1 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK
APVS0C0003632022
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: AT Gajuwaka
Present: - Sri. A.Ramesh, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anakapalle, FAC/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gajuwaka
Tuesday, this the 02nd day of December, 2025
O.S.269/2022
Between:
Sri. Thadi Babu Rao S/o Late Lakshmayya, aged 71 years, R/o D.No.32- 10-20, Road No.5, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Sheelanagar, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam.
… Plaintiff And:
Smt. Cheepurupalli Satyavathi, W/o. Satya Rao, aged about 58 years, Resident of Flat No.65/66, East Face, Seeta Rama Gardens, Backside of Tulasi Gardens, Near 2nd Rly. Crossing Bridge, Sattivanipalem, Sheelanagar, Visakhapatnam District. … Defendant
This suit came up before me on 25.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R Appa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant was called absent and set ex-parte and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. This suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.6,76,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and seventy six thousand only) being the balance of principal and interest due on promissory note dt. 31.01.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of 2 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.
2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:
2.1) It is the case of the plaintiff is that on 31-01-2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff by way of cash for his family needs and the defendant executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% PA to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submit that the defendant not repaid the borrowed amount inspite of several remainders/demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant intentionally avoiding to repay the borrowed amount to avoid the liability with malafide intention. On 14-06-2022 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant and same was received by the defendant on 16-06-2022, the defendant did not pay any amount nor issued any reply to him. The defendant is not an agriculturist or an artisan and hence he is not entitled for any of the debt laws either under Act IV of 1938 or under Act VII of 1977.
Hence the Suit.
3. The defendant filed his written statement denying the main and material allegations made in the plaint and he further contended that she never borrowed any amount at any point of time from the Plaintiff and she never executed the said Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff. In fact, in the year 2017, the her son, by name Chipurupalli Satish, borrowed a loan amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) from one Narayana Rao and executed
Blank Promissory note and Blank Cheque bearing Cheque No:091589.
Further, the said Narayana Rao who organizes unauthorized Chit fund business suggested the Defendant's son to subscribe the Chit and to clear the debt amount. Accordingly, the Defendant and her son subscribed to Two Chits of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each. The Defendant and her son 3 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK had regularly paid the installments. After bidding the Two Chits and receiving the Prized Subscription, the said Narayana Rao (i.e., foreman in the Chit subscription) took Promissory note from this Defendant as a Security towards future subscriptions till completion of Chit Fund Period. The Debt amount which was borrowed by the Defendant's son in the year 2017, was also duly cleared by the Defendant's son. The Chit Period is completed and the Defendant and her son paid the entire Chit Amount. Even after clearing the Chit Amount and the said Debt Amount, the said Narayana Rao did not choose to return the Two
Blank Promissory notes and Cheque bearing Cheque No:091589 to this
Defendant or her son. The said Narayana Rao stated that those Two Blank
Promissory notes and Blank Cheque were mis-placed somewhere and mixed- up with other papers and the said Narayana Rao further assured that he will return back the same as and when traced. Nevertheless, he did not return back the same to the Defendant's son and having belief on him the Defendant's son did not insist him. Further she did not signe on any Promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff. The above said Narayana Rao colluded with the Plaintiff, who is another foreman in another Chit business. They both hatched a plan and filed the above suit with all false and frivolous allegations for Wrongful Gain from the
Defendant. The said Promissory note is also concocted one in Plaintiff's favour with the help of their henchmen to cause inconvenience and harassment to the her. She does not know the Plaintiff personally and there is no negotiable debt between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. So there is no relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as Creditor and Debtor, irrespective of the Suit
Promissory note. The alleged Promissory note is a concocted and fabricated document. This suit is not maintainable on the basis on the Promissory note and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of rank concocted. The defendant further contended that the Plaintiff filed another case against the
Defendant's son by name Chipurupalli Satish in O.S.No. 268 of 2022 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka for recovery of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees 4 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK
Thirteen Lakhs Only) on the strength of above said Blank Promissory note and
Cheque. The same is pending in this Court. The Defendant's son approached the said Narayana Rao immediately after receipt of summons in both cases.
The said Narayana Rao assured the Defendant's son that he will look after the issue and withdraw the cases. She further contended that she lodged
Complaint with Pendurthi Police Station on 29-09-2022 against this Plaintiff and said Narayana Rao and the same is under investigation. The Defendant submits that there is no contractual obligation between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant to repay the alleged amount, as such this Defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff. Thereby the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:
1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?
3) To what relief?
5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A4. On behalf of the defendant, inspite of granting sufficient time and conditional order, the defendant tfailed to adduce her evidence, hence defendant’s evidence was closed.
6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and that inspite of giving sufficient time and conditional order, the defendant failed to turn up for cross- examination. It seems that he has no interest to proceed with the matter.
Hence, the chief-examination of defendant is closed.
7.Perused the material available on record.
5 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK
8.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- on 31.01.2021 to meet the family expenses and executed a demand promissory note on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Inspite of several demands and issuence of notice, the defendant failed to discharge the same.
9.It is the case of the defendant that she never borrowed any amount at any point of time and as such the question of borrowing amount from the plaintiff and execution of promissory note on 31-01-2021 does not arise at all and the same is created by the plaintiff in order to extract money from her and the signature appears on the promissory note is not belonging to her and the same is forged by the plaintiff. In the year 2017, her son, by name
Chipurupalli Satish, borrowed a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) from one Narayana Rao and executed Blank Promissory note and
Blank Cheque bearing Cheque No:091589. Further, the said Narayana Rao who organizes unauthorized Chit fund business suggested the Defendant's son to subscribe the Chit and to clear the debt amount. Accordingly, the Defendant and her son subscribed to Two Chits of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each. The Defendant and her son had regularly paid the installments. After bidding the Two Chits and receiving the Prized Subscription, the said Narayana
Rao (i.e., foreman in the Chit subscription) took Promissory note from this
Defendant as a Security towards future subscriptions till completion of Chit
Fund Period. The Debt amount which was borrowed by the Defendant's son in the year 2017, was also duly cleared by the Defendant's son. The Chit Period is completed and the Defendant and her son paid the entire Chit Amount. Even after clearing the Chit Amount and the said debt Amount, the said Narayana
Rao did not choose to return the Two Blank Promissory notes and Cheque 6 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK bearing Cheque No:091589 to this Defendant or her son. The suit promissory note is a rank forged one. The alleged suit promissory note is not true, valid and binding on the defendant and it is not supported by any consideration.
10. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the contents of his plaint and the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.
5 lakhs on 31-01-2021. Since, it is a case filed by the plaintiff, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence
before this court.
11. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as
P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Original Demand promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 31-01-2021,
Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal notice dated 14-06-2022, Ex.P3 is the
Original Postal receipt dt 14-06-2022 and Ex.P4 is the Original
Acknowledgment of defendant dt.16-06-2022. On perusal of Ex.A.1 promissory note, it is manifest that the defendant executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 31-01-2021, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., When the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A.1, the presumption under Sec.118 of Negotiable
Instruments Act comes into play in favour of the plaintiff.
12. Now, it is the burden on the defendant to prove that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A.1 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by her. Though the defendant has taken the plea that the plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note and forged her signature in
Ex.A.1 and got filed this suit for wrongful gain, she could take any steps to 7 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK prove her plea of forgery and she failed to adduce any supporting evidence or filed any scrap of paper to that effect also.
13. Further more the defendant failed to cross examine the PW.1 and failed to adduce her evidence inspite of giving sufficient time and conditional order. It seems that she has no intention to proceed with the matter. At this stage, I have gone through the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao and another in AIR 1999 SC 144 wherein, it is held that the presumption can be drawn against the party who did not enter into the witness box to presume that he pleads incorrect. When a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case taken by him is not correct. Further the presumption under
Sec. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act can be wide, but a plea set up by the defendant is false and cannot be looked into.
14.The above case law is squarely applicable to the present case on our hand. In our present case also, the defendant failed to enter into the witness box to offer herself for cross-examination. In this case, the plaintiff proved her case with right evidence with the support of Ex.A.1 to A4.
15.In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 31- 01-2021 and subsequently the defendant failed to discharge the same and that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim. Accordingly, these three issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff.
8 O.S.269/2022 JCJ/GWK
ISSUE NO.3:
16.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum Rs.6,76,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and seventy six thousand only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-G-III on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2nd day of November, 2025.
sd/-A.Ramesh
I Addl Civil Judge(Junior Division)
Anakapalli.
FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division),Gajuwaka
Appendix of evidence
No. of witnesses examined for
Plaintiff: Defendant:
P.W.1 … Smt Thadi Babu Rao none
No. of exhibits marked for
Plaintiff: Defendant:
Nil Ex.A.1 … Original promissory note dt.31.01.2021
Ex.A2 is the office copy of Legal notice dated 14-06-2022,
Ex.P3 is the Original Postal receipt dt 14-06-2022
Ex.P4 is the Original Acknowledgment of defendant dtd.16-06-2022.
Sd/- A.Ramesh
I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), .Anakapalle. FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division),Gajuwaka