Smt B H V Lakshmi Kumari

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY THE 04th DAY OF APRIL, 2012

PRESENT: Smt. B.H.V. Lakshmi Kumari, M.A.LL.B.,

XXII Junior Civil Judge

OS.NO. 2937 OF 2011

Between:

1. Sri. S. Ramachandra Rao

2. Sri. A. R. Pranav

3. Sri. A. R. Anagha . . .Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer,

Shekpet, Hyderabad

2. All Concerned . . .Defendants

This suit coming on 02-04-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. M. Appa Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 is called absent and set exparte and publication was filed for the defendant no.2 and no objection raised, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for declaring the plaintiff's as the legal heirs of Late Smt. Vangoor Asha

Rani.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The case of the plaintiff's is that the plaintiff no.1 is the husband of Late Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani, 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs are the sons of Late Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani. The said Smt. Vangoor

Asha Rani died on 17-10-2010 and she died intestate leaving behind her all these plaintiff's. The plaintiff's are the only legal heirs of the Late Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani and there are no other legal representatives of the deceased and the plaintiff's are the only surviving legal heirs of the properties i.e., movables and immovables properties left by Late Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani. The plaintiff's had approached the defendant no.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate but the defendant no.1 refused to issue the legal heir certificate and informed the plaintiff's that they are not competent to issue legal heir certificate and only the Court of Law is competent to issue legal heir certificate to that effect vide letter the Secretary to Government

Revenue (Ser.II) Dept., Lr.No.N12138/Ser.II (2).2006-4. Further the defendant no.1 also informed the plaintiff's that as the deceased

Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani was not a Government employee a legal heir certificate cannot be issued. Hence this suit.

3. Summons were served upon the defendant no.1 and

Substitute service was ordered against the defendant no.2 being All concerned, no one came forward nor objected to the claim of the plaintiffs. They were called absent and set exparte.

4. Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff no.1 himself got examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex. A1 & A2. Ex.A1 is the

Original Ration card, Ex.A2 is the Original Death certificate of the deceased Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani.The defendants were set exparte hence no evidence adduced on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of behalf of the plaintiff.

7. Point no.1 : To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff the

Plaintiff no.1 got himself examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 & A2 on his behalf. The PW1 contention is that the defendant no.1 had refused to give Legal Heir Certificate and advised to approach appropriate Civil Court. The Pw1 got marked Ex. A1 Ration card and Ex. A2Death certificate of Late Smt.

Vangoor Asha Rani. Ex.A1 is filed to prove that the plaintiff's are the family members of the deceased Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani and

Ex. A2 proves the death of the deceased Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani.

But the plaintiff's failed to prove that they are in necessity of the

Legal Heir Certificate and only objection taken by the plaintiff's is that as the defendant no.1 had objected to issue the said Certificate they had approached the Court and moreover no consequential amendment was prayed for in the suit.

8. Our Hon'ble High Court in V. Hanya Naik Vs. M. Krishna

Reddy ( 2009 (6) ALT 221) in a case of this nature found fault with the trial Court even for numbering the suit. In the said case, the plaintiff's sought a declaration that they are the sole and surviving legal heirs of late V. Rashya Naik alias Rasiya, without claiming any ancillary relief and without impleading anybody as defendant and also without attaching any schedule of the property, valuing the said relief notionally at Rs.3,000/-. The said suit was decreed exparte by the trial Court. The plaintiff's started pressing the said decree into service in various proceedings under the A.P. Rights in

Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act. At the instance of some aggreived persons, the said decree was set aside by the trial Court.

Aggreived thereby, the plaintiff's have filed a revision before the

Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court observed as under:

9. From this, it becomes clear that they prayed for a mere declaratory relief. It is relevant to mention that, neither any schedule was attached to the plaint, nor any individual was cited as defendant. It was not a petition under the Indian Succession Act. It is just ununderstandable as to how the trial court numbered the suit, though no defendants were shown in it. In para 5 of the plaint, the petitioners clearly stated that the necessity for them to file the suit has arisen on account of the fact that their claim was not being accepted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chevalla, in respect of the lands held by Rasiya. It was also mentioned that Rasiya left an estate. In this background the petitioners were under the obligation to mention the particulars of the estate, as regards which, the succession was claimed, and to implead the individuals or officials, who disputed their right to succeed to the estate of late Rasiya. On both the counts, the plaint was silent. The suit was notionally valued at Rs. 3,000/- and the trial Court has generously accepted that without any further verification. Assuming that the suit was not defective, either as regards the mentioning the property, or as to the presence of the parties against whom the relief is claimed, a serious legal infirmity was glaring on the face of it. The petitioners did not claim any relief ancillary or subsidiary to the one, of declaration.

10. In the present suit also the plaintiff's had stated that they are the permanent residents of Plot no. 410, Road No.22, Jubilee

Hills, Hyderabad. But without attaching the schedule of the property or estate of the deceased and without paying any court fee on the benefit derived from the declaration sought and without claiming any ancillary relief, the plaintiff's are seeking to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani.

Though the Mandal Revenue Officer is shown as defendant no.1 in the present suit, no individual is added as defendant with regard to objecting the plaintiff's to be the legal heirs of the deceased.

11. Summons were served upon the defendants and they were set exparte for non appearance. The defendants had lost their opportunity to proceed with the case and did not come before the

Court to disprove the case of the plaintiff's. Though the defendants did not come forward to disprove the evidence or case of the plaintiff's it is not enough to decree the suit. The plaintiff's must prove their case on their own merits and evidence. The plaintiff's had failed to show that they are in necessity of the legal heir certificate and they had not attached any schedule of property nor any ancillary relief was claimed by the plaintiff's. Point answered accordingly against the plaintiff's.

12. Point no.2 :In the light of the above discussion coupled with reasons it follows that the plaintiff suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the suit.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff's is dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of April, 2012.

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1: S. Ramachander Rao NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Ration card.

Ex.A2: Original Death Certificate of Late Smt. Vangoor Asha Rani.

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT: HYDERABAD

DATED: FRIDAY, 13 th DAY OF April, 2012

PRESENT: SMT. J .MAITHREYI, LL.M

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC/XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S.NO. 166 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

Mohd. Ghouse uddin, S/o. Mohd. Moinuddin, age 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Service, R/o. 9-4-137/83/A, Jamali kunta, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

A N D

The Regional Passport Officer, Pass Port Office at Sec-bad.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on 12-04-2012 before this court for final disposal in the presence of Sri Ayesha Tasneem, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant is called absent and remained set exparte and the matter having stood over till this date for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for declaration, declaring the date of birth of the plaintiff as 04-06-1979 and direct the defendant to correct the date of birth of the Plaintiff in his Passport bearing No. H 1309098 dt. 22-10-2008 as 04-06-1979 instead of 03- 04-1976 and to make correction of name of plaintiff as Mohd Ghouse uddin instead of Mohammed Ghouseuddin and award costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the resident of

Hyderabad, the plaintiff was born on 04-06-1979. The plaintiff had obtained the passport bearing No. H 1309098 from the defendant office at Hyderabad, dt: 22-10- 2008. The plaintiff came to know that his date of birth is wrongly mentioned in the pass port and his name is also spelled in the pass port as Mohd. Ghoueuddin intead of Mohd. Ghouse uddin and immediately he approached the pass port office for correction of his date of birth but they asked him to approach the civil court. Hence the present suit is filed.

3. Summons served on defendant. Defendant called absent and set exparte.

4. Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

5. In order to prove the suit claim Pw-1 was examined and got marked Ex.A1 and

A2.

6. “Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?”

7. The case of the plaintiff is that in the pass port due to oversight his date of birth is wrongly mentioned and there is a mistake in his name spelling also. In fact the date of birth of plaintiff is 04-06-1979 but in the pass port it is mentioned as 03-04- 1976 and his name spelling is Mohd Ghouse uddin but it is wrongly mentioned as

Mohammed Ghouseuddin.

8. Plaintiff himself got examined as Pw1 and marked EX.A1 i.e. original passport and A2 is Secondary School Certificate of plaintiff.

9. The document Ex A2 is the crucial document to prove the date of birth of plaintiff as it was issued by the Board of Secondary Education after making proper enquiries. In Ex A2 the date of birth is mentioned as 04-06-1979. This document is authenticated document which establishes the date of birth of plaintiff as 04-06- 1979.

10. It is pertinent to note here that as it is a suit for declaration of date of birth it is necessary to refer to the ratio in a recent decision of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Mohd. Ashan Khan Vs Regional Pass Port Officer (2010 (6) ALD 27) in this case the Hon’ble High Court first referred to the relevant clause (a) of the circular dt.1804-2001 which reads as follows.

a) Where an applicant is seeking rectification or correction of mistake in the entry on date of birth/place of birth in pass port, pass port issuing authority may after verifying/satisfying himself, effect the correction treating the same as technical correction there is no need for a declaratory order in such cases.

The Hon’ble High Court then referred to the clauses in the latter circular no.VI/401/2/5/2001 dt.29-10-2007 which had brought about a change in the scenario obtaining in clause (a) of the earlier circular instructions dt.18-04-2001.

The relevant clauses in the circular No. VI/401/2/5/2001 dt.29-10-2007 is as follows:

a) Where an applicant claims clerical or technical mistake in the entry relating to birth/place of birth in the passport and asks for rectification/correction in all such cases the documents produced earlier as proof of date of birth/place of birth at the time of issue of passport may be perused (if not already destroyed) PIA. In case, it is a clerical mistake either by the applicant or the PIA, date/place of birth correction may be allowed by issue of fresh pass port booklet, in the former case by charging fee for fresh pass port and in the latter gratis, there is no need for declaratory court order in such cases.

b) Where a competent authority which issued a birth certificate or education certificate issues any correction or amendment in date/place of birth, PIA may effect the necessary amendment in the pass port without insisting on a court order provided the same document was produced earlier with a pass port application. Fresh fees will be charged.

c) Where the files have been destroyed, PIAs could use their discretion in correction of date of birth without a court order, where such correction is only in months (not more than two years) and applicant provide satisfactory explanation that the same document was provided at the time of initial pass port application. Fresh fees will be charged.

d) Where the initial entry has been made on the basis of a supportive document issued by one competent authority i.e. School/Educational Authority and the applicant subsequently requests for a change on the basis of a certificate issued by another competent authority i.e. Municipal Authorities etc., resulting in conflicting documents for valid proof, the PIA should direct the applicant to procure an order from a first class magistrate, to effect the change as per pass port manual 2001 (in some states, this function is discharged by Civil Magistrate)

The Hon’ble High Court referred the above circular and held as follows: in the light of clause © aforesaid if the applicant seeks correction of date of birth in excess of two years from the existing entry, the pass port authority is entitled to insist upon a court order. In the present case it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is seeking the correction of date of birth in excess of two years from the existing entry. So there is no other way to the plaintiff except to approach the court for declaratory order. It is duty of the court to see that whether he had produced sufficient material to prove his correct date of birth. In the instant case the documents Ex A2 is the crucial document which establishes the date of birth of the plaintiff as 04-06-1979 and his name is Mohd Ghouse uddin. So it proved that in the pass port the date of birth is wrongly mentioned. So the plaintiff established his case hence this suit is decreed as prayed for. Accordingly point is answered.

11. In the result, this suit is decreed without costs, declaring that the plaintiff’s correct date of birth is 04-06-1979 and not 03-04-1976, and his name is Mohd Ghouse uddin and not Mohammed Ghouseuddin and granting a consequential direction, directing the defendant to issue a fresh pass port to the plaintiff by correcting the date of birth as 04-06-1979 and also his name as Mohd Ghouse uddin. according to the procedure established by law and the extant guidelines.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 3rd day of April, 2012.

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Mohd Ghouse uddin -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FR PLAINTIFF

EX.A1 original passport

Ex A2 is Secondary School Certificate of plaintiff

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL –

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

FRIDAY THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2012

PRESENT: Smt. B.H.V. Lakshmi Kumari, M.A.LL.B.,

XXII Junior Civil Judge

OS.NO. 54 OF 2011

Between:

VIJAYA BANK, branch at Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad, A.P. Represented by its

Asst/Chief Manager & GPA . . .Plaintiff

AND

1. Sri. N. Narsing Rao

2. Sri. D. Shiva . . .Defendants

This suit coming on 26-03-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D. Praveen, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants are called absent and set exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for

Recovery of amount of Rs. 90,453/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The plaintiff Vijaya Bank is a body corporated constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1980. The case of the plaintiff's is that the defendant no.1 had approached the plaintiff's bank for sanction of Personal loan to meet is sister's marriage expenses on 25-01- 2005 of Rs. 45,000/-. The plaintiff's bank had agreed to sanction a loan of Rs. 45,000/- on 11-03-2005 to the defendant no.1 repayable in 48 equal monthly installments @ Rs.1,250/-. On that the defendant no.1 had executed loan application, demand promissory note, letter of repayment and later the defendant no.2 stood as guarantee to the defendant no.1 and executed a letter a guarantee and agreed to repay the entire loan together with accrued interest amount in the event of defendant no.1 committing default in payment of installments of loan amount with interest.

3. The defendant no.1 was very irregular in payment of installments inspite of repeated requests and reminders the defendant no.1 did not regularize the repayment schedule. After repeated requests the defendant no.1 had executed the

Acknowledgement of liability in writing on 08-01-2008. Inspite of that the defendant no.1 had committed default in payment of installments and on several requests also the defendant no.1 did not come forward to pay the installments to the plaintiff's bank. As the defendant no.1 failed to pay the installments the plaintiff's bank had issued a legal notice to the defendants demanding to pay the loan amount with accrued interest. Though the legal notice was sent there was no response from the defendants. Hence this suit.

4. Summons were served upon the defendants D1 & D2. They were called absent and set exparte.

5. Now the points for consideration are :

1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

2.To what relief ?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the Assistant Manager of the plaintiff's bank got herself examined and got exhibited Ex. A1 to

A9. Ex. A1 is the Original Loan application Dt. 25-01-2005, Ex. A2 is the Original Demand Promissory Note Dt. 11-03-2005, Ex. A3 is the Original Installment Letter Dt. 11-03-2005, Ex. A4 is the

Original Letter of Guarantee of D2 Dt. 11-03-2005, Ex. A5 is the

Original Acknowledgement of liability Dt. 08-01-2008, Ex. A6 is the

Statement of Account, Ex. A7 is the Office copy of the legal notice

Dt. 02-12-2010, Ex. A8 is the Postal Returned cover, Ex. A9 is the

Postal Returned cover. The defendants are set exparte hence no evidence adduced on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of behalf of the plaintiff.

8. Point no.1 : To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff the

Assistant Manager of the plaintiff's bank filed her chief affidavit and got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex. A1 to A9 on her behalf. The PW1 contention is that the defendant no.1 had taken a

Personal loan for his sister's marriage expenses and on receipt of the same he had utilised the said amount. The defendant no.1 had executed Ex. A1 Loan application, Ex. A2 Demand Promissory

Note and Ex. A3 Installment letter in favour of the plaintiff's bank acknowledging the debt taken. Later he also got executed Ex. A4 by the defendant no.2 guarantying the repayment of the loan amount in case of default committed by the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 had executed Ex. A5 Acknowledgement of liability undertaking to pay the loan and accrued interest. As the defendant no.1 failed to pay the loan amount the plaintiff's bank had issued Ex. A7 legal notice to the defendants but the defendants failed to pay the suit amount.

9. Summons were served upon the defendants and they were set exparte for non appearance. The defendants had lost their opportunity to proceed with the case and did not come before the

Court to disprove the case of the plaintiff's. Hence an adverse inference can be drawn.

10. Point no.2 : In the light of the above discussion coupled with reasons it follows that the plaintiff suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit.

11. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff's is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 & 2, jointly and severally for an amount of Rs. 90,453/- ( Ninety thousand four hundred and fifty three rupees only) with interest @ 12% p. a., from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree, and subsequent interest @ 6% p. a. on the outstanding balance of

Rs. 45,056/- ( Forty five thousand and fifty six rupees only) from the date of decree, till the date of realization.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2012.

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1: R. Varalaxmi NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Loan application Dt. 25-01-2005.

Ex.A2: Original Demand Promissory Note Dt. 11-03-2005.

Ex.A3: Original Installment Letter Dt. 11-03-2005.

Ex.A4: Original Letter of Guarantee of D2 Dt. 11-03-2005.

Ex.A5: Original Acknowledgement of liability Dt. 08-01-2008.

Ex.A6: Statement of Account.

Ex.A7: Office copy of the legal notice Dt. 02-12-2010.

Ex.A8: Postal Returned cover.

Ex.A9: Postal Returned cover.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

NIL

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

Dated: Friday this the 13 th day of April, 2012

PRESENT: Smt. J. MAITHREYI, LL.M.,

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC/ XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

O.S. NO. 4008 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

Vijaya Bank (A body Corporate duly constituted Under the Banking

Companies Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking Act, 1980)

having its Head Office at Bangalore and one of its Branch Office At

Malakpet, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

A N D

1. K. Ayyavarappa, S/o. K. Ramaiah, Age Major, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.No.6-1/48, Ganesh Nagar, Chintal, R.R. District.

2. K. Parvathi, W/o. Ayyavarappa, Age: Major, Occ: Employee, R/o. H.NO.6-1-48, Ganesh Nagar, Chintal, R.R. District.

3. K.U.M.S. Reddy, S/o. K. RAmireddy, Age: Major,

Occ: Constable SPF, A.P. Secretrait, Hyderabad.

…. Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in

the presence of Sri. T. Umadhar Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and

the defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over

for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following

Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for under order VII rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. R/W section 26 C.P.C for recovery of an amount of Rs.88,702/- from the defendants with interest @ 14.50% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of realization with costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff bank and submitted loan application for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said applications have considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned a loan of

Rs.65,000/- to the defendant no.1 on 07-11-2004. The defendant No.1 executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on 07-11-2004.

The defendant no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors to the above loan and they have executed agreement of guarantee dt.07-11-2004. Thereafter the defendant No.1 is irregular in payment of installments however the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.88,702/- as on 25-10- 2010 which includes the interest also. In spite of issue of legal notice they failed to pay the amount. Hence the present suit is filed.

3. After registering the suit, summons issued to the defendants.

But summons were not served so on the directions of this court the matter was published in the new paper even though the defendants failed to appear before the court they were set exparte.

4. At the time of trial, the Assistant Manager of Plaintiff Bank examined as Pw1 and got marked the documents Ex A1 to A11.

5. After hearing the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel today the matter stood for judgment.

6. Now the point for consideration whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount as prayed for?

7. POINT:

This suit is based on promissory note and agreement of guarantee so the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case.

8. The plaintiff in order to prove his case examined the officer of plaintiff bank as pw1. The evidence of pw1 shows the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff bank and submitted loan application for loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said application has considered by the plaintiff bank and sanctioned a loan of

Rs.65,000/- to the defendant no.1. The defendant No.1 executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff on 07-11-2004. The defendant no.2 & 3 stood as guarantors to the above loan and they have executed agreement of guarantee dt.07-11-2004. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay the suit amount. The defendant no.1 had executed the letter of acknowledgment of liability on 31-10-2007 but the defendants failed to pay the suit amount.

9. The pw1 relied upon the documents Ex.A1 to A11. Ex.A4 is demand promissory note, Ex A4 clearly shows the defendant no.1 executed the document promissory note after obtaining the loan from the plaintiff.

Further Ex.A7 is the letter of guarantee it shows the defendant 2 & 3 stood as guarantors for the loan amount of defendant no.1. Ex.A11 is the true extract of statement of account it clearly shows the amount borrowed by defendant no.1 and the amount due by defendants and the interest imposed by the plaintiff bank from time to time. Ex.A8 is the original acknowledgment of liability dt.31-10-2007 this document shows from this date the limitations start so the suit is within the limitation period.

10. The evidence of pw1 coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to A11 clearly establish the claim of plaintiff and they are entitled to the suit amount and Ex.A8 is original acknowledgment of liability it shows the limitation for filing this suit starts from 31-10-2007 so the suit is within limitation. On the other hand the defendant failed to contest the matter so there is no rebuttable evidence against the claim of the plaintiff. Hence this suit is decreed as prayed for.

11. In the result the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1 and 3 only for an amount of Rs.88,702/- with interest @ 14.5 % per annum on principal amount from the date of suit till the date of realization with costs.

Dictated to the copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of

April, 2012.

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

FAC/ XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W. 1:M.M. Bhuyan None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex A1 is original loan application dt.11-10-2004

Ex A2 is loan sanction letter dt.07-11-2004

Ex A3 is certificate of loan papers obtained dt.07-11-2004

Ex A4 is demand promissory note dt.07-11-2004

Ex A5 is receipt dt.07-11-2004

Ex A6 is loan repayment letter dt.07-11-2004

Ex A7 is letter of guarantee dt.07-11-2004

Ex A8 is acknowledgment of liability dt.31-10-2007

Ex A9 is office copy of legal notice along with postal receipts dt.08-

10-2010

EX A10 is postal return cover (3 in number)

Ex A11 is true extract of statement of account.

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

XXI JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/ XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

CITY CIVIL COURT: HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY THE 04th DAY OF APRIL, 2012

PRESENT: Smt. B.H.V. Lakshmi Kumari, M.A.LL.B.,

XXII Junior Civil Judge

OS.NO. 1007 OF 2011

Between:

Quality Care India Limited,(Care Hospital)

Represented by its Power of Attorney and

Legal Advisor, Sri. P.S.R. Swami . . .Plaintiff

AND

Sri. M. Mohan Raj . . .Defendant

This suit coming on 04-04-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. A. Srinath, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant is called absent and set exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

JUDGEMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for

Recovery of amount of Rs. 77,797/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are:

The plaintiff M/s Quality Care India Ltd.,(Care Hospital) is engaged in the advancement of Healthcare to the needy and in the field of accute Heart Care with State of the Art equipment at its disposal. The defendant had admitted baby Rakshita in pediatric ward of the plaintiff's hospital at Banjara Hills on 06-04-2008 after the child met with a road traffic accident leading to multiple fractures of skull bones. The baby was intubated and mechanical ventilatory support was given in view of pending respiratory failure.

Later the baby was stabilized and extubated and shifted to ward.

Subsequently the baby developed Varicella infection during the course of stay in the Hospital but the baby was discharged form the hospital of the plaintiff's in a stable hemodynamic condition and with no evidence of infection. The baby was re-admitted on 06-04- 2008 with Pneunomia in the right lung requiring mechanical ventilatory support, as her lung status deteriorated requiring high frequency oscillatory ventilation, she was shifted to specialty centre for the further management. The treatment charges for the treatment undergone came to Rs. 94,913/- and am amount of

Rs. 30,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff's hospital.

3. The defendant had given an undertaking that he would clear the balance dues payable within a period of 3 days from 14- 04-2008 and got discharged the baby girl. Though the plaintiff's hospital staff had contacted the defendant several times he steadfastly refused to pay the balance due to fulfill the obligation arising out of his undertaking under on pretext or the other. On that the plaintiff's hospital had sent a legal notice to the defendant on 16-09-2008 but the same was returned with an endorsement as not claimed. Hence this suit.

4. Summons were served upon the defendant. He was called absent and set exparte.

5. Now the points for consideration are :

1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the Power of Attorney of the plaintiff's hospital got himself examined as Pw1 and got exhibited

Ex. A1 to A5. Ex. A1 is the Original Certificate of incorporation and change of name approval Dt.03-12-1999, Ex.A2 is the Original

Power of Attorney, Ex. A3 is the Original Bill No. CBO 800047115 for Rs.94,913 Dt.14-04-2008, Ex. A4 is the Office copy of the legal notice Dt.16-09-2009, Ex. A5 is the Returned RPAD. The defendant is set exparte hence no evidence adduced on his behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of behalf of the plaintiff.

8. Point no.1 : To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff the

Power of Attorney of the plaintiff's hospital filed his chief affidavit and got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex. A1 to A5 on his behalf. The PW1 contention is that the defendant got admitted a baby Rakshita on 06-04-2008 for treatment and later on discharged on 14-04-2008. The plaintiff's hospital had filed the original bill which was incurred by the defendant for the treatment undergone and the said bill was marked as Ex. A3. The defendant had paid part of the amount of Rs.30,000/- and had made an undertaking that he shall pay the remaining balance amount within 3 days from 14-04-2008 but failed to do so. Though the plaintiff's hospital had sent Ex. A4 legal notice to the defendant for making payment the said legal notice was returned as not claimed and the same was marked as Ex. A5.

9. Summons were served upon the defendant and he was set exparte for non appearance. The defendant had lost his opportunity to proceed with the case and did not come before the Court to disprove the case of the plaintiff's. Hence an adverse inference can be drawn.

10. Point no.2 : In the light of the above discussion coupled with reasons it follows that the plaintiff suit is maintainable and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff's is decreed with costs, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.77,797/- ( Seventy seven thousand seven hundred and ninety seven only ) with interest @ 12% p. a., from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter subsequent interest @ 6% p. a. on the outstanding balance of Rs.64,913/- (Sixty four thousand nine hundred and thirteen only) from the date of decree, till the date of realization.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 04th day of April, 2012.

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT

PW1: P. S. R. Swami NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Certificate of incorporation and change of name approval Dt. 03-12-1999.

Ex.A2: Original Power of Attorney.

Ex.A3: Original Bill No. CBO 800047115 for Rs.94,913

Dt. 14-04-2008.

Ex.A4: Office copy of the legal notice Dt. 16-09-2009.

Ex.A5: Returned RPAD Dt. 07-10-2009.

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL

XXII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD