Sri B Subhan

junior civil judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

SRI B SUBHAN, junior civil judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 380 court orders on record since 2023. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

380

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/174/2024

Deshamsetty Mallikarjuna vs V.Chithaiah

27 Dec 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: RAYADURG.

Present: BANDE SUBHAN,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kalyandurg,

FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg.

Friday, this the 27 th day of December, 2024.

O riginal S uit No. 174 of 2024 .

Between: Deshamsetty Mallikarjuna, Son of Late Lakshmipathi, Hindu, aged 36 years,

Business, Residing at D.No.10-1-116/2, Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Plaintiff.

And

V.Chithaiah, Son of P.Chithaiah, Hindu, aged 35 years, Cultivation, Resident of Y.Gundlapalli Village and Post, Gummagatta Mandal, Anantapur District.

...Defendant.

* * * * *

This suit came up on 13-12-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Raghavendra,Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained ex-parte, and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing learned counsel for plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, relatives, family members, followers, heirs, executants and assignees from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property in any manner and for other reliefs.

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

a) The plaintiff herein is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same was purchased by him for valid consideration from its

Page 2 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

rightful owner by name Kaamurthi Nagarathna under a registered sale deed, dated 01.04.2024 vide document No.5034/2024 and got inducted into possession on the same day of execution of document itself. Since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property. The vendor of the plaintiff originally purchased the suit schedule mentioned property under a registered sale deed, dated 30.03.2022 vide Doc.No.1333/2022 from its rightful owner and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property till the date of sale transaction in favour of the plaintiff.

Except, the plaintiff nobody has got any right, title or possession over the suit schedule mentioned property. The revenue authorities also mutated the name of vendor of the plaintiff in their records and also issued pattadar passbook-cum-title deed, 1B namuna and adangal in her favour. After purchase of the property the name of plaintiff also mutated in the revenue records and also issued Pattadar passbook, 1B namuna and adangal in his favour and so, he is having right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property.

b) While so, the defendant is utter stranger to the suit schedule mentioned property. Now, he is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property without having any manner of right, title, possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property with the support of unruly elements in the area. The defendant is making efforts to trespass into the suit schedule mentioned property highhandedly by using force with an intention to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule mentioned property without having any manner of right, title, possession and enjoyment over the same.

Further, the plaintiff is being a mild, meek and peace loving citizen unable to resist his highhanded acts. So, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for the relief of grant of

Page 3 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

3. On the other hand, despite the service of summons on defendant, the defendant did not appear before the Court and he remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 29.10.2024. Hence, the matter is posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

4. The plaintiff, in support of his contentions, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.4.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent

injunction in respect of suit schedule property against the

defendant, as prayed for?

7. POINT:

Since the suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction to restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has to establish that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property, as on the date of filing of the suit and that the defendant is trying to interfere or disturb with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

8. To prove the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.4.Exhibit A.1 is the Original registered sale deed bearing document No.5034/2024, dated 01.04.2024 stated to

Page 4 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

executed by Kaamurthy Nagarathna in favour of plaintiff. It discloses that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule mentioned property i.e.,

Govt.Dry land in Sy.No.159 to an extent of Ac.2.49 cents situated at

Belodu village limits of Gummagatta Mandal with specific boundaries for a valid consideration of 2,74,000₹/- (Rupees Two lakh seventy four thousand only) from K.Nagarathna. As per the recitals of Exhibit A.1, the vendor of the plaintiff has delivered possession of the property on the same day of execution of the said document itself. It further discloses that the vendor of the plaintiff has sold out the property to the plaintiff for development works of other property and to meet her family necessities.

Exhibit A2 is the Title deed-cum-pattadar passbook bearing khatha

No.1717 stands in the name of plaintiff. It discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule mentioned property i.e., land in Sy.No.159 to an extent of Ac.2-49 and the same was purchased by him under registered sale deed. Exhibit A.3 is the Pattadar Adangal/Pahani for

Fasli 1433, dated 21.08.2024 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Gummagatta Mandal obtained through Mee-Seva. Exhibit

A.4 is the Form-1B Namuna (ROR), dated 21.08.2024 stands in the name of plaintiff issued by the Tahsildar, Gummagatta Mandal obtained through Mee-Seva. Exhibits A.1 to A.4 clearly discloses that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule mentioned property and the same was purchased by him from its rightful owner under Exhibit A.1 and is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property during the Fasli 1433. Indisputably, Exhibit A.1 is the original original document and Exhibits A.2 to A.4 are public copies issued by the competent authorities. So, this Court finds no reason to suspect the authenticity and genuinity of those documents. As such, this Court holds that the contents of Exhibits A.1 to A.4, more particularly Exhibit A.1 establish that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule mentioned property from its rightful owner and he has been in exclusive possession

Page 5 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property prior to the date of filing of the suit.

9. In addition to the documentary evidence, to substantiate the same, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief- examination. The said chief-examination is nothing but just replica of his pleadings. His evidence goes in accordance with the contents of the plaint. In brief, the evidence of

P.W.1 goes to show that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he was purchased the same under Exhibit A.1 for a valuable consideration and also got inducted into possession on the same day of execution of document itself. His name also mutated in the revenue records in respect of suit schedule property. His evidence further goes to show that the defendant is utter stranger to the suit schedule mentioned property, now the defendant is trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property with an mala-fide intention to grab the property from him highhandedly without having any manner of right, title over the suit schedule property. Recently, just prior to the filing of the instant the defendant is intending to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff is being a helpless poor person unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendant and if the defendant is allowed to do so, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

10. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the documentary evidence i.e.,

Exhibits A.1 to A.4 adduced by plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court finds no reason to suspect or reject the same. Since, the defendant is failed to appear before this

Court to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff. Therefore, this Court holds that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Exhibits

Page 6 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

A.1 to A.4, clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff is being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same was purchased by him under Exhibit A.1 and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of filing of the suit and that the defendant has been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff alleging that he would grab or occupy or dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property highhandedly in any manner and such acts of the defendant should be curbed by granting injunction or else, the ends of justice cannot be meted out. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of grant of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff, restraining the defendant, his men, agents, followers and henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule mentioned property.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of December, 2024.

Sd/- B.Subhan,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kalyandurg, FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Deshamsetty Mallikarjuna.

Page 7 of 7

O.S.No. 174 of 2024, Date of institution:23.08.2024.

Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Rayadurg. Date of disposal: 27.12.2024.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex-parte.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Exhibit A.1: Original registered sale deed bearing document No.5034/2024,

dated 01.04.2024 stated to be executed by Kaamurthy Nagarathna in favour

of plaintiff.

Exhibit A.2: Pattadar passbook-cum-title deed. Exhibit A.3: Mee-seva copy of Adangal for the Fasli 1433, dated 21.08.2021.

Exhibit A.4: Mee-seva copy of 1-B Namuna, dated 21.08.2024.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- NIL -

Sd/- B.Subhan,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Kalyandurg, FAC Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayadurg.

OS/240/2022

J.G.Rajasekhar Reddy vs Golla Kondapuram Ramakrishna

11 Aug 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAYADURG.

Present : Sri.J.Sujin Kumar , II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. Friday, the 11th day of August, 2023

Original Suit No.240 of 2022.

Between:

J.G.Rajasekhara Reddy, Son of Late G.Lakshmi Reddy, Aged 60 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, Gramadhatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Plaintiff

And

Golla Kondapuram Ramakrishna, Son of Late G.Badappa, Aged 45 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Gramadhatla Village, Rayadurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant * * * * * This suit came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

Gowni Venkata Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of 2,95,100₹/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety five thousand one hundred Only) being the principal and interest due under ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked suit promissory notes dated 26.08.2021, 06.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 22.10.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for ₹1,26,000/-, 10,000/-, 35,000/-, 20,000/- and 45,000/-₹₹₹₹ respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of 2,36₹,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty six thousand Only) in cash from the plaintiff on several occasions dated 26.08.2021, 06.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 22.10.2021 for his business and other family necessities and after receiving the said amounts, the defendant executed five separate promissory notes i.e., ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes in favour of plaintiff for ₹1,26,000/-, 10,000/-, ₹₹35,000/-, ₹20,000/- and ₹45,000/- on the said respective dates at Rayadurg Town agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

The plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of debt amounts due under the suit promissory notes. But, the defendant failed to repay the debt amounts either principal or interest due under the promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of debt amounts due under the said ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes with subsequent interest as contract rate and for costs of the suit.

3. On the other hand, the defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file his written statements within the statutory period (90 days) stipulated under

C.P.C. and he remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 15.02.2023. Hence, posted for plaintiffs’ evidence.

4. The plaintiff, in support of his contentions, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.5.

5. Though the defendant set ex-parte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief automatically. The burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant has borrowed amount from him.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount from defendant under ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes as prayed for ?

8. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay ₹2,95,100/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety five thousand one hundred Only) under ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked suit promissory notes with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 to A5 promissory notes, goes to show that the defendant has borrowed total amount of 2,36₹,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty six thousand Only) in cash from the plaintiff on several occasions dated 26.08.2021, 06.09.2021, 20.09.2021, 28.09.2021 and 22.10.2021 for his business and other family necessities and after receiving the said amounts, the defendant executed five separate promissory notes i.e., Exs.A1 to A5-‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes in favour of plaintiff (PW.1) for 1,26₹,000/-, ₹10,000/-, 35,000/-, 20,000/- and 45,000/- ₹₹₹on the said respective dates at

Rayadurg Town agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the any amount either principal or interest due under the suit promissory notes.

9. From the unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is obvious that the 4 defendant has borrowed total amount of 2,36,000₹/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirty six thousand Only) on several occasions from the plaintiff for his business and family necessities under five separate ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes. In spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant agreed his liability but, postponing the repayment of debt on some pretext or the other. The defendant failed to repay either principal or interest due under ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes.

10. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Exhibits A.1 to A.5, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Exhibits A.1 to A.5 - ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). Since the defendant did not file written statement before this Court to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff, regarding his liability, this Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of 2,95,100₹/- (Rupees Two lakhs ninety five thousand one hundred Only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., 10.10.2022 till the date of decree, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amounts of 5 ₹1,26,000/-, 10,000/-, ₹₹35,000/-, ₹20,000/- and ₹45,000/- covered under

Exhibits A.1 to A.5- ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ marked promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant: PW1: J.G.Rajasekhara Reddy. Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original ‘A’ marked Promissory note, dated 26.08.2021 for 1,26₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 : Original ‘B’ marked Promissory note, dated 06.09.2021 for 10₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A3: Original ‘C’ marked Promissory note, dated 20.09.2021 for 35₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4: Original ‘D’ marked Promissory note, dated 28.09.2021 for 20₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A5: Original ‘E’ marked Promissory note, dated 06.09.2021 for 45₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

For defendant: NIL.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

OS/309/2022

N.Hanumantha vs B.Nagendra

11 Aug 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAYADURG.

Present : Sri.J.Sujin Kumar , II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. Friday, the 11th day of August, 2023

Original Suit No.309 of 2022.

Between:

N.Hanumantha, S/o Late N.Ramanjineyulu, Aged 36 years, Hindu, Business, Residing at D.No.17-2-274/2, Parvathi Nagar, Rayadurg Town and Taluq, Ananthapuramu District. … Plaintiff

And

B.Nagendra, S/o Late Palaiah, Aged 46 years, Hindu, Business & Landlord, Residing at D.No.16-3-415/1, Netaji Road, Now residing Near B.S.N.L.Office, Beside Girls Hostel, Rayadurg Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Defendant * * * * * This suit came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

S.Raghavendra, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of 3,16,067₹/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixteen thousand and sixty seven Only) being the principal and interestdue under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 05.07.2020 and 06.07.2020 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for 1,00,000₹/- (Rupees One 2 lakh Only) each respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of 2,00₹,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs Only) in cash from the plaintiff on two occasions dated 05.07.2020 and 06.07.2020 for his financial necessities and after receiving the said amounts, the defendant executed two separate promissory notes i.e., ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes in favour of plaintiff for 1,00₹,000/- (Rupees

One lakh Only) each on the said respective dates at Rayadurg Town agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of debt amounts due under the suit promissory notes. The defendant failed to repay the debt amounts covered under the suit promissory notes. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued legal notice, dated 29.07.2022 demanding him to repay the debt covered under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes. Even after receipt of the legal notice, the defendant did not choose to repay debt amount either principal or interest due under the promissory notes. Since the defendant is working as an employee in

Municipality and a landlord and so, he is not entitled any benefits of any agricultural debt relief laws. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of debt amount due under the said ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes with subsequent interest as contract rate and for costs of the suit.

3. On the other hand, the defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file his written statements within the statutory period (90 days) stipulated under

C.P.C. and he remained ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 03.04.2023. Hence, posted for plaintiffs’ evidence.

4. The plaintiff, in support of his contentions, examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exhibits A.1 to A.3.

5. Though the defendant set ex-parte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief automatically. The burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant has borrowed amount from him.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire suit amount from defendant under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes as prayed for ?

8. POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay ₹3,16,067/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixteen thousand and sixty seven Only) under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes, dt.05.07.2020 and 06.07.2020 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as

PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, goes to show that on 05.07.2020 the defendant borrowed a sum of 1,00₹,000/- and again on 06.07.2020 the defendant borrowed another sum of 1,00₹,000/- in total 2,00₹,000/- from the plaintiff (PW1) for his financial necessities and on the respective dates, after receiving the said amounts, he executed ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes for the said amounts i.e., Exs.A1 and A2 in favour of plaintiff (PW1) at Rayadurg Town, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand 4 and Inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the any amount either principal or interest. Then, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A3. The contents of Ex.A3 shows the bona-fides of the plaintiff in making demand for recovery of debt amount from the defendant, even prior to the filing of the suit.

9. From the unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is obvious that the defendant has borrowed total amount of 2,00,000₹/- (Rupees Two lakhs Only) on two occasions from the plaintiff for his necessities under two separate A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes. In spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, including issuance of legal notice, the defendant agreed his liability but, postponing the repayment of debt on some pretext or the other.

The defendant failed to repay either principal or interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes.

10. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of Exhibits A.1 to A.3, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Exhibits A.1 and A.2 - A and B marked suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding upon the defendant.

Apparently, the suit is filed within the period of limitation (three years). Since the defendant did not file written statement before this Court to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff, regarding his liability, this Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of 3,16,067₹/- (Rupees Three lakhs sixteen thousand and sixty seven Only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., 06.12.2022 till the date of decree, with further interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amounts of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh Only) each covered under Exhibits A.1 and A.2- ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant: PW1: N.Hanumantha. Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original ‘A’ marked Promissory note for 1,00₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 05.07.2020. Ex.A2 : Original ‘B’ marked Promissory note for 1,00₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 06.07.2020. Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice, dated 29.07.2022.

For defendant: NIL.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

OS/207/2022

Kata Sreenivasulu vs Ediga Gurupadamma

11 Aug 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAYADURG.

Present : Sri.J.Sujin Kumar , II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. Friday, the 11th day of August, 2023

Original Suit No.207 of 2022.

Between:

Kata Srinivasulu, S/o Late K.Narayanappa, Hindu, aged 60 years, Agriculturist, Residing at D.No.9/3/376/4, Near BSNL Office, Rayadurg Town, Ananthapuramu District. … Plaintiff

And

1) Ediga Gurupadamma, W/o E.Sreenivasulu, Hindu, aged 56 years, Housewife, Residing in D.No.10/2/194, Church Road, Rayadurg Town, Ananthapuramu District.

2) Ediga Naresh, S/oE.Sreenivasulu, Hindu, aged 38 years, Business, Residing in D.No.10/2/194, Church Road, Rayadurg Town, Ananthapuramu District.

… Defendants * * * * * This suit came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

J.A.Vahab Rahiman, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of ₹1,88,600/- (Rupees One lakh eighty eight thousand six hundred only) being the 2

principal amount and interest due on the promissory note dated 15.10.2019 said to

be jointly executed by the defendants, in favour of plaintiff for 1,15₹,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 18% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of 1,88,600₹/- (Rupees

One lakh eighty eight thousand six hundred only) with future interest thereon and costs from the defendants stating that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of 1,15₹,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand only) under the suit promissory note, dated 15.10.2019 from him, for their business and family necessities, after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff at Rayadurg town, they jointly executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff together with interest at 18% per annum and that the defendants failed to repay the amount in spite of repeated oral demands. But, the defendants have not paid any amount covered under the suit promissory note. Then, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dated 25.06.2022, the defendants even after receipt of legal notice did not choose to repay either

principal or interest covered under the suit promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff

constrained to file the above suit for recovery of suit amount from the defendants.

3.Despite service of summons on the defendants, the defendants did not appear before the Court and remained exparte to proceedings on 18.11.2022.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as PW.1. He also got marked Exs.A1 to A4 respectively. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note for ₹1,15,000/- Dt.15.10.2019. Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice, dated 25.06.2022.

Ex.A3 is postal receipts and Ex.A4 is postal acknowledgements.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for the Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from defendants, as prayed for ?

7. Point:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants are being original borrowers liable to pay 1,88,600₹/- (Rupees One lakh eighty eight thousand six hundred only) under suit promissory note, dt.15.10.2019 with subsequent interest.

To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 15.10.2019 the defendants jointly borrowed a sum of 1,15₹,000/- from the plaintiff (PW1) for their business and family necessities and on the same day, after receiving the said amount, the defendants jointly executed a promissory note for the said amount i.e., Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff (PW1) at Rayadurg Town, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendants did not choose to repay any amount either principal or interest. Then, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants under Exs.A2 and A3 and the same were served on the defendants under Ex.A4. The contents of Exs.A2 to A4 shows the bona-fides of the plaintiff in making demand for recovery of debt amount from the defendants, even prior to the filing of the suit.

8. Since the evidence of PW.1, as well as the contents of Exs.A1 to A4, 4 remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendants, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendants. As the defendants did not choose to repay the debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note even after receipt of legal notice, the Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants. Moreover, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the Court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay a sum of 1,88,600₹/- (Rupees One lakh eighty eight thousand six hundred only) to plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of 1,15,000₹/- (Rupees One lakh fifteen thousand only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendants: PW1: Kata Srinivasulu. Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note, dated 15.10.2019 for 1,15₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 25.06.2022. Ex.A3 : Postal receipts. Ex.A4 : Postal acknowledgements.

For defendants: NIL.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

OS/279/2022

Nese Radha vs Vadde Laskhmi

11 Aug 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAYADURG.

Present : Sri.J.Sujin Kumar , II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. Friday, the 11th day of August, 2023

Original Suit No.279 of 2022.

Between:

Vase Radha, W/o V.Muralidhar, Aged 46 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o D.No.16-2-243/5, Near Sathyanarayana Swamy Temple, Rayadurg Town, Ananthapuramu District. … Plaintiff

And

Vadde Lakshmi, W/o V.Venkatesulu, Aged 42 years, Hindu, Ex.Member of Panchayath, Residing at beside Highway, B.G.Kere Village, Post & Hoble, Molakalmuru Taluka, Chitradurga District, Karnataka State. … Defendant * * * * * This suit came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

C.Nagaraju and Smt. B.Mamatha, Advocates for Plaintiff and defendant having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of ₹79,500/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand five hundred only) being the principal amount and interest due on the promissory note dated 21.05.2020 said to be executed by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff for 50₹,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 24% per annum and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of a sum of 79,500₹/- (Rupees 2

Seventy nine thousand five hundred only) with future interest thereon and costs from the defendant stating that the defendant has borrowed an amount of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) under the suit promissory note, dated 21.05.2020 from her, for her financial necessities, after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff at Rayadurg town, she executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff together with interest at 24% per annum and that the defendant failed to repay the amount in spite of repeated oral demands, including issuance of legal notice, dated 13.09.2022. But, the defendant even after receipt of legal notice did not choose to repay either principal or interest covered under the suit promissory note. The defendant is doing business and so, she is not entitled any relief under

Debt Relief laws. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the above suit for recovery of suit amount from the defendant.

3.On the other hand, the defendant appeared through her counsel, but failed to file her written statement within the statutory period (90 days) stipulated under

C.P.C. and she was set ex-parte to the suit proceedings on 14.03.2023. Hence, posted for plaintiff’s evidence.

4.The plaintiff in support of her contentions got examined herself as PW.1.

She also got marked Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. Ex.A1 is Original promissory note for 50₹,000/- Dt.21.05.2020. Ex.A2 is Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt, Dt.13.09.2022.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for the Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from 3 defendant, as prayed for ?

7. Point:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay ₹79,500/- (Rupees Seventy nine thousand five hundred only) under suit promissory note, dt.21.05.2020 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, she got examined herself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as her chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of her pleadings.

The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 21.05.2020 the defendant borrowed a sum of 50₹,000/- from the plaintiff (PW1) for her financial necessities and on the same day, after receiving the said amount, she executed a promissory note for the said amount i.e., Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff (PW1) at Rayadurg Town, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and Inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the any amount either principal or interest. Then, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant under Ex.A2. The contents of Ex.A2 shows the bona-fides of the plaintiff in making demand for recovery of debt amount from the defendant, even prior to the filing of the suit.

8. Since the evidence of PW.1, as well as the contents of Exs.A1 and A2, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff with her evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. As the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note even after receipt of legal notice, the Court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against her. Moreover, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the Court holds that the plaintiff is able to 4 prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of 79,500₹/- (Rupees

Seventy nine thousand five hundred only) to plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on

principal amount of 50,000₹/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) under suit promissory

note.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant: PW1: Vase Radha. Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note for 50₹,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dated 21.05.2020. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt, dated 13.09.2020.

For defendant: NIL.

Sd/- J. Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

Order Record 369 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/26/2024	Varakuti Kesava Reddy vs B.Pedda Anjinaiah	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/28/2024	T. Thippeswamy vs Y.Rajasekhar Reddy	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/47/2024	Pathipati Rangaiah vs Daggupati Ramaswamy	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/174/2024	Deshamsetty Mallikarjuna vs V.Chithaiah	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/253/2023	Golla Savithramma vs Golla Nagesh	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/291/2022	Y.Varadarajulu vs M/s P.Srinivasulu	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/293/2022	Y.Varadaraju vs V.Manjunatha	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/315/2023	S.Jayakruthi vs Dadapeer	27 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/280/2023	G.N.Sreenivasulu vs M.Srinivasulu	16 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/16/2022	K.Rangaswamy vs B.Varalakshmi	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/254/2023	G.Anusuyamma vs K.Nagaraj	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
OS/255/2023	G.Nagarajiu vs K.Nagaraj	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/20/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Modupalli Surendra @ Surendra	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/21/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Yarragunta Kesappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/29/2021	Station House Officer, Rayadurg Urban PS vs Boya Ramanjineyulu @ Ramanjini	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/60/2021	Station House Officer, Kanekal PS vs Boya Purrappagari Marenna	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/62/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Uppara Chinna Hothuru Ramanjineyulu @ U.Ramanji	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/80/2021	Station House Officer, Kanekal P.S vs Boya Ravi	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/80/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Ediga Siva	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/90/2023	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Sayyad Musa @ Lorry Driver Musa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/93/2023	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Abdul Khaliq	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/96/2021	Station House Officer, Rayadurg Urban PS vs Vadde Ashok A PARTY	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/109/2023	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Pujari Khasim Saab	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/115/2023	The SHO, Kanekal vs Vetti Rangamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/123/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Kambayyagari Hanumanthu @ Boya Hanumanthu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/124/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Uppara Venkateshulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/125/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs S.Mriyunjaya	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/132/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs H.Ravi	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/133/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Goturu Santhosh Kumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/143/2020	PS Kanekal vs P. Venkatesulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/148/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs N.Vannurswamy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/150/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Lingayath Veeresh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/151/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Chakali Vandrappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/166/2023	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs H.Mallesh @ Gundappagari Mallesh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/170/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Mallikethi Thayappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/181/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Nayakula Obuleshu alias Vinod	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/188/2023	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Boya Lakshmanna	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/191/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Gonal Kiran Kumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/192/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Thirumalaiahgari Venkatesulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/193/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Boya Prabhakar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/194/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Boggula Vannurappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/195/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs V.Gavi Siddappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/196/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Harijana Pakkirappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/197/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Sikkirayya gari Dasariah alias Boya Dasaraiah	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/198/2023	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Thotti Hanumanthappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/198/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS, vs P.M.Siva	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/199/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Vadde Thimmaraju	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/200/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Pinjari Hussain Pheera	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/202/2023	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs M.Anantha Kumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/206/2018	Station House Officer, Rayadurg PS vs Mylara Satti @ Satheesh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/213/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Kuruba Garinti Vannuruswamy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/214/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Kuruba Dasappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/222/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Vadde Anjineyulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/226/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Nayakula Prashanth	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/234/2022	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Sugali Shankar Naik	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/235/2023	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Nayakula Narasimhulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/236/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Boya Venkatesulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/237/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Nayakula Thappayyagaari Yerriswamy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/238/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Kuruba Gadilinga	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/239/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Nayakula Palaiah alias Palaih	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/240/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Hanumantha Reddy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/241/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Koluru Virupakshi alias Karuru Virupakshi Gowda	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/242/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs B.Siddesh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/243/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs G.B.Murali	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/244/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Valmiki Mallikarjuna	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/244/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Chakalai Hanumanthu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/245/2022	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Kare Rampura Fayaaz	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/245/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs B.J.Channa Reddy alias Chenna Reddy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/246/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Sugali Ramesh Naik	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/247/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Vadde Anjinappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/248/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs B.Nagendra	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/249/2024	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Vadde Mahesh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/250/2024	The SHO, Kanekal PS vs Kukkala Yerriswamy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/251/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Hanumesh	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/252/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Nayakula Thippamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/253/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Pasupuleti Purushotham	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/254/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Boya Ademma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/255/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg UPS vs Koti Nagabushana	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/256/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Ballary Kanumaiah	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/257/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Proh. and Excise Police Station vs Siddvolla Gangamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/258/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Polepalli Ramanjineyulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/259/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Yerukala Chinna	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/260/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Mulinti Govindappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/261/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Ramavath Dasi Naik	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/262/2022	The SHO, Gummagatta PS vs Golla Ravikumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/262/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Achampalli Kullayamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/263/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Golla Thippeswamy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/264/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs K.Yosadamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/265/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Madiga Huliganna	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/266/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Devanagari Nagendra	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/267/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs Ediga Sivamma	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/268/2024	The SHO, Rayadurg Excise PS vs J.B.Vasantha Kumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/269/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Kammagari Anjinaiah alias Kammagari Anjineyulu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/270/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs S.Devaraj Kumar	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/271/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal PS vs Badige Lepakshi	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/272/2024	The SHO, Bommanahal Ps vs Machhireddaiahgari Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/273/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs K.Mallesappa	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/274/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Chennakesava	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/275/2024	The SHO, D.Hirehal PS vs Bureddy Raghu	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—
CC/277/2024	the SHO, Kanekal PS vs Ediga Sreenivasulu Gowd	14 Dec 2024	Copy of Order	—

Showing 100 of 369 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2024		194
Nov 2024		11
Dec 2023		136
Nov 2023		2
Oct 2023		1
Sep 2023		28
Aug 2023		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI B SUBHAN handled?

SRI B SUBHAN has handled 380 court orders since 2023 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 21 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI B SUBHAN hear?

Based on available records, SRI B SUBHAN primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka).

Where is SRI B SUBHAN currently posted?

SRI B SUBHAN is posted as junior civil judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI B SUBHAN available online?

Yes. 9 judgments by SRI B SUBHAN are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI B SUBHAN dispose cases?

SRI B SUBHAN disposes approximately 21 cases per month, based on 380 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka).

Since when is SRI B SUBHAN serving?

SRI B SUBHAN has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Rayadurg (Taluka) since 2023.

Case Types

CC 86%

OS 12%

MC 1%

STC 1%

PRC 0%

Posting History

Nov 2024 — Dec 2024

junior civil judge · 205 orders
Jun 2023 — Jan 2024

junior civil judge · 175 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Myakam Ramya

junior civil judge

139 orders

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