A Sucharitha

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

SMT A.SUCHARITHA

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

E.P.No. 159 OF 2024

IN

O.S.No. 421 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

Chandra Venkateswarlu, S/o: Sivaiah, Age: 63 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.9-1-46, Gattaigudem, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …DECREE HOLDER/

PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Arepalli Anjanneyulu, S/o: Suryanarayana, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-140, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. Arepalli Satyanarayana, S/o: Surayanarayana, Age: 61 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-141, Seetharamset Banjar, yerragunta, paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

3. Vemana Venkata Naga Satyanarayana, S/o: Adaiah, Age: 43 Years,Occ: Collie, R/o: H.No.25-1-139, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

4. Todeti Satyam, S/o: Buchi Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-127, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

5. Todeti Ramana, S/o: Satyama, Age: 50 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.25-1-127, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal,

6. Redimalla Nageswara Rao, S/o: Venkataiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-108, Seetharamset Banjar,

Page 1 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

7. Meka Vara Prasad, S/o: Rama Rao, Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

8. Meka Ratnaji, S/o: Rama Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

9. Yellala Yellaiah, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-23, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

10. Kamana Narasimha Murthy, S/o: Veera Raju, Age: 46 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

11. Jale Mangamma, W/o: Ramulu (Late), Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-125, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

12. Chiraboina Mallaiah, S/o: Yelamachaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-119, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

13. Gaddam Ramesh, S/o: Samuel, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-61, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

14. Gaddam Prasad, S/o: Samuel, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-61, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...JUDGMENT DEBTORS/

DEFENDANTS

This Execution Petition is coming on 02-04-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.S.R. Ravi Chandra, counsel for the decree holder and that the Jdrs remained ex-parte and upon hearing argument, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the decree holder under

Order-XXI Rule-32 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [herein after referred

Page 2 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

to as C.P.C for the sake of brevity] to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtors No.1,3,7 and 9 for committing them to civil prison, for violation of injunction decree passed his favour.

2.It is the case of the decree holder that a decree of perpetual injunction was obtained by the petitioner/decree holder against the respondents/judgment debtors in respect of the E.P. schedule property.

when said decree was willfully disobeyed by J.Drs Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9, he filed the present Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.

3. It is his contention that on 02.07.2024, when he was performing agriculture operations in the E.P. schedule land, JDr No. 1, 3, 7 and 9, intentionally obstructed him from during the work, thereby disobeyed the decree passed by this court. When he requested them, they threatened Dhr by saying that they will not allow him to cultivate in the

EP schedule land. Such acts are stated to be in clear violation of the judgment and decree dated 11-03-2024 in O.S. No.421/2023.

4.It is further stated that a he filed complaint before Paloncha Town

Police and a case in Crime No.263/2024 was registered, but no action was initiated against Jdr No.1,3,7 and 9, and that he was advised to obtain police protection orders from this Court. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking arrest of J.Drs Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 and to commit them to civil prison for disobedience of decree. Hence the petition.

Page 3 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

5.After registering the EP, notices was issued to JDr No.1,3,7 and 9.

They received the same, but did not appear before this court. Hence Jdr

No.1,3,7 and 9 were set exparte on 09-08-2024.

6.During enquiry, the decree holder himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2.

7.Heard the learned Counsel for decree holder.

8.Perused the record.

9.Now the point germane for my determination is “whether the

judgment debtors No. .1,3,7 and 9 violated the decree passed by

this Court, and if so, whether they are liable to be imprisoned” ?

P O I N T :

10. It is an undisputed fact that the decree holder filed the suit against judgment debtors for the relief of perpetual injunction and said suit was decreed against the judgment debtors restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the decree holder over the petition scheduled property and the decree was passed on 11-03-2024. It is also an undisputed fact that no appeal is preferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by this Court and thus it became final.

11.It is the evidence of PW-1 that even after passing of the decree, the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 trespassed into the petition schedule property on 02-07-2024 and obstructed his agricultural

Page 4 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

operations. In support of oral testimony of PW-1, the decree holder got exhibited documentary evidence under Exs.P-1 and P-2. Ex.P-1 is certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No.263/2024,dated:02-07-2023, Ex.P-2 is certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No.372/2025,dated:04-10-2025. It is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. This

Execution Petition is filed for disobedience of the decree.

12. In the case on hand, the decree holder is contending that the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 are interfering with their possession.

The evidence of PW-1 along with Ex.P1 and P2 are consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Further the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 failed to appear before this court. On the other hand, as stated above, the decree was passed in favour of the decree holder and no appeal is preferred against it. The decree passed by this Court should not be remained as a paper tiger and it shall be binding on the parties thereto and the parties thereto shall obey it.

13.On careful scrutiny of the testimonies of PW-1 with Ex.P1 and P2 in a gamut, it is evident that the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 trespassed into the petition schedule property and also object the decree holder from performing the agricultural operations and thereby the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 violated the decree passed by this

Court. According to Sub Rule-(1) of Rule-32 of Order XXI of CPC, if the party against whom a decree for an injunction, has been passed, has

Page 5 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

willfully failed to obey the same, then that party be detained in civil prison. In this case, it is crystal clear that the judgment debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9 willfully disobeyed the decree passed by this Court and hence, they are liable to be detained in civil prison. This point is answered accordingly.

IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed. Issue warrant of arrest under Order-XXI Rule-32 of C.P.C., against the Judgment Debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9, on payment of process, and bring the judgment debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9 before the Court. Call on 04-05-2026

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April 2026.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Decree holder On behalf of Judgment debtors PW-1Chandra venkateswarlu:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DECREE HOLDER

Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document

Ex.P-102.07.2024CC of FIR vide Cr. No.263 of 2024

Ex.P-204.10.2025CC of FIR vide Cr. No.372 of 2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR JUDGMENT DEBTORS

:: NIL :: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 6 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

FRIDAY, THE 17th DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

SMT A.SUCHARITHA

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

E.P.No. 159 OF 2024

IN

O.S.No. 421 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

Chandra Venkateswarlu, S/o: Sivaiah, Age: 63 years,Occ: Agriculture, R/o: H.No.9-1-46, Gattaigudem, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …DECREE HOLDER/

PLAINTIFF

AND

1. Arepalli Anjanneyulu, S/o: Suryanarayana, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-140, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. Arepalli Satyanarayana, S/o: Surayanarayana, Age: 61 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-141, Seetharamset Banjar, yerragunta, paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

3. Vemana Venkata Naga Satyanarayana, S/o: Adaiah, Age: 43 Years,Occ: Collie, R/o: H.No.25-1-139, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

4. Todeti Satyam, S/o: Buchi Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-127, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

5. Todeti Ramana, S/o: Satyama, Age: 50 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o: H.No.25-1-127, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal,

6. Redimalla Nageswara Rao, S/o: Venkataiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-108, Seetharamset Banjar,

Page 1 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

7. Meka Vara Prasad, S/o: Rama Rao, Age: 35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

8. Meka Ratnaji, S/o: Rama Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

9. Yellala Yellaiah, S/o: Mallaiah, Age: 38 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-23, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

10. Kamana Narasimha Murthy, S/o: Veera Raju, Age: 46 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-144, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

11. Jale Mangamma, W/o: Ramulu (Late), Age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-125, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

12. Chiraboina Mallaiah, S/o: Yelamachaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o: H.No.25-1-119, Seetharamset Banjar, Yerragunta, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

13. Gaddam Ramesh, S/o: Samuel, Age: 54 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-61, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

14. Gaddam Prasad, S/o: Samuel, Age: 52 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.8-2-61, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...JUDGMENT DEBTORS/

DEFENDANTS

This Execution Petition is coming on 02-04-2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.S.R. Ravi Chandra, counsel for the decree holder and that the Jdrs remained ex-parte and upon hearing argument, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This Execution Petition is filed by the decree holder under

Order-XXI Rule-32 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [herein after referred

Page 2 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

to as C.P.C for the sake of brevity] to issue warrant of arrest against judgment debtors No.1,3,7 and 9 for committing them to civil prison, for violation of injunction decree passed his favour.

2.It is the case of the decree holder that a decree of perpetual injunction was obtained by the petitioner/decree holder against the respondents/judgment debtors in respect of the E.P. schedule property.

when said decree was willfully disobeyed by J.Drs Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9, he filed the present Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.

3. It is his contention that on 02.07.2024, when he was performing agriculture operations in the E.P. schedule land, JDr No. 1, 3, 7 and 9, intentionally obstructed him from during the work, thereby disobeyed the decree passed by this court. When he requested them, they threatened Dhr by saying that they will not allow him to cultivate in the

EP schedule land. Such acts are stated to be in clear violation of the judgment and decree dated 11-03-2024 in O.S. No.421/2023.

4.It is further stated that a he filed complaint before Paloncha Town

Police and a case in Crime No.263/2024 was registered, but no action was initiated against Jdr No.1,3,7 and 9, and that he was advised to obtain police protection orders from this Court. Hence, the present petition is filed seeking arrest of J.Drs Nos.1, 3, 7 and 9 and to commit them to civil prison for disobedience of decree. Hence the petition.

Page 3 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

5.After registering the EP, notices was issued to JDr No.1,3,7 and 9.

They received the same, but did not appear before this court. Hence Jdr

No.1,3,7 and 9 were set exparte on 09-08-2024.

6.During enquiry, the decree holder himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2.

7.Heard the learned Counsel for decree holder.

8.Perused the record.

9.Now the point germane for my determination is “whether the

judgment debtors No. .1,3,7 and 9 violated the decree passed by

this Court, and if so, whether they are liable to be imprisoned” ?

P O I N T :

10. It is an undisputed fact that the decree holder filed the suit against judgment debtors for the relief of perpetual injunction and said suit was decreed against the judgment debtors restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the decree holder over the petition scheduled property and the decree was passed on 11-03-2024. It is also an undisputed fact that no appeal is preferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by this Court and thus it became final.

11.It is the evidence of PW-1 that even after passing of the decree, the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 trespassed into the petition schedule property on 02-07-2024 and obstructed his agricultural

Page 4 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

operations. In support of oral testimony of PW-1, the decree holder got exhibited documentary evidence under Exs.P-1 and P-2. Ex.P-1 is certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No.263/2024,dated:02-07-2023, Ex.P-2 is certified copy of FIR vide Cr.No.372/2025,dated:04-10-2025. It is settled law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. This

Execution Petition is filed for disobedience of the decree.

12. In the case on hand, the decree holder is contending that the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 are interfering with their possession.

The evidence of PW-1 along with Ex.P1 and P2 are consistent, cogent and trustworthy. Further the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 failed to appear before this court. On the other hand, as stated above, the decree was passed in favour of the decree holder and no appeal is preferred against it. The decree passed by this Court should not be remained as a paper tiger and it shall be binding on the parties thereto and the parties thereto shall obey it.

13.On careful scrutiny of the testimonies of PW-1 with Ex.P1 and P2 in a gamut, it is evident that the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 trespassed into the petition schedule property and also object the decree holder from performing the agricultural operations and thereby the judgment debtors No..1,3,7 and 9 violated the decree passed by this

Court. According to Sub Rule-(1) of Rule-32 of Order XXI of CPC, if the party against whom a decree for an injunction, has been passed, has

Page 5 of 6

E.P.No. 159 of 2024 in Dated: 17.04.2026

O.S.No. 421 of 2023

willfully failed to obey the same, then that party be detained in civil prison. In this case, it is crystal clear that the judgment debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9 willfully disobeyed the decree passed by this Court and hence, they are liable to be detained in civil prison. This point is answered accordingly.

IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed. Issue warrant of arrest under Order-XXI Rule-32 of C.P.C., against the Judgment Debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9, on payment of process, and bring the judgment debtors

No..1,3,7 and 9 before the Court. Call on 04-05-2026

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April 2026.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Decree holder On behalf of Judgment debtors PW-1Chandra venkateswarlu:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DECREE HOLDER

Sl.No. Date of Document Description of Document

Ex.P-102.07.2024CC of FIR vide Cr. No.263 of 2024

Ex.P-204.10.2025CC of FIR vide Cr. No.372 of 2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR JUDGMENT DEBTORS

:: NIL :: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 6 of 6

E.P.No.154 OF 2024 in OS NO.328 OF 2021 Date:17-04-2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTHAGUDEM

(Friday, the 17th day of April, 2026)

PRESENT

SMT A.SUCHARITHA

Prl. Junior Civil Judge – cum - Judl. Magistrate of First Class , Kothagudem

E.P.No.154 OF 2024

in

O.S.NO.328 OF 2021

Between: Sunkara Nageswara Rao, S/o: Late Ramulu, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.9-1-40/1, Gattaigudem, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …Decree Holder AND

Voguri Satyanaryana, S/o:Venkanna, Age: 53 years, Occ: JPA in KTPS, ID No.1050768, R/o:Q.No.H-32,Intermediate Colony, KTPS, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothaguem District. ...Judgment Debtor

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri B.Chiranjeevi Rao Counsel for the Decree Holder and Sri Lakkineni

Satyanarayana, counsel for the Judgment Debtor, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this date, this court passed the following:

-: O R D E R :-

This is a petition filed by the Decree Holder to issue warrant of attachment of salary Under Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC against Judgment

Debtor for realization of decretal amount together with future interest and costs in the interest of Justice.

2.The brief averments of the Affidavit are as follows: It is the contention of DHr that inspite of the decree passed by this Court, the J.Dr 1

E.P.No.154 OF 2024 in OS NO.328 OF 2021 Date:17-04-2026.

has not paid the decretal amount and is intentionally avoiding payment.

That J.Dr is working as a PA in BTPS, Emp ID No.1050768 and is drawing a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. In spite of having sufficient means, the decretal amount has not been paid. Hence prays to allow the petition.

3.The brief averments of the Counter are as follows:

JDR filed counter denying the material allegations made in the affidavit and further submitted that no amount was borrowed by the J.Dr from the

D.Hr and not acquainted with DHr. The present E.P has been filed only to harass the J.Dr and to wrongfully attach his salary. He further submitted that a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month is being deducted from the salary of the

J.Dr. by the garnishee apart from other deductions, resulting in a meager salary and causing severe financial hardship in maintaining his family and children’s education, there being no other source of income. It is further submitted that the calculation particulars are false and the suit promissory note is alleged to be forged and fabricated in collusion with attestors. Hence requested to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard counsel for DHR and JDR.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief

as prayed for?

Point:-

6. It is the contention of the DHR that the present Execution Petition is filed for recovery of the decretal amount against J.Dr, and that J.Dr is working as a PA in BTPS, Emp ID No.1050768 and is drawing a salary of 2

E.P.No.154 OF 2024 in OS NO.328 OF 2021 Date:17-04-2026.

Rs.1,20,000/- per month as such he has sufficient means to satisfy the decretal amount. But, inspite of having such sufficient means, J.Dr has intentionally failed to pay the decretal amount. Hence, requested to allow the petition.

On the other hand, J.Dr filed counter denying the material allegations made in the affidavit and contended that he has not borrowed any amount from the DHR and is not acquainted with him. It is further contended that the present E.P. has been filed only to harass him and to wrongfully attach his salary. He further contended that a sum of Rs.65,000/- per month is being deducted from his salary by the garnishee apart from other deductions, resulting in a meager salary and causing severe financial hardship in maintaining his family and children’s education, there being no other source of income. He also contended that the calculation particulars are false and the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated in collusion with attestors, and prayed to dismiss the petition.

On perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the J.Dr, except making the above said allegations in the counter, has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his contentions. No material is placed before this Court to show that such huge deductions are being made from his salary or that the promissory note is forged and fabricated. On the other hand, the DHR has filed the judgment passed by this court in O.S No. 228 of 2021, and he specifically stated that

J.Dr is working in BTPS and drawing sufficient salary to satisfy the decretal amount, which has not been effectively rebutted by the J.Dr.

3

E.P.No.154 OF 2024 in OS NO.328 OF 2021 Date:17-04-2026.

In view of the material available on record and in the absence of any proof produced by J.Dr to establish his contentions, this Court is of the opinion that the DHR has established his claim against J.Dr and therefore the DHR is entitled for the relief sought in the petition. Accordingly, the point is answered.

In the result, this E.P. is allowed and thereby the salary attachment warrant issued against Judgment Debtor under Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC is made absolute. Garnishee of JDr is directed to deduct the salary strictly by following Sec.60 CPC. There by this EP is closed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of April 2026.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For DHR For JDRS

-Nil--Nil-

Exhibits Marked

-NIL-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-Cum,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem.

4

TSBK020002962025

Presented on : 06-02-2025 Registered on : 28-02-2025 Decided on : 03-03-2025 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 25 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem. (Presided Over by K Sai Sri)

CC/201/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

STATE OF TELANGANA

Through Police Station Officer Mulakalapally 7, Mulkalapalli Palvoncha Circle Igp, Warangal Region Bhadradri Kothagudem

KHAMMAM

STATE OF TELANGANA

VERSUS : Ravi Madakam Age: 24 Occupation : 00Gundalapadu,Pathagundalapadu,Patha Gundalapadu,Mulakalapally,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM,TELANGANA 2:Jogaiah Madivi Age: 54 Occupation : 00Pathagundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

3:Somudu Vanjjam Age: 25 Occupation : 00Pathagundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

4:Srinu Madavi Age: 22 Occupation : 00Patha Gundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Patha Gundalapadu Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

5:Irmaiah Madivi Age: 24 Occupation : 00Patha Gundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Patha Gundalapadu Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

6:Andaiah Sode Age: 24 Occupation : 00Patha Gundalapadu Pathagundalapadu Patha Gundalapadu Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

7:Prabhakar Janagani Age: 35 Occupation : 00Thimmampeta colany Thimmampeta colony Thimmampeta colany Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

8:Mahesh Kola Age: 25 Occupation : 00Thimmampeta colany Thimmampeta colony Thimmampeta colany Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Ravi Madakam Advocate ,

Offence punishable under : 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act,

ORDER

In view of National Lok-Adalath. This case is advanced to today. A-1 to A-8 called present and they are identified by the Police Constable concerned. Copies of case documents are furnished to them. A-1 to A-8 are examined under Sec.274 BNSS., and the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence under Secs.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act is read over and explained the accused, for which they pleaded guilty. This Court warned the accused and informed them about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by them. Even then the Accused admitted their guilt. Hence, this Court feels that the guilt pleaded by the A-1 to A-8 is true and voluntary. A-1 to A-8 are heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. They prayed the Court to take lenient view as it was first offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and voluntary admission of Accused, this Court feels that if fine amount is imposed against the Accused, it would meet the ends of sentence. IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-8 are found guilty for the offence under Sec.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act and as such, they are convicted under Sec.275 of BNSS. Accordingly, the A-1 to A-8 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs………../- (Rupees only) each, for the offence under Sec.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month each. The case property deposited vide CPR No.04/2025, ie., seized cash of Rs.3000/- shall be confiscated to the State, seized (4) cocks i.e., (2) cocks was died and Police Mulakalapally filed PME report, (02) two cocks auction amount of Rs.1600/-, shall be confiscated to the state, the total amount of Rs.4,600/- in the shape of FDR bearing No.43852289151 shall be confiscated to the State and (02) Lova

Keypad Mobile Phone and Peace kepyad mobile phone shall be returned its owners on proof of ownership and acknowledgment. Total Fine comes to :Rs.8000/- .

Date : 03-03-2025 (K Sai Sri)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK020002522025

Presented on : 30-01-2025 Registered on : 28-02-2025 Decided on : 03-03-2025 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem.

(Presided Over by K Sai Sri)

CC/199/2025

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION):

STATE OF TELANGANA

Through Police Station Officer Mulakalapally 209, Mulkalapalli Palvoncha Circle Igp, Warangal Region Bhadradri Kothagudem

KHAMMAM

STATE OF TELANGANA

VERSUS : Muttaiah Panuganti Age: 48 Occupation : ThottipampuThottipampu,Thottipampu,Thottipampu,Annapureddypalli,BHADRAD

RI KOTHAGUDEM,TELANGANA

2:Seetharamulu Ravula Age: 50 Occupation : SubbanapallySubbanapally Subbanapalli Subbanapally Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

3:Nagendra Babu Korri Age: 32 Occupation : GuttagudemGuttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

4:krishna Uke Age: 30 Occupation : GuttagudemGuttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

5:Ramesh Cherige Age: 35 Occupation : RamchandrapuramRamchandrapuram Ramchandrapuram Ramchandrapuram Ramchandrapuram Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

6:Mallaiah Banne Age: 42 Occupation : RamachandrapuramRamachandrapuram Ramachandrapuram Ramchandrapuram Ramachandrapuram Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

7:Suresh Vuka Age: 23 Occupation : GuttagudemGuttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGANA

8:Vijay Kattam Age: 22 Occupation : GuttagudemGuttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Guttagudem Mulakalapally

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

TELANGAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Muttaiah Panuganti Advocate ,

Offence punishable under : 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act, 9(ii) of The Telangana Gaming Act,

ORDER

In view of National Lok-Adalath. This case is advanced to today. A-1 to A-8 called present and they are identified by the Police Constable concerned. Copies of case documents are furnished to them. A-1 to A-8 are examined under Sec.274 BNSS., and the substance of accusation leveled against them for the offence under Secs.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act is read over and explained the accused, for which they pleaded guilty. This Court warned the accused and informed them about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by them. Even then the Accused admitted their guilt. Hence, this Court feels that the guilt pleaded by the A-1 to A-8 is true and voluntary. A-1 to A-8 are heard with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against them. They prayed the Court to take lenient view as it was first offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and voluntary admission of Accused, this Court feels that if fine amount is imposed against the Accused, it would meet the ends of sentence. IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-8 are found guilty for the offence under Sec.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act and as such, they are convicted under Sec.275 of BNSS. Accordingly, the A-1 to A-8 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs………../- (Rupees only) each, for the offence under Sec.9(ii) of T.S.Gaming Act, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (1) one month each. The case property deposited vide CPR No.04/2025, ie., seized cash of Rs.3000/- shall be confiscated to the State, seized (4) cocks i.e., (2) cocks was died and Police Mulakalapally filed PME report, (02) two cocks auction amount of Rs.1600/-, shall be confiscated to the state, the total amount of Rs.4,600/- in the shape of FDR bearing No.43852289151 shall be confiscated to the State and (02) Lova Keypad Mobile Phone and Peace kepyad mobile phone shall be returned its owners on proof of ownership and acknowledgment. Total Fine comes to :Rs.8000 .

Date : 03-03-2025 (K Sai Sri)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.