B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

1

APEG2700IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: 03352025RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari XIII Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

A.S.No.100/2024

(Old A.S.No.40/2022)

Between:

Parasuram Ganesh, S/o Krishnayya, C/o Davuluri Satyanarayana Raju, Hindu, Age 53 years, Employee, D.No.2-71, Near Alluri Sita Rama Raju Statue, Atreyapuram, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G.District. (Previous address mentioned below) Parasuram Ganesh, S/o Krishnayya, Hindu, Age 51 … Appellant/ years, D.No.89-24-2/1, F-1, Sahasra Sai Vaibhava Defendant Residency, Sai Nagar, Rajahmundry.

AND

Dwarampudi Bangarreddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Age 45 years, Business, D.No.9-201, Krishna Reddy Nagar, Anaparthi village and mandal, E.G.Dist.

... Respondent/

Anparthi JCJC Plaintiff

This appeal against the decree and judgment dt.21.03.2022 passed by

the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ramachandrapuram in in

O.S.192/2016

Between:

Dwarampudi Bangarreddy… Plaintiff

AND

Parasuram Ganesh … Defendant

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Lova Raju, Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Sri K.Sai Kiran Kumar, Advocates

for the appellant, and of Sri A.Gani Raju, Advocate for respondent; and the

same having stood over for consideration and this Court made the following:

2

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.21.03.2022 in

O.S.192/2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramachandrapuram.

2.As per the pleadings of the parties before the trial court, the defendant on 01.07.2015 to meet his family expenses borrowed a sum of

Rs.11,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest but as he failed to discharge the debt, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendant on receipt of summons in the suit, filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that, the promissory note is not supported by consideration as it is a fabricated document.

4.The trial court on conclusion of trial decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff therein.

5.Aggrieved by the the said decree, the defendant therein filed the present appeal.

6.While the appeal was coming for arguments, at request by both the parties to the appeal, the matter was referred to mediation as there was an element of settlement.

7.Sri D.Satyanarayana was appointed as mediator in this matter, who held mediation and recorded the terms of compromise, agreed between the parties and filed the same along with his report stating that, the matter is settled between the parties. The terms arrived between the parties are as follows; 3

1. That the appellant/accused paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff towards full satisfaction of decree in O.S.192/2016.

2. In view of the said compromise, the parties agreed not to proceed with the appeal and the respondent/plaintiff reported no objection for allowing the appeal.

8.This court having considered the terms and conditions of compromise in view of the respondent/plaintiff stating to have received amount towards satisfaction of the debt due to him and he reporting no objection to allow the appeal, the same is recorded.

9.In the result, the appeal is allowed in view of compromise effected

before mediator in accordance with the terms and conditions settled down

between the parties to the appeal resultantly, the judgment passed by the

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramachandrapuram in O.S.No.192/2016 is set

aside.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on either side.

XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

Copy to: The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court, Ramachandrapuram.

4 // True Copy //

Chief Administrative Officer, XIII Addl.District Court, Ramachandrapuram.

Appeal presented on :17.05.2022 Appeal filed on :17.05.2022

APEG27000IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: 3352025RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari XIII Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

A.S.No.100/2024

(Old A.S.No.40/2022)

Between:

Parasuram Ganesh, S/o Krishnayya, C/o Davuluri Satyanarayana Raju, Hindu, Age 53 years, Employee, D.No.2-71, Near Alluri Sita Rama Raju Statue, Atreyapuram, Atreyapuram Mandal, E.G.District. (Previous address mentioned below) Parasuram Ganesh, S/o Krishnayya, Hindu, Age 51 … Appellant/ years, D.No.89-24-2/1, F-1, Sahasra Sai Vaibhava Defendant Residency, Sai Nagar, Rajahmundry.

AND

Dwarampudi Bangarreddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Age 45 years, Business, D.No.9-201, Krishna Reddy Nagar, Anaparthi village and mandal, E.G.Dist.

... Respondent/

Anparthi JCJC Plaintiff

This appeal against the decree and judgment dt.21.03.2022 passed by the

Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ramachandrapuram in in O.S.192/2016

Between:

Dwarampudi Bangarreddy… Plaintiff

AND

Parasuram Ganesh … Defendant

This appeal is preferred against the judgment dt.21.03.2022 in

O.S.192/2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramachandrapuram.

VALUE OF THE APPEAL:

This the appeal preferred by the appellant valued the appeal is as same in the court of first instance under Sec.49 of APCF and SV Act.

Decree amountRs.13,62,533-00

ADD: Interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.11,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 01.07.2016 to 21.03.2022Rs.7,55,333-00 ------------------ Rs.21,17,866-33 ------------------ A court fee of Rs.23,626/- paid under section 26(d) of APCF & SV Act.

Cost awarded in the suit is Rs.73,146/- in the trial court.

On costs of Rs.73,146/- a court fee of Rs.2,866/- is paid.

On a total sum of Rs.21,91,012-33/- a total court fee of Rs.26,492/- is paid under section 20, Schedule-II, Article 1 (b& c) of APCF and SV Act.

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Lova Raju, Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Sri K.Sai Kiran Kumar, Advocates for the appellant, and of Sri A.Gani Raju, Advocate for respondent; and the same having stood over for consideration and this court DOTH JUDGMENT AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. that the appeal is allowed in view of compromise effected before mediator in accordance with the terms and conditions settled down between the parties to the appeal resultantly, the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramachandrapuram in O.S.No.192/2016 is set aside.

2. that there shall be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs memo filed on either side.

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

Petition presented on 05-12-2024 Petition filed on 09-12-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. G.Anandi,

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kakinada. (FAC) XIII Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Thursday, this the 28th day of August, 2025.

I.A.No.1/2024 in O.S.No.1/2024

(Old O.S.No.119/2024)

Between:

1. Thontepu Venkata Raju, S/o. Thontepu Sri Rama Krishnayya, Hindu, aged 48 years, Employee, presently residing at Flat No.39.1405, Amanora Adreno Tower, Survey Number 138, Amanora Park Town, Near Amanora Plaza, Hadapsar (n.v.) Pune, Maharashtra-411028. (Aadhar No.216158248020),

2. Thontepu Sri Rama Krishnayya, S/o late Sitharama Swamy, Hindu, aged 77 years, R/o.D.No.9-2-25, Burugunta Tank, Mandapeta, Mandapeta Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. (Aadhar No.236213050117), Alamuru JCJC.

3. Thontepu Seetha Mahalakshmi, W/o Thontepu Sri Rama Krishnayya, Hindu, aged 72 years, House Wife, R/o.D.No.9-2-25, Burugunta Tank, Mandapeta, Mandapeta Mandal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. (Aadhar No.502753683072), Alamuru JCJC.

4. Thontepu Sai Hasitha, D/o Venkata Raju, Hindu, aged 21 Years, Student, presently residing at D15-A, Burley Road, Student Accommodation, 5 Burley road, Leeds - LS`31LN, U.K. (Aadhar No.830678309288) (Petitioners 1 to 4 rep. by their power of attorney … Petitioners/ agent Sri Katta Veerabhadra Rao) Plaintiffs

AND

1. M/s.Narayana Reddy and others., Contractors: Sri Ramakrishna Rice & Flour Mill, Arthamuru rep. by its

Managing Partner Karri Narayana Reddy. Alamuru JCJC.

2. Karri Narayana Reddy, S/o.Rama Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged 70 years, R/o.D.No.34-16-50/3, Dwarapudi Road, Mandapeta, Mandapeta Mandal Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. Alamuru JCJC

3. Karri Krishnaveni, W/o. Karri Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged 65 years, R/o.D.No.34-16-50/3, Dwarapudi Road,Mandapeta,MandapetaMandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. Alamuru JCJC

4. Karri Subbarayala Reddy, S/o. Sita Rama Krishna Reddy, 60 years, D.No.4-19-56/6c, Rajaratna Theater back side area, Ward No.2, Mandapeta, Mandapeta ... Mandal. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. Respondents/ Alamuru JCJC Defendants The petition is filed under Section 94 r/w Order 38 Rule 5 and Section 151 CPC to pass an order attaching this petition schedule properties.

A court fee of Rs.2/- paid as per A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 14.08.2025 in the presence of Sri D.P.Sastry, Sri M.Siva Subba Rao, Sri M.S.R.Sashi Bushan, Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Sri P.R.P.Yadav, Advocates for plaintiff, and of Sri A.Gani Raju, Advocate for D.1 to D.3; and D.4 is in person; and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till today,this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows : .that in view of settlement before mediation, this petition is closed raising attachment against item Nos.1 and 3 only. Keeping the attachment against item No.2 in accordance with terms of settlement. .that there shall be no order as to costs. (Copy of schedule properties is attached hitherto)

Given under my hand and the Seal of this Court on this the 28th day of August, 2025.

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side.

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM (FAC)

Note: The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order.

APEG270001652026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present:-Smt.G.Anandi, III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. (I/C) XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026.

Crl.M.P. Bail No.53/2026

(Cr.No.12/2026 of SHO, Mandapeta Town Police Station)

Between: Kanuri Phaneendra, S/o.Srinivas, age 32 years, Hindu, Male, Occ.Daily worker, R/o.31-11-31, Saidulpeta, Mandapeta -533308, E.G.District.

.. Petitioner/Accused No.1

And

The SHO, Mandapaeta Town Police Station.

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on this day 13.05.2026 before me in the presence of Sri

T.V.Govinda Rao, Advocate for petitioner/Accused No.1 and Addl. P.P. for State/

Respondent/Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner, who is shown as accused No.1 in Cr.No.12/2026 for the offence under section 85, 108 r/w.3(5) of

BNS, on the file of Mandapeta Town Police station.

2.The prosecution’s case in brief is that, on 18.01.2026 the complainant being the mother of the victim girl approached the police and gave report stating that, she got married her daughter the deceased to the petitioner /A1 on 11.06.2019, and out of their wedlock they were blessed with two female children, because of which the petitioner and his parents used to harass her daughter for she having given birth to two female children. That the petitioner/ A1, who works as photographer does not even give money for maintenance of the family and having addicted to alcohol neglected his family and used to harass her daughter and many a times the issue

APEG270001652026 2 was placed before the elders, but there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner/ A1. While so, on 12.01.2026 he called the complainant and asked her to take away her daughter, on that she brought the victim to her house, but thereafter the petitioner/ A1 himself came to Pithapuram on 14.01.2026 and took away the deceased with him, and on 17.01.2026 at about 2 a.m. the friend of petitioner/A1 called to the mobile of husband of the complainant, and told that her daughter is on death bed immediately they rushed to the hospital, but by then the deceased died, and she came to know that the petitioner/ A1 and her deceased daughter quarreled with each other and her daughter having vexed with her life committed suicide by hanging. Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the said report, the above crime was registered. During the course of investigation, the petitioner/ A1 was arrested and sent to court for remand on 21.04.2026.

4.While that being the allegations against the petitioner/A1, he through this application denying the prosecution’s allegations states that he never harassed his wife, and that the deceased herself as was suffering from shizophrenia, had physiological disorders, and that she committed suicide in view of her health issues, and that the petitioner/A1 or his family members are no way concerned with her death. In fact the petitioner who is a heart patient, because of this false case and detention in jail is suffering a lot and his children who minor girls are now suffering without any support. He says that, though he did not commit any offence, yet he would cooperate with the police in all aspects and as he is permanent resident of

Mandapeta having fixed abode, there is no chance of he leaving the jurisdiction of this court. Hence, prayed to consider his release on any terms.

APEG270001652026 3

5.Notice given to APP.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the plea of the Petitioners/Accused No.1 to release him on bail

can be considered?

8.POINT:

The prosecution opposing the bail stated that going by the nature of allegations made against the petitioner/ A1, who is alleged of harassing his wife along with his family members that abeted the suicide by deceased, examining the family members, neighbours and friends of both the deceased and petitioner/ A1 is very crucial, which is still in the midway, if in these circumstances the petitioner/ A1 is released, then the chances of he influencing the witnesses is huge, which is a threat to the investigation. Hence, till the entire investigation is completed his release may not be considered.

9. On the other hand the petitioner says that, for no offence committed by him, he is languishing in jail, which is taking a toll on his health and also his minor daughters were suffering. That apart, as he is a heart patient because of his detention in jail from more than two weeks his health is deteriorated. He further says that, as he is permanent resident of Mandapeta having fixed abode, even on his release, he would be available to the police and cooperate with them in all aspects.

Hence, prayed to consider his release on any terms.

10.This court having considered the submissions made on either side, and going through the record observes that, since the registration of the crime on 18.01.2026, the considerable part of investigation seems to have been completed, the statements of material witnesses are recorded and it appears that filing of charge sheet alone is

APEG270001652026 4 left. Hence, that being the stage of investigation, also taking into view the submissions made on behalf of petitioner /A1, who states be a heart patient, whose health is deteriorating, because of detention in jail, and also considering the fact that he is permanent resident of Mandapeta, securing his presence by the investigating agency, if necessary in future, may not be difficult. Hence, in consideration of the above aspects, this court opines that on certain terms the plea of the petitioner can be considered. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed directing the release of the Petitioner / accused No.1 on bail on he executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Alamuru. Further the petitioner/Accused no.1 is directed to appear before

SHO, Mandapeta Two Police Station on every Tuesday and Saturday between 9.00

AM to 5.00 PM for a period of 2 months or till filing of charge sheet whichever is earlier, and he is also directed not to contact the complainant or any witnesses concerning the case, influence them in anyway or dissuade any witness connected to the crime.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt G. ANANDI

III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. (I/C) XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram. Copy to : The Counsel for the petitioner/accused

APEG2700IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT 06132025JUDGE: RAMACHANDRAPURAM Present: Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari, XIII Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 193 of 2022

From what court the appeal is:Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, preferredAnaparthi. Number of the case in that Court:C.C.No.365 of 2016

Number of the Appeal:C.A.No.193 of 2022

Name and description of the:Parasuram Ganesh, S/o Krishnayya, Appellant/ accused Hindu ,Age 54 years, Employee, r/o Flat No.F.1, Salvibhav Residency Apartments, Opp: Sai Chaitanya Park, Sai Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Name and description of the:Karri Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Nagi respondent/DefactoReddy, Hindu, Aged 43 years, Complainant.Business, R/o D.No.7-64, Anaparthi, Anaparthi Mandal. The sentence and order under: which it was imposed in the lower Court. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act, 1881. Accordingly the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC. Therefore, the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Cr.PC for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w.142 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. A part from that, with regard to the amount of cheque, the accused is directed to pay cheque amount towards compensation to the complainant, in default of payment of said compensation to the complainant, in default of payment of said compensation, the accused has to undergo simple imprisonment for period of six months. Whether confirmed/modified or:MEDIATION Reversed, if modified the modification Date of presentation:21.07.2022 Date of filing:21.07.2022 Notice issued by Court to appear:22.08.2022

Bail bonds if appellant has been: --- let out on bail Appellants ordered to appear:22.08.2022

Date of hearing:08.05.2026

Date of judgment:11.05.2026 2

This criminal appeal coming on 23.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K.Lova Raju, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused, and of Sri S.N.Murthy, Advocate for respondentthe Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ Complainant; and upon hearing both sides; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF MEDIATION

1.This appeal is against the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Anaparthi in CC No.365/2016 on 27.06.2022, by Convicting the

accused in the said case for the offence Under Sec.138 of NI Act.

2.The averments of the complaint filed before the trial court in brief is that: The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant on 19.04.2015 by executing a promissory note, and agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 24% p.a., but inspite the repeated demands of the complainant he did not repay the amount and finally issued a cheque, dated.05.06.2016 for Rs.8,00,000/-, which on presentation was dishonoured for ‘funds insufficient’ in the account of accused and the same was intimated to the complainant vide cheque return memo dated 15.06.2016. Hence, the complainant immediately issued legal notice, dt.18.06.2016, which was unclaimed and returned to the complainant but not make any payment. Hence, under the above circumstances the complainant has filed complaint against the appellant/ accused alleging of he committing offence under Sec. 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the complaint.

3.Before the trial court, basing on the sworn affidavit of complainant, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, against the accused and process was issued. The accused / appellant on receipt of notice made his appearance before the court, copies were 3 furnished to him under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C., and when he was examined under

Sec. 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under

Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, he having understood the same pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the complainant, PW.1 to PW.3 were examined, Ex.P1 to P6 were marked. On completion of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C, who having understood the incriminating material available against him, being explained to him, denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Thereupon, the trial court on hearing both parties, passed it’s judgment on 27.06.2022 by holding the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

5.It is aggrieved by the said judgment that appellant/ Accused approached this court by way of present appeal.

6.Coming before this court no additional evidence in any form was adduced.

7. However, while the matter was coming for hearing, at request of the parties the matter was referred to mediation for settlement. The parties made appearance before the mediator/B.Srinivasa Rao on 16.04.2026, and the matter was settled, on certain terms.

8.The terms are as follows: [i] Both the parties discussed the matter and have mutually agreed for a settlement @ Rs.8,00,000/-. [ii] The appellant has paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the respondent. [iii] Both the parties have agreed that this is a full and final settlement.

9.In the result, in view of the said settlement, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anaparthi in CC No.365/2016 on 27.06.2022, and consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded thereunder against the appellant/ accused is set aside. Accordingly, the appellant/ accused is acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of 4

Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stand discharged/ cancelled after expiry of six months from today as per Sec. 437 of Cr.P.C. Typed to Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Smt.BHV Lakshmi Kumari

XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Smt.BHV Lakshmi Kumari

XIII ASJ,

Ramachandrapuram.

Copy to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anaparthi.

// true copy //

Chief Administrative Officer, XIII XIII Addl.Sessions Court, Ramachandrapuram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:

APEG2700

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

07922025

Present: Smt.B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

XIII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

O.S.No. 3 of 2025

BETWEEN:

Tadi Sura Reddy, S/o Venkata Rama Krishna Reddy, 51 years, Cultivation & Business, Koppavaram village,

Anaparti (M), E.G.Dt., Anaparti Court Limits... Plaintiff

And

Gunji Dhanamma, W/o Kishore, 38 years, Business, Sreeven Infra Structures, Ground Floor, 10-5-11/26, Flat No.G-1, Sarada Towers, Facor Lay Out, Ram Nagar, Ward No.19, Visakhapatnam (T), Visakhapatnam District.

Visakhapatnam Court Limits. ...Defendant

This suit is coming on 06.05.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V.V.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This suit is filed seeking recovery of Rs.68,69,333/- from the defendant which being the principal of Rs.40,00,000/- due under a pronote and interest thereon.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- on 06.02.2022 for business investment, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter she failed to discharge the said amount. Hence the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 10.01.2025 to which notice was unserved endorsed as no such addressee in this door number. Hence the present suit is filed.

2

3.Though the notice was served on respondent by way of publication, as she failed to attend before the court, she was exparte.

4.The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit as P.W.1 and exhibited pronote as

Ex.A.1, Office copy of legal notice as Ex.A.2, returned postal cover as Ex.A.3. One of the attestors of the suit pronote was examined as P.W.2. No evidence was adduced by the defendant as he remained exparte.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for determination is:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount, as prayed for ?

2. To What relief?

7.POINT No.1: The plaintiff testified himself as P.W.1 and also examined one of the attestors to the suit pronote as P.W.2. It is the specific case of the P.Ws.1 and 2 that the defendant executed Ex.A.1 pronote, having received Rs.40,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff also exhibited legal notice got issued to the defendant as Exs.A.2 and unserved postal cover as

A.3. The averments mentioned in the chief affidavit are remained unchallenged as there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff proved his case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant for the amount mentioned in the plaint. The defendant is liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff as there is no defence from her end. Accordingly, this point No.1 is answered.

8. POINT No. 2 : In view of answer to Point No.1 the suit shall be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to 3 pay a sum of Rs.68,69,333/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.40,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM. (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Tadi Sura Reddy P.W.2: Goluguri Durga Reddy

For Defendant: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dt.06.02.2022 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dt.10.01.2025 Ex.A.3: Returned postal cover dt.17.01.2025

For Defendant: -NIL-

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM. (FAC)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KAKINADA

PRESENT:- Smt. B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 6 th day of April, 2017.

A.T.C.23/2016

Between: Nurukurthy Venkateswara rao, Cultivation, D.No.2-231, Near kakinada public school, valasapakala.

…Petitioner

And

Elavarthi Kessava Reddy, employee in coromondal fertilisers, flat.No.1 siranguvari street, sirangu Residency, venkata Nagar, Kakinada.

…Respondent

This petition coming today before this court and this court made the following:

O R D E R

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. The learned counsel of petitioner and respondent had filed a memo to withdraw the case. Memo recorded and the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the case and the petitioner is dismissed as withdraw.

Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Petitioner : None. For Respondent: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner: Nil. For Respondent: NIL

Sd/- B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.