2020 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is true and valid supported by consideration and binding on the defendant as prayed for?

2) Whether the discharge pleaded by defendant is true and correct?

3) Whether the suit promissory note is barred by limitation?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit claim as prayed for?

5) To what relief?

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.4

dt. 30-04-2026

5. TRIAL:-

During the trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1, examined PW2, who is said to be the second registrar of the suit promissory note and got marked the original promissory note for ₹ 3,00,000 dated 25.08.2020 and

Ex.A1, Office copy of Legal notice dt. 11.11.2022 as Ex.A2, postal receipt as

Ex.A3, and unserved postal cover as Ex.A4. Defendant he himself examined as DW1, one Gude Sivaiah examined as DW2, and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides. Perusal the material available on record.

7. Issue No.1:-

Whether the suit promissory note dated 25.08.2020 for an amount of ₹ 3,00,000 is true valid on the binding on the defendant?

7.1) The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that from the evidence of PW1 coupled with PW2, it was established that on 25.08.2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of ₹ 3,00,000 from the plaintiff for his family's necessities and executed Ex.A1/Promissory note in the presence of

PW2 and thus it is true value and binding on the defendant.

7.2) Percontra, the learned counsel for the defendant vehemently argued that plaintiff is doing money lending business. Further contended that defendant issued empty promissory note as security purpose and borrowed an amount of 10,000 from the plaintiff, got foisted this false suit for unlawful₹

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.5

dt. 30-04-2026

gain and thus the present suit promissory note is not true valid and binding on the different side.

7.3) Since the defendant strongly opposed that, he never borrowed amount from PW1. Hence it is the initial burden on the plaintiff to prove that he lent 3,00,000 to the defendant on 25.08.2020 for his family's necessities and₹ in turn executed the Ex.A1/promissory note as per Section 101 of Indian

Evidence Act, 1872. Now sec Section 104 of Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023.

7.4) To discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got himself examined as

PW1 and his chief examination affidavit reiterates the contents of the plaint to support his version and got marked A1 to A4. To substantiate his version, the plaintiff also got examined second attestor of Ex.A1/promissory note as PW2 and the examination in chief of PW2 goes into the lines of the testimony of

PW1.

7.5) During the cross-examination of PW1 by the Learned Counsel for defendant, PW1 deposed that he is not an income tax assesse. PW1 denied that he lent an amount of 3,00,000 to defendant under Ex.A1 is false. PW1₹ further admitted that the denomination are Rs.500 notes of 6 bundles. PW1 deposed that defendant received legal notice, but he have no Idea about date, month and year when the said notice is received, PW1 denied that defendant borrowed amount of 10,000 for Dasara Festival and keeping in view of the₹ same he obtained promissory note from defendant and filed this false suit.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.6

dt. 30-04-2026

7.6) In the cross-examination of PW2 by the learned counsel for defendant, PW2 admitted that defendant signed two signatures on Ex.A1.

PW2 further deposed that Ex.A1 was scribed in the shop of plaintiff. The denomination of Ex. A1 is 500 notes of 6 bundles.₹ 7.7) To discredit the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the contents of the plaint, the defendant himself examined as DW1, but no exhibits were marked on his behalf. The chief examination affidavit of DW1 reiterates the contents of his written statement. During the cross-examination of DW1 by the plaintiff counsel, DW1 admitted that the signatures in Ex.A1 belongs to him. Further,

DW1 admitted that on 11.11.2022 he received Ex.A2, but he did not gave reply notice to plaintiff for Ex.A2. DW1 deposed that he did not file any documents to prove that plaintiff is doing money lending business.

7.8) In the cross-examination of DW2 by the Learned Council for the plaintiff, DW2 deposed that he did not file any documentary proof that plaintiff doing interest business. DW2 further admitted that he did not mentioned the names of the mediators in his chief affidavit specifically. DW2 denied that

DW1 is his son-in-law.

7.9) The first and foremost proof of Defence raised by the defendant is he borrowed 10,000 from the plaintiff during Dasara festival days, 2019. It is₹ further contention of the defendant he repaid the amount. It is further contention that plaintiff is doing finance business.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.7

dt. 30-04-2026

7.10) To establish the same, though the defendant in his written statement raised the plea that the plaintiff herein is doing money lending business and lent the amount to the innocent public and collecting higher rates of interest, but during the entire evidence of defendant and the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, defendant failed to put any single suggestion as to the money lending business of PW1 and, did not file any documentary evidence, also failed to examine any of the alleged innocent public who had borrowed the amount from PW1 to substantiate his contention in the written statement.

7.11) In civil jurisprudence, it is the duty of the Court to rely upon documentary evidence. In the present case, PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 which was executed by DW1, thereby the plaintiff has proved the execution of the promissory note Ex.A1.

7.12) This Court had also taken the aid under Section 118(a) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which reads as follows:- 118:- Presumption as to negotiable instruments.:-

Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) of consideration:- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or

Transferred for consideration.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.8

dt. 30-04-2026

7.13) However, the presumption under Section 118 (:a) is a rebuttable presumption. In such a case, the onus is on the defendant to rebut the presumption with plausible evidence. The defendant admitted that the signature in Ex.A1 is belongs to him. If really no consideration was received from PW1 by the defendant, what prevented him from taking any legal recourse against PW1 for allegedly not returning the Ex.A1 after repayment of the amount. Therefore, the presumption remains unrebutted by the defendant and stands in favour of the plaintiff.

7.14) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.

Venkateswara Rao Vs. Satyavathamma AIR online 2024 AP 887, wherein it was held that:

“When the evidence of witnesses is consistent and cogent regarding borrowing of the amount by the Defendant from the Plaintiff under promissory note, the Plaintiff discharges his burden and the burden then shifts to the Defendant to rebut the same.” 7.15) The above judgment is rightly applicable to the present set of facts, wherein the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent and corroborating with each other with respect to the lending of amount to DW1 and that he executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

7.16) Thereby, the plea raised by DW1 remains a mere plea without any proof of evidence to discredit the validity of Ex.A1 executed by DW1 in favour

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.9

dt. 30-04-2026

of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has proved the execution of the suit promissory note by the DW1 in his favour. Accordingly, this point is also in favour of the plaintiff.

8. ISSUE NO.2:

Whether the discharge pleaded by defendant is true and correct?

8.1) To prove his contention, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and one Gude Sivaiah as DW2. In cross-examination DW1 admitted the signatures in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. When the defendant admits his signature on the promissory notes, the presumption under Section 118 of NI Act that the NI

Act was made or drawn for consideration is available in favour of the plaintiff until contrary is proved. In this case the defendant is admitted he borrowed ₹ 10,000 from plaintiff in the year 2019 Dasara holidays and the same was repaid by him. If defendant repaid the amount to plaintiff then why he remained silent that his signed promissory note were misused by the plaintiff what prevented him to demand the plaintiff to return the Ex.A1 being a man of ordinary prudence and what prevented DW1 to take legal action against plaintiff which are all raises suspicion about the defendant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. ISSUE NO.3:

Whether the suit promissory note is barred by limitation?

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.10

dt. 30-04-2026

9.)The defendant execute Ex.A1 on 25.08.2020 and the legal notice was issued on 11.11.2022 and the suit was filed on 25.11.2022. Here the plaintiff filed the suit within 3 years from the date of execution as per Limitation

Act, 1963. Further to prove the suit is barred by limitation, defendant nowhere filed any proof that the suit is barred by limitation. During the entire evidence of defendant and cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, the defendant failed to put any single suggestion as to the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. ISSUE NO.4:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit claim as prayed for?

10.1) In view of the findings recorded under Issue No. 1 to Issue No.3, this Court has already held that the suit promissory note dated 25-08-2020 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff is true valid supported by consideration and binding of the defendant.

10.2) The evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly establishes that the defendant borrowed an amount of 3,00,000 from the plaintiff and executed₹

A1 and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

10.3) Therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiff has successfully proved his entitlement for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant and

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.11

dt. 30-04-2026

prayed for in the plaint. Accordingly, Issue No.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

11. ISSUE NO.5:

To What relief?

11.1)In view of the findings recorded under Issue Nos. 1 to 4, it is evident that the plaintiff has successfully proved his case. The defendant has failed to rebut the statutory presumption in favour of the plaintiff and no evidence has been produced to challenge the genuineness of the suit promissory note. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint.

11.2)In the result, the suit is decreed with cost against defendant for an amount of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit til the date of decree and thereafter @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.12

dt. 30-04-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

P.W.1 : Guntupalli Venkateswarlu DW1: Muthyala Rama Krishna

P.W.2 : Kolipaka Nagamalleswara Rao DW2: Gude Sivaiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Suit promissory note dated 25-08-2020

Ex.A-2 : Office copy of Legal notice dt. 11-11-2022 Ex.A-3 : Postal receipt Ex.A-4 : Unserved postal cover

FOR DEFENDANT:

- N I L -

I A.C.J.(JD), NRT.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.13

dt. 30-04-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARASARAOPET.

PRESENT:- SMT. A. SALOMI,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 543/2022

Between:

Guntupalli Venkateswarlu, S/o Chinnodu, Hindu, Aged about 43 years, R/o D.No.21-3F, B.C.Colony, Burampet, Narasaraopet Town and mandal, Palnadu District. … Plaintiff

And

Muthyala Rama Krishna, S/o Pedda Ramulu, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, C/o Gude Sivaiah, Beside Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Burmpet, Narasaraopet Town and Mandal, Palnadu District. … Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs.4,62,000/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dt.25-08-2020 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% P.A. and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 25-11-2022and filed on 01-12-2022

Valuation: For the purpose of Court fee and Jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.4,62,000/- on which a Court fee of Rs.7,126/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act.

Cause of action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 25-08-2020 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the plaintiff and after repeated demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the same and the entire suit transaction including execution of the suit promissory note at Narasaraopet village where and when the suit arose which is within the Jurisdiction of this court.

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet OS.543/2022 Page No.14

dt. 30-04-2026

This Suit is coming on 09-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Subba Rao and Sri D. Bujji Babu, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made doth order and decree;

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,62,000/- with interest on Rs.3,00,000/- at 12 % per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% P.A. from the date decree till the date of realization; and iii) that the defendant do also pay to the said plaintiff the sum of Rs.22,826/- towards costs of the suit; bearing his own costs;

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

Sd/- A. Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Table of Costs

For plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalat ………………..Rs. 2-00 Stamp on Plaint…………………..Rs. 7,126-00 Stamp on petitions……………….Rs. -(CM&FC not filed) Stamp on Process………………..Rs. 38-00 Advocate fee…………………….. Rs. 5,560-00 Type charges……………………. Rs. 50-00 Writing charges…………………..Rs. 50-00

------------------------------------------

Total costs: Rs. 22,826-00 - Nil -

--------------------- ----------------------

Sd/- A.Salomi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet. N.B:- The Parties are hereby directed to take back the Exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are marked in the suit within One month time with an under taking to produce the same as and when required by the court.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

C.C.No.1011/2025

Between:

M/s Shriram Chit Fund Pvt Ltd rep. Shaik Mastanvali

...Complainant

Vs

Vallela Sivasankara Reddy …Accused

This case is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of learned SR. APP for the state and Sri G.V.Subramanyam, counsel for the accused and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:

D O C K E T O R D E R

Complainant called absent No representation till 4.30 pm. On perusal of the docket this case is coming for serving of summons to accused. The step is coming for batta from 29.1.2026 on that day complaint absent No representation. Issue fresh summons to accused on payment of process posted to 9.3.2026. on 09.3.2026 complaint absent no representation. Batta not paid. For batta posted to 30.3.2026. on 30.3.2026 Complainant absent no representation. Batta not paid. For dismissal posted to 20.4.2026. on 20.4.2026 complainant absent no representation. Batta not paid. complainant shall present on next adjournment to prosecute his case posted to 28.4.2026. On 28.4.2026 on today also i.e., complainant absent no representation. Batta not paid inspite of several adjournment. Complainant failed to file process of the case to prosecute the case the process has to be filed. Hence in the interest of justice this court is inclined to dismiss the complaint to save the valuable time of the court for non-payment of process U/sec.204 (4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly the case is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A. Salomi,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARSARAOPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

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

C.C.No.1138/2021

Between:

Tirumala Milk Products pvt. Ltd. rep. Mallela Prasad Kumar

...Complainant

Vs

Devineni Mallikarjunarao …Accused

This case is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of learned SR. APP for the state and Sri G.V.Subbarao, counsel for the accused and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:

D O C K E T O R D E R

Complainant called absent No representation till 4.30 pm. On perusal of the docket the step is coming for payment of process to serve the summons to accused from 7.1.2026 and the matter is posted for 3 adjournments i.e., 19.1.2026, 24.2.2026, 22.4.2026 and finally posted to today i.e., on 1.5.2026 on today also i.e., complainant absent no representation. Batta not paid inspite of several adjournment. Complainant failed to file process of the case to prosecute the case the process has to be filed. Hence in the interest of justice this court is inclined to dismiss the complaint to save the valuable time of the court for non-payment of process U/sec.204 (4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly the case is dismissed for default for non-payment of process U/sec.204 (4) Cr.P.C. Accordingly the case is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1 st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- A. Salomi,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARSARAOPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Salomi, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

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

E.P.No.164/2024 in OS.502/2023

Between: Bokka Samson ...D.Hr.

Vs

Kommu Jayaraju …J.Dr.

This case is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri K. Sambasiva Rao, counsel for the D.Hr. and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Process not paid since 13.3.26 to till today 4.30 pm today it seems DHR is not interested to peruse the matter.Hence EP is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1 st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- A. Salomi,

I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

NARSARAOPET.