Smt. C.Haritha

1 C.C.No.53/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:RLY.KODUR

PRESENT:- Smt. C.Haritha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rly.Kodur.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May, 2017

CALENDER CASE No.285/2016

The State of A.P. represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Obulavaripalli P.S. … Complainant

Vs.

Kammam Chinna Pullaiah,

S/o Nagaiah, aged about 45 years, resident of Y.Kota H/W Village,

Obulavaripalli Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming on 02.05.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.C.Bhanukiranmai, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and Sri B.Venkat Ramanaiah, Legal Aid Counsel for the Accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Obulavaripalli PS filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.82/2016 for the offence

U/Sec.324 IPC alleging as follows:

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The defacto complainant father has been working as a Village

Revenue Officer of Y.Kota village and therefore the defacto complainant has got acquaintance with the staff of revenue department of Obulavaripalli

Mandal. About one month back prior to the incident, an enquiry was held with regard to marriage of accused daughter by revenue officials. The accused thought that the defacto complainant was responsible for the said enquiry and developed grudge against him. On 09.10.2016 at about 4.30 pm, while defacto complainant was sitting near petty shop of LW2

K.Sudarshanamma in front of his house and chatting with her, the accused 2 C.C.No.53/2017 came and beat the defacto complainant on his head with stick and caused bleeding injury on his right side of head. On hearing the cries of defacto complainant, the surrounding persons reprimanded the accused. Then the accused went away from the scene of offence. Later, the defacto complainant was shifted in jeep to Government Hospital, Rajampet. Basing on the statement of defacto complainant, the S.I. of Police, Kodur P.S.

registered the case and investigated into.

3. This case was taken on file for the offence U/sec. 324 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offences

U/sec.324 I.P.C. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu. For which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6.

The evidence of LW3 Kuppam Paramesh is closed by this Court.

7. The accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution. For which he pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the points for determination are:

1: Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant by name K.Chenchuramaiah with stick as punishable U/Sec.324 IPC?

2: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3 C.C.No.53/2017

Point No.1:- Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the

defacto complainant by name K.Chenchuramaiah

with stick as punishable U/Sec.324 IPC?

10.It is the case of prosecution that the accused developed a grudge against the defacto complainant in view of the enquiry held by the revenue officials in connection with the marriage of daughter of accused. Therefore, the accused on 09.10.2016 at 4.30 pm, beat the complainant with stick on right side of his forehead and caused bleeding injuries.

11. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to

PW6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. PW1 is the defacto complainant. PW2 and

PW4 are eye witnesses. PW3 is Medical Officer. PW5 and PW6 are investigating officers.

12. The evidence of PW1 is nothing but the averments of the charge sheet in his chief examination. In addition to that, he deposed that prior to the three months of incident, the accused fixed marriage for his daughter.

Somebody complained against the marriage of accused daughter on the ground that she is minor to the concerned authorities. Therefore, the V.R.O., called PW1 over phone and requested him to confirm the age of daughter of accused after verification of residence proof. Therefore, the accused developed grudge against PW1. Ex.P1 is the statement of PW1 got marked through him.

13. PW2 being eye witness to the incident turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Another eye witness, who is examined as PW4 deposed that there were misunderstandings between PW1 and accused due to enquiry in relation to the marriage of daughter of accused.

Subsequently, the said marriage was stopped. He further deposed that the accused came to the said place with stick and beat the PW1 on his forehead and caused bleeding injury. The accused also beat PW1 on his right hand 4 C.C.No.53/2017 and caused dumb injury. He along with LW3 K.Paramesh shifted PW1 to the

Government Hospital for treatment. PW3, who is the Medical Officer treated the PW1 deposed that he examined PW1 and found injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate under Ex.P3. He deposed that PW1 sustained injury 6x2x3 cm laceration over the forehead and complaint of tenderness in right elbow joint, right shoulder joint.

14. The investigating officer, who recorded the statement of PW1 at

Government Hospital, Rajampet examined as PW5. He deposed that on receipt of hospital intimation, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement as per his say. Ex.P4 is the hospital intimation got marked through him. The evidence of investigating officer, who is examined as PW6 shows about his registration of case, issuance of F.I.R. visiting Government

Hospital, Rajampet and scene of offence, examination of witnesses and recording their statements, preparation of rough sketch and arrest of the accused. On completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

15. The learned APP argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the alleged offences through the evidence of PW1, PW3 to PW6, coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. She further argued that there is an independent corroboration to the prosecution case. Further, prosecution established the motive for the galata. Hence, she prayed to convict the accused according to law. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence submitted his arguments that the present case is foisted against the accused in view of the previous grudges. He further submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to the place of injury. The possibilities elicited in the cross examination of PW3 proved the case of defence. He further submitted that PW4 is interested witness to the prosecution and therefore his evidence cannot be relied upon. The investigating officer did not conduct proper investigation and he failed to 5 C.C.No.53/2017 seize the material object and examine any of the neighbouring residents of scene of offence. Therefore, he prayed to acquit the accused as prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16. As seen from the material on record, PW1 evidence corroborated by PW4 with regard to manner of incident and receiving of injuries by PW1 in the hands of accused. Further, their evidence is clear that on 09.10.2016 at 4.30 pm, the accused voluntarily beat PW1 on his forehead while he was present in front of the petty shop of PW2 and caused bleeding injuries on his right side forehead. Their evidence is corroborated by Medical Officer, who is examined as PW3. Further, immediately after the incident, PW1 admitted in Government Hospital, Rajampet and taken treatment. There, the police recorded the statement of PW1. As such, there is no delay in lodging the report by PW1 with regard to incident against the accused.

17. PW2 turned hostile and the learned APP could not able to elicit anything in favour of prosecution except marking of his 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement as Ex.P2. Therefore, there remains the evidence of PW1 and PW4 apart from the evidence of official witnesses. The learned counsel for the defence cross examined PW1 and PW4 but nothing is elicited in favour of defence that they have spoken falsehood in order to implicate the accused in false case.

18. The evidence of investigating officer also revealed that the offence

U/Sec.324 was made against the accused during his investigation. The learned counsel for the defence argued that the investigating officer failed to seize the stick used by accused in commission of offence and also failed to examine any neighbouring residents of the scene of offence. It is settled law that mere latches or defects in investigation by the investigating officer is not a sole ground to acquit the accused. Further, the oral evidence of

PW1 and PW4 is specific that the accused beat the PW1 with stick on vital 6 C.C.No.53/2017 part of the body of PW1. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments of the learned defence counsel.

19.The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of PW1 shows that the accused came on his back side and towards his right side and beat him and therefore the injury must have been received by the PW1 only on the left part of head. He further submitted that there is no corroboration as to the manner of sustaining injuries between PW1, PW4 and PW3 admitted in cross examination that the injuries received by PW1 may be possible when fell on rough surface.

20. In this regard, this Court observed that the power of observation of an incident must differ from person to person. One may notice other may not notice the certain minute facts in a rapid movement of an action.

Further, the minor contradictions are bound to occur since there is a gap between the date of incident and date of deposing evidence. This Court cannot expect parrot like narration from PW1 and PW4 with regard to incident. The minor contradictions, which does not go to the route of the prosecution is not fatal and the same can be ignored.

21. The possibilities elicited by defence counsel in cross examination of PW3 that the injury sustained by PW1 might be possible when he fell on the rough surface. It is well settled law that the evidence of Medical Officer is not sacrosanct and it assumes importance only when there is a contradiction as to the place of injuries between the oral evidence and medical evidence. The oral evidence on the aspect of sustaining injuries by

PW1 in the hands of accused is very much proved by the prosecution and the same is inspiring confidence of this Court. No conflict between oral and medical evidence. Therefore, the argument of defence counsel is not tenable.

22. The defence of accused is that the present case is foisted against 7 C.C.No.53/2017 the accused due to previous grudges. Enemity is a double edged weapon, it may lead to correct implication or false implication. The evidence of PW1 being injured witness stands on high footing because absolutely there is no reason for him to hide the real culprit and foist a false case against the accused. The motive for the incident also established by prosecution that the accused thought that PW1 was responsible for the stoppage of marriage of daughter of accused. In the instant case, the prosecution case is rest upon the evidence of direct witnesses. However, the motive assumes importance and basis for the offence committed by the accused.

23. In view of the foregoing discussion and the material placed by the prosecution, the prosecution established that the accused voluntarily caused bleeding injuries to PW1 so as to attract the ingredients of Sec.324

IPC. Hence, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.

Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused

for the offence U/Sec.324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

24. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings in point No.1, this

Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence

U/Sec.324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment U/Sec.324 IPC.

25. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec. 324

IPC and he is convicted of the same U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. As there is no property, no orders passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

8 C.C.No.53/2017

Heard the accused about the proposed sentence to be passed against him. Accused stated that he is living by doing cooli work and he is the sole bread winner of his family. Further he requested to take lenient view. In the facts and circumstances, under which the offence committed by accused, this Court is not inclined to extent the benefit of the provisions of P.O.Act in favour of accused. By taking into consideration of the living conditions of accused and nature of injury sustained by P.W.1. I hold that sentencing the accused with fine would meets the ends of justice.

Hence, the accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-,for the offence U/Sec.324 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. Accused was not remanded to judicial custody, hence no set off given U/Sec.428 Cr.P.C. in case of default of payment of fine. Out of fine amount, an amount of Rs.3,000/- shall be given to PW1 U/Sec.357 Cr.P.C. as compensation after appeal time is over. The accused is appraised about his right of appeal against the judgment of this court.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW1: K.Chenchu RamaiahNIL

PW2: K.Sudharshanamma

PW3: S.Sadik, Civil Assistant Surgeon, CHC, Rajampet

PW4: S.Janardhana

PW5: K.Janardhana Rao, Head Constable

PW6: K.Pardeep Naidu, S.I. of Police 9 C.C.No.53/2017

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Written statement of PW1

Ex.P2: 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P3: Wound Certificate of PW1

Ex.P4: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P5: F.I.R

Ex.P6: Rough Sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

\\True Copy\\

Sd/-C.HARITHA,

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAILWAY KODUR.

1 O.S.No.3/2017

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAILWAY KODUR

Present:- Smt.C.Haritha,

Junior Civil Judge, Rly. Kodur

Dated this the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

O.S.No.3/2017

Pandikalla Eswaraiah … Plaintif

Vs.

Kavuturi Narasimha Naidu … Defendant

This suit is coming on 28.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Narayana, advocate for plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this 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 grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff is landless poor and granted DKT patta by the then

Thasildar, Obulavaripalli after following the due procedure under B.S.O.on 06.01.1980. Plaintiff invested more than Rs.50,000/- and made the land fit for cultivation and raising rainfed crops like Jowar and Horsegram etc. in the plaint schedule property. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff and also incorporated his name in all revenue records and has got right and possession over the suit schedule property.

Further, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant requested him to sell away the suit schedule property. But, the plaintiff refused the same as said property is DKT lands. Bearing grudge in mind, the defendant tried to 2 O.S.No.3/2017 trespass into the suit land and caused inconvenience to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with a view to grab the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from the property by creating fictitious documents in his favour. The plaintiff with a great pain resisted the high handedness of the defendant. The defendant threatening with dire consequences if he did not vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons to defendant served. Defendant appeared through his

Counsel. Written statements of Defendant not filed inpsite of completion of statutory period. Hence, Defendant is set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A4 marked.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

Point:-

5. To prove the case of plaintiff, PW1 is examined. The chief examination of PW1 is nothing but the reiteration of the averments of plaint. Ex.A1 to A4 shows that the suit schedule land was granted by the then Thasildar, Obulavripalli by granting DKT patta bearing No.186/90 dated 06.01.1980. The revenue officials issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff name was incorporated in all revenue records.

6. The plaintiff evidence shows that he was granted DKT patta by the government with regard to suit schedule property. Further, the revenue authorities granted pattadar passbook and title deed, which are marked as

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. On perusal of Ex.A2, there was a correction in patta number and there was a striking of another name and inserted the name of plaintiff as pattadar in different ink. Again, the name of plaintiff was 3 O.S.No.3/2017 mentioned after erasing another name on the 2nd page of pattadar passbook. The plaintiff never examine any revenue officials to show that the said insertion of his name was made as per the procedure by revenue officials. This raises doubt on the genuineness of the Ex.A2 and Ex.A3.

Merely because, the plaintiff was granted DKT patta and other documents the same, itself is not a proof of his possession over the suit property. In addition to that, the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence by examining neighbouring land owners on his behalf to prove his possession over the suit property. The plaintiff also failed to file any 1-B Namoona and No.3

Adangal to prove his possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing the suit. No satisfactory evidence to show that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the date of grant of patta. Further more, it is well settled law that merely because the defendant is set exparte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree if so facto. As such, the entire burden on the plaintiff to prove his case is not discharged by him in the instant case.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to established his case with convincing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PlaintiffDefendants: P.W1: Alla Narasimhulu Nil 4 O.S.No.3/2017

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original DKT patta Ex.A2: Original Pattadar passbook Ex.A3: Original Title Deed Ex.A4: Photos

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Defendants: Nil

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

\\True Copy\\

Sd/-C.HARITHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAILWAY KODUR.

1 O.S.No.2/2017

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: RAILWAY KODUR

Present:- Smt.C.Haritha,

Junior Civil Judge, Rly. Kodur

Dated this the 2 nd day of May, 2017.

O.S.No.2/2017

Alla Narasimhulu … Plaintif

Vs.

Kavuturi Narasimha Naidu … Defendant

This suit is coming on 28.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Narayana, advocate for plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this 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 grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff is landless poor and granted DKT patta by the then

Thasildar, Obulavaripalli after following the due procedure under B.S.O.on 06.01.1980. Plaintiff invested more than Rs.50,000/- and made the land fit for cultivation and raising rainfed crops like Jowar and Horsegram etc. in the plaint schedule property. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff and also incorporated his name in all revenue records and has got right and possession over the suit schedule property.

Further, the plaintiff submitted that the defendant requested him to sell away the suit schedule property. But, the plaintiff refused the same as said property is DKT lands. Bearing grudge in mind, the defendant tried to 2 O.S.No.2/2017 trespass into the suit land and caused inconvenience to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with a view to grab the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from the property by creating fictitious documents in his favour. The plaintiff with a great pain resisted the high handedness of the defendant. The defendant threatening with dire consequences if he did not vacate the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons to defendant served. Defendant appeared through his

Counsel. Written statements of Defendant not filed inpsite of completion of statutory period. Hence, Defendant is set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 is examined and Exs.A1 to A4 marked.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for?

Point:-

5. To prove the case of plaintiff, PW1 is examined. The chief examination of PW1 is nothing but the reiteration of the averments of plaint. Ex.A1 to A4 shows that the suit schedule land was granted by the then Thasildar, Obulavripalli by granting DKT patta bearing No.149/90 dated 06.01.1980. The revenue officials issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of plaintiff and the plaintiff name was incorporated in all revenue records.

6. The plaintiff evidence shows that he was granted DKT patta by the government with regard to suit schedule property. Further, the revenue authorities granted pattadar passbook and title deed, which are marked as

Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. On perusal of Ex.A2, there was a correction in patta number that one Sannapuneni Venkataiah name inserted in 2nd page of

Ex.A2 with regard to survey number 1853. Plaintiff failed to give any 3 O.S.No.2/2017 explanation as to how the above said name was inserted in Ex.A2. The plaintiff never examine any revenue officials to show that the said insertion of his name was made as per the procedure by revenue officials. This raises doubt on the genuineness of the Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. Merely because, the plaintiff was granted DKT patta and other documents the same, itself is not a proof of his possession over the suit property. In addition to that, the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence by examining neighbouring land owners on his behalf to prove his possession over the suit property. The plaintiff also failed to file any 1-B Namoona and No.3 Adangal to prove his possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing the suit.

No satisfactory evidence to show that the plaintiff has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the date of grant of patta. Further more, it is well settled law that merely because the defendant is set exparte, the plaintiff is not entitled for the decree if so facto. As such, the entire burden on the plaintiff to prove his case is not discharged by him in the instant case.

7. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to established his case with convincing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PlaintiffDefendants:

P.W1: Alla Narasimhulu Nil 4 O.S.No.2/2017

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original DKT patta Ex.A2: Original Pattadar passbook Ex.A3: Original Title Deed Ex.A4: Photos

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Defendants: Nil

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

\\True Copy\\

Sd/-C.HARITHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAILWAY KODUR.

1 O.S.No.67/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAILWAY KODUR

Present:- Smt.C.Haritha,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

O.S.No.67/2016

Pullaganti Narasimhulu … Plaintiff.

Vs.

Vaddi Venkata Subba Reddy … Defendant

This suit coming on 01.05.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Madhu Sudhna Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, having heard and after perusing the record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,71,866/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dt:25.12.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff is as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.12.2013 for his necessities and executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in his house agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. repayable on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. But, the plaintiff relinquiehsed the rate of inteest from 24% to 12% p.a. only. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to repay the amount due and recently he left the village without intimation. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons to defendant unserved. Hence, the summons of defendant ordered to be taken by way of substitute service. Publication given in Eanadu found correct. Defendant called absent and when there was no representation on behalf of the defendant, he was set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 is marked.

5. Now point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendant as prayed for?

2 O.S.No.67/2016

6. On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1. The chief examination affidavit of PW1 is nothing but the reiteration of his plaint averments. On perusal of pleadings and evidence of PW1 coupled with

Ex.A1 clearly go to show that the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- under the suit promissory note, failed to repay the same in spite of oral demands. If really the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never execute promissory note i.e. Ex.A1, definitely he would have contested the suit with the available defence. Since the defendant did not contest the suit, the pleading and the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 remained unchallenged. In view of the material produced by the plaintiff, the suit claim is proved. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree against the defendants.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.2,71,866/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit to till the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 3rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR:

Plaintiff: Defendant: PW1: Pullaganti Narasimhulu Nil

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dt:25.12.2013

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant: Nil

Sd/- C.HARITHA,

Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur.

\\True Copy\\

Sd/-C.HARITHA,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAILWAY KODUR.

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur

Case No. :CC/0000050/2011 SHO. Kodur PS Vs Sakthi Muragan

Date  : 02-05-2017

Business: Accused is called absent. NBWs pending against him. Sureties of accused are discharged. The SHO, Kodur PS filed report stating that the whereabouts of the accused is not known and that he is not residing in the address mentioned in the charge sheet. Being it summons case, no purpose will be served by keeping pending the case, as there is no chance to execute the warrant by police. Hence the proceedings of this case is hereby stopped U/Sec. 258 of Cr.P.C. In the result the accused is discharged. Nature of Disposal : DISCHARGED Disposal Date: 02-05-2017 Junior Civil Judge, Railway Kodur