B. Priyanka

Fair OS.No.46/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

PRESENT:- SMT. B. PRIYANKA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

Friday, the 16th day of September, 2022.

O.S.No.46 of 2022

Between:

ICICI Bank Limited, a Banking Company Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office At Mumbai and various branches across the country and one of its branch Karimnagar. Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Sri Putta Naga Raju, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Manager, R/o. ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And

1.Thappati Krishna S/o: Rama Swamy, Age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Thappati Ravi S/o: Rama Swamy, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Thappati Rama Swamy S/o: Pochaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: H.No.2-16, Waddepalle village, Doulthabad mandal, Medak District.

… Defendants

SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY

Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 Order VII Rule 1 & Order XXXIV R/W Sec. 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 24.01.2022

Date of registration of plaint: 25.01.2022

This Suit came before me on 14.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B. Praveen Kumar, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were remained exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 1 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 for recovery of amount of Rs.4,37,930.33/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine

Hundred and Thirty and Thirty Three Paise only), with future interest @ 12% per annum, with quarterly rests till the date of final realization, to pass a preliminary decree against the defendants No.1 to 3, for an amount of Rs.4,37,930.33/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty and Thirty Three Paise only), with future interest @ 12 % per annum and to pass a final decree to sell mortgage property ie., (i)Land bearing Sy.No.16/^B, to an extent of Ac.1-35 gts, situated at Waddepalle village, Doulthabad mandal, and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Kasa Narsaiah

WestLand of Kasa Raju

NorthCheruvu Katta

SouthLand of Bongiri Kishtaiah

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of Defendant No.1”, (ii)Land bearing

Sy.No.46/^B1, to an extent of Ac.1-35 gts, situated at Waddepalle village, Doulthabad mandal, and bounded on:

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Kasa Narsaiah

WestLand of Kasa Raju

NorthCheruvu Katta

SouthLand of Bongiri Kishtaiah 2 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of Defendant No.2” and(iii)(a)Land bearing Sy.No.65/^A/3, to an extent of Ac.0-9 gts, (b) Sy.No. 153/^A2, to an extent of

Ac.0-16 gts, (c) Sy.No.152/^A/3, to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts, and Sy.No.108/^A/2 to an extent of Ac.0-39 gts, total extent of Ac.1-35 gts, situated at Waddepalle village,

Doulthabad mandal, and bounded on

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Kasa Narsaiah

WestLand of Kasa Raju

NorthCheruvu Katta

SouthLand of Bongiri Kishtaiah

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of Defendant No.3” the payment proceeds to be appropriated towards the decreetal amount.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) The plaintiff bank is a banking company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956, and carrying the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, having its head office at Mumbai, and among other branches and represented by its GPA Holder, is duly authorized, empowered and competent to represented before this Hon’ble court.

ii)That the plaintiff during regular course of banking business, the plaintiff bank has introduced various products/scheme to the customer. The defendants approached to the bank and requested for sanction of loan for the purpose of cultivation, development of their agricultural land, the plaintiff's Bank Manager visited and inspected the agricultural land of defendants and thereafter the defendants made an application dt. 04.05.2016, to sanction the agriculture term loan amount, the 3 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022 plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.3,99,000/- for the first year limit and subject renewal of every year. The said agreed term loan to be repaid on demand at the rate of interest. A copy of application and sanction letter is filed herewith.

iii)The defendant No.1. is borrower and defendant No.2 & 3 are co-bororower, the defendants received the loan amount and executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above loan by depositing the title deed and the same was kept as simple mortgage. After executing the simple mortgage the defendants availed the loan facility on 30.05.2016 vide loan account number 223451000105 with interest. The defendants have to repay that total loan amount and also agreed to pay back the loan amount. Hence the defendants are liable to pay of Rs.4,37,930.33/-, with up to date interest.

iv)That the defendants have offered his personal guarantee for the repayment of loan amount with interest and execute the necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank and also hypothicated crop, cattle and machinery etc, to the bank and hypothication deed dt. 25.05.2016.

v)That on arrangement of agreed term loan credit facility, the defendants have agreed to the terms and conditions as laid down and acknowledged the debt.

Thereafter the defendants have committed default in repayment of the credit facility amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and trying to avoid all his liability and under those circumstances the plaintiff has constrained to issue loan recall notice on 20.09.2021, demanding payment of outstanding due amount.

Hence the suit.

4 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022

3.The summons were served on the defendants and on the day of appearance the defendant did not appear before the court and was set exparty, holding the service sufficient.

4.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff bank was examined through its Debt

Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

a) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the decree of recovery of money?

b) Whether defendants, executed simple mortgage over schedule of property in favour of plaintiff bank or not?

c)To what relief?

Arguments:

6(i)For the Plaintiff: Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff bank has lent the amount to the defendants. It is borne by record that the defendants have defaulted and has been avoiding the payment of money and also have not paid the amount even after executing the recall notice and that the plaintiff bank is a public limited company and the money of public is at risk and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

(ii)For the Defendants:- Nil

ANSWER TO POINT:-

7.The plaintiff Bank got examined through its Debt. Manager as PW1 and filed chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint and relied Ex.A1 to A7, those 5 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022 are Ex.A1 is CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021. Ex.A2 is Credit facility application, dated: 04.05.2016. Ex.A3 is Sanction letter, dt. 20.05.2016. Ex.A4 is

Hypothecation deed, dt. 25.05.2016. Ex.A5 is Mortgage deed No.3847/2016 dt.

25.05.2016. Ex.A6 is Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021 and Ex.A7 is Bank

Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the Bankers book of

Evidence Act dt. 22.11.2021.

8.The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendants have approached for sanction of loan for purpose of cultivation. The Manager visited and inspected agricultural lands of defendants and thereafter defendants made an application dt.04.05.2016 is proved under Ex.A2 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned of

Rs.4,37,930.33/-, the defendants availed the loan facility on 30.05.2016 vide account

No.223451000105 with interest and it is proved under Ex.A3. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1, is the borrower and defendant No.2 & 3 are co- borrower deposited their title deeds with plaintiff bank and also executed hypothecation deed and the same is proved under Ex.A4.

9.9.Finally the defendants failed to repay and committed default in payment of credit facility, the plaintiff issued recall notice and the same was proved under

Ex.A6, further demanding outstanding was not paid by defendants in order to prove the same. Ex.A7 bank statement is filed along with certificate under Section 2-A (B) of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, and the defendant after receiving the suit summons have remained exparty and this court feels that the plaintiff bank has filed all the documents in order to discharge its burden and since the defendants have remained absent the entire evidence is not rebutted and hence this court feels that 6 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022 the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount and accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is Preliminarily decreed with costs against the defendants No.1 to 3, and are jointly and severally liable to be pay sum of

Rs.4,37,930.33/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and

Thirty and Thirty Three Paise only), together with future interest 12%per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Further The plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition to sell the mortgage property mentioned in the plaint,to realize the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S

PW.1 : Putta NagarajuNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021

Ex.A2Credit facility application, dated: 04.05.2016

Ex.A3Sanction letter, dt. 20.05.2016

Ex.A4Hypothecation deed, dt. 25.05.2016

Ex.A5Mortgage deed No.3847/2016 dt. 25.05.2016

Ex.A6Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021 7 of 8

Fair OS.No.46/2022

Ex.A7Bank Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the

Bankers book of Evidence Act dt. 22.11.2021.

DEFENDANTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 8 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

PRESENT:- SMT. B. PRIYANKA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

Friday, the 16th day of September, 2022.

O.S.No.129 of 2022

Between:

ICICI Bank Limited, a Banking Company Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office At Mumbai and various branches across the country and one of its branch Karimnagar. Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Sri Putta Naga Raju, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Manager, R/o. ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And

1.Naraboina Renuka W/o: Swamy, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Naraboina Narsaiah S/o: Ramaiah, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o: H.No.2-127, Machanpalli village, Doulthabad mandal, Medak District.

… Defendants

SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY

Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 Order VII Rule 1 & Order XXXIV R/W Sec. 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 02.03.2022

Date of registration of plaint: 10.03.2022

This Suit came before me on 14.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.B. Praveen Kumar, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were remained exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 1 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 for recovery of amount of Rs.4,95,079.48/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Seventy Nine and Forty Eight Paise only), with future interest @ 11.95% per annum, with quarterly rests till the date of final realization, to pass a preliminary decree against the defendants No.1 & 2, for an amount of Rs.4,95,079.48/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety

Five Thousand Seventy Nine and Forty Eight Paise only), with future interest @ 11.95% per annum and to pass a final decree to sell mortgage property ie., (i)Land bearing Sy.No.33/C/2, to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts, (ii) Sy.No. 33/C/1 to an extent of

Ac.0-10 gts, and (iii) Sy.No. 32/RUU to an extent of Ac.0-16 gts, total extent of

Ac.1-22 gts, situated at Machanpally village, Doulthabad mandal, and bounded on

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of N. Mallaiah

WestLand of Chinna Mallaiah

NorthLand of N. Sattaiah

SouthLand of N. Srinu

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of Defendant No.1”, and (i) Land bearing

Sy.No.33/B/1, to an extent of Ac.0-35 gts, (ii) Sy.No.32/A/1 to an extent of Ac.1-11 gts, (iii) Sy.No.32/A, to an extent of Ac.0-21 ½ gts, (iv) Sy.No. 31/A/B, to an extent of

Ac. 0-12 gts, (v) Sy.No. 30/A, to an extent of Ac.0-9 gts, (vi) Sy.No. 29/B, to an extent of Ac.0-5 gts, and (vii) Sy.No. 27/B, to an extent of Ac.0-14 gts, total extent of Ac.3-27 gts, situated at Machanpally village, Doulthabad mandal, and bounded on:- 2 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of N. Mallaiah

WestLand of Chinna Mallaiah

NorthLand of N. Sattaiah

SouthLand of N. Srinu

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of Defendant No.2”, and the payment proceeds to be appropriated towards the decreetal amount.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) The plaintiff bank is a banking company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956, and carrying the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, having its head office at Mumbai, and among other branches and represented by its GPA Holder, is duly authorized, empowered and competent to represented before this Hon’ble court.

ii)That the plaintiff during regular course of banking business, the plaintiff bank has introduced various products/scheme to the customer. The defendants approached to the bank and requested for sanction of loan for the purpose of cultivation, development of their agricultural land, the plaintiff's Bank Manager visited and inspected the agricultural land of defendants and thereafter the defendants made an application dt. 08.07.2016, to sanction the agriculture term loan amount, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.3,83,300/- for the first year limit and subject renewal of every year. The said agreed term loan to be repaid on demand at the rate of interest. A copy of application and sanction letter is filed herewith.

iii)The defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is co-bororower, the defendants received the loan amount and executed the documents in favour of the 3 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022 plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above loan by depositing the title deed and the same was kept as simple mortgage. After executing the simple mortgage the defendants availed the loan facility on 01.09.2016 vide loan account number 223451000138 with interest. The defendants have to repay that total loan amount and also agreed to pay back the loan amount. Hence the defendants are liable to pay of Rs.4,95,079.48/-, with up to date interest.

iv)That the defendants have offered his personal guarantee for the repayment of loan amount with interest and execute the necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank and also hypothicated crop, cattle and machinery etc, to the bank and hypothication deed dt. 27.08.2016.

v)That on arrangement of agreed term loan credit facility, the defendants have agreed to the terms and conditions as laid down and acknowledged the debt.

Thereafter the defendants have committed default in repayment of the credit facility amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and trying to avoid all his liability and under those circumstances the plaintiff has constrained to issue loan recall notice on 20.09.2021, demanding payment of outstanding due amount.

Hence the suit.

3.The summons were served on the defendants and on the day of appearance the defendant did not appear before the court and was set exparty, holding the service sufficient.

4.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff bank was examined through its Debt

Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7.

4 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

5.Now the point for consideration is :

a) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the decree of recovery of money?

b) Whether defendants, executed simple mortgage over schedule of property in favour of plaintiff bank or not?

c)To what relief?

Arguments:

6(i)For the Plaintiff: Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff bank has lent the amount to the defendants. It is borne by record that the defendants have defaulted and has been avoiding the payment of money and also have not paid the amount even after executing the recall notice and that the plaintiff bank is a public limited company and the money of public is at risk and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

(ii)For the Defendants:- Nil

ANSWER TO POINT:-

7.The plaintiff Bank got examined through its Debt. Manager as PW1 and filed chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint and relied Ex.A1 to A7, those are Ex.A1 is CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021. Ex.A2 is Credit facility application, dated: 01.08.2016. Ex.A3 is Sanction letter, dt. 31.08.2016. Ex.A4 is

Hypothecation deed, dt. 27.08.2016. Ex.A5 is Mortgage deed No.6523/2016 dt.

30.08.2016. Ex.A6 is Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021 and Ex.A7 is Bank 5 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the Bankers book of

Evidence Act dt. 28.12.2021.

8.The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendants have approached for sanction of loan for purpose of cultivation. The Manager visited and inspected agricultural lands of defendants and thereafter defendants made an application dt.01.08.2016 is proved under Ex.A2 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned of

Rs3,83,300/-, the defendants availed the loan facility on 01.09.2016 vide account No.

223451000138 with interest and it is proved under Ex.A3. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1, is the borrower and defendant No.2 is co-borrower deposited their title deeds with plaintiff bank and also executed hypothecation deed and the same is proved under Ex.A4.

9.9.Finally the defendants failed to repay and committed default in payment of credit facility, the plaintiff issued recall notice and the same was proved under

Ex.A6, further demanding outstanding was not paid by defendants in order to prove the same. Ex.A7 bank statement is filed along with certificate under Section 2-A (B) of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, and the defendant after receiving the suit summons have remained exparty and this court feels that the plaintiff bank has filed all the documents in order to discharge its burden and since the defendants have remained absent the entire evidence is not rebutted and hence this court feels that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount and accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

6 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is Preliminarily decreed with costs against the defendants No.1 & 2, and are jointly and severally liable to be pay sum of

Rs.4,95,079.48/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Seventy Nine and Forty

Eight Paise only), together with future interest 11.95%per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Further The plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition to sell the mortgage property mentioned in the plaint,to realize the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S

PW.1 : Putta NagarajuNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021

Ex.A2Credit facility application, dated: 01.08.2016

Ex.A3Sanction letter, dt. 31.08.2016

Ex.A4Hypothecation deed, dt. 27.08.2016

Ex.A5Mortgage deed No.6523/2016 dt. 30.08.2016

Ex.A6Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021

Ex.A7Bank Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the

Bankers book of Evidence Act dt. 28.12.2021.

7 of 8

Fair OS.No.129/2022

DEFENDANTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 8 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

PRESENT:- SMT. B. PRIYANKA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

Friday, the 16th day of September, 2022.

O.S.No.45 of 2022

Between:

ICICI Bank Limited, a Banking Company Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office At Mumbai and various branches across the country and one of its branch Karimnagar. Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Sri Putta Naga Raju, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Manager, R/o. ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And

1.Vislavath Nirmal Singh S/o: Dhan Singh, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Vislavath Salamma W/o: Dhan Singh, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o: H.No.6-87, Doulthabad village and mandal, Medak District.

… Defendants

SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY

Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 Order VII Rule 1 & Order XXXIV R/W Sec. 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 24.01.2022

Date of registration of plaint: 25.01.2022

This Suit came before me on 14.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.B. Praveen Kumar, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were remained exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 1 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 for recovery of amount of Rs.5,16,871.21/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One and Twenty One Paise only), with future interest @ 12% per annum, with quarterly rests till the date of final realization, to pass a preliminary decree against the defendants No.1 & 2, for an amount of Rs.5,16,871.21/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy One and Twenty One

Paise only), with future interest @ 12% per annum and to pass a final decree to sell mortgage property ie., (i) Land bearing Sy.No.722/DA, to an extent of Ac.3-0 gts, situated at Doulthabad village and mandal, and bounded on

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Gopi Singh

WestLand of L. Gangaram

NorthLand of L. Rathya

SouthLand of L. Tharachand

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of defendant No.1”, and (ii) (a)Land bearing Sy.No.725/A, to an extent of Ac.0-5 gts, (b) Sy.No. 724/A2LUU, to an extent of Ac.0-9 ½ gts, (c) Sy.No.725/3D, to an extent of Ac.0-27 gts, and (d)

Sy.No.725/4Ru, Ruu, to an extent of Ac.2-39 gts, total extent of Ac.3-0 gts, situated at Doulthabad village and mandal, and bounded on:- 2 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of Gopi Singh

WestLand of L. Gangaram

NorthLand of L. Rathya

SouthLand of L. Tharachand

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of defendant No.2”, and the payment proceeds to be appropriated towards the decreetal amount.

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) The plaintiff bank is a banking company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956, and carrying the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, having its head office at Mumbai, and among other branches and represented by its GPA Holder, is duly authorized, empowered and competent to represented before this Hon’ble court.

ii)That the plaintiff during regular course of banking business, the plaintiff bank has introduced various products/scheme to the customer. The defendants approached to the bank and requested for sanction of loan for the purpose of cultivation, development of their agricultural land, the plaintiff's Bank Manager visited and inspected the agricultural land of defendants and thereafter the defendants made an application dt. 25.04.2016, to sanction the agriculture term loan amount, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.4,20,000/- for the first year limit and subject renewal of every year. The said agreed term loan to be repaid on demand at the rate of interest. A copy of application and sanction letter is filed herewith.

iii)The defendant No.1 is borrower and defendant No.2 is co-bororower, the defendants received the loan amount and executed the documents in favour of the 3 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022 plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above loan by depositing the title deed and the same was kept as simple mortgage. After executing the simple mortgage the defendants availed the loan facility on 30.06.2016 vide loan account number 223451000115 with interest. The defendants have to repay that total loan amount and also agreed to pay back the loan amount. Hence the defendants are liable to pay of Rs.5,16,871.21/-, with up to date interest.

iv)That the defendants have offered his personal guarantee for the repayment of loan amount with interest and execute the necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank and also hypothicated crop, cattle and machinery etc, to the bank and hypothication deed dt. 19.06.2016.

v)That on arrangement of agreed term loan credit facility, the defendants have agreed to the terms and conditions as laid down and acknowledged the debt.

Thereafter the defendants have committed default in repayment of the credit facility amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and trying to avoid all his liability and under those circumstances the plaintiff has constrained to issue loan recall notice on 20.09.2021, demanding payment of outstanding due amount.

Hence the suit.

3.The summons were served on the defendants and on the day of appearance the defendant did not appear before the court and was set exparty, holding the service sufficient.

4.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff bank was examined through its Debt

Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7.

4 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

5.Now the point for consideration is :

a) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the decree of recovery of money?

b) Whether defendants, executed simple mortgage over schedule of property in favour of plaintiff bank or not?

c)To what relief?

Arguments:

6(i)For the Plaintiff: Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff bank has lent the amount to the defendants. It is borne by record that the defendants have defaulted and has been avoiding the payment of money and also have not paid the amount even after executing the recall notice and that the plaintiff bank is a public limited company and the money of public is at risk and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

(ii)For the Defendants:- Nil

ANSWER TO POINT:-

7.The plaintiff Bank got examined through its Debt. Manager as PW1 and filed chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint and relied Ex.A1 to A7, those are Ex.A1 is CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021. Ex.A2 is Credit facility application, dated: 25.04.2016. Ex.A3 is Sanction letter, dt. 01.06.2016. Ex.A4 is

Hypothecation deed, dt. 19.06.2016. Ex.A5 is Mortgage deed No.1971/2016 dt.

01.06.2016. Ex.A6 is Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021 and Ex.A7 is Bank 5 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the Bankers book of

Evidence Act dt. 30.06.2016.

8.The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendants have approached for sanction of loan for purpose of cultivation. The Manager visited and inspected agricultural lands of defendants and thereafter defendants made an application dt.01.06.2016 is proved under Ex.A2 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned of

Rs.5,16,871.21/-, the defendants availed the loan facility on 30.06.2016 vide account

No.223451000115 with interest and it is proved under Ex.A3. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant No.1, is the borrower and defendant No.2 is co-borrower deposited their title deeds with plaintiff bank and also executed hypothecation deed and the same is proved under Ex.A4.

9.Finally the defendants failed to repay and committed default in payment of credit facility, the plaintiff issued recall notice and the same was proved under Ex.A6, further demanding outstanding was not paid by defendants in order to prove the same. Ex.A7 bank statement is filed along with certificate under Section 2-A (B) of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, and the defendant after receiving the suit summons have remained exparty and this court feels that the plaintiff bank has filed all the documents in order to discharge its burden and since the defendants have remained absent the entire evidence is not rebutted and hence this court feels that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount and accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

6 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is Preliminarily decreed with costs against the defendants No.1 & 2, and are jointly and severally liable to be pay sum of

Rs.5,16,871.21/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy

One and Twenty One Paise only), together with future interest 12%per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Further The plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition to sell the mortgage property mentioned in the plaint,to realize the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S

PW.1 : Putta NagarajuNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021

Ex.A2Credit facility application, dated: 25.04.2016

Ex.A3Sanction letter, dt. 01.06.2016

Ex.A4Hypothecation deed, dt. 19.06.2016

Ex.A5Mortgage deed No.1971/2016 dt. 01.06.2016

Ex.A6Office copy of recall notice dt. 20.09.2021

Ex.A7Bank Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the

Bankers book of Evidence Act dt. 30.06.2016.

7 of 8

Fair OS.No.45/2022

DEFENDANTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 8 of 8

Fair OS.No.130/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: GAJWEL

PRESENT:- SMT. B. PRIYANKA,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL

Friday, the 16th day of September, 2022.

O.S.No.130 of 2022

Between:

ICICI Bank Limited, a Banking Company Incorporated under the Provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office At Mumbai and various branches across the country and one of its branch Karimnagar. Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Power of Attorney holder Sri Putta Naga Raju, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Manager, R/o. ICICI Bank Limited, Hyderabad.

… Plaintiff

And

1.Malugari Laxmi W/o: Lingam, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Malugari Raju S/o: Lingam, Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o: H.No.2-95, Doulthabad village and mandal, Medak District.

… Defendants

SUIT FILED FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY

Plaint Filed U/Sec.26 Order VII Rule 1 & Order XXXIV R/W Sec. 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Date of presentation of plaint: 02.03.2022

Date of registration of plaint: 10.03.2022

This Suit came before me on 14.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.B. Praveen Kumar, counsel for Plaintiff and the defendants were remained exparty and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 1 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022

::J U D G M E N T::

1.The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants No.1 & 2 for recovery of amount of Rs.5,47,329.59/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Three

Hundred and Twenty Nine and Fifty Nine Paise only), with future interest @ 11.70% per annum, with quarterly rests till the date of final realization, to pass a preliminary decree against the defendants No.1 & 2, for an amount of Rs.5,47,329.59/- (Rupees

Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Nine and Fifty Nine

Paise only), with future interest @ 11.70% per annum and to pass a final decree to sell mortgage property ie., (i) Land bearing Sy.No.853/^B, to an extent of Ac.0-13 gts,

(ii) Sy.No.853/^A, to an extent of Ac.0-12 gts, (iii) Sy.No.50/^LU2, to an extent of

Ac.0-3 gts, (iv)) Sy.No.40/^LU2, to an extent of Ac.0-1 ½ gts, (v) Sy.No.40/^RU, to an extent of Ac.0-3 gts, (vi) Sy.No.322, to an extent of Ac.0-3 gts, (vii) Sy.No.303/2, to an extent of Ac.0-8 ½ gts, (viii) Sy.No.969/^C1/1, to an extent of Ac.0-4 gts, (ix)

Sy.No.950/^B1, to an extent of Ac.0-37 gts, (x) Sy.No.932^A, to an extent of Ac.0-11 ½ gts, (xi) Sy.No.929, to an extent of Ac.3-04 gts and (xii) Sy.No.868^A1, to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts, situated at Doulthabad village and mandal, and bounded on

Boundary Description of boundary

EastLand of School Road

WestLand of G. Mallaiah

NorthLand of Shambaiah

SouthLand of Shambaiah

Herein after referred as “Schedule Property of defendant No.1”, and the payment proceeds to be appropriated towards the decreetal amount.

2 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022

2.Case of the Plaintiff: (i) The plaintiff bank is a banking company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956, and carrying the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act, having its head office at Mumbai, and among other branches and represented by its GPA Holder, is duly authorized, empowered and competent to represented before this Hon’ble court.

ii)That the plaintiff during regular course of banking business, the plaintiff bank has introduced various products/scheme to the customer. The defendants approached to the bank and requested for sanction of loan for the purpose of cultivation, development of their agricultural land, the plaintiff's Bank Manager visited and inspected the agricultural land of defendants and thereafter the defendants made an application dt. 02.02.2017, to sanction the agriculture term loan amount, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.4,70,400/- for the first year limit and subject renewal of every year. The said agreed term loan to be repaid on demand at the rate of interest. A copy of application and sanction letter is filed herewith.

iii)The defendant No.1 is borrower, the defendants received the loan amount and executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the above loan by depositing the title deed and the same was kept as simple mortgage. After executing the simple mortgage the defendants availed the loan facility on 22.02.2017 vide loan account number 223351000137 with interest.

The defendants have to repay that total loan amount and also agreed to pay back the loan amount. Hence the defendants are liable to pay of Rs.5,47,329.59/-, with up to date interest.

3 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022 iv)That the defendants have offered his personal guarantee for the repayment of loan amount with interest and execute the necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank and also hypothicated crop, cattle and machinery etc, to the bank and hypothication deed dt. 18.02.2017.

v)That on arrangement of agreed term loan credit facility, the defendants have agreed to the terms and conditions as laid down and acknowledged the debt.

Thereafter the defendants have committed default in repayment of the credit facility amount, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and trying to avoid all his liability and under those circumstances the plaintiff has constrained to issue loan recall notice on 20.09.2021, demanding payment of outstanding due amount.

Hence the suit.

3.The summons were served on the defendants and on the day of appearance the defendant did not appear before the court and was set exparty, holding the service sufficient.

4.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff bank was examined through its Debt

Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

a) Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for the decree of recovery of money?

b) Whether defendants, executed simple mortgage over schedule of property in favour of plaintiff bank or not?

c)To what relief?

4 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022

Arguments:

6(i)For the Plaintiff: Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that, the plaintiff bank has lent the amount to the defendants. It is borne by record that the defendants have defaulted and has been avoiding the payment of money and also have not paid the amount even after executing the recall notice and that the plaintiff bank is a public limited company and the money of public is at risk and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

(ii)For the Defendants:- Nil

ANSWER TO POINT:-

7.The plaintiff Bank got examined through its Debt. Manager as PW1 and filed chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint and relied Ex.A1 to A7, those are Ex.A1 is CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021. Ex.A2 is Credit facility application, dated: 02.02.2017. Ex.A3 is Sanction letter, dt. 17.02.2017. Ex.A4 is

Hypothecation deed, dt. 18.02.2017. Ex.A5 is Mortgage deed No.547/2017 dt.

18.02.2017. Ex.A6 is Office copy of recall notice dt. 12.11.2021 and Ex.A7 is Bank

Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the Bankers book of

Evidence Act dt. 24.12.2021.

8.The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendants have approached for sanction of loan for purpose of cultivation. The Manager visited and inspected agricultural lands of defendants and thereafter defendants made an application dt.02.02.2017 is proved under Ex.A2 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned of

Rs5,47,329.59/-, the defendants availed the loan facility on 22.02.2017 vide account

No.223351000137 with interest and it is proved under Ex.A3. Further case of the 5 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022 plaintiff is that the defendant No.1, who deposited her title deeds with plaintiff bank and also executed hypothecation deed and the same is proved under Ex.A4.

9.Finally the defendants failed to repay and committed default in payment of credit facility, the plaintiff issued recall notice and the same was proved under Ex.A6, further demanding outstanding was not paid by defendants in order to prove the same. Ex.A7 bank statement is filed along with certificate under Section 2-A (B) of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act, and the defendant after receiving the suit summons have remained exparty and this court feels that the plaintiff bank has filed all the documents in order to discharge its burden and since the defendants have remained absent the entire evidence is not rebutted and hence this court feels that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the said amount and accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is Preliminarily decreed with costs against the defendants No.1 & 2, and are jointly and severally liable to be pay sum of

Rs.5,47,329.59/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and

Twenty Nine and Fifty Nine Paise only), together with future interest 11.70%per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Further the plaintiff is at liberty to file a final decree petition to sell the mortgage property mentioned in the plaint,to realize the suit amount.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 16th day of September, 2022.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 6 of 7

Fair OS.No.130/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT S

PW.1 : Putta NagarajuNil

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1CC of General power of Attorney, dt. 01.06.2021

Ex.A2Credit facility application, dated: 02.02.2017

Ex.A3Sanction letter, dt. 17.02.2017

Ex.A4Hypothecation deed, dt. 18.02.2017

Ex.A5Mortgage deed No.547/2017 dt. 18.02.2017

Ex.A6Office copy of recall notice dt. 12.11.2021

Ex.A7Bank Statement along with certificate under section 2-A (B) of the

Bankers book of Evidence Act dt. 24.12.2021.

DEFENDANTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GAJWEL 7 of 7

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - AT GAJWEL.

Friday, this the 25 th day of April, 2025

Present: Smt. B. Priyanka, Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel.

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024

Between

State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station Gowraram.

…Complainant.

And

Barrela Narsimlu, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 50 Yrs, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occ: Labour, R/o Meenajipet Village, Wargal Mandal of Siddipet District.

...Accused.

Offences u/s. : 106 of BNS and U/s 117 PUC. 115, 181 of MV Act.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of the A.P.P. Gajwel on behalf of the State and the counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The brief facts of the case are that, on 07-10-2024 at 14:00 hours, Pw1 came to PS and lodged a report stating that, on 06-10-2024 in the evening hours, his father Panga Sathaiah went to Wargal market and returned to home by walking and when he reached near Royal Real estate office situated at the outskirts of Shakaram Village the accused driver of a splendor motorcycle B.no. AP28BX0748 drove his motorcycle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit his father from backside due to which his father fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injury to his head and other parts. He received the information over the phone from

PW4 and PW5 and immediately he along with his villagers rushed to the spot and noticed his father in unconscious state with injuries. Later PW1

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 2 came to know that there are two other persons on the motorcycle of the accused. Immediately he shifted his father to RVM hospital, Laxmakkapally and admitted in that hospital. As such he lodged report before police and requested to take necessary action against the accused. Basing on it, Pw8 registered a case in Cr.No. 210/2024 U/s 125(a) BNS and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, Pw8 examined Pw1 and recorded his statement. Later Pw8 proceeded to scene of offense situated at the limits of Shakaram village and secured the presence of Lw8 & Lw9 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch.

And on 09-10-2024 Pw8 received information about the death of the injured who is the father of Pw1, upon which Pw8 proceeded to RVM hospital and shifted the dead body to Govt. Hospital, Gajwel and kept in mortuary room. Later Pw6 examined and recorded the statements of Pw2 to PW7 and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same mediators and subjected the body to PME and the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of the death is due to “cardio respiratory arrest due to head injury”. Later the MVI inspector inspected the vehicle and opined that “the accident did not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle” and on 10-10-2024 Pw8 summoned the accused to PS Gowraram, as such the accused came to police station and surrendered before Pw8 and admitted his guilt. On verification of vehicle documents it was found that there is no insurance to the crime vehicle. Later Pw6 served 35(3) of BNSS notice to the accused. Later after elaborate investigation Pw8 filed charge sheet against the accused for committing the offence u/sec 106 of BNS and Sec 117 PUC, 115, 181 of MV Act.

2.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him u/sec.230 of BNSS. He is examined u/sec 274 of BNSS for

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 3 the charge sheet allegations leveled against accused u/sec 106 of BNS and

Sec 117 PUC, 115, 181 of MV Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[ [3.During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined (8) witnesses as PW.1 to PW8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P14. As PW1 to Pw7 did not support the case of the prosecution, this court has closed the evidence of Lw8 to LW11.

4.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined

U/sec. 351 of BNSS by explaining the incriminating substance appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused u/sec 106 of BNS and Sec 117 PUC, 115, 181 of MV Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

6.In this case P.W.1 is the complainant and son of the deceased,

PW2 is the another son of the deceased, PW3 is wife of deceased, Pw4 to

Pw7 are eye witnesses and PW8 is the investigating officer.

7.Pw1 to PW3 who are the family members of the deceased deposed that in the year 2024 the deceased went to Wargal market, on the same day at about 19.00 hrs., they received information through

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 4 phone that deceased met with an accident and was shifted to RVM hospital and while undergoing treatment deceased succumbed to injuries. They further deposed that they do not know who is responsible for the accident nor even know the manner of the accident and that they are not examined by the police,

8.Pw4 to PW7 who are the eye witnesses deposed that they do not know facts of the case and they never witnessed any accident at any point of time and that they are not examined by the police, as such the learned APP sought permission from the court to declare the witnesses as hostile upon which this court verified the evidence of the witnesses and permission is accorded. Upon which prosecution tried to reiterate the evidence from Pw1 to PW7 in which Pw1 to PW3 admitted that they had compromised the case with the accused and their 180 of BNSS statements are marked as Ex P2 to P8.

9.Pw3 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 07-10- 2024 at 14.00 hrs, he received a complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No. 210/2024 u/sec 125(a) of BNS and took up the investigation.

In the course of investigation he had examined Pw1 and recorded his statement. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offense situated at

Shakaram village and secured the presence of LW8 and 9 and conducted the scene of offense panchanama and drawn Rough sketch. Later the dead body was shifted to Govt, Hospital Gajwel for PME and recorded the statements of PW2 to Pw7. And also conducted inquest over the corpus of the deceased in the presence of LW8 and LW9 and also sent a requisition for medical officer to conduct PME. On 10-10-2024 he summoned the accused, as such accused came to PS surrendered before him, as such he

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 5 served notice u/sec 35(3) of BNSS. After collecting the requisite documents he had filed detailed charge sheet.

10.Hence from the above evidence which reveals that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. While specially 106(1) of BNS cases eye witnesses plays a role in deposing the evidence in which manner the accident took place, more particularly the identification of the accused but while in this present case eye witnesses simply deposed their evidence stating that they do not know the facts of the case and they never witnessed any accident at any point of time. And

PW1 to PW3 are the hearsay witnesses and learned the information about the accident but they did not witnessed the accident. Further more except the evidence of investigation officer none of the prosecution witnesses support the case of the prosecution. In that regard this court cannot convict the accused basing on the evidence deposed by the investigation officer without the corroboration of the prosecution witnesses. As such accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/sec 106 of BNS and Sec 117 PUC, 115, 181 of MV Act. Accordingly he is acquitted u/sec 278(1) of BNSS. Bail bonds canceled forthwith. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24 th day of April,

2025.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel

C.C.No. 1084 of 2024 Page 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Prosecution:Defence:

PW1 Sri. Panga Naveen -None -

PW2 Sri. Panga Prashanth

PW3 Sri. Panga Sugunamma

PW4 Sri. Neerudi Naresh

PW5 Sri. Panga Harikrishna

PW6 Sri. Barrela Padma

PW7 Sri. Madaram Bhumaiah

PW8 Sri. B. Karunakar Reddy

Exhibits Marked For

Prosecution:Defence:

Ex P1 Signature of PW1 on Report -None-

Ex P2 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw1

Ex P3 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw2

Ex P4 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw3

Ex P5 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw4

Ex P6 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw5

Ex P7 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw6

Ex P8 Sec 180 of BNSS statement of Pw7

EX P9 Report

Ex P10 FIR

Ex P11 CDF

Ex P12 Inquest Panchanama

Ex P13 PME report

Ex P14 MVI report of vehicle

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gajwel