B Rama Rao

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

Present:- Sri B.Rama Rao, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

KOTHAGUDEM.

C.C.No. 1872 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Chandrugonda Police Station. …PROSECUTION AND

Mondru Narasimha Rao S/o. Nagesh, Aged: 34 years, Occu: Tipper Driver, R/o. Thallada Village and Mandal, Khammam. …ACCUSED

This case is coming for hearing before me on 07.06.2024 in the presence of Smt. B. Viswashanthi, learned I/c. Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri G.V.K. Manohar Rao, counsel for the accused, upon hearing the matter and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandrugonda

Police Station in Crime No.90/2019 for the offences punishable under

Sec.336, 279, 427 of IPC, Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public

Prosecution Act (for short “PDPP Act”) against sole accused.

2.Case of prosecution, in conspectus, is that while LW-1/Naveen

Kumar and LW/Srinivasa Rao, were employees of Raghava Constructions and they were in supervision of the work going on the NB-30 from

Page 1 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

Penuballi to Kothagudem. As part of their duty, 23.11.2019 when they were doing patrolling from Penuballi to Kothagudem and when they reached near to Ayyannapalem, they found that the center lighting pole-1, Lamps-2, barricades-6 and signboard-1 were damaged and its worth is approximately Rs.33,000/-. That a lorry bearing No. TS-28-TA- 1122 by getting damaged was there by the side of the road and the same was loaded with coal. On enquiry, it was disclosed that on 23.11.2019 at about 5:00 AM, the accused drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the poles and barricades, which were in the midst of the road and caused the damage to the public property.

On the strength of report lodged by LW-1/Naveen, LW-7/Rajesh

Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandrugonda registered a case in

Cr.No.90/2019 for the offences under Sec.336, 279, 427 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted Crime Detail Defendant, served notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., to the Accused and on completion of entire investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3. On receipt of charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offences under Sec.336, 279, 427 of IPC & Sec.3 of PDPP Act against the

Accused. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C

Page 2 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

4.Accused was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C., and he denied the accusation. Charges for the offences under Section 336, 279, 427 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act have been framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-6 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-10.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence the evidence on behalf of the Accused is closed.

7.Heard the learned I/c Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Accused.

8.Perused the entire material available on record.

9.Now the point germane for my determinationis ‘whether the

prosecution has proved and established the guilt of Accused for

the charges under Sec.336, 279, 427 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP

Act beyond reasonable doubt’ ?

10.P O I N T:

10(i) In order to the prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution shall prove that the accused being the driver of lorry bearing No.

Page 3 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

TS-28-TA-1122 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to poles and barricades, thereby caused damage to lighting poles, barricades and signbroads. To prove the charges leveled against the Accused, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-6 and marked

Exs.P-1 to P-10. The role played by the prosecution witnesses is, PW-1 is de-facto complainant; PW-2 and PW-3 are stated to be eye witnesses to the accident; PW-4 and PW-5 are mediators for crime details form and confession panchanama and PW-6 is Investigating Officer.

10(ii) A perusal of Ex.P-1 report, it emerges that while PW-1 was doing patrolling duty on NH-30 and when he reached at the curve of

Ayyannapalem, he found that barricades-6, central lighting pole-1, lights-2 and signboard-1 were damaged and that a lorry bearing No.

TS-28-TA-1122 was there by getting damage. It further emerges from

Ex.P-1 report that on enquiry PW-1 came to know that on the same day at 5:00 AM the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused damage and he came to know the name of driver of the said lorry is Mondru Narasimha Rao.

10(iii)PW-1, who set the criminal machinery by lodging Ex.P-1 report, deposed that on 23.11.2019 while he was doing patrolling duty from Penubally to Kothagudem in NH-30, one coal tipper bearing No. TS- 28-TA-1122 belongs to SMLT company committed an accident and damaged 6-barricades, one electric pole, 2-electric lights and one

Page 4 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

signboard. He further deposed that the said lorry was parked on one side of the road and on enquiry with the local residents, they informed that the accident was took place at about 5:30 AM and the diver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As seen from the cross examination of PW-1, the accused did not dispute the damage caused to the barricades, poles, lights and signboards. Admittedly, PW-1 is not the eye witness to the alleged accident. There is no whisper in

Ex.P-1 report that accused was present at the place of accident when

PW-1 reached there. In his evidence, PW-1 did not whisper the name of the driver of the crime lorry. But coming to the cross examination, PW-1 testified that driver was present at the scene of offence. PW-1 further adds that he informed about the accident to supervisor, who came to the scene and stated that Accused was the driver of the of the crime vehicle.

The prosecution did not examine the supervisor of PW-1. PW-1 pleaded his ignorance that he does not know the name of the supervisor of the

SMLT vehicle bearing No. TS-28-TA-1122. If really the supervisor of crime lorry came and informed to PW-1 that the accused was the driver of the lorry, PW-1 should have stated the same in Ex.P-1 report and in his 161 Cr.P.C., statement recorded by the police. The Investigating

Officer has not examined the owner of the crime vehicle to prove that the accused was the driver of the accident on the date of accident. Even

PW-1 also did not depose that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and he caused the damage. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

Page 5 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

10(iv)PW-2 and PW-3, who are eye witnesses to the alleged accident and PW-4 & PW-5 who are panch witnesses for CDF and confession panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. PW-2 and PW-3 testified that they do not know anything about the case and they did not witness any accident. PW-4 and PW-5 deposed that Police never drafted CDF and confession panchamama in their presence. PW-4 and PW-5 identified their signatures on CDF and confession panchanama and the same are marked as Exs.P-4 to P-7 respectively. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor declared PW-2 to

PW-5 as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the

Accused, but nothing incriminating material was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination, of PW-2 and PW-3, their 161 Cr.P.C., statements were marked as Exs.P-2 and P-3 respectively.

10(v)Now there remains the evidence of PW-6, who is investigating officer. His evidence discloses right from the registration of the crime till filing of the charge sheet. The evidence of PW-6 that he conducted Ex.P-8 CDF and Ex.P-9 confession panchanama in the presence of PW-4 and PW-5 is not corroborated from their testimonies as they turned hostile. PW-6, investigating officer is interested witness in the case of the prosecution and his evidence cannot be taken as a conclusive proof in the absence of corroboration from the testimony of independent witnesses.

Page 6 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

10(vi)In view of the above discussion, it can be concluded that the prosecution proved the damage caused to the pole, lights, barricades and signbroads, but failed to prove that the Accused was the driver of the crime lorry at the time of accident, and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the said damage. No evidence is available on record showing accusation finger towards the Accused.

Hence, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he was charged and as such, he is entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

11.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Section 336, 279, 427 of IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Actand accordingly, he is acquitted under Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged under

Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of June 2024.

Sd/-XXX

FAC: I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

PW-1V. Naveen Kumar PW-2K. Venkateswarlu

Page 7 of 8

C.C.No.1872 of 2019 Dated: 19.06.2024

PW-3V. Sheshaiah:: NONE :: PW-4M. Narasimha Rao PW-5R. Venkateswarlu PW-6P. Rajesh Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED

Ex.P-1Original Report given by PW-1 Ex.P-2161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW-2 Ex.P-3161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW-3 :: NIL :: EX.P-4Signature of PW-4 on Crime Detail Form EX.P-5Signature of PW-4 on Confession Panchanama. EX.P-6Signature of PW-5 on Crime Detail Form. Ex.P-7Signature of PW-5 on Confession panchanama. Ex.P-8Crime Detail Form. Ex.P-9Confession Panchanama.

Ex.P-10First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: NIL ::

Sd/-XXX

FAC: I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 8 of 8

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

SRI BATTULA RAMA RAO

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

FAC: I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

O.S.No. 110 OF 2024

(old No.107/2018 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.) BETWEEN:

1.Thipparapu Shankar (since died) represented by his Legal heirs i.e., plaintiff No.2 to 5 herein.

2.Thipparapu Poorna W/o. Late Shankar, Aged: 48 years, Occu: Homemaker.

3.Thipparapu Vinay Kumar S/o. Late Shankar, Aged: 29 years, Occu: Private works.

4.Thipparapu Nagaraju S/o. Late Shankar, Aged: 27 years, Occu: Private Works.

5.Thipparapu Lavanya D/o. Late Shankar, Aged: 25 years, Occu: Homemaker. All are R/o. Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. (the plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are brought on record as per Orders passed in I.A.No.02 of 2024, dated 09.09.2024.) …PLAINTIFFS AND Raichetti Ramakrishna S/o. Rajam, Aged: 52 years, Occ. General Mazdoor, JVROC, Sathupalli, R/o. Qr.NO.T2-102B, Gouthampur Colony, Rudrampur, Chunchupally Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District …DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 04.04.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Arikala Ravi Kumar, counsel for the plaintiffs and of Smt. M. Usha Rani, counsel for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the arguments of the defendant was treated heard as there was no representation and

Page 1 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

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

1.This suit has been instituted for recovery of Rs.2,84,000/- with costs and subsequent interest, basing on promissory note, dated 15.08.2016 said to have been executed by the defendant. Initially,

Thipparapu Shankar (hereinafter to be referred as deceased plaintiff) filed the suit and during pendency of the suit, he died and as such, his legal heirs have been brought on record as plaintiffs No.2 to 5.

2.Brief averments of plaint are that the defendant was closely acquainted with the deceased plaintiff. Out of such acquaintance, on 15.08.2016, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the deceased plaintiff for his family necessities and executed a demand promissory note at Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem Town and Mandal, in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the deceased plaintiff or his order on demand.

3. It is further averred that subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the deceased plaintiff for repayment of the borrowed amount, the defendant did not choose to repay the same. On 20.05.2018 and 27.05.2018 the deceased plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to discharge the debt, but in vain. Hence the suit.

Page 2 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint pleadings. It is the case of the defendant that he never borrowed the amount and never executed the pronote for Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.08.2016 in favour of the deceased plaintiff. That the suit pronote is a rank forged document and created by the deceased plaintiff and his men and the alleged attesters and scribe are kith and kin of deceased plaintiff and that the defendant never saw the faces of the alleged attesters and scribe. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief from the defendant and the defendant is not liable to pay any debt to the plaintiffs. Finally, he prays for dismissal of the suit.

5. Initially, this suit was instituted before the Court of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Kothagudem and assigned number vide O.S.No.107 of 2018.

Later, as per the circular of the Hon’ble High Court for the State of

Telangana, the suit was transferred to this Court for disposal according to law. On receipt of case bundle, new number was assigned.

6.Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

(i)Whether the promissory note dated 15.08.2016 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the provisions of AP (TA) Money Lending Act 1349 Fasli ?

(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim ?

(iv)To what relief ?

Page 3 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

7. During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as PW-1 and one Kandikatla Kumara Swamy as PW-2. The plaintiffs got marked Ex.A-1 on their behalf.

Despite giving opportunity, the defendant failed to let in evidence and moreover, there was no representation on his behalf.

Having no other go, the evidence of defendant was closed.

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. The arguments of the defendant treated heard as there was no representation on his behalf.

9.Perused the material available on record.

10. ISSUE No.1:

Whether the promissory note dated 15.08.2016 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

10(i) To fortify the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 stepped into witness box as PW-1 and filed chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. PW-1 deposes that she is wife and plaintiffs No.3 to 5 are children of deceased plaintiff. It is the evidence of PW-1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the deceased plaintiff on 15.08.2016 and executed Ex.A-1 promissory note in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. It is further evidence of PW-1 that subsequently, in spite of

Page 4 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

several oral demands made by deceased plaintiff for repayment of the borrowed amount, the defendant did not choose to repay the same.

10(ii) Further, to support the oral testimony of PW-1, the plaintiffs got examined PW-2, who is scribe of Ex.A-1. He deposed to that of the evidence deposed by PW-1 about the borrowing of Rs.2,00,000/- by the defendant from the deceased plaintiff and execution of Ex.A-1 pronote in favour of deceased plaintiff. It is further say of PW-2 that Ex.A-1 pronote was attested by T. Suresh and Osman Khan and that consideration was passed in his presence.

10(iii) The defendant did not choose to cross examine PW-1 & PW-2, as such, their evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent, cogent, trustworthy and the evidence of PW-2 is fully corroborated with the testimony of PW-1 with regard to execution of pronote and passing of consideration under it.

10(iv) It is the case of defendant that he never borrowed amount from deceased plaintiff and never executed Ex.A-1 pronote and his signature on Ex.A-1 pronote was forged. Having pleaded that his signature was forged under Ex.A-1 pronote, the defendant, for the reasons best known to him, has not taken any steps to send the disputed signature on Ex.A-1 along with his admitted signatures to the expert for comparison and opinion. Mere taking plea of forgery by itself

Page 5 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

would not amount for substantiating the stand taken by the defendant.

Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the case of the defendant. Further the defendant did not choose to step into witness box in support of his contentions.

10(v) This Court come across the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court decided in Vidhyadhar vs Manik Rao & another 1 , wherein it has been held that;

“When a party did not enter into witness box and

did not expose himself for cross examination, the

court can draw adverse inference against such

party to the affect that what he pleads is not

correct” 10(vi) In the case on hand also, the defendant did not opt to enter into witness box to prove his case. Hence, in view of the above judicial precedent, whatever the allegations made by the defendant in the written statement shall be treated incorrect.

10(vii) By examining PW-1 and PW-2 and exhibiting the documentary evidence under Ex.A-1, the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note. On proof of execution of promissory note, this court is duty bound to invoke the presumption under law i.e., under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 with regard to passing of consideration.

11999 (3) ALT 1 (SC)

Page 6 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

10(viii) From the unchallenged testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 coupled with Ex.A-1 promissory note, this Court without any hesitation holds that Ex.A-1 pronote is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant. This issue is answered affirmatively in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.

11. ISSUE No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the Provisions of AP (TA) Money Lending Act, 1349 Fasli ?

11(i) It is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is doing money lending business. There is no evidence on record to say that the plaintiff is conducting money lending business. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

12. ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim ?

12(i) It is the evidence of PW-1 that prior to filing of the suit, her husband i.e., deceased plaintiff several times orally demanded the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount, but he did not choose to repay the same. Under issue No.1, this court holds that

Ex.A-1 promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with interest. This issue is also answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

Page 7 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

13. ISSUE No.4: To what relief ?

13(i) In view of findings of this Court under issues No.1 to 3, the

Court is of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

14. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,84,000/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs and Eighty Four Thousand only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on

principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 16th day of April 2025. Digitally signed by

BATHULA RAMARAO

Date: 2025.04.16

15:51:22 +0530

FAC. I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW-1Tipparapu Poorna PW-2Kandikatla Kumara Swamy

FOR DEFENDANT

:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. Date of Description of Document

No. Document Ex.A-115.08.2016Original Promissory note

Page 8 of 9

O.S.No. 110 of 2024 Dated: 16.04.2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL :: Digitally signed by

BATHULA RAMARAO

Date: 2025.04.16

15:51:41 +0530 FAC: I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 9 of 9

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

SRI BATTULA RAMA RAO

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1.Smt. Marasu Divyasri W/o. Mohan Rao, Aged: 29 years, Occu: Homemaker, R/o. H.No.2-27, Near Ramalayam, Anandapuram Village, Ashwapuram Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2.Smt. Kommineni Kavyasri W/o. Shiva, Aged: 31 years, Occu: Homemaker, R/o. H.No.9-3-123/124, Madhura Basthi, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…PLAINTIFFS AND

Smt. Akku Bhagyamma W/o. Narayana, Aged: 56 years, Occu: Homemaker, R/o. H.No.7-2-65, Medara Basthi, Kothagudem Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 04.04.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Velpula Sudhakar, counsel for the plaintiffs and of Sri K. Nageshwar Rao, counsel for defendant; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

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

1.The plaintiff instituted the suit to pass preliminary decree for recovery of Rs.23,40,000/- with costs and subsequent interest, basing

Page 1 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

on the registered mortgage deed bearing document No.3563/2021,

dated 24.07.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant.

2.Averments of plaint, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The plaintiffs are mortgagors of house bearing H.No.6-2-202 with its appurtenant site to an extent of 13.40 Sq.yards/11.20

Sq.meters adhere to the R.C.C.building 120 Sq.ft., in Sy.No.142 situated at Chinna Bazar, Kothagudem Town and Municipality, which is hereinafter to be referred as ‘suit schedule property’. The defendant is owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

(ii) The plaintiffs and defendant are acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiffs on 24.07.2021 for her family necessities and towards security of the said debt, the defendant executed a simple mortgage deed bearing No.3563/2021, dated 24.07.2021 in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant agreed to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum within one year i.e., on or before 23.07.2022.

(iii) Later, the defendant failed to redeem the mortgage and evading to repay the debt on one pretext or the other. On 02.06.2023 the plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding her to discharge the mortgage debt. The said legal notice was returned unserved. Hence the suit.

Page 2 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

3.Averments of written statement, in conspectus:

(i) The defendant denied the borrowing of amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiffs on 24.07.2021 and so also execution of registered mortgage deed in respect of suit schedule property, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. The defendant also denied that he agreed to repay the debt within one year i.e., on or before 23.07.0222. He also denied the issuance of legal notice on 02.06.2023 by the plaintiffs.

(ii) It is the case of the defendant that the registered mortgage deed, dated 24.07.2021 is a forged, fabricated and created by the plaintiffs in collusion with their henchmen. The defendant has no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiffs. That the plaintiffs have no cause of action to sue the defendant. The defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been settled for trial.

(i)Whether the simple mortgage deed dated 24.07.2021 is forged, fabricated by the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for suit amount of Rs.23,40,000/- together with interest as prayed by the plaintiff ?

(iii) To what relief ?

Page 3 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

5. During trial, the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW-1 and

Exs.A-1 to A-3 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the defendant herself examined as DW-1 and got examined her husband/Narayana as DW-2. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendant.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.ISSUE No.1:

Whether the simple mortgage deed dated 24.07.2021 is forged, fabricated by the plaintiff as prayed by the defendant ?

8(i) To substantiate the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 stepped into witness box as PW-1 and filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. It is the evidence of PW-1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from her and plaintiff No.2 on 24.07.2021 and executed Ex.A-1 mortgage deed in their favour in respect of suit schedule property, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum within one year i.e., on or

before 23.07.2022. It is further evidence of PW-1 that after passing of

considerable time, they several times demanded the defendant orally and through legal notice under Ex.A-2 to repay the borrowed amount,

Page 4 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

but the defendant having received the said legal notice did not choose to repay the same.

8(ii) DW-1 and DW-2 are wife and husband. DW-1 filed her chief examination affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, which is nothing but replica of plaint pleadings. DW-2 also deposed supporting the evidence of DW-1 that his wife/DW-1 never received any amount from the plaintiffs. He further admitted that he is one of the attester of

Ex.A-1 mortgage deed. In the cross examination, DW-1 denied the borrowing of amount and execution of Ex.A-1 mortgage deed, whereas

DW-2 conceded in his cross examination that on 24.07.2021 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiffs and executed Ex.A-1 mortgage deed and he is one of the attestors of

Ex.A-1 mortgage deed. The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 is contrary to each other concerning the execution of Ex.A-1 mortgage deed.

8(iii) PW-1 was subjected to moderate cross examination by the learned counsel for the defendant. It is suggested to PW-1 that her father informed to the defendant that after the registration of the mortgage deed, he requested the defendant to come to his house to take money and that at the request of his father, after execution of

Ex.A-1 mortgage deed, the defendant and her husband went to house of her father, but her father did not give money to them and requested

Page 5 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

them to come after some days, which are denied by her. The suggestions given to PW-1 and the admissions made by DW-2 shows that the defendant admitted the execution of Ex.A-1 mortgage deed, but she is disputing the passing of consideration thereunder. Through the cross examination of PW-1 and DW-2, it is indisputable fact that the defendant executed Ex.A-1 mortgage deed. Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation that Ex.A-1 is not forged or created document.

8(iv) Now, it has to be seen whether consideration was passed under

Ex.A-1 pronote. In the cross examination, PW-1 testified that they lend amount under Ex.A-1 to the defendant in the presence of Chippa

Ramprasad and Akku Narayana. No suggestion is given to PW-1 denying the said statement of PW-1. DW-1 also admitted execution of

Ex.A-1 and borrowing of amount from plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A-1 mortgage deed, it can be presumed that consideration was also passed under it. This issue is answered accordingly.

9. ISSUE No.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for suit amount of Rs.23,40,000/- together with interest as prayed by the plaintiff ?

Page 6 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

9(i) It is the evidence of PW-1 that prior to filing of the suit, she demanded the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount orally and through legal notice under Ex.A-2, but he did not choose to repay the same. Under issue No.1, this court holds that Ex.A-1 mortgage deed is not a forged or created document and consideration was passed under it.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with interest. This issue is also answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. ISSUE No.3: To what relief ?

10(i) In view of the discussion and finding under issue Nos.1 & 2, the suit of plaintiff deserves to be decreed preliminarily.

11. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is preliminarily decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.23,40,000/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs and Forty Thousand only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization on the principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Time for redemption three months.

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 17th day of April 2025.

Sd./-

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 7 of 8

O.S.No. 57 OF 2023 Dated: 17.04.2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS

PW-1Marasu Divyasri (plaintiff No.1)

FOR DEFENDANT

DW-1Akku Bagyamma (defendant)

DW-2Akku Narayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS

Sl.No. Date of Description of Document

Document

Ex.A-124.07.2021Original registered mortgage deed bearing No.3563/2021. Ex.A-202.06.2023Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt.

Ex.A-303.06.2023Returned Postal cover.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

Sd./-

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 8 of 8

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

Friday this the 21st day of June 2024

Present:- Sri.B.Rama Rao, Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem. FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kothagudem.

C.C.No. 1318 OF 2019

Between:-

The State through the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Kothagudem. …PROSECUTION

And

A-1 Ajmeera Goba W/o. Lakshman, Aged: 45 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Chittirmavaram, Kothagudem. A-2 Lavgudya Anji W/o. Bhavsingh, Aged: 60 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Chittiramavaram, Kothaudem.

...ACCUSED

This case is coming before me on 14.06.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.B.Viswashanthi, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri S. Santhosh, learned counsel for Accused, upon hearing both sides, considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 are indicted for an offence U/s.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise,

Kothagudem in COR.No.117/2018.

2. Brief brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 18.05.2018 at about 10:50 AM on the reliable information regarding illegal possession,

Page No.1 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

manufacture and sale of illegal Distilled Liquor, PW-3/ Mubasheer Ahmad along with his staff proceeded to the north side of Anjaneya Swamy Temple,

Chittiramavaram village, for conducting raids. He called mediators i.e., LW-1

Banoth Rambabu and LW-2 Maloth Santhu and examined them about their raid and requested them to act as panchas. They accepted the same. They proceeded to the above said place. While conducting raid, they found A-1 &

A-2 in possession (40) polythene covers and on seeing them, A-1 & A-2 tried to ran away, but the raid party chased and caught hold the accused. On examination, the raid party and pachans smelt the same and identified the same as ID liquor. On enquiry, the accused revealed their identity and admitted the offence. Later the LW-3/Mubasheer Ahmad drawn samples containing 180 ML from the contraband for the purpose of chemical analysis and sealed the samples and pasted slips duly signed by the mediators under cover of panchanama. After taking the samples, the contraband was seized by LW-3/Mubasheer Ahmad.

On the strength of panchanama, a case in C.O.R.No.117/2018, for the offence under Sec.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, was registered against A-1 & A-2 and investigation was taken up. On the same day, the accused were arrested and issued notice under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., to the accused and later sent the samples to Chemical Examiner, Regional Excise

Laboratory, Warangal for analysis and report. On receipt of the analysis report and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet.

3. On receipt of the charge sheet, the case was taken on file for the offence punishable under Sec.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of T.S. Prohibition Act against

A-1 & A-2. On appearance of the Accused, copies were furnished to them as

Page No.2 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. Later, A-1 & A-2 were examined under

Sec.239 of Cr.P.C, and a charge for the offence under Sec.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of

T.S. Prohibition Act, was framed against the Accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P.4. PW-1 and PW-2 are the mediators of confession cum seizure panchanama and PW-3 is the investigating officer.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-3 are examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the Accused.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the point arises for determination is whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of A-1 & A-2 beyond any reasonable doubt for

an offence punishable U/s.7(A) R/w. 8 (e) of APP Act. ?”

9. P O I N T:

9(i) The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the I.D liquor was recovered from the possession of the Accused and the samples were

Page No.3 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

collected and sent to FSL and report was obtained stating the same was I.D liquor and the contraband was produced before the Deputy Commissioner

Prohibition and Excise and the same was destroyed and the evidence of PW-3 clearly proves the case of the prosecution.

9(ii) Per contra, the learned defense counsel argued that the alleged mediators for Ex.P-3 panchanama were not supported and thus prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the contraband and the Accused are no way concerned with the offence and the excise police foisted a false case against the Accused for statistical purpose.

9(iii) To prove its case for an offence under Sec.7(A) R/w.8 (e) of T.S.

Prohibition Act, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3. PW-3, who deducted the crime and Investigating Officer, in this case, deposed that on 18.05.2018 at about 10:50 AM, on reliable information, he along with his staff proceeded to the north side of Anjaneyaswamy temple, Chittiramavaram village, for conducting raids and on the way he secured PW-1 and PW-2, and there he found accused persons moving under suspicious manner holding 40- polythene covers and on seeing them, they tried to flee away. PW-3 further deposed that he apprehended accused, seized and drawn samples of the same under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW-1 and PW-2, sent to FSL and on enquiry the accused revealed their identity particulars and confessed the commission of offence and then

Page No.4 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

they returned to the police station and registered the case under Ex.P-4

Crime and Occurrence report.

9(iv)In the case on hand, PW-1 and PW-2 are the mediators for confession cum seizure panchanama turned hostile and deposed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and they do not know anything about the case and excise police obtained their signature on some papers and that they do not know the contents of the papers on which they signed. Therefore, conducting of Ex.P-3 panchanama is not proved by the prosecution. PW-3 deposed that Accused confessed the commission of the crime, but the confession was made in the presence of the Excise police officials, which becomes inadmissible as per Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

9(v) The prosecution failed to file any FSL report to prove the alleged seized contraband is ID liquor and prosecution failed to secure any independent witnesses and none of the prosecution witnesses spoke about the possession of ID liquor by the Accused and except the testimony of PW-3, there is no other evidence available on record to prove the case of the prosecution and thus, when there are no independent witnesses supporting the prosecution case, this Court is of the view that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-3, who is excise official and interested in the outcome of the prosecution of the Accused.

Page No.5 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

9(vi) In the light of above made discussion, this Court is of opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence U/sec.7-A

R/w.8(e) of Proh. & Excise Act, beyond reasonable doubt and thus the

Accused persons are for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

10. IN THE RESULT, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the charge under

Sec.7-A R/w.8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months as envisaged Under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of June 2024.

Sd/-XXX

FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum Judicial

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOTHAGUDEM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EX AMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1B.RambabuPanch witness

PW-2M.SanthuPanch witness

PW-3Sk.Mubasheer AhmedInvestigating Officer

ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

:: NONE ::

Page No.6 of 7

C.C.No.1318 of 2019 Dated:21.06.2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

signature of PW-1 on confession cum seizure Ex.P-1 panchanama.

Signature of PW-2 on confession cum seizure Ex.P.2 panchanama. Relevant portion of confession cum recovery Ex.P.3 panchanama.

Crime and Occurrence Report Ex.P.4

ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED

:: NIL ::

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

:: Nil ::

Sd/- XXX

FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum Judicial

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

KOTHAGUDEM

Page No.7 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT KOTHAGUDEM

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

SRI BATTULA RAMA RAO

Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum -

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

O.S.No. 92 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

Bora Pavan Reddy S/o. Late Srinivas Reddy, Aged: 32 years, Occu: Business, R/o. H.No.16-12-10, Bollorigudem, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadadri-Kothagudem District. …PLAINTIFF AND

Ankireddy Narasimha Rao S/o. Ramaiah, Aged: 52 years, Occu: Foreman Grade-I, SE/O&M VII-Stage, KTPS, Paloncha. R/o. H.No.6-2-GT 008, Vidyuth Employee Colony, Gattaigudem, Union Bhadraiah Road, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …DEFENDANT

This suit is coming on 14.10.2024 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Nageswara Rao, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri D. Ramesh, counsel for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court deliver the following:-

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

1.The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.12,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest, basing on the promissory note, dated 20.01.2020 said to have been executed by the defendant.

Page 1 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

2.Brief averments of plaint are that the plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, on 20.01.2020 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and after receipt of the said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note at the house of plaintiff in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

3.It is further averred that subsequently, the plaintiff made several oral demands to the defendant for repayment of the borrowed amount, but he did not choose to repay the same. Finally, on 10.02.2022 the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to discharge the debt, but there was no response from him. Hence the suit.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint pleadings. The defendant also denied the borrowing of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.01.2020 and execution of promissory note in his favour. It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit pronote is not supported by any consideration and it is a forged and fabricated document. That the plaintiff in collusion with his henchmen, created the alleged promissory note. That the defendant had no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff. Finally, the defendant prays for dismissal of the suit.

Page 2 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

5.Basing on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

(i)Whether the promissory note dated 20.01.2020 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the provisions of AP (TA) Money Lenders Act 1349 Fasli ?

(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim ?

(iv)To what relief ?

6. During trial, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 on his behalf.

Despite giving opportunity, the defendant did not evince any interest to step into witness box in support of his contentions. Hence the evidence on behalf of defendant was closed.

7.Heard. Perused the material available on record.

8. ISSUE No.1:

Whether the promissory note dated 20.01.2020 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

8(i) To fortify his case, the plaintiff himself stepped into witness box as PW-1 and filed chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. It is the evidence of PW-1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from him on 20.01.2020 and executed Ex.A-1 promissory in his favour, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. It is further say of PW-1 that he several times

Page 3 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

demanded the defendant orally to discharge the debt, but there was no response from him. The defendant did not chose to cross examine PW-1 and as such, his evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted.

8(ii) It is the case of defendant that he never borrowed any amount from PW-1 and he did not execute Ex.A-1 pronote and that Ex.A-1 is created by forging his signature. Having pleaded that his signature was forged on Ex.A-1 pronote, the defendant, for the reasons best known to him, has not taken any steps to send the disputed signature on Ex.A-1 along with admitted signatures to the expert for comparison and opinion. Mere taking plea of forgery in the written statement by itself would not amount for substantiating the stand taken by the defendant.

Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the case of the defendant. Further the defendant, for the reasons best known to him, did not step into witness box in support of his contentions.

8(iii) I came across the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court decided in Vidhyadhar vs Manik Rao & another 1 , wherein it has been held that; “When a party did not enter into witness box and did not expose himself for cross examination, the court can draw adverse inference against such party to the affect that what he pleads is not correct” 8(iv) In the case on hand also, the defendant did not opt to enter into witness box in support of his case. Hence, in view of the above 11999 (3) ALT 1 (SC)

Page 4 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

judicial precedent, whatever the allegations made by the defendant in the written statement are incorrect.

8(v) By examining PW-1 and exhibiting the documentary evidence under Ex.A-1, the plaintiff proves the execution of Ex.A-1 promissory note. On proof of execution of promissory note, this court is duty bound to invoke the presumption under law i.e., under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act with regard to passing of consideration.

8(vi) From the testimony of PW-1 coupled Ex.A-1, the Court holds that Ex.A-1 pronote is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant. This issue is answered affirmatively in favour of plaintiff.

9. ISSUE No.2: Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the Provisions of AP (TA) Money Lending Act, 1349 Fasli ?

9(i) The evidence on record do not disclose that the plaintiff is doing money lending business. It is not the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is doing money lending business. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff is a money lender. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

10. ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim ?

Page 5 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

10(i) It is the evidence of PW-1 that prior to filing of the suit, he several times demanded the defendant orally for repayment of the borrowed amount, but he did not chose to repay the same. Under issue

No.1, this court holds that Ex.A-1 promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant along with interest. This issue is also answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. ISSUE No.4: To what relief ?

11(i) In view of findings of this Court under issues No.1 to 3, the Court is of the considered opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

12. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve

Lakh only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 18th day of October 2024. BATHULADigitally signed by

BATHULA RAMARAO

RAMARAODate: 2024.10.18 11:05:57 +0530

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 6 of 7

O.S.No. 92 of 2022 Dated: 18.10.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1Bora Pavan Reddy : NONE :

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl.No. Date of Description of Document

Document

Ex.A-120.01.2020Original Promissory note.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL :: BATHULADigitally signed by

BATHULA RAMARAO

RAMARAODate: 2024.10.18 11:05:44 +0530

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTHAGUDEM

Page 7 of 7