Smt.a.sunitha Rani

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR.

Present: Smt. A.Sunitha Rani, Prl. J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C., Narsapur.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2019.

O.S. No. 36 OF 2017

Between

State bank of India, Seetharamapuram Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Seetharamapuram, Narasapur Mandal, NPJCJC. … Plaintiff.

AND

Sadhanala Maha Lakshmi, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Aged 60 yrs., Female, Property House No. 19-25-1/4, Ward No. 30, H/o. Reddy Colony, Bhimavaram. … Defendant.

* * *

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Satya Krishna, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri L.Venkateswaru,learned Advocate for Defendant, and upon perusing the evidence and material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed u/Sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of money of Rs.1,38,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight

Thousand only) being the principal and interest due on the loan availed by the defendant from the plaintiff bank on 27.06.2012, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is a

Banking Company constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955 having its Central Office at Mumbai, Local Head Office at Hyderabad,

Zonal Office at Vijayawada and one of its branch at Seetharamapuram

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.2

of Narasapuram Mandal. On 27.06.2012, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff-Bank for agricultural production loan of Rs.1,00,000/- with an application agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11.30% half yearly rests as per the terms and conditions of the plaintiff bank and executed requisite documents. The defendant also executed an agreement of hypothecation of standing crop raised or to be raised in an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in R.S.No.324-1P, 324-2 of K.P. Palem,

Mogalthur Mandal towards collateral security for the loan amount granted by the plaintiff bank. Then the plaintiff-Bank sanctioned loan to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Defendant with interest at the rate of 11.30% at half-yearly rests on a condition that the defendant is bound to pay interest as per the rates stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Subsequently the loan of the defendant was renewed on to facilitate the repayment, but the defendant committed default in payment of loan outstanding together with interest thereof inspite of demands and issuance of legal notice dt.05.12.2015 except renewed on in order to facilitate the repayment.

It is further submitted that the hypothecation of the crops raised or to be raised in the schedule property is a continuous security for the loan granted by the plaintiff, that the provisions of A.P. Debt Relief Laws do not apply to the suit loan transaction and that the interest claimed by the plaintiff is neither usurious nor penal when compared to the interest as charged by the other financial institutions. As such, the plaintiff bank constrained to file the present suit. Hence, the suit.

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.3

[3.] After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and admitted that the plaintiff bank sanctioned the agriculture crop loan of Rs.1,00,000/-, subsequently defendant could not repay the loan amount due to natural calamities and later she repaid almost of the instalments to the plaintiff bank. Defendant further submitted that the plaintiff bank officials fabricated the revival letter dt. 30.03.2015 only to save limitation and the account copy filed by the plaintiff is not correct. Defendant further submitted that recently the Government cancelled the loans under “Runa Mafee

Padhakam” but the plaintiff bank has not followed the said G.O., and taking advantage of the custody of the blank papers containing her signatures, brought into existence of the same and filed the suit with false untenable allegations to gain unlawfully. Hence, defendant prays the Court to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.

[4.] Basing on the pleadings this court settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

3)To what relief?

[5.] Heard arguments.

[6.] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- During the course of trail, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and exhibited Application for

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.4

Agriculture Loan under K.C.C as Ex.A.1, Mortgage Commitment Letter executed by defendant as Ex.A.2, Loan arrangement letter as Ex.A.3,

True extract of Statement of Account No. 31912005708 as Ex.A.4,

Original Debt revival letter as Ex.A.5, Office copy of Legal Notice as

Ex.A.6, Postal Receipt suit promissory note dated 02-12-2012 as

Ex.A.7. On the other hand the defendant did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence.

[7] In his chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated his pleading in plaint and though opportunity provided, the defendant failed to avail the right of cross-examination and that cross-examination of P.W.1 is recorded as Nil.

[8.] ISSUES No.1 & 2:- It is the case of plaintiff that on 27.06.2012 the defendant obtained a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank and executed Ex.A.1 and A.2 documents agreeing to repay the same along with interest but failed to make the repayment. In order to prove this aspect the plaintiff adduced oral and documentary evidence. P.W.1 categorically deposed that Ex.A.1 and

A.2 documents were executed by the defendant. Since the defendant failed to cross-examine, the version claimed by P.W.1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, the defendant put forth some pleas that Government cancelled the loans under “Runa Mafee

Padhakam” and the plaintiff bank has not followed the said G.O, but the defendant failed to substantiate the same. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.7 the plaintiff proved his

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.5

case. Further as per Ex.A.5, this court feels that the suit is not barred by limitation.

[9.] Thus it is appearing that the plaintiff succeeded in discharging his burden and the defendant failed to prove his pleas and that this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for.

POINT No.3 :

[10.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.1,38,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand only) and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of April,

2019.

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : M. Subrahmanyam -- None – Deputy Manager.

O.S.No. 36/2017 Page No.6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/27.06.2012 : Application for Agriculture Loan under K.C.C. Ex.A2/27.06.2012 : Mortgage Commitment Letter executed by defendant Ex.A3/27.06.2012 : Loan arrangement letter Ex.A4/29.09.2016 : True extract of Statement of Account No.31912005708 Ex.A5/30.03.2015 : Original Debt revival letter Ex.A6/05.12.2015 : Office copy of Legal Notice. Ex.A7/07.12.2015 : Postal Receipt

FOR DEFENDANT:

-- Nil --

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur.

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR.

Present: Smt. A.Sunitha Rani, Prl. J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C., Narsapur.

Friday, this the 26th day of April, 2019.

O.S. No. 116 of 2017

Between

Moturi John Thomas, S/o. late John, Aged 58 years, Male, Christian, Cultivation, D.No.13-3/2-30/6, Near Thomas Bridge, Narasapuram Mandal, NPJCJC. … Plaintiff.

AND

Gundabathula Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Aged 51 years, Male, Field Operator, ONGC, D.No.8-9-8, Pusalavari Street, Narasapuram Mandal, NPJCJC. … Defendant.

* * *

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Muralidhara Rao, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff, and of Sri K.S. Manikyala Rao, Learned Advocate for Defendant, and upon perusing the evidence and material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed u/Sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of money of Rs.1,71,867/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One

Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Seven only) based on the promissory note dated 08.06.2014, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of the plaint are that on 08.06.2014, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh only) from the plaintiff for his family expenses and for the

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 2

marriage expenses of his daughter, and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum with yearly compound rests either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

[2.1.] Thereafter, inspite of several demands, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other and on 20.12.2015 defendant issued a cheque bearing No.258093 drawn on Andhra Bank,

Narasapuram for Rs.75,000/- towards part payment, and when the plaintiff deposited the said cheque into his banker, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement that “funds insufficient”. Then on 05.02.2016, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant demanding him to repay the cheque amount, but the defendant having received the said notice neither issued any reply nor paid the debt under the said promissory note. Therefore, the plaintiff obliged to file the present suit against the defendant. Hence, the suit.

[3.] After receipt of summons, the Defendant appeared before the court through his counsel and filed his written statement by denying all the material allegations of the plaint and further submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note, he has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff, he does not know either plaintiff or attestors and scribe of the suit promissory note, he never issued any cheque in favour of the plaintiff and that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one, and prayed to dismiss the suit.

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 3

[4.] Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

3.To what relief ?

[5.] In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 & A2 were marked. The defendant failed to adduce any oral and documentary evidence on his behalf, inspite of providing of opportunity.

[6.] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and one of the attestor/V.Chandra Sekhar Babji was examined as P.W.2 and got marked promissory note dated 08.06.2014, as Ex.A.1, Office copy of legal notice dated 05.02.2016 as Ex.A.2. As stated supra, the defendant failed to adduce any oral and documentary evidence on his behalf, inspite of providing reasonable opportunity.

[7.] Heard and perused the record. Now the issues are answered as under:

ISSUE Nos.1 AND 2 :

[8.] It is the case of plaintiff that on 08.06.2014, the defendant approached him and obtained hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- by executing

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 4

promissory note as Ex.A1 with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, on demand of plaintiff.

[9.] It is submitted that plaintiff despite making demand in writing as Ex.A2, the defendant failed to repay the principal amount covered under Ex.A1. It is observed that the learned Counsel for the defendant conducted cross-examination of P.W.1, and P.W.2 but nothing contrary appeared in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 so as to disbelieve the version of PW.1 & 2, for suggesting that the defendant has not executed the promissory note as in Ex.A1.

[10.] Corroborating the evidence of P.W.1, the attesting witness also supported the averments of P.W.1. It is also observed that defendant simply denied the Ex.A1, but failed to take any steps in order to challenge Ex.A1 is being false and fabricated document. As stated supra, the defendant failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of plaintiff. Therefore, with the evidence of plaintiff as

P.W.1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence of Exs. A.1 and

A.2, plaintiff proved the pleadings that defendant obtained hand loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 08.06.2014 covered under

Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest @ 24% per annum. Therefore, plaintiff proved that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. As such, plaintiff is entitled to suit claim against the defendant. Accordingly, Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff. It is relevant to mention here that in the plaint, the plaintiff made correction and calculated the suit claim

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 5

as Rs.1,71,867/- and also paid the court fee for the said amount only, but in the prayer portion in the plaint as well as in the chief affidavit of

P.W.1, the suit claim was mentioned as Rs.1,76,335/-. This court feels that as the plaintiff by calculating the suit amount as Rs.1,71,867/- and paid the court fee for the said amount, the plaintiff is entitled for

Rs.1,71,867/- only.

ISSUE No.3:- [11.] IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.1,71,867/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty

Seven only) and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26 th day of April,

2019.

Sd/- Smt. A. NITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : M.John Thomas -- None-- P.W.2 : V.Chandra Sekhar Babji

O.S.No. 116 of 2017 Page No. 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1/08.06.2014 : Promissory Note -- Nil – Ex.A2/05.02.2016 : Legal Notice.

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

O.S.No. 39/2019 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR.

Present: Smt. A.Sunitha Rani, Prl. J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C., Narsapur.

Monday, this the 29th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 39 OF 2019

Between

Yatam Guru Murty, S/o. Simhadri, Aged 25 yrs., Male, Hindu, Business, R/o. Kanchusthambham Palem, Elamanchili Mandal, West Godavari District, NJCJC … Plaintiff.

AND

Yandam Prasad Rao, S/o. Appala Naidu, Aged 37 years, Male, Hindu, Business, D.No. 21-2-43/1, Near Rajeev Gandhi Statue, Bangarauvari Cheruvu Gattu, Palakol-534260, West Godavari District, PJCJC … Defendant.

* * *

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.N. Surya Rao, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff, and the Defendant set exparte, and upon perusing the evidence and material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed under Sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of

C.P.C, for recovery of money of Rs.15,50,199/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs

Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine only) based on the promissory note dated 09.06.2016, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a

O.S.No. 39/2019 Page No.2

sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.06.2016 for his business purpose, family necessities and to discharge sundry debts, and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum with yearly compound rests. Subsequently, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant issued a cheque bearing

No. 525730 dt. 24.10.2018 for Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on Andhra Bank,

Palakol Branch, When the plaintiff deposited the said cheque for encashment with his banker, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement that “Insufficient funds.” Then the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 05.11.2018 demanding him to repay the amount, and the same was served to the defendant, but the defendant did not choose the repay the debt under the said pronote. As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

[3.] After receipt of summons, the defendant was called absent and he was remained exparte on 01.04.2019.

[4.] The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of the plaintiff one Kadali Asok Babu who is scribe of Ex.A1 Promissory Note was examined as PW2.

[5.] Heard arguments.

[6.] Now the point for consideration is – “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the

suit amount as prayed for and to what relief ?”

[7.] Perused the record and the documents shows that, with the help of Ex.A1, the plaintiff has discharged prima-facie burden casts

O.S.No. 39/2019 Page No.3

upon him by proving that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the Cheque bearing No.

525730, dt. 24.10.2018 for Rs.12,00,000/-, Ex.A3 is the Cheque

Return memo, Ex.A4 is the Office copy of Legal Notice, Ex.A5 is the

Postal Acknowledgement. Undoubtedly, it goes to show the failure of defendant to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands and legal notice.

[8.] The claim of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted, hence the suit claim is proved.

[9.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.15,50,199/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine only) and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only).

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of April,

2019.

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur.

O.S.No. 39/2019 Page No.4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Yatam Gurumurty Exparte P.W.2 : Kadali Asok Babu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/09.06.2016 : Promissory Note Ex.A2/24.10.2018 : Cheque bearing No.525730 for Rs.12,00,000/- Ex.A3/25.10.2018 : Cheque Return Memo Ex.A4/05.11.2018 : Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.A5/06.11.2018 : Postal Acknowledgement.

FOR DEFENDANT:

-- Nil --

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur.

1 of 3

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR.

Present: Smt. A.Sunitha Rani Prl. J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C., Narsapur.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 180 OF 2018

Between:-

Mohammed Sabiha, W/o. Mohammed Saleem, Aged 36 years, Female, Muslim, Islam, C/o. Mohammed Javeed, D.No.2-2-7, Y.S.R. Nagar, Narsapur, Narsapur Mandal, W.G.District, NPJCJC. … Plaintiff.

AND

Mohammed Saleem, S/o. Mohammed Shajahan, Aged 57 years, Male, Muslim, Islam, Production Supervisor, Atyab Bakery, P.O Box 638, Barka 320, Sultanate of Oman, U.A.E., … Defendant.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Sk. Iqbal Basha, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and the defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C, for grant of decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage held in between the plaintiff and defendant on 19-12-1993, and to award costs.

[2.] Succinctly stated the averments of plaint are like this; that the marriage in between plaintiff and defendant was held on 19.12.1993 at Narasapur as per the rites and customs prevailing in 2 of 3 their community. After marriage they lead marital life for one month, thereafter the defendant left to Gulf Country for employment. During their wedlock, plaintiff blessed with two sons by name Nihal Ahmad and Nizal Akram Mohiuddin. After the birth of second son, the defendant started behaving indifferently. In the month of April, 2017 the defendant visited to India during the death of his father at

Penugonda but he did not choose to visit the house of plaintiff and did not performed the marital obligations with the plaintiff. Again the defendant visited to India during Ramjan, but did not met the plaintiff, and on knowing the same the plaintiff got issued notice through

WhatsApp to defendant to fulfill his marital obligation and also sent the caste elders, but the defendant refused to visit plaintiff’s house and went to Gulf country. Thus the defendant failed to perform his marital obligations for the last 7 years without reasonable cause. Hence, the suit.

[3.] Basing on the plaint and the documents submitted along with it, the present suit was registered and process issued against the defendant. After receipt of summons, Sri U. Sharief Saheb, Advocate filed Vakalath on behalf of defendant, but failed to file written statement within stipulated time, hence the defendant was set exparte by order dated 04-04-2019.

[4.] To substantiate her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1, and exhibited Ex.A1 on her behalf. Ex.A.1 is legal notice dt.

29.05.2018.

[5.] Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now the point that arises for consideration is that; “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree of divorce by way of dissolution of marriage held in between the plaintiff and defendant on 19-12-1993?” 3 of 3 [7.] POINT:- In her chief affidavit P.W.1 reiterated her pleadings in plaint. The defendant though served with summons, did not choose to file written statement. Since the defendant remained exparte the version of the plaintiff remains unchallenged and un-rebutted, and hence the version of plaintiff proved and that she is entitled for decree of divorce.

[8.] IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by granting divorce to the plaintiff and defendant and the marital relationship in between plaintiff and defendant is hereby dissolved. Under the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and the

operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 30 th day of April, 2019 under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Mohammed Sahiba Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.A1/29.05.2019 : Office copy of Legal Notice -- Nil –

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

O.S.No. 49/2019 Page No.1

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: NARSAPUR.

Present: Smt. A.Sunitha Rani, Prl. J.C.J-cum-J.M.F.C., Narsapur.

Thursday, this the 25th day of April, 2019

O.S. No. 49 OF 2019

Between

Pilli Raja Sekhar, S/o. late Ramadasu, Male, 45 years, Christian, Cultivation, D.No.2-33, Beside J.Sikile School, Narasapuram Town, W.G.Dist., NPJCJC … Plaintiff

AND

Manda Anand Kumar, S/o. Sundara Rao, Male, 40 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.15-1-38, Mary Nivas, M.H.School Road, Royapeta, Narasapur-534275, W.G.Dist., NPJCJC … Defendant * * *

This suit came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Joseph, Learned Advocate for Plaintiff, and the Defendant set exparte, and upon perusing the evidence and material available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed u/Sec. 26 r/w Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of money of ` 1,48,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand only) based on the promissory note dated 05.07.2016, and to award costs.

[2.] The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of ` 1,00,000/- on 05.07.2016 for family expenses and to discharge sundry debts, and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with the interest @ `2/- per hundred per month with yearly rests. Subsequently, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to discharge the liability under the promissory note

O.S.No. 49/2019 Page No.2

and that plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 14.01.2019 and the same was served to the defendant. But the defendant did not choose to repay the said debt and got replied with untenable allegations. As such, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

[3.] After receipt of summons, the defendant was called absent and he was remained exparte on 16.04.2019.

[4.] The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A3.

[5.] Heard arguments.

[6.] Now the point for consideration is –

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount as prayed for and to what relief ?” [7.] Perused the record and the documents shows that, with the help of

Ex.A1, the plaintiff has discharged prima-facie burden casts upon him by proving that the defendant borrowed an amount of ` 1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note (Ex.A1) in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal Notice, Ex.A3 is the Office copy of reply notice got issued by the defendant. Undoubtedly, it goes to show the failure of defendant to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff in spite of repeated demands and legal notice.

[8.] The claim of the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted, hence the suit claim is proved.

[9.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of ` 1,48,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty

Eight Thousand only) and subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of

O.S.No. 49/2019 Page No.3

decree till the date of realization, on principal sum of ` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh only).

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Pilli Raja Sekhar Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/05.07.2016 : Promissory Note Ex.A2/14.01.2019 : Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.A3/31.01.2019 : Office copy of Reply Notice

FOR DEFENDANT:-- Nil –

Sd/- Smt. A. SUNITHA RANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narsapur