B. Devendra Reddy

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

OS No.317/2020

Between:

Shaik Fhayaz .... Plaintif

AND

1) Shaik Shameem

2) Shaik Masthan

3) Shaik Sadik ... Defendants

This suit came before me on 10-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri

G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate for defendants 1 and 3, and 2nd defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of plaintif counsel and upon perusing the material papers on record, 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 on behalf of plaintif against the estate of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani which is in the hands of defendants with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.3,25,600/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note dated 01-05-2018 said to be executed by shaik Mahaboob Subhani in favour of plaintif having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that Shaik

Mahaboob Subhani during his life time had borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- 2 from the plaintif on 01-05-2018 and executed suit promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with intrest at 24% per annum, inspite of repeated demands the said Subhani did not discharge the suit promissory note amount and he died on 15-10-2020 intestate, leaving behind him, his wife and children i.e., defendants 1 to 3. It is further averred that after the demise of said Subhani the plaintif had demanded the defendants 1 to 3 by issuing legal notice dated 04-12-2020 to pay the amount due under suit promissory note, but in vain. Hence the suit.

[3.]The brief averment of the written statement filed by the defendant are that the relationship mentioned in the plaint in between the defendants and Shaik Mahaboob Subhani is correct, but the allegations that Subhani on 01-05-2018 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintif without discharging the said debt he died intestate and his estate devolved upon the defendants are false and incorrect.

i) It is further averred that the plaintif has no capacity to lend such huge money to late Subhani. There is no need to said

Subhani to borrow Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif. The said Subhani never borrowed money from the plaintif. Late Subhani did not inform the defendants that he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif. The said suit promissory note is not true and it is not supported by consideration. The plaintif has to put strict proof of the debt as well as the suit promissory note. A reply notice was given by the defendants.

The defendants need not pay the suit amount. The interest claimed by the plaintif is usurious and abnormal. The plaintif is not entitled to the said interest. These defendants are not in possession of the estate 3 of Subhani. The plaintif claims to be an employee without obtaining the permission of his employer, he cannot lend money and it is against the code of conduct and its regulations and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

[4.] Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial;

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

3) Whether the interest claimed by plaintif is usurious and abnormal ?

4) To what relief?

[5.] During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintif, plaintif himself is examined as P.W1, 2nd attestor is examined as P.W2, first attestor is examined as P.W.3 and scribe is examined as P.W.4 of

Ex.A1 promissory note. On behalf of defendant, 3rd defendant is examined as DW1 and a witness is examined as DW2 and Ex.B1 is marked.

[6.] Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintif. No representation for defendant. Arguments were not advanced on behalf of defendant. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE No1: Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and

binding on the defendant?

[7.]Since the suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of Rs.3,25,600/- basing on suit promissory note 4

dated 01-05-2018 said to be executed by Shaik Mahaboob Subhani for

Rs.2,00,000/-, the burden lies on the plaintif to establish lending money to said Subhani by him and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by said

Subhani in his favour. In order to prove the said aspects, the plaintif himself is examined as PW1 and attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 is examined as Pws 2 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. The plaintif who is examined as PW1 filed his chief examination afidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- on 01- 05-2018 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, in spite of repeated demands,

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani did not choose to repay the due amount during his life time and he died on 15-10-2020. In the cross examination, PW1 stated that at the time of execution of Ex.A1 promissory note five persons were present. Even PW1 is cross examined nothing material is elicited in favour of plaintif and to discard the testimony of PW1. In support of evidence of PW1, the plaintif got examined the 2nd attestor as PW2, first attstor as PW3 and scribe as PW4 of Ex.A1 promissory note. Pws 2 to 4 categorically deposed that on 01-05-2018 Shaik Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, later the said Shaik

Mahaboob Suhani did not repay the suit promissory note amount during his life time to plaintif and he died. PWs.2 to 4 further deposed that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in their presence . In the cross examination PW2 stated that he is the second attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note. He denied a suggestion that no money transaction was taken place between Mahaboob Subhani and plaintif in his presence under Ex.A1 promissory note. PW2 denied a suggestion that 5

Mahaboob Subhani did not borrow Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif under Ex.A1 promissory note. PW2 further denied a suggestion that no transaction had taken place between Mahaboob Subhani and plaintif in his presence under Ex.A1 promissory note. PW3 stated that on 01-05- 2018 Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif, the money transaction had taken place between the plaintif and Mahaboob

Subhani, in the house of plaintif at Narasaraopet, at the time five persons were present, after receiving amount by the Mahaboob

Subhani Ex.A1 promissory note was scribed by one Karimulla and he signed on it as an attestor, immediately after execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. PW4 stated in the cross examination that Ex.A1 promissory note was written in the house of plaintif and he scribed it on the request of Mahaboob Subhani. PW4 further stated that on 01- 05-2018 Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif in his presence under Ex.A1 promissory note. After scribing the promissory note Mahaboob Subhani signed on it twice, Gouse Peer,

Dariya Vali signed on it as attestors. Even Pws 2 to 4 are cross examined nothing material is elicited in favour of defendants and to discard their testimony. Pws 2 to 4 consistently deposed that the

Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif and entire transaction had taken place in their presence and also the said

Mahaboob Subhani singed on Ex.A1 promissory note in their presence.

The evidence of Pws 2 to 4 is corroborating in all aspects with the evidence of PW1.

[8.] In support of the evidence of Pws 1 to 4, the plaintif also got marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note it discloses that the Shaik Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed it in favour of 6 plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

Ex.A1 promissory note contains the signatures of Pws.2, 3 as attestors and PW4 as scribe and also the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani as a borrower. Ex.A1 promissory note further discloses that Shaik

Mahaboob Subhani had received cash of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed it in favour of plaintif. So, from the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, it can be said that Shaik

Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed it in favour of plaintif and plaintif passed consideration to

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani under Ex.A1 promissory note.

[9.]In order to rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintif and to prove the contention of defendants, the son of Shaik Mahaboob

Subhani is examined as DW1, he filed his chief examination afidavit, he deposed that his father never executed any promissory note and there is no need to borrow Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif. The said promissory note is not true and is not supported by consideration. DW1 further deposed that the plaintif forged his father’s signature and filed this suit against them and prayed to dismiss the suit.

[10.] The defendants had not taken a plea that the plaintif forged the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani. The main contention of defendants is that the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. Even in Ex.B1 reply notice also the defendants had not stated that the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani on Ex.A.1 promissory note is a forged one. So, deposing DW1 that the plaintif forged the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani and filed this suit is of no use. Even though the defendants have taken a plea in the written statement that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani did not borrow amount and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration, in the cross 7 examination of PW1 it is suggested by the learned counsel for the defendants that during life time of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani had discharged the promissory note amount to him but he did not return the promissory note to him, after demise of Mahaboob Subhani and he filed this suit against his legal heirs to get wrongful gain and he further suggest to Pws 1 to 4 that defendants credited the suit promissory note amount to the account number given by him to them. From the above suggestion it is clear that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani borrowed amount from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif. Besides the said suggestion of learned counsel for defendants, the plaintif also himself is examined as PW1 and also by examining the attetors as Pws. 2 and 3 and scribe as P.W.4 and by marking Ex.A1 promissory note that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani borrowed amount on 01- 05-2018 and executed it in favour of plaintif, later during the life time of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani he did not discharge the suit promissory note amount and after his demise his legal heirs ie, defendants 1 to 3 did not discharge the suit promissory note amount to plaintif.

[11.]The 3rd defendant who is son of Shaik Mahaboob

Subhani is examined as DW1 he deposed that his father did not borrow amount under Ex.A1 promissory note and it is not supported by consideration. He denied a suggestion that even though his father

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif and knowing the same he is deposing false to avoid the debt of plaintif.

[12.] The defendants also examined a witness as DW2, he deposed that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani is their family friend and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani on Ex.A1 promissory note is a 8 forged signature. In the cross examination Dw2 stated that he has no idea about the name of the sister and brother of Shaik Mahaboob

Subhani. Since DW2 does not know the names of sister and brother of

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani, it is not believable one that DW2 is the family friend of said Mahaboob Subhani. If really DW2 is the family friend of

Mahaboob Subhani definitely he would have stated the names of sister and brother of Mahaboob Subhani. As already stated supra it is not the case of the defendant that the signature of Shaik Mahaboob

Subhani on Ex.A1 promissory note is forged signature. So, even DW2 stated that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is not that of the signature of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani is of no use. Even the son of

Shaiki Mahaboob Subhani is examined as DW1 and a witness is examined as DW2 their evidence does not inspire confidence that the

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani did not borrow Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif under Ex.A1 promissory note. On the other hand the evidence adduced by the plaintif as Pws 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A3 inspires confidence that Shaik Mahaboob Subhani borrowed amount from the plaintif and he executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of plaintif and the suit promissory note is a true valid and binding on defendants 1 to 3 who are legal representatives of Shaik Mahaboob Subhani. Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against defendant.

ISSUE No.2: Whether the suit promissory note is not supported

by consideration?

[13.]In view of the foregoing reasons on issue No.1 this court holds that the suit promissory note is supported by consideration.

Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against defendant.

ISSUE No.3: Whether the interest claimed by plaintifff is

usurious and abnormal?

[11.]The defendants have taken a plea in the written 9 statement that the interest claimed by the plaintif is usurious and abnormal. Except taking the said plea the defendants did not adduce any evidence or did not say how the interest claimed by the plaintif is usurious and abnormal. The plaintif claimed the interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which amount was borrowed by Shaik Mahaboob Subhani under Ex.A1 promissory note.

In Ex.A1 promissory note the said Shaik Mahaboob Subhani agreed to pay the interest at 24% on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. So, the interest claimed by the plaintif at 24% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- which amount was borrowed by Shaik Mahaboob Subhani under Ex.A1 promissory note is not usurious and abnormal.Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintif and against defendant.

ISSUE No.4: To what relief ?

[12.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of late Shaik Mahaboob Subhani which is in the hands of defendants, for a sum of Rs.3,25,600/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for:

Plaintif:Defendant:

P.W.1: Shaik FhayazDW1: Shaik Said

P.W2: Shaik Dariya ValiD.W.2 Mudeshwara Shashank

P.W3: Shaik Chandavaram Gouse Peer 10

P.W4: Shaik Karimulla Documents marked for Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 01-05-2018 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A2: Ofice copy of registered legal notice dated 04-12-2020.

Ex.A3: Served postal acknowledgment cards-3.

Documents marked for defendant:

Ex.B1: Ofice copy of reply notice given by D1 to D3 to plaintif.

P J C J.

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

OS No.317/2020

Between:

Shaik Fhayaz, S/o. Masthan Vali, Muslim, aged 37 years, employee, R/o. Islampet, Narasaraopet Town .... Plaintif

AND

1) Shaik Shameem, w/o. Late Mehaboob Subhani, Muslim, private employee, aged 31 years,

2) Shaik Masthan, S/o. Mehaboob Subhani, Muslim,

Private employee, aged 31 years,

3) Shaik Sadik, S/o. Late Mehaboob Subhani, Muslim, aged 29 years, private employee,

All are residing at Flat No.101, Dr.No.45/B, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,

Huyderabad cit, Rangareddy District. ... Defendants

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintif against the estate of

Shaik Mahaboob Subhani which is in the hands of defendants with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.3,25,600/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note dated 01-05-2018 said to be executed by shaik Mahaboob Subhani in favour of plaintif having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The plaint presented on 16.12.2020 and filed on 16.12.2020

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action arose on 01.05.2018 when Shaik

Mahaboob Subhani borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif and in evidence of the said borrowing, he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintif agreeing repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintif or to his order on demand and on 15-10-2020 without discharging the sakd debt the said Mahaboob

Subhani died intestate leaving behind him the defendants as his leal heirs and when inspite of demands made by the plaintif, the said defendant did not choose to repay any amount and where the entire transaction took place at Narasaraopet twon is within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.3,25,600/-, on which court fee of

Rs.5,926/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.3,25,300/-.

This suit came before me on 10-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri

G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, Advocate for defendants 1 and 3, and 2nd defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of plaintif counsel and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs against the estate of late Shaik Mahaboob Subhani which is in the hands of defendants, for a sum of Rs.3,25,600/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

ii) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.17,986/- towards costs of the suit and defendants do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintifFor Defendants Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee5,926-00 Process 300-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 11,468-00 Writing Charges 100-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total17,896-00

P.J.C.J.,Nrt.,

NARASARAOPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

OS No.130/2020

Between:

1) Bommujanku Aseervadam (died)

2) Bommujanku Sayamma

3) Bommujanku Koteswar Rao

4) Bommujanku Punnaiah

5) Bommujanku Bagya Raju

6) Kodela Nagamani

7) Bommujanku Prabhudasu .... Plaintiffs

AND

Unnam Thomos Rao ... Defendant

This suit came before me on 10-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri

D. Bujji Babu, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff counsel, and upon perusing the material papers on record, 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 on behalf of 1st plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.1,03,200/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note dated 06-08-2017 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of 1st plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

2 [2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the suit is filed by the 1st plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,03,200/- being

principal and interest due on a promissory notes dated 06-08-2017

executed by defendant for Rs.60,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 22-07-2020 the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. After filing the suit 1st plaintiff died and that his legal representatives are added as plaintiffs 2 to 7. Hence this suit.

[3.]The brief averment of the written statement filed by the defendant are that it is true that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 06-08-2017 and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The other allegation in the plaint that in spite of the repeated demands, the defendant did not chose to repay the amount under the suit promissory note are false.

i)It is further averred that the defendant paid the entire amount together with interest to the plaintiff on 10-06-2019 in the presence of elders but the plaintiff requested the defendant that as and when the promissory note is traced, he will return back the same to the defendant. Believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant paid the entire amount in the presence of elders. Having received the amount under the suit promissory note, the plaintiff filed the suit with a malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendant. Since the defendant discharged the entire amount under the suit promissory note, he is not liable to pay any amount and there is no cause of action to file the suit and prayed to dismiss the with costs.

[4.] Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial;

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

3

2) Whether the defendant paid entire suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff ?

3) To what relief?

[5.] During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself is examined as P.W1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. None is examined on behalf of defendant and no documents are marked but the learned counsel for defendant cross examined PW1.

[6.] Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff.

No representation for defendant. Arguments were not advanced on behalf of defendant. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE No1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit

amount from the defendant ?

[7.]Since the suit is filed by the 1st plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,03,200/- basing on a promissory note

dated 06-08-2017 said to be executed by the defendant for Rs.60,000/-,

after filing the suit 1st plaintiff died and that his legal heirs are added as plaintiffs 2 to 7, hence the burden lies on the plaintiffs 2 to 7 to establish that the 1st plaintiff lent Rs.60,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note and passed consideration to the defendant under the said promissory note. In order to establish the said fact the son of deceased 1st plaintiff who is 4th plaintiff is examined as PW1. He filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint that on 06-08-2017 the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the 1st plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. After filing the suit 1st plaintiff died and that his legal representatives are added as plaintiffs 2 to 7. In spite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dated 22-07-2020 the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount.

4 [8.]In support of the evidence of PW1 the plaintiffs filed

Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note, it discloses that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the deceased 1st plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum. It is also further discloses that the defendant received cash of Rs.60,000/- from the 1st plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum. Ex.A1 promissory note also contains the signatures of two attestors, scribe and the signature of defendant as a borrower. So, from the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note it can be said that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- to the defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note. The contents of Ex.A1 promissory note supports the evidence of PW1. The plaintiff also filed office copy of registered legal notice dated 22-07-2020 which is marked as Ex.A2 through the said Exs.A2 the 1st plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the suit promissory note amount. The plaintiff filed Ex.A3 returned registered postal cover addressed to the defendant. So, from the Exs.A2 and A3 it can be said that first plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to pay the suit promissory note amount but the defendant did not discharge the suit promissory note amount.

[9.]Even in the written statement also the defendant had not taken a plea that the defendant had not borrowed amount from 1st plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note but his defence is that he paid entire suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff in the presence of elders on 10-06-2016. In the written statement the defendant admitted about the borrowing amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 06-08- 2017 and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

So, from the contents of written statement filed by the defendant coupled with evidence adduced by the plaintiff it can be said that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 06-08-2017 and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

5 [10.]In view of the foregoing reasons this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant.

Hence the issue is answered in faovur of the plaintiff and against defendant.

ISSUE NO.2: Whether the defendant paid entire suit promissory

note amount to the plaintiff ?

[11.]The defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that he paid entire amount together with interest due under Ex.A1 promissory note to the plaintiff in the presence of elders and the plaintiff requested the defendant that as and when the promissory note is traced, he will return the same to the defendant but the plaintiff did not return the promissory note to him and filed this suit with malafidy intention to get wrongful gain, so, the plaintiff is not entitled for recovery of suit amount and prayed to dismiss the suit. Except taking the said plea by the defendant in the written statement he did not enter into the witness box and he did not offer himself to cross examine by the learned counsel for plaintiff. At this juncture this court relied upon a decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 Vidhyadhar Vs. Manik Rao at para 17, wherein it

was held that “ where a party to the suit does not appear in

witness box and states 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 set up by him is not correct”.

[12.]In this case, the defendant did not appear in the witness box to state his own case and also not offered himself to be cross examined by the other side counsel. Hence, a presumption would arise that the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement is not correct. On the other hand 4th plaintiff by examining himself as Pw.1 and by marking the suit promissory note as Ex.A1 promissory note sucessfully 6 proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the 1st plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the 1st plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 24% per annum. Even though the defendant taken discharge plea in the written statement as he did not prove the said plea by examining himself as a witness before the court, it can be said that the defendant did not pay the entire suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff. Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against defendant.

ISSUE No.3: To what relief ?

[13.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,03,200/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.60,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for:

Plaintiff:Defendant:

P.W.1: Bommajanku Punnaiah-None-

Documents marked for Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dated 06-08-2017 for Rs.60,000/-.

Ex.A2: Office copy of registered legal notice dated 22-07-2020.

Ex.A3: Returned registered postal cover.

Documents marked for defendant: Nil

P J C J.,

Narasaraopet.

7

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

OS No.130/2020

Between:

1) Bommujanku Aseervadam (died)

2) Bommujanku Sayamma, W/o. Late Bimmujanku Aservadam, aged 53 years, House wife,

3) Bommujanku Koteswar Rao, S/o. Bimmujanku Aseervadam, aged 39 years, coolie,

4) Bommujanku Punnaiah, S/o. Late Bimmujanku Asservadam, aged 38 years, coolie,

5) Bommujanku Bagya Raju, S/o. Late Bimmujanku Aseervada, aged 3 years, coolie.,

6) Kodela Nagamani, W/o. Narasimha rao, aged 35 years, collie,

7) Bommujanku Prabhudasu, S/o. Late Bimmujanku Aservadam, aged 32 years, coolie.,

All are Hindu, R/o. D.No.3-130, Jonnalagadda Village,

Narasaraopet Town. .... Plaintiffs

AND

Unnam Thomos Rao, S/o. China Chintaiah, Hindu, aged 0 years, business, R/o. D.No.3-118, Jonnalagadda Village,

Narasaraopet Town. ... Defendant

This is a suit filed on behalf of 1st plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.1,03,200/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note dated 06-08-2017 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of 1st plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The plaint presented on 14.08.2020 and filed on 14.08.2020

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action arose on 06-08-2017 when the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from the 1st plaintiff for his family expenses and in evidence of the said borrowing the defendant executed a promissory note at Jonnalgadda Village in favour of the 1st plaintiff and at Jonnalgadda Village where the promissory note was executed and the 1st plaintiff and defendant are residing is within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.1,03,200/-, on which court fee of

Rs.3,526/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.1,03,200/-.

This suit came before me on 10-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch. Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri

D. Bujji Babu, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff counsel, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.1,03,200/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on

Rs.60,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.8,587/- towards costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 21st day of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintiffFor Defendants Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee3,526-00 Process 63-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 4,796-00 Writing Charges 100-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total8,587-00

P.J.C.J.,Nrt.,

NARASARAOPET.

OS 94/2022 1 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 20thday of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 94 of 2022.

Between:-

Jasti Youga Laksmi . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Tadapaneni Rama Rao . . .Defendant.

This suit came before me on 31-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, 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 on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.8,03,534/- being the principle and interest said to due basing on promissory notes,

dated 22-02-2016 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.8,03,534/- being

principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 22-02-2016

executed by the defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-

OS 94/2022 2 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later the defendant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on ‘A’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 and Rs.50,000/- on ‘B’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 respectively towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory notes. In spite of repeated demands orally and on issuance of legal notice dated 31-07- 2021 the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

[3.] After receipt of the summons the defendant did not appear

before the court and remaind exparte.

[4.] On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

[5.] Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Perused the material on record.

[6.] Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant.?” [7.] POINT:- The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.8,03,534/- being principal and interest due on two promissory notes dated 22-02-2016 executed by the defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Later the defendant paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- on ‘A’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 and Rs.50,000/- on ‘B’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of the promissory notes. In spite of repeated demands the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. To prove the suit claim the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit as Pw1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and

OS 94/2022 3 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

also marked Exs.A1 to A6. The evidence of Pw1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- respectively from the plaintiff and he executed Ex.A1 and

A3 suit promissory notes in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, later the defendant paid an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on ‘A’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 and

Rs.50,000/- on ‘B’ marked promissory note on 21-02-2019 respectively towards part payment and endorsed the same on the back side of the

Exs.A2 and A3 promissory notes under Exs.A2 and A4, the plaintiff issued Ex.A5 legal notice to defendant. To prove that he issued Ex.A5 legal notice to defendant, he filed Ex.A6 returned registered postal covers. Even after issuance of Ex.A5 legal notice the defendant neither paid the suit amount nor gave reply. Since the defendant has remained exparte the evidence of Pw1 and Exs.A1 to A6 are remained unchallenged, hence the evidence of Pw1 and Exs.A1 to A6 are taken into consideration intoto. Thus the plaintiff has proved the suit claim against defendant. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. The point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

[8.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for a sum of Rs.8,03,534/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:For defendant:

OS 94/2022 4 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

P.W.1: Jasti Yoga Lakshmi -None-

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 22-02-2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2: Part payment endorsement dated 21-02-2019 for Rs.50,000/- made on the back side of Ex.A1 promissory note.

Ex.A.3: Original promissory note dated 22-02-2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A.4: Part payment endorsement dated 21-02-2019 for Rs.50,000/- made on the back side of Ex.A3 promissory note.

Ex.A5: Office copy of registered legal notice dated 31-07-2021 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A6: Returned registered postal covers-2.

Documents marked for defendant: -Nil-

P J C J,

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 20thday of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 94 of 2022.

Between:-

Jasti Youga Laksmi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 58 years, House wife, R/o. Veravatnam Village and Post,

Rompicherla Mandal, Guntur district. . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Tadapaneni Rama Rao, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, Hindu, aged 55 years, business, R/o. Karlakunta Village and Post,

Rompichela Mandal, Guntur Distarict. . . .Defendant.

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.8,03,534/- being the principle and interest said to due basing on promissory notes, dated 22-02-2016 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The plaint was presented on 21-02-2022 and filed on 21-02-2022.

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action arises on 22-02-20216 when the defendant borrowed amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- and executed A and B marked promissory notes respectively and when the defendant failed to repay the amount and where the transaction taken place and both parties are residing is within the a Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.8,03,534/-, on which a court fee of

Rs.12,892/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.8,03,534/-.

This suit came before me on 31-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.8,03,534/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.25,940/- towards costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of

Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 20thday of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintiffFor Defendant Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee12,892-00 Process 40-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 12,806-00 Writing Charges 100-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total25,940-00

P.J.C.J.,

NARASARAOPET.

OS 2/2023 1 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 24thday of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 2 of 2023.

Between:-

Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Dabbera Ravi Kumar . . .Defendant.

This suit came before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri U. Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, 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 on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.2,62,000/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note,

dated 13-09-2021 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note date 13-09-2021 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, inspite of repeated demands orally and on

OS 2/2023 2 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

issuance of legal notice dated 07-12-2022 the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

[3.] After receipt of the summons the defendant did not appear before the court and remaind exparte.

[4.] On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to A4.

[5.] Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Perused the material on record.

[6.] Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery suit amount from the defendant?” [7.] POINT:- The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,62,000/- being principal and interest due on a promissory note date 13-09-2021 executed by the defendant for

Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. To prove the suit claim the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit as Pw1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and also marked Exs.A1 to A4. The evidence of Pw1 and Ex.A1 discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, later he did not repay Ex.A1 promissory note amount to the plaintiff, hence plaintiff issued Ex.A2 legal notice to defendant. To prove that he issued Ex.A2 legal notice to defendant, he filed Ex.A3 postal receipt and Ex.A4 Served

Postal acknowledgment card. Even after issuance of Ex.A2 legal notice the defendant, which was received by him under Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment, he neither paid the suit amount nor gave reply. Since

OS 2/2023 3 PJCJ.,Nrt.,

the defendant has remained ex parte the evidence of Pw1, Exs.A1 to

Ex.A4 are remained unchallenged, hence the evidence of Pw1, Exs.A1 to

Ex.A4 are taken into consideration intoto. Thus the plaintiff has proved the suit claim against defendant. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. The point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

[8.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,62,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of April, 2023..

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff:For defendant:

P.W.1: Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy -None-

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 13-09-2021 for Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A.2: Office copy of registered legal notice dated 07-12-2022.

Ex.A.3: Postal receipt.

Ex.A.4: Served psotal acknowledgment card.

Documents marked for defendant: -Nil-

P J C J,

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 24thday of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 2 of 2023.

Between:-

Yeruva Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu, aged 40 years, Advocate, R/o. D.No.1-144, Palapadu Post,

Narasaraopet town, Palanadu District. . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Dabbera Ravi Kumar, S/o. Mohana Rao, Hindu,

R/o. D.No.1-16-16, near Patha Samithi Office,

Ramireddypet, Narasaraopet town. . . .Defendant.

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.2,62,000/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note, dated 13-09- 2021 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The plaint was presented on 29-12-2022 and filed on 03-01-2023.

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action arose on 13-09-2021 when the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff having received a consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to discharge the debt together with interest at 24% per annum, when the defendant failed to discharge the debt in spite of demands made by the plaintiff and where the defendant resides and promissory note was executed is within the a Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.2,62,000/-, on which a court fee of

Rs.5,126/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.2,62,000/-

This suit came before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri U. Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.2,62,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.10,188/- towards costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of

Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 24th day of

April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintiffFor Defendant Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee5,126-00 Process 80-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 4,780-00 Writing Charges 100-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total10,188-00

P.J.C.J.,

NARASARAOPET.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 338 of 2022.

Between:-

Yerragadda Siva Parvathi, . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Doddoju Venkata Bhanu Prasad . . .Defendant.

This suit came before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. V. N. Koteswara Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, 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 on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.6,01,767/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note,

dated 10-07-2019 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note date 10-07-2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. Hence the suit.

2 [3.] After receipt of the summons the defendant did not appear before the court and remaind exparte.

[4.] On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as Pw1 and marked Ex.A1.

[5.] Heard the arguments of plaintiff counsel. Perused the material on record.

[6.] Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant.?” [7.] POINT:- The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.6,01,767/- being principal and interest due on a promissory note date 10-07-2019 executed by the defendant for

Rs.3,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum inspite of repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. To prove the suit claim the plaintiff filed chief examination affidavit as Pw1 by reiterating the contents of plaint and also marked suit promissory note as Ex.A1. Ex.A1 discloses that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff and he executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum, later he did not repay Ex.A1 promissory note amount to the plaintiff. Since the defendant has remained exparte the evidence of PW1and Ex.A1 are remained unchallenged, hence the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 are taken into consideration intoto. Thus the plaintiff has proved the suit claim against defendant. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. The point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

[8.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,01,767/- with subsequent interest at 12% per 3 annum on Rs.3,50,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff: For defendant:

P.W.1: Yerragadda Siva Parvathi -None-

Documents marked for plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 10-07-2019 for Rs.3,50,000/-.

Documents marked for defendant:

-Nil-

P J C J.

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri B. Devendra Reddy, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Monday, this the 25th day of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 338 of 2022.

Between:-

Yerragadda Siva Parvathi, S/o. Yesudasa, Hindu, aged 43 years, Private employee, R/o. Dr.No.1-1-19, Barampeta, Narasaraopet Town. . . . . Plaintiff.

And

Doddoju Venkata Bhanu Prasad, S/o. Guravachari, Hindu, aged 51 years, employee, R/o. Dr.No.6-39/1, Rangarao Residency, Palakaluri Road, Opp. Gujjanagundla Water tank, working as Junior Assistant at Assistant Directorate of Agriculture (Regular) Sitauted at Dr.No.12-15-473, 3/1, Pattabhipuram Guntur. . . .Defendant.

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.6,01,767/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note, dated 10-07-2019 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

Plaint was presented on 11-07-2022 and filed on 11-07-2022.

CAUSE OF ACTION : for the suit arose on 10-07-2019 when the defendant borrowed Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a and subsequently, the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the promissory note in spite of demands made by the plaintiff and where the promissory note plaintiff is residing is within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.6,01,767/-, on which a court fee of

Rs.8,526/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The suit is valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.6,01,767/-.

This suit came before me on 04-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. V. N. Koteswara Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff, the defendant remained exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,01,767/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on Rs.3,50,000/- from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.18,644/- towards costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 25th day of

April, 2023.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Description For Plaintiff For Defendants Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee8,526-00 Process 40-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 9,876-00 Writing Charges 100-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total18,644-00

P.J.C.J.,

NARASARAOPET.