Currently Serving

Smt B.Ramya

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka) · Srikakulam · Andhra Pradesh

Smt B.Ramya, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka), Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,323 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

2,323

Total Orders

Judgments

181

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/18/2026 Acquitted

SHO BURJA PS vs ANNEPU. NARAYANA RAO

12 May 2026

CC18/2026(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS,

AMADALAVALASA

PRESENT: Smt.B.Ramya

Judicial Magistrate of 1 st Class, Amadalavalasa.

Tuesday, the 12 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No.18/2026

Between

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Burja PS. ….Complainant

And:

Annepu Narayana Rao, S/o.Veerayya, age 29 years, Guthavalli village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

... Accused

This case is coming on 06.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence ofAssistant Public Prosecutorfor State and of Sri P.MOhanarao, Legal aid Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Burja Police

Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.58/2025 against accused for the offence punishable under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 28.09.2025 at about 11.30 AM, LW.3/M.Pravallika, the then SI along with staff were proceeded and conducted patrolling duty and reached Narayanapuram village

Junction, one person carrying white colour gunny bag, while watching raid party he perturbed. Then Lw.3 stopped and questioned about gunny bag and he replied that those were liquor bottles. After verifying bag having 8 number of

Officers Choice 180 ml. On interrogation, the accused revealed his name, address and confessed that he purchased the said liquor bottles at wine shop to sell the same to get more benefit. Since the possession and selling of liquor bottles without valid permit is an offence, LW.3 seized the contraband and drawn one sample bottle of 180 ml from the seized property for chemical analysis under the cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence.

LW.3 informed accused that possession or sale of I.M.L liquor bottles without 2

CC18/2026(Fair)

license and valid permit as per A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 is an offence and arrested him under the cover of occurrence report. LW.3 returned to station along with case property and basing on occurrence report, she registered a case in Crime No.58/2025 for the offence under section 34(1)

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020. During investigation, he sent the sample to the Chemical Examiner, R.P.E.L, Visakhapatnam and after due analysis of the sample, Chemical Examiner opined that CE No.3032/2025, dated 07.11.2025, Sl.No.22856 is Indian Liquor. LW.3 served notice under section 35(3) of BNSS. Therefore the accused committed an offence and he is punishable under section 34 (1) A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020. She received the chemical analysis report and after completion of investigation,she filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence under section 34(1)

A.P.Excise Amendment Act, 2020 and issued summons to accused.

4.After appearance of the accused before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 230 of BNSS.

Accused was examined under section 262 of BNSS and charge framed under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020. The contents of charge was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the case, the prosecution cited 3 witnesses and examined LW- 3/M.Pravallika,SI as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P3 and M.O.1 were marked. The evidences of LW.1/P.Hemasundara rao PC, Lw.2/A.Muneeswari,

Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Visakhapatnam were given up by the Prosecution.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS. The incriminating material on record was read over and explained to him in Telugu, having understood the same, accused denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

CC18/2026(Fair)

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under section 34

(1)of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 beyond all

reasonable doubt?

8. To prove an offence under section 34(1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020 the prosecution shall prove that the accused was found in possession of the seized liquor bottles and the same was being sold without license or permit.

To prove the same, the prosecution examined LW-3 as PW-1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and M.O.1 marked.

9. In this case PW1 was examined and Ex.P1 to P.3 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of PW-1 is that she along with his staff were proceeded and conducted patrolling duty and reached Narayanapuram village, junction one person carrying white colour gunny bag, while watching raid party he perturbed. Then Pw.1 stopped and questioned about gunny bag and he replied that those were liquor bottles. After verifying bag having 8 number of Officers

Choice 180 ml. She further deposed that they seized property from the possession of accused, drawn samples under the cover of Ex.P1 occurrence report and obtained the signatures of accused on it. Basing on Ex.P1 report, she registered a case in Crime No.58/2025 under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise

Amendment Act, 2020. Ex.P2 is FIR dated 28.09.2025, Ex.P3 is Chemical

Analysis report dt.07.11.2025. After completion of investigation, she filed charge sheet.

10.Lw.3 examined as Pw.1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and MO.1 are marked.

Ex.P.1 is occurrence report, Ex.P.2 is FIR in Cr.No.58/2025 dt.28.09.2025 under section 34(1) of AP Excise Amendment Act, Ex.P.3 is chemical analysis report, drawn samples are marked as MO.1. She deposed about the raid conducted by her and seizure of property from the accused under cover of

Ex.P.1. In cross examination, PW-1 admitted that scene of offence is busy locality and she was not issued any written notes to any person to act as mediators. As per prosecution, LW-3/PW.1 accompanied LW.1 identified accused in possession of seized property.

CC18/2026(Fair)

11.Having gone through the entire evidences of P.W-1, it is discernible that, admitted fact is that, the scene of offence is in the village and it is usually busy locality, but the police did not secure any local independent respectable mediators for the seizure of contraband.

12.For better appreciation of the evidence, it is relevant to extract Section 103 (4), (5) of the BNSS, 2023, which reads as under:

“(4)before making search the officer about to make it shall call upon two or

more independent and respectable persons of the locality in which the place

is to be searched to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in

writing to them or any of them so to do”,

(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized

in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively

found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such

witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be

required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially

summoned by it.,

13.As seen from the record, the entire case is based on EX.P1 occurrence report. Here, P.W.1 is sub-Inspector of Burja PS proceeded on scene of offence. It is clear from the record that P.W.1 (Investigating officer) failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated U/sec.103(4) BNSS during the search and seizure. The learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that P.W.1 failed to establish the reasonable grounds for not securing the mediators in the busy locality. P.W.1 failed to give the details of the persons whom he approached to act as mediators and who refused to assist them. If the fact that their efforts to secure the mediators were went in vain is true, what prevented the police Officials to take appropriate legal action against the persons refused to assist him. The P.W.1 failed to follow the procedure prescribed. As per Sec 103 (4) of BNSS, the search shall be conducted in the presence of two independent local inhabitants. When the independent

Mediators in that locality are not available, the police officials has to record the same and issue an order in writing as prescribed above. It is clear from the record that no such procedure was adopted by the police officials though the scene of offence is located in residential area. Admittedly, there is public movement at the scene of offence and it is busy locality. It is settled law that in absence of independent mediators the entire procedure vitiates the case. This court feel it is just and proper to go through the relevant case law in this regard.

CC18/2026(Fair)

14.The Hon'ble High court of A.P in the case of 'S.Babu saheb @babu Vs

The State of A.P' reported in '2010(1) A.L.T(Crl.) 32 A.P' held that:

“When they are conducting the search in a colony or at a place wherein

there is possibility of securing the presence of independent mediators, the

Excise officials or Prohibition officers are bound to take the local respectable

independent inhabitants. They must make sincere efforts to secure local

respectable mediators, that is the mandate of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. As

referred to in the above provisions, the Excise officials are also authorized to

issue an order in writing asking them to act as mediators under sub section

(4) of section 100 of Cr.P.C. The object of section 100 of Cr.P.C is to ensure

confidence in the neighbours and in the public in general that a genuine

search has been made and incriminating material has been really found and

not planted”

15.This Court has no hesitation to hold that the above Judgment squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Here, in the present case also, the

Investigating Officer not made any serious efforts to secure the mediators at the scene. As held in the above authorities the excise officials failed to follow the prescribed procedure as contemplated and non securing of independent mediators by the excise officials is creating doubt on the entire prosecution case. There are no special circumstances to proceed under Ex.P1 occurrence report, as the scene of offence is not an isolated area and the time of arrest is not an odd hours. It is pertinent to note that the reason shown by the P.W.1 for their failure to secure the mediators is not convincing, as it was admitted by

P.W.1 that the scene of offence is located in busy locality and residential area.

For all the above reasons, it is difficult to believe the seizure which was taken place in absence of any independent mediators.

16.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, it is specifically reveals that she is the complainant and she conducted the entire investigation. It is P.W.1, who detected the offence, seized the contraband, drawn the sample prepared the special report, arrested the accused, sent the sample to analyst and she filed charge-sheet. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant i.e. P.W.1 is the Sub-Inspector of Burja PS, himself investigated the case as such it will cause prejudice to accused. Hence, impartial investigation is doubtful. It is admitted fact that the entire proceedings in this case were taken up by P.W.1 alone and entire investigation was completed by her who also acted as complainant in this case. It is an established principal of law that the person who is a complainant in a case shall 6

CC18/2026(Fair)

not be allowed as an Investigating Officer, in such case the investigation certainly prejudice the accused and impartial investigation is doubtful. For this aspect, I feel it is profitable to refer the Gurazala Ramesh and others Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 13 (A.P.,) and AIR

1976 Supreme Court 985 (Bhagavan Singh Vs. Stage of Rajasthan. In this case the Hon’ble high Court of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble Apex court held that the infirmity arises and create doubt on the investigation done by the police officer who lodged the FIR and it is Manifest illegality as the same officer who detected the offence and lodged the FIR and investigated into the crime. In view of the above circumstances of this case and in the light of the above authority, I feel the investigation done by the complainant i.e. P.W.1 certainly would prejudice the accused. It is clear that in such circumstances impartial investigation is doubtful. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of

P.W.1. No special report was prepared by PW.1 the investigation officer for non securing of the independent mediators. Ex.P.3 analysis report also does not contain that the drawn sample MO.1 is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption.

17.The Hon’ble High Court of A.P held that non compliance of Sec.100(4)

Cr.P.C. is fatal to case of prosecution in case laws. (a) M/S Unnimed laboratories Another Vs State of A.P. (Crl. R.C. NO.1655, 1656 of 2006). (b) D.

Vaikunta Rao and others Vs the State of AP dt. 20-04-2022). (a) In Guthula

Srinu Venkanna, East Godavari Vs. State of A.P. represented by Hyderabad dt.

22.03.2022 in Crl.R.P.No.193 of 2013 where in the Hon’ble High Court of A.P held that when there is no independent mediator examined, the case of the prosecution cannot be relied and acquitted the accused. (b) In

P.G.Raveendranath Vs. Joint Director dt.01.03.2002 where in the Hon’ble High

Court of A.P. held that as per the provision of Sec.103 of BNSS. It is clear that whenever any officer intends to search any premises, it is incumbent on his part to secure the presence of two independent mediators. If for any reason, she is unable to secure two independent mediators, she shall record reasons as to why she could not do so. No doubt non observation of the procedure mandated under BNSS may not be fatal in each and every case if the concerned authority 7

CC18/2026(Fair)

who made the search and seizure has given cogent and convincing explanation as to how and why she could not comply with the provisions of Sec.103 of

BNSS, but no such explanation was given by the witnesses on record for not following the procedure of Sec.103 of BNSS.

18. In view of the above, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore the benefit of doubt goes to accused. This point is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence

punishable under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020.

Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 271 (1) of BNSS for the above

said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stands to be cancelled after

expiry of appeal time under Section 481 of BNSS. MO-1 shall be destroyed

after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, typed by typist, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

P.W.1: M.Pravallika, SI of police dt.30.04.2026

FOR DEFENCE None was examined

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1:Occurrence report dated 28.09.2025 Ex.P.2:First Information Report dt. 28.09.2025 Ex.P.3:Chemical Analysis report dt.07.11.2025

FOR DEFENCENo documents were marked.

Material Objects

M.O.1 is Sample bottle.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Amadalavalasa 8

CC18/2026(Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 st CLASS,

AMADALAVALASA

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT in C.C. No.18/2026 28.09.2025 Date of offence 28.09.2025 Date of Complaint or report: 28.09.2025 Date of apprehension of accused: 28.09.2025 Date of release on bail: 09.03.2026 Date of appearance of accused

Date of commencement of trial: 30.04.2026

Date of close of trial: 06.05.2026

Date of sentence or order: 12.05.2026

Explanation for delay: No delay. The State represented by the Sub Inspector, of Name of the complainant: Police, Burja PS. Annepu Narayana Rao, S/o.Veerayya, age 29 years, Guthavalli village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam Name of the accused: District.

Under section 34 (1)of A.P. Excise Amendment Offence: Act, 2020 Finding: Accused found not guilty. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (1) of A.P. Excise Amendment Act, 2020. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 271(1) Cr.P.C for the Sentence or Order above said offence. The bail bonds of accused shall stands to be cancelled after expiry of appeal time under Section 481 of BNSS. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1 ST CLASS

AMADALAVALASA

Copy to the Hon’ble 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.

CC18/2026(Fair)

OS/169/2025

PULAGAM. NARAYANA REDDY vs PALIKA. LAKSHMANAMMA

15 May 2026

O.S169/2025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.169/2025

Between:

Pulagam Narayana Reddy, S/o.Veerreddy, aged 55 years, Business, Residing at Door No.9-6-2, Sainagar Street, Amadalavalasa Town and Municipality, Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

Palika Laksmanamma, D/o.Pitani Ramulu, aged about 58 years, Working as Office Subordinate, Emp.No.0348067, Sri Raja kakarlapudi Venkata Krisna Raja Baudur Government Veternary Hospital, Ramachandrapuram Town and Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, R/at main Road, Thapeswaram Village, Mandapeta Mandal, Dr.B.R Ambedkar Konaseema District.

.......Defendant

This suit came up on 07.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Smt.S.Vijaya Lakshmi and Sri.B.Govinda Raju, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 11.03.2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.4,29,500/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) being principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) dated 18.12.2022 in favour of the plaintiff

O.S169/2025 2

agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of the plaint averments is as follows:-

That the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only)

dated 18.12.2022 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the

same with interest @ 24% per annum for the purpose of family expenses. The defendant received the said amount in the presence of attestors and scribe of the said promissory note at the house of the plaintiff. But the defendant did not repay neither the principal amount nor interest even though repeated demands made by the plaintiff, while the defendant admitting his liability, but postponing the same. After that Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 11.11.2025 and the defendant returned with an endorsed that unclaimed on 19.11.2025 and he did not sent any reply and did not pay the single pie, for which Plaintiff file the suit. Hence, the suit.

4. Summons of defendant served through court and personally served but, he failed to appear before the court, for which he was set exparte on 11.03.2026.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. There is no oral or documentary evidence for the defendant.

O.S169/2025 3

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as

prayed for?

8. POINT:

To prove the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW-1 by filing his chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 18.12.2022 for Rs.2,50,000/-,

Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice and Ex.A.3 is returned RP cover.

The plaintiff examined as. PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint that defendant borrowed amount from plaintiff and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note and did not repay the amount. The plaintiff proved his case by examining himself as PW-1 and by exhibiting the above documents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant as he remained exparte. Hence, the plaintiff proved his case and he is entitled for a decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of

plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.4,29,500/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five

O.S169/2025 4

hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of the suit till the date of decree; thereafter @

6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of

realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two

lakhs and fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by typist corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW-1:Pulagam Narayana Reddy dt.07.05.2026

For Defendant: - Nil.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 18.12.2022 for Rs.2,50,000/-, Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice dt.11.11.2025 Ex.A.3 is Returned unserved RP cover dt.19.11.2025

For Defendant: - Nil.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

O.S169/2025 5

Date of Presentation:15.12.2025 Date of Filing:270.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.169/2025

Between:

Pulagam Narayana Reddy, S/o.Veerreddy, aged 55 years, Business, Residing at Door No.9-6-2, Sainagar Street, Amadalavalasa Town and Municipality, Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

.......Defendant

This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.4,29,500/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) being principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) dated 18.12.2022 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.4,29,500/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) and Court fee of Rs.6726/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

O.S169/2025 6

This suit came up on 07.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Smt.S.Vijaya Lakshmi and Sri.B.Govinda Raju, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 11.03.2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

D E C R E E

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,29,500/-(Rupees four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/-(Rupees two lakhs and fifty

thousand only); and ii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,236/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

CF on plaint: Rs. 5626-00 -Exparte- Stamp on Vakalath: Rs. 3-00 Stamp on Process: Rs. 115-00 Typing Charges: Rs. 100-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 7292-00 ---------------------- Costs allowed: Rs. 14,236-00 -----------------------

Decree is drafted properly.

Sd/-smt.B.Ramya,

Superintendent Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

O.S169/2025 7

OS/13/2026

CHEEPURU. RAVI SAKARA RAO vs KATTA. NAGA VENKATA SATYA PRASAD

14 May 2026

O.S13/2026(Fair) 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.13/2026

Between:

Cheepuru Ravi Sankara Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, centering contractor, aged 41 years, Residing at Door No.2-155, Hanumayyapeta Village, Burja Mandal,Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

Katta Naga Venkata Satya Prasad, S/o.Chinna Venkateswara rao, aged about 55 years, Process Server, III ADJ court, ANR college Road, BSNL Office, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.

.......Defendant

This suit came up on 11.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.T.Madhusudana Rao and Sri.D.Ramana murthy, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 24.04.2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.2,67,400/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand and four hundred only) being principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) dated 11.02.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

O.S13/2026(Fair) 2

2. The brief facts of the plaint averments is as follows:-

That the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) dated 11.02.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum for the purpose of family expenses. The defendant received the said amount in the presence of attestors and scribe of the said promissory note at the house of the plaintiff. But the defendant did not repay neither the principal amount nor interest even though repeated demands made by the plaintiff, while the defendant admitting his liability, but postponing the same. After that

Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 01.12.2025 and same was received on 06.12.2025 and he did not sent any reply and did not pay the single pie, for which Plaintiff file the suit. Hence, the suit.

4. Summons of defendant served through court and personally served but, he failed to appear before the court, for which he was set exparte on 24.04.2026.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. There is no oral or documentary evidence for the defendant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is

O.S13/2026(Fair) 3

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as

prayed for?

8. POINT:

To prove the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW-1 by filing his chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 11.02.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/-,

Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt and

Ex.A.3 is Postal acknowledgment dt.06.12.2025. The plaintiff examined as. PW-1 and reiterated the averments of the plaint that defendant borrowed amount from plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note and did not repay the amount. The plaintiff proved his case by examining himself as PW-1 and by exhibiting the above documents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. The evidence of PW-1 is unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant as he remained exparte. Hence, the plaintiff proved his case and he is entitled for a decree as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of

plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.2,67,400/-(Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand and four

hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of the suit till the date of decree; thereafter @

O.S13/2026(Fair) 4

6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of

realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two

lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by typist corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW-1:Cheepuru Ravi Sankara rao dt.11.05.2026

For Defendant: - Nil.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 11.02.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt dt.01.12.2025 Ex.A.3 is postal acknowledgment dt.06.12.2025

For Defendant: - Nil.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

O.S13/2026(Fair) 5

Date of Presentation: 26.12.2025 Date of Filing: 29.01.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.13/2026

Between:

Cheepuru Ravi Sankara Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana, centering contractor, aged 41 years, Residing at Door No.2-155, Hanumayyapeta Village, Burja Mandal,Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

Katta Naga Venkata Satya Prasad, S/o.Chinna Venkateswara rao, aged about 55 years, Process Server, III ADJ court, ANR college Road, BSNL Office, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District.

.......Defendant

This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.2,67,400/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand and four hundred only) being principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) dated 11.02.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,67,400/-(Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand and four hundred only) and Court fee of Rs.5126/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

This suit came up on 11.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.T.Madhusudana Rao and Sri.D.Ramana murthy, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 24.04.2026and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and the matter having stood over for

O.S13/2026(Fair) 6

consideration till this day and this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

D E C R E E

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,67,400/-(Rupees two lakhs sixty seven thousand and four hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(RupeesTwo lakhs only); and

ii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8179/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

SD/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

CF on plaint: Rs. 5126-00 -Exparte- Stamp on Vakalath: Rs. 3-00 Stamp on Process: Rs. 150-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 2900-00(as claimed) ---------------------- Costs allowed: Rs. 8179-00 -----------------------

Decree is drafted properly.

SD/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Superintendent Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

OS/151/2025

KILLI. THATANNAIDU vs MUNJI. ESWARARAO

14 May 2026

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.151/2025

Between:

Killi Thathannaidu, S/o.Late Kameswara rao, aged 54 years, Business and cultivation, Retired employee, Residing at Korlakota village and Post, Amadalavalasa Mandal,Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

Munji Eswara rao, S/o.Rajarao, aged about 30 years, Business, Residing at D.No.3-2-26, Moolasavalapuram Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

.......Defendant

This suit came up on 12.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.G.Venkata Rao and Smt.S.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 24.04.2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.79,800/-(Rupees

Seventy nine thousand and eight hundred only) being principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by the defendant for Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) dated 11.01.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 2

2. The brief facts of the plaint averments is as follows:-

That the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) dated 11.01.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum for the purpose of family expenses. The defendant received the said amount in the presence of attestors and scribe of the said promissory note at the house of the plaintiff. But the defendant did not repay neither the principal amount nor interest even though repeated demands made by the plaintiff, while the defendant admitting his liability, but postponing the same. After that

Plaintiff got issued legal notice on 06.09.2025 and same was received and he did not sent any reply and did not pay the single pie, for which Plaintiff file the suit. Hence, the suit.

4. Summons of defendant served through court and personally served but, he failed to appear before the court, for which he was set exparte on 24.04.2026.

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. There is no oral or documentary evidence for the defendant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 3

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as

prayed for?

8. POINT:

To prove the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW-1 by filing his chief affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 11.02.2024 for Rs.2,00,000/-,

Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt and

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of

plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.79,800/-(Rupees Seventy nine thousand and eight hundred

only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the

date of the suit till the date of decree; thereafter @ 6% per

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 4

annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by typist corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:

PW-1:Killi Thathannaidu dt.12.05.2026

For Defendant: - Nil.

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 11.01.2024 for Rs.60,000/- Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt dt.06.09.2025 Ex.A.3 is track consignment

For Defendant: - Nil.

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 5

Date of Presentation:12.11.2025 Date of Filing:17.11.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AMADALAVALASA

Present: Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Thursday, this the 14 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.151/2025

Between:

Killi Thathannaidu, S/o.Late Kameswara rao, aged 54 years, Business and cultivation, Retired employee, Residing at Korlakota village and Post, Amadalavalasa Mandal,Srikakulam District.

.......Plaintiff

And

Munji Eswara rao, S/o.Rajarao, aged about 30 years, Business, Residing at D.No.3-2-26, Moolasavalapuram Village, Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District.

.......Defendant

This suit is filed for a recovery amount of Rs.79,800/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand and eight hundred only) being

principal and interest due on the Suit promissory notes executed by

the defendant for Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) dated 11.01.2024 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.79,800/-(Rupees Seventy nine thousand and eight hundred only) and Court fee of Rs.3026/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

This suit came up on 12.05.2026 before me for arguments in the presence of Sri.G.Venkata Rao and Smt.S.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Advocates for the plaintiff and defendant called absent and he remained exparte on 24.04.2026 and upon hearing of plaintiff counsel and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

O.S 151/2025(Fair) 6

D E C R E E

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.79,800/-(Rupees Seventy nine thousand and eight hundred only) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees Sixty thousand only); and ii)that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5371/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

SD/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

CF on plaint: Rs. 3106-00 -Exparte- Stamp on Vakalath: Rs. 3-00 Stamp on Process: Rs. 115-00 Typing Charges: Rs. 100-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 2047-00 ---------------------- Costs allowed: Rs. 5371-00 -----------------------

Decree is drafted properly.

SD/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Superintendent Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

OS/44/2018

CHINTAM MURALI MOHAN RAO vs ITRAJI PADMAVATHI

12 May 2026

OS 44/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

AMADALAVALASA.

Present :- Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

O.S.62/2025

Between:

1. Chintam Murali Mohan Rao(died)

2.Chintam Bharathi, W/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 42 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Chintam Saikumar, S/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 25 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Chintam Vasavi, D/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 23 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Plaintiffs.

And:

Itraji Padmavathi, W/o.Ramarao, aged about 62 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for steps as finally before me, but Plaintiffs called absent, No representation, on that, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for Plaintiffs against the defendants for granting permanent injunction restraining defendant, her men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and 2

OS 44/2018

enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner or whatsoever except under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2.Plaintiffs called absent, no representation. Inspite of conditional orders passed in previous adjournments, plaintiffs failed to appear before the court. Costs not paid. Plaintiff failed to pay the costs and also failed to proceed with the trial. It appears that,

Plaintiffs are not having any interest to proceed further in this case.

This court does not find any reason to continue the matter further as it is evident that, Plaintiffs not evincing any interest to proceed further in this case. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 12 th day of

May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined and Documents marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

None/NIL

Sd/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

OS 44/2018

Date of Presentation:01.05.2018 Date of filing: 03.05.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

AMADALAVALASA.

Present :- Smt. B.Ramya

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa

Tuesday, this the 12 th day of May, 2026

O.S.62/2025

Between:

1. Chintam Murali Mohan Rao(died)

2.Chintam Bharathi, W/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 42 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

3.Chintam Saikumar, S/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 25 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

4.Chintam Vasavi, D/o.Late Chintam Murali Mohan Rao, aged 23 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Plaintiffs.

And:

Itraji Padmavathi, W/o.Ramarao, aged about 62 years, Residing at Vavam Village, Burja Mandal, Srikakulam District.

...Defendant..

This suit is filed for Plaintiffs against the defendants for granting permanent injunction restraining defendant, her men and agents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in any manner or whatsoever except under due process of law and for costs of the suit.

OS 44/2018

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction of the suit schedule is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-and Court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F. and S.V. Act, 1956.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing as finally before me, but Plaintiffs called absent, No representation, on that, doth order and decree as follows:- :D E C R E E ::

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default;

and

ii. that there be no order as to costs.

(Copy of schedule, valuation slips are attached to the decree)

Given under my hand and seal of Court, this the 12 th day

of May, 2026.

Sd/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

- NIL –

For Plaintiffs: For Defendant:

Cost memos not filed by either side

Sd/-Smt.B.Ramya,

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Amadalavalasa.

OS 44/2018

Order Record 2,290 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/5/2026	CHANDARASENA. SRINIVASA RAO vs LODA. RAMANA MURTHY	15 May 2026	Order	—
OS/169/2025	PULAGAM. NARAYANA REDDY vs PALIKA. LAKSHMANAMMA	15 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/13/2026	CHEEPURU. RAVI SAKARA RAO vs KATTA. NAGA VENKATA SATYA PRASAD	14 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/151/2025	KILLI. THATANNAIDU vs MUNJI. ESWARARAO	14 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/44/2018	CHINTAM MURALI MOHAN RAO vs ITRAJI PADMAVATHI	12 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/18/2026	SHO BURJA PS vs ANNEPU. NARAYANA RAO	12 May 2026	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/318/2025	SHO BURJA PS. vs POTLURI. PAVAN KUMAR	12 May 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/4/2023	Adepalli Rama vs Adepalli Suryanarayana Raju and 9 others	12 May 2026	Order	—
CC/161/2017	SI OF POLICE AMADALAVALASA P.S vs ALLURI VIJAYA KUMAR	08 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/168/2025	PADALA. CHINNA REDDY vs CHINTHADA. SUNEETHA	06 May 2026	Judgment	—
CC/207/2023	The SHO, Amadalavalasa PS vs Pydi Balakrishna	06 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/6/2025	Cheepuru.Ravi Sankara rao vs Goteti.chittibabu	05 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/131/2025	BAGADI. GAGARAJU vs CHINNAM, SRINIVASA RAO	05 May 2026	Judgment	—
MC/4/2024	YEJJELA LOKESWARI vs YEJJALA ANJANEYA RAK KUMAR BABJI	05 May 2026	Order	—
EP/39/2025	SANAPALA. MINNA RAO vs TUDI . MANGAMMA	04 May 2026	Order	—
OS/156/2025	LANKA.CHANRA SEKHAR RAO vs KALINGAPATNA.APPANNA	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/157/2025	DAMMA. PRAKASHA RAO vs Vskalingapatana.appanna	04 May 2026	Judgment	—
OS/163/2025	PYDI. PRADEEP vs PYDI. NARAYANAMURTHY	01 May 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/13/2025	SHO AMADALAVALASA vs CHINTADA BALA MURLI KRISHNA	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/255/2024	SHO SARUBUJJILI PS vs PALLI JYOTHI PRAKASH	29 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
EP/2/2025	kuppili ramana muthy vs CHEBOLU SYAMALA	28 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/329/2019	Boora Latchodu vs Kuppili Rambabu	28 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/8/2026	PEDADA VENKATA RAMANA vs MANDAPALLI. VENKATA RAO	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/53/2022	Sub-Inspector of Amadalavalasa vs Tavva Raju	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/270/2020	The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of police Sarubujjili. vs Ragolu Balakrishna	24 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/15/2025	SHO SARUBUJJILI PS vs PEDADA, SRIDHAR	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/26/2025	PUJARI. SHAUMUKA RAO vs SANAPALA. SRINIVASA RAO	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/288/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KONDGORRI. CHANDRA MOULI.	22 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/161/2025	PEDADA. VENKATA RAMANA vs VENGADA. MAHALAKSHMI	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
OS/175/2023	CHINTA VENKATA REDDY vs BUDUMURU MAHESH@MAHESHWARA RAO	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/326/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA vs Vspydi. anjaneyulu	21 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/59/2026	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs SANGIREDDY. CHANTI	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/530/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs K. BHARATHI	16 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
STC/722/2026	SHO, Sarubujjili vs Annepu. MuraliMohan	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/208/2026	SHO, SARUBUJJILI vs GANTYADA. APPALANAIDU	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/338/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs RAVALALASA.NEELAVENI	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/516/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs CH. VENKATARAO	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/517/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs DHARAMAVARAPU. APPARAO	15 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
STC/190/2026	SHO, SARUBUJJILI vs RATNALA. NARAYANARAO	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/32/2026	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KARRI. SURAMMA	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/166/2020	Jami Chandra Sekhar vs Donka Srinivasa Rao	13 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
EP/28/2025	CHEEPURU. RAVI SANKARARA RAO vs MANA. VENKATA RAMANA DURAG VARAPRASAD	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/32/2025	GURUGUBELLI. SREERAM MURTHY vs SURA, NETHAJIRAO	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/520/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs DANNANA. GOWRISANKAR	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/525/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs DH. LAKSHMI NARAYANA	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/549/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs M.SETHARAMA	07 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/192/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs Vstanakala . srinu	06 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/527/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs S. DHARAMA RAO	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
DVC/2/2021	Yelisetty @ Gandiboyina @ Polaki Gannamma vs Yelisetty @ Gandiboyina Ravi	02 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/549/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs M.SETHARAMA	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
CC/551/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs A. VENKATARAMANA	01 Apr 2026	Judgment	—
MC/9/2023	YELISETTY @GANDIBOYINA @POLAKI GANNEMMA vs YELISETTY @ GANDIBOYINA RAVI	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/382/2025	Excise station, Amadalvalasa vs Savara Chukkayya	31 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/587/2025	SHO, Excise Station, Amadalavalasa vs Kovilapu Balaraju	31 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/30/2008	Sirlapu Sangamayya vs Buravalli Kondayya	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/23/2017	SI OF POLICE SRIKAKULAM vs BODDEPALLI RAMBABU	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/286/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs DAVILI. VENKATARAMANA	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/379/2025	excise station, Amadalavalasa vs Sahukari Simhachalam	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/547/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs S. VISWANTHAM	30 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/292/2018	SHO OF POLICE AMADALAVAALSA vs CHOWDARI APPALANAIDU	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/436/2019	State presented by the sub inspector of police ,Burja ps vs Bura Janu	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/526/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs SAVARA. RAJU	26 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/168/2019	state presented by the sub inspector of police,sarubujjili p.s vs Bura Krishna	25 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
OS/160/2025	PULAGAM. NARAYANA REDDY vs YADALA. ANOK	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/23/2026	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs RAGOLU. LAXMI	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/717/2025	SHO AMADALAVALASA PS vs DAKATI HADIA REDDY	24 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
STC/721/2026	SHO, AMADALAVALASA vs S. NAGARAJU	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/29/2024	DUMPALA RAJESWARA RAO vs YEVVARI BHUJANGA RAO	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/432/2025	SHO,SEB AMADALAVALASA PS vs KORADA. TIRUMALA RAO	23 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
PRC/2/2023	SHO Burja PS vs Putcha Venkata rao	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/148/2025	SHO,SEB,AMADALAVALASA PS. vs TALASAMUDRAMU. REYYARAO	20 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/1/2026	KINJARAPU. APPANNA vs GEDELA. DORABABU	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/62/2025	MAMIDI. BHASKARA RAO vs BODDEPALLI.RAMANAMMA	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/351/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs TAMMINANE. SRINIVASARAO	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/360/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KARAPATI. GANNAYYA	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/585/2025	SHO, Excise Amadalavalasa vs Seepana Rajarao	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/615/2025	SHO AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KORADA.SHANMUKHA RAO	18 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/181/2019	Sampathrao Sudhakar vs Vsponnada manikyam	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/356/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KOLA. RAMARAO	17 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/222/2025	SHO Prohibition and Excise PS vs Pydi Venkata rao	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
CC/339/2025	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KALAGATI. DUVVAYYA	16 Mar 2026	Judgment	—
EP/30/2024	MODALAVALASA SATYAM vs KORADA NARAYANA RAO	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/43/2023	J N M PRASAD vs BATTULA LAXMI	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/2/2023	CHIGURIPALLI SYAMALA RAO vs MODU VARALAKSHMI PRASAD	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/9/2022	Mangalampalli Venkata Rajyalakshmi vs Battula Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/21/2026	GURUVU. PAPARAO vs VUNGTI. RAMU	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/78/2025	Maddu lakshmi narayana vs Ippili Raja rao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/83/2023	Boddepalli. Venkata rao vs Gurugubelli. Anantharao	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/99/2023	KANCHARAPU DHANUNJAYA vs GURUGUBELLI NAGAMANI	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/104/2023	BODDEPALLI VENKATA RAMANA vs GURUGUBELLI NAGAMANI	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/127/2024	PULLETIKURTHI VENKATA RAMANA vs PULLETIKURTHI NAVEEN KUMAR	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/151/2022	sadhub sundara rao vs Gangaetla Rajamma	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/161/2023	PONNADA MANI vs PULLETIKURTHI ESWARA RAO	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/217/2023	AP GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK KOLLIVALASA BRANCH REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER vs BURI VENKATA RAMANA	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/3/2026	SHO AMADALAVALASA PS vs DARELLIRAMAIAH	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/13/2024	POGIRI ADINARAYANA vs DHARAMANA RAMA RAO	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/33/2026	SHO SEB AMADALAVALASA PS. vs KORADA. RAJASEKHAR	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/44/2024	GANGI SHANKARA RAO vs PALLA BHASKARA RAO	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/48/2025	SHO Amadalavalasa vs Gujja Santhosh	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/53/2024	SHO SARUBUJJILI PS vs GORLE @ S. DILEEP KUMAR	14 Mar 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,290 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		18
Apr 2026		36
Mar 2026		647
Feb 2026		36
Jan 2026		41
Dec 2025		673
Nov 2025		34
Oct 2025		38
Sep 2025		368
Aug 2025		33
Jul 2025		357
Jun 2025		35

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt B.Ramya handled?

Smt B.Ramya has handled 2323 court orders since 2025 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 181 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt B.Ramya hear?

Based on available records, Smt B.Ramya primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka).

Where is Smt B.Ramya currently posted?

Smt B.Ramya is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka), Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt B.Ramya available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt B.Ramya are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt B.Ramya dispose cases?

Smt B.Ramya disposes approximately 181 cases per month, based on 2323 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka).

Since when is Smt B.Ramya serving?

Smt B.Ramya has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka) since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

STC 64%

CC 25%

OS 6%

EP 3%

DVC 1%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

A 0%

Posting History

May 2025 — Present

Junior Civil Judge · 2,323 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Amadalavalasa (Taluka)