A. Satyanand

1 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri.A.Satyanand, B.Sc., M.A., LL.M., IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015

O.S.509 OF 2012

Between:

Pulugu Venkata Swamy s/o Pulugu Punnaiah, Hindu, 59 years, Agriculture, r/o Aremanda village of Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, Ponnur JCJC …Plaintiff. And:

Chennam Srinivasa Rao s/o Chennam Hanumaiah, Hindu, 35 years, Agriculture & Business, r/o D.No.7-24, Lalupuram, Backside of Sivalayam,

Guntur and Guntur JCJC. ...Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 20.4.15 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Yadlapalli Prasad and Sri.Mallela Eresu, advocates for plaintiff and of

Sri.G.Rama Sarma and Sri.G.Gnaneswar, advocates for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of amount basing on a promissory note stating that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,10,000/- from him on 13.4.2009 for his agricultural expenses and executed promissory note at Aremanda village with his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and that on 20.2.12 paid Rs.1000/- and executed part payment endorsement on the back of the pronote and thereafter, did not choose to pay the pronote debt in spite of his demands through mediators and by way of legal notice dt.20.4.2012 and hence, he filed this suit and that as the defendant is an agriculturist and business man, he is not entitled to any debt relief acts.

2. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim by filing written statement with the following contentions:

All the plaint averments are neither true nor correct. The defendant 2 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

has borrowed Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 3.4.09 and executed pronote with his own hand. At that time, the plaintiff insisted him to sign on the reverse of the said pronote without mentioning anything. The plaintiff by prefixing '1' before the amount column and also altering the date as '13' instead of '3' and by mentioning Oka laksha (in telugu) before '10,000' in column No.10 materially altered the suit pronote and created part payment endorsement on the reverse of the pronote as if the defendant made part payment. The defendant is reserving his right to get the suit promissory note examined by Forensic Science Laboratory with his costs. The defendant paid entire amount due under pronote long back and requested for return of the pronote. The plaintiff informed that it was misplaced and it will be returned as and when it is found. As the pronote is barred by time he did not insist for that pronote. Taking advantage of the pronote, the plaintiff with an evil intention materially altered the pronote and filed this suit and obtained attachment of property which is not in the name of the defendant. He sold the schedule property on 8.4.10 under registered GPA cum sale agreement. The defendant is reserving his right to proceed against the plaintiff for the offence committed by the plaintiff u/sec. 420 of

Indian Penal Code. The suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3. Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the pronote is materially altered by inserting '1' before

date 3.4.2009 and also before 10,000/- and by inserting words

''ఒక లక'' before words పదవలు by the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the defendant paid Rs.1000/- to plaintiff on 20.2.12 and endorsed the same on the reverse of pronote or it was concocted by the plaintiff ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest @ 24%p.a though the debt is for agricultural purpose ?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

5) To what relief?

3 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

4. During trial, four witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on the plaintiff's side. One witness was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on the defendant's side.

5. Heard both sides.

6. ISSUES 1 AND 2:

6.1) According to the plaintiff, the defendant after borrowing

Rs.1,10,000/- from him on 13.4.09 executed suit promissory note with his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and on 20.2.12 paid Rs.1000/- towards part payment and executed payment endorsement on the back of the promissory note and thereafter, did not discharge the debt in spite of his demand by way of lawyer's notice.

According to the defendant, he borrowed Rs.10,000/- only from the plaintiff on 3.4.09 and executed promissory note with his own handwriting and at that time, the plaintiff obtained his signature on the reverse of the pronote and subsequently, thouh he discharged that debt the plaintiff did not return the pronote stating that it was misplaced and subsequently, materially altered the amount as 1,10,000/- by inserting '1' before '10,000/-' and also mentioning 'oka laksha' in words before words 'padivelu' in suit promissory note and also by inserting '1' before the actual date of '3.4.2009' and concocted part payment endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note and filed this suit to harass the defendant and got the property which was already sold by him attached.

6.2) In support of his claim, the plaintiff as P.W.1 reiterated all the plaint averments and got the Suit promissory note, Part payment endorsement, Office copy of notice, Postal receipt and Postal acknowledgment marked as Exs.A1 to A5 respectively. He has examined

Malisetty Srinivasa Rao attestor of Ex.A1, Jakkam Krishna Murthy attestor of Ex.A2 and Avula Ramadasu scribe of Ex.A2 examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 4 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

respectively. They have supported the plaintiff's case with regard to the transactions under Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant as D.W.1 reiterated all the averments of his written statement and got the registration extract of

GPA cum Sale agreement dt.8.4.2010 marked as Ex.B1.

6.3) During his cross examination, the defendant admitted that

Ex.A1 is with handwriting and that the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 belong to him. He clearly stated that he had no disputes with the plaintiff. P.W.1 during his cross-examination stated that the the defendant is his close relative and it was not denied by the the defendant. But, the the defendant denied the plaintiff's suggestion that he executed Ex.A1 on 13.4.09 after borrowing Rs.1,10,000/- from the plaintiff and on 20.2.12 paid Rs.1000/- and executed Ex.A2 endorsement and did not pay the balance in spite of receipt of Ex.A3 notice under Ex.A5 acknowledgment. He stated that the signature on Ex.A5 belongs to his wife and that the address mentioned on

Ex.A3 except the door number is correct. Perusal of Ex.A4 shows that it was sent by way of registered post and it was received under Ex.A5 by the defendant's wife. Hence, it cannot be said that the the defendant had no knowledge of Ex.A3 notice in which he was demanded by the plaintiff for payment mentioning the borrowal of Rs.1,10,000/- on 13.4.2009 under

Ex.A1 and payment of Rs.1000/- under Ex.A2 on 20.2.12.

6.4) The defendant though in his written statement reserved his right to send the suit document to Expert to ascertain whether the signatures on

Exs.A1 and A2 were signed on the same day, he did not file any such petition to have the expert opinion. On the other hand, during his cross examination he clearly admitted that Ex.A1 is with his handwriting and it contains his signature. He did not say that '1' in the date portion and '1' in amount portions besides the words as 'oka laksha' were not written by him. On perusal of Ex.A1 it appears that the number '1' in the third line at amount portion, date portion and also in the middle while mentioning 5 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

Rs.1,10,000/- are with the same handwriting. Likewise, the word 'oka laksha' is also with the same handwriting of remaining contents in Telugu.

The 'ka' so also letter 'la' are tallying with those letters in other contents of the pronote. The same can be noticed with a naked eye even by a layman to conclude as such. P.W.2 clearly stated that the transaction under Ex.A1 had taken place in his presence on 13.4.2009 and he attested Ex.A1 on 13.4.2009. He clearly denied the alleged material alteration of date and amount in suit pronote. No motive for him to speak falsehood was elicited.

In fact no such motive was even suggested to him.

6.5) The defendant in his written statement contended that on the same day of execution of promissory note with his own handwriting the plaintiff obtained his signature on the reverse of the promissory note. But, the perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the signatures on Ex.A1 are with blue ink and the signature on Ex.A2 is with black ink. P.W.2 admitted that the contents of Ex.A1 are with blue ink and the word 'swahastam' in this suit pronote and the pronotes in other suits filed against defendant is with black ink. Though it appears to be odd, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 more particularly where the defendant himself admitted that the suit promissory note is with his handwriting. It is for him to explain what made him to write the word Swahastam with black ink having executed the entire promissory note with blue ink.

6.6) P.W.3 during his cross examination clearly denied the defendant's suggestion that the defendant did not make any part payment but only to save limitation Ex.A2 endorsement was concocted and due to his relationship with the plaintiff he is speaking falsehood. No enmity for

P.W.3 with the defendant was elicited or even suggested to him. This suit was filed into court on 11.6.2012. Had the defendant's contention that nothing was paid by him on 20.2.2012 and Ex.A2 endorsement was 6 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

concocted only to save limitation is true, there is no need for the plaintiff to alter the date of Ex.A1 as '13.4.2009' from 3.4.2009 as Ex.A2 is within three years even from 3.4.09 on which the the defendant alleged to have executed pronote.

6.7) The defendant is unable to say when he discharged the debt due under Ex.A1 and why he kept quiet without taking any steps for return of his discharged pronote even after receipt of Ex.A3 notice through his wife.

As already stated above, the defendant clearly admitted that he had no disputes with the plaintiff and it is on record that P.W.1 is the close relative of the defendant. No cross examination was made attributing any motive for the plaintiff to file this suit though the defendant discharged the debt by materially altering the promissory note to Rs.1,10,000/- from Rs.10,000/-.

Had the Ex.A1 pronote was materially altered for Rs.1,10,000/- from

Rs.10,000/- and the writings of those words and figures are not that of the defendant, he would have got Ex.A1 examined by an Expert by comparing his admitted handwriting by comparison with his admitted handwritings.

But, in this case the defendant did not take any such steps which suggests that the defendant took false defence. Hence, in those circumstances, I have no hesitation to conclude that the defendant executed Ex.A1 with his own handwriting on 13.4.2009 after borrowing Rs.1,10,000/- and made part payment of Rs.1000/- on 20.2.2012 and executed Ex.A2 endorsement scribed by P.W.4 and attested by P.W.3. Accordingly, both the above issues are answered in the plaintiff's favour.

7. ISSUES 3 AND 4:

According to the plaintiff, the defendant is a business man besides being an agriculturist and hence, he is not entitled to get the interest scaled down. The perusal of Ex.A1 clearly shows that the defendant borrowed amount for agricultural expenses. As per Sec.13 of the Andhra Pradesh 7 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

(Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 the interest on a debt borrowed by an agriculturist shall not exceed the rate fixed by the government which is now 12.5% p.a. As the plaintiff though admitted that the defendant is an agriculturist and as per Ex.A1 the debt is contracted for agricultural investment, did not adduce any evidence to show that the defendant is not an agriculturist under the provisions of A.P.(AA)

Agriculturists Relief Act, I have no hesitation to conclude that the interest claimed by the plaintiff shall be scaled down to 12.5% p.a. As the defendant failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under promissory note but with interest @ 12.5% p.a which comes to Rs.1,53,347/- only. Accordingly, both the issues are answered.

8. ISSUE NO.5:

In view of my discussion on issues 1 to 4, this suit is liable to be decreed with proportionate costs for Rs.1,53,347/-. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

10. In the result, this suit is decreed with proportionate costs for

Rs.1,53,347/- (One lakh fifty three thousand three hundred and forty seven rupees only). The defendant shall pay the same together with interest @ 12.5% p.a from the date of suit till decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till payment on the principal due of Rs.1,10,000/- (One lakh ten thousand rupees only).

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

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2015.

IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1 : Pulugu Venkata Swamy

PW2: Malisetty Srinivasa Rao 8 OS.509/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

PW3: Jakkam Krishna Murthy

PW4: Avula Ramadasu

For Defendant:

DW1 : Chennam Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/13.4.2009 : Pronote

Ex.A2/20.2.2012 : Part payment endorsement

Ex.A3/20.4.2012 : Office copy of notice

Ex.A4/20.4.2012 :.Postal receipt

Ex.A5/--: Postal acknowledgment

For Defendant:

Ex.B1/8.4.2010: Registration extract of GPA cum Sale agreement

IVASCJ, GUNTUR.

1 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GUNTUR

Present: Sri.A.Satyanand, B.Sc., M.A., LL.M., IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015

O.S.508 OF 2012

Between:

Jakkam Anjaneyulu s/o Venkaiah, Hindu, 58 years, Agriculture, r/o Gogulamudi village, Pedanandipadu Mandal, Guntur District, Bapatla JCJC …Plaintiff. And:

Chennam Srinivasa Rao s/o Chennam Hanumaiah, Hindu, 38 years, Agriculture & Business, r/o D.No.7-24, Lalupuram, Backside of Sivalayam,

Guntur and Guntur JCJC. ...Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 20.4.15 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Yadlapalli Prasad and Sri.Mallela Eresu, advocates for plaintiff and of

Sri.G.Rama Sarma and Sri.G.Gnaneswar, advocates for the defendant and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of amount basing on a promissory note stating that the defendant borrowed Rs.80,000/- from him on 27.3.2009 and executed promissory note at Gogulamudi village with his own handwriting for his agricultural purpose agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and that on 10.3.12 paid Rs.500/- and executed part payment endorsement on the back of the pronote and thereafter, did not choose to pay the pronote debt in spite of his demands through mediators and by way of legal notice dt.20.4.2012 and hence, he filed this suit and that as the defendant is an agriculturist and business man he is not entitled to any debt relief acts.

2. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim by filing written statement with the following contentions:

All the plaint averments are neither true nor correct. The defendant has borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 7.3.09 and executed 2 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

pronote with his own hand. At that time, the plaintiff insisted him to sign on the reverse of the said pronote without mentioning anything. The plaintiff materially altered the date as '27' instead of '7' and created part payment endorsement on the reverse of the pronote as if the defendant made part payment. The defendant is reserving his right to get the suit promissory note examined by Forensic Science Laboratory with his costs. The defendant paid entire amount due under pronote long back and requested for return of the pronote. The plaintiff informed that it was misplaced and it will be returned as and when it is found. As the pronote is barred by time, he did not insist for that pronote. Taking advantage of the pronote the plaintiff with an evil intention materially altered the pronote and filed this suit and obtained attachment of property which is not in the name of the defendant. He sold the schedule property on 8.4.10 under registered GPA cum sale agreement. The defendant is reserving his right to proceed against the plaintiff for the offence committed by the plaintiff u/sec. 420 of

Indian Penal Code. The suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

3. Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the date of suit pronote is materially altered by inserting '2' before 7.3.2009 by the plaintiff ?

2) Whether the defendant paid Rs.500/- to plaintiff on 10.3.12 and executed endorsement on the back of suit pronote or it was concocted by the plaintiff ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest @ 24%p.a though the debt is for agriculture purpose ?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

5) To what relief?

4. During trial, four witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on the plaintiff's side. One witness was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on the defendant's side.

3 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

5. Heard both sides.

6. ISSUES 1 AND 2:

6.1) According to the plaintiff, the defendant after borrowing

Rs.80,000/- from him on 27.3.09 executed suit promissory note with his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and on 10.3.12 paid Rs.500/- towards part payment and executed payment endorsement on the back of the promissory note and thereafter, did not discharge the debt in spite of his notice. According to the defendant, he borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 7.3.09 and executed promissory note with his own handwriting and at that time the plaintiff obtained his signature on the reverse of the pronote and subsequently, he discharged that debt but the plaintiff did not return the pronote stating that it was misplaced and thereafter, he materially altered the date of transaction as '27.3.2009' by putting '2' before the actual date '7.3.2009' and concocted part payment endorsement on the reverse of the promissory note and filed this suit to harass the defendant and got the property which was already sold by him attached.

6.2) In support of his claim, the plaintiff as P.W.1 reiterated all the plaint averments and got the Suit promissory note, part payment endorsement, office copy of notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgment marked as Exs.A1 to A5 respectively. He has examined

Malisetty Srinivasa Rao attestor of Ex.A1, Jakkam Krishna Murthy attestor of Ex.A2 and Avula Ramadasu scribe of Ex.A2 examined as P.Ws.2 to 4 respectively. They have supported the plaintiff's case with regard to the transactions under Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant as D.W.1 reiterated all the averments of his written statement and got the registration extract of

GPA cum Sale agreement dt.8.4.2010 marked as Ex.B1.

6.3) During his cross examination, the defendant admitted that

Ex.A1 is with handwriting and that the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 belong 4 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

to him. He clearly stated that he had no disputes with the plaintiff. He denied the plaintiff's suggestion that he executed Ex.A1 on 27.3.09 and that on 10.3.12 he paid Rs.500/- and executed Ex.A2 endorsement and did not pay the balance even after receipt of Ex.A3 notice under Ex.A5 acknowledgment. He admitted that the address mentioned on Ex.A3 except the door number is correct. Perusal of Ex.A4 receipt proves that notice was sent by way of registered post. Though Ex.A5 did not contain the signature of Addressee, it is having postal seal. As Ex.A3 notice was sent by a registered post with acknowledgment due, return of postal acknowledgment it can be presumed that it was delivered at the address.

6.4) The defendant though in his written statement reserved his right to send the suit document to Expert to ascertain whether the signatures on

Exs.A1 and A2 were signed on the same day, he did not file any such petition to have the expert opinion. On the other hand, during his cross examination he clearly admitted that Ex.A1 is with his handwriting and it contains his signature. He did not say that '2' in the date portion was not written by him. The perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the number '2' in the date portion so also the number '2' while mentioning the rate of interest are similar. The similarity can be noticed with a naked eye even by a layman.

6.5) It is true during his cross examination P.W.1 stated that the defendant borrowed amount from him on 7.3.09. But, it cannot be taken as an admission to say that the promissory note was materially altered as admittedly the plaintiff is a marks man and illiterate that and he clearly denied the defendant's suggestion that the date of promissory note was materially altered by inserting '2' before '7'. P.W.2 clearly stated that the transaction under Ex.A1 had taken place in his presence on 27.3.2009. He clearly denied the alleged material alteration of date stating that he attested Ex.A1 on 27.3.09. No motive for him to speak falsehood was elicited. In fact no such motive was even suggested to him.

5 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

6.6) The defendant in his written statement contended that on the same day of execution of promissory note with his own handwriting, the plaintiff obtained his signature on the reverse of the promissory note. But, the perusal of the pronote shows that the signatures on Ex.A1 are with blue ink and the signature on Ex.A2 is with black ink. P.W.2 admitted that the contents of Ex.A1 are with blue ink and the word swahastam in this suit and the other suits filed against the defendant are with black ink. Though it appears to be odd it cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 more particularly where the defendant himself admitted that the suit promissory note is with his handwriting. It is for the the defendant to explain what made him to write the word Swahastam with black ink having executed the entire promissory note with blue ink.

6.7) P.W.3 during his cross examination clearly stated that the defendant himself requested him to scribe Ex.A2 endorsement. Except suggesting that he concocted Ex.A2 endorsement due to his relationship with P.W.1, no enmity with the defendant was elicited or even suggested to

P.W.3. This suit was filed into court on 11.6.2012. Had the defendant's contention that nothing was paid by him on 10.3.2012 and Ex.A2 endorsement was concocted only to save limitation is true, there is no need for the plaintiff to alter the date of Ex.A1 as '27.3.2009' from 7.3.2009 as he can simply concoct Ex.A2 with any other date prior to 7.3.2012 as the defendant's signature was already there on the reverse of the blank promissory note even according to the the defendant.

6.8) The defendant is even unable to say when he discharged the debt due under Ex.A1 and why he kept quiet without taking any steps for return of his discharged pronote. As already stated above, the defendant clearly admitted that he had no disputes with the plaintiff. No cross examination was directed to ascertain any motive for the plaintiff to file this suit after four and half years of the actual borrowing that too where the 6 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

defendant alleged to have discharged the debt long back. Hence, in view of my above discussion, I have no hesitation to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 to conclude that the defendant executed Ex.A1 with his own handwriting on 27.3.2009 and made part payment of Rs.500/- on 10.3.2012 and executed Ex.A2 endorsement scribed by P.W.4 and attested by P.W.3. Accordingly, both the above issues are answered in the plaintiff's favour.

7. ISSUES 3 AND 4:

According to the plaintiff, the defendant is a business man besides being an agriculturist and hence, he is not entitled to get the interest scaled down. The perusal of Ex.A1 clearly shows that the defendant had borrowed amount for agricultural expenses. P.W.1 during his cross examination clearly admitted that the defendant is an agriculturist. As per Sec.13 of the

Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 the interest on a debt borrowed by an agriculturist shall not exceed the rate fixed by the government which is now @ 12.5% p.a. As the plaintiff though admitted that the defendant is an agriculturist and even as per Ex.A1 the debt is contracted for agricultural investment and did not adduce any evidence to show that the defendant is not an agriculturist under the provisions of A.P.(AA) Agriculturists Relief Act, I have no hesitation to conclude that the interest claimed by the plaintiff shall be scaled down to 12.5% p.a. As the defendant failed to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under promissory note but with interest @ 12.5% p.a which comes to Rs.1,12,015/- only.

Accordingly, both the issues are answered.

8. ISSUE NO.5: [ To what relief?

In view of my discussion on issues 1 to 4, this suit is liable to be decreed with proportionate costs for Rs.1,12,015/-. Accordingly, this issue 7 OS.508/2012, IV ASCJ., Gntr.

is answered.

10. In the result, this suit is decreed with proportionate costs for

Rs.1,12,015/- (One lakh twelve thousand and fifteen rupees only). The defendant shall pay the same together with interest @ 12.5% p.a from the date of suit till decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till payment on the

principal due of Rs.80,000/- (Eighty thousand rupees only).

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

pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of April, 2015.

IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1 : Jakkam Anjaneyulu

PW2: Malisetty Srinivasa Rao

PW3: Jakkam Krishna Murthy

PW4: Avula Ramadasu

For Defendant:

DW1 : Chennam Srinivasa Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/27.3.2009 : Pronote

Ex.A2/10.3.2012 : Part payment endorsement

Ex.A3/20.4.2012 : Office copy of notice

Ex.A4/20.4.2012 :.Postal receipt

Ex.A5/--: Postal acknowledgment

For Defendant:

Ex.B1/8.4.2010: Registration extract of GPA cum Sale agreement

IVASCJ, GUNTUR.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.58.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Case No. :OS/0000093/2015 Madala Ratnagiri Babu Vs Khudsia Hussain

Date : 01-05-2015

Business: 16-4-2015. Advanced to this day as per order dt. 16-4-2015 in IA 249-15. Plaintiff filed memo not pressing the suit. Memo recorded. This suit is dismissed without costs as not pressed by the plaintiff. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED WITH OUT COSTS Disposal Date: 01-05-2015 IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur 1 of 105/10/24, 10:54

Case Historyhttp://172.17.58.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Case No. :EP/0000328/2014 Pedhi Mallikarjuna Rao Vs Guntupalli Sridhar Babu

Date : 30-04-2015

Business: No representation given by 4-30pm. Hence EP is dismissed for non payment of process. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 30-04-2015 IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur 1 of 103/10/24, 13:33

Case Historyhttp://172.17.58.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Case No. :EP/0000073/2014 L and T inance limited Vs Battula Govindarajulu

Date : 01-05-2015

Business: DHR filed FS Memo. FS recorded. This EP is terminated. Nature of Disposal: TERMINATED Disposal Date: 01-05-2015 IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur 1 of 103/10/24, 13:38