Ms.c.k.gayathri Devi

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 943 court orders on record since 2018. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, EP cases.

943

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/71/2021 Compromised

Pilla Rajeswari vs Pilla Srinu

30 Sep 2021

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 1 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K.Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Thursday, the Thirtieth [30th] day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P. No.71 of 2021

Between

Pilla Rajeswari, W/o. Srinu, D/o. Sigatapu Mahalakshmi, aged 23 years,

Hindu, Housewife, R/o. 5-158, Chitrada Village, Pithapuram Mandal,

Aadhar No.309584606216.

… PETITIONER.

And

Pilla Srinu, S/o. Kasi Viswanatham, Hindu, aged 37 years, Cultivation,

D.No.1-30, 1st Ward, Near Munagalamma Temple, F.K.Palem Post,

Kandarada Village, Pithapuram Mandal, Aadhar No.428415536412,

Mobile No.9704515023.

… RESPONDENT.

*****

This Petition, coming on 28.09.2021, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri K.K.S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner, and Sri B.A.K.Eswar Babu, Advocate for the Respondent; and upon hearing both sides; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.This Petition is filed by the Petitioner, under Section 13(1)(ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of the Decree of Divorce, dissolving the Marriage, dated 15.05.2020, between her and the

Respondent, and for such other reliefs, as deemed fit and necessary under the circumstances of the case.

2.The Case of the Petitioner, as per the averments in the

Petition, in brief, is as follows:-

The Petitioner is the Wife of the Respondent. Their Marriage has taken place on 15.05.2020, at Settibalijapeta Ramalayam in

Chitrada, as per Hindu rites and caste customs, before the elders on both sides. After Marriage, the Petitioner joined the company of the

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 2 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Respondent at his Parents house at Kandarada village, and they lead their marital life for a period of only Three months. The Respondent used to threaten the Petitioner and harassed her. The Respondent is a habitual drinker in nature, and addicted to bad vices. The Petitioner bore all the torture with a fond hope that the Respondent will change. But, he did not change. Some misunderstandings were cropped up in between the Parties, and disputes had grown up between them beyond repair.

The Respondent had no affection towards the Petitioner. He is adamant, and is not a broad minded person. He had neglected the Petitioner from the last 12 months. Thus, the Petitioner is taking shelter in the house of her Parents on their mercy.

The Petitioner tried her level best to settle the dispute in between both Parties through Elders, but the Respondent expressed his unwillingness for settlement of disputes and also for reunion. The

Respondent acted with utmost Cruelty towards the Petitioner. There is no collusion between the Parties in filing this Petition. No similar or previous Application with similar relief is filed or pending. Hence, the

Petitioner has filed this Petition, seeking a Decree of Divorce, for

Dissolution of her Marriage, dated 15.05.2020, with the Respondent, on the grounds of Cruelty, Desertion, and abandonment of conjugal life by the Respondent, and irretrievable break down of their Marriage.

3.The Respondent has filed his Counter, contending as follows:

The main and material allegations mentioned in the Petition are not true and correct. After receiving the Court Summons, he approached the Petitioner through elders for amicable settlement and for reunion. But, the Petitioner did not pay any interest, love or affection towards him. All the efforts of Elders are in vain. Hence, there is no possibility of reunion. The Petitioner is an arrogant person, and pick up quarrels with him for each and every aspect. The Respondent has no bad vices and never tortured the Petitioner at any point of time. Hence, he

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 3 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

has no objection to pass a Decree of Divorce in favour of the Petitioner, as prayed for against him.

4.On behalf of the Petitioner, PW.1 is examined, and Exs.P1 and

P2 are marked. On behalf of the Respondent, RW.1 is examined, and no

Documents are marked.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The Point for consideration is whether the Petitioner is

entitled for dissolution of her Marriage with the Respondent,

dated 15.05.2020, by way of Decree of Divorce, on the grounds of

Desertion and Cruelty, as prayed for by her?

7. POINT:-

(a)To establish her Case, the Petitioner had examined himself as PW.1, and got Exs.P1 and P2 marked on her behalf. She had deposed in Chief on par with the averments in the Petition. But, in her

Cross-Examination by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent, she had clearly admitted that subsequent to the filing of the present Petition, herself and the Respondent have settled the matter, at the advice of the elders, and both of them agreed to take Divorce from the Court.

(b)The Respondent, who had reported ‘No Objection’ for granting Divorce in his Counter, had filed his Chief Affidavit as RW.1, and deposed in his Chief Examination, on par with the contents in the

Counter, apart from stating ‘No Objection for granting of Divorce’. In his

Cross-Examination by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, RW.1 had clearly admitted that subsequent to the filing of the present Petition, himself and the Petitioner have settled the matter, at the advice of the elders, and both of them agreed to take Divorce from the Court; and that he is not having any Objection to grant Divorce, as prayed for by the

Petitioner.

(c)It is relevant to look into Exs.P1 and P2, which are relied upon by the Petitioner. Ex.P1 is the Wedding Invitation Card of the

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 4 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Petitioner and the Respondent. Ex.P2 is the Three Marriage

Photographs, along with Compact Disc. Exs.P1 and P2 clearly show that the Petitioner and the Respondent are legally married Couple.

(d)It is clear from the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 that subsequent to the filing of the present Petition, both Parties have compromised the matter, at the intervention of the elders, and accordingly, the Respondent had submitted ‘No Objection for granting

Divorce’, in his Counter, inspite of denying the allegations made by the

Petitioner, and contending that the Petitioner herself has no interest to lead marital life with him, and that the Petitioner is having arrogant attitude, and she used to spend money lavishly. Even though both Parties have made allegations against each other, with respect to the acts of

Desertion and Cruelty, in view of the voluntary act of the Respondent in reporting ‘No Objection for granting of Divorce’, both in his Counter and

Chief Examination Affidavit, as well as during his Cross-Examination

before the Court, on account of the settlement made by him and the

Petitioner before the Elders, this Court is inclined to ignore the allegations made by the both Parties, against each other, in the Petition and Counter, as well as their Chief Examination Affidavits, respectively.

This Court is inclined to consider the admission of both PW.1 and RW.1, regarding the compromise effected between them, at the advice of their

Elders, for taking Divorce from the Court.

(e)The evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 clearly shows that both

Parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, subsequent to the filing of this Petition, in order to avoid all the complications in the future. It also shows that there is no chance of any Reunion or Reconciliation between the Petitioner and the Respondent, and that the marital tie in between them had broken beyond repair. Therefore, it can be said that no purpose would be served in keeping both the Petitioner and the

Respondent together, and that it is best to grant Divorce, as prayed for

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 5 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

in the Petition, in order to enable the both Parties to lead their independent lives.

(f)In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Petitioner is entitled for granting of Divorce, dissolving her Marriage with the Respondent, since the Respondent had also agreed for the same by reporting ‘No Objection’, and by giving the evidence before the Court accordingly.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Petitioner.

8.In the result, the Petition is allowed, by dissolving the

Marriage between the Petitioner and the Respondent, dated 15.05.2020, by passing a Decree of Divorce, as prayed for. Each Party shall bear their own Costs.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

P.W.1: Pilla Rajeswari.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Ex.P1: Wedding Invitation Card of the Petitioner and the Respondent.

Ex.P2: Three Marriage Photographs, along with Compact Disc.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

R.W.1: Pilla Srinu.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021 6 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

ORDER

H.M.O.P.No.71 OF 2021

Date:- 30.09.2021.

Part – I

H.M.O.P/21/2021

Bachu Shiva Appanna vs Nil

21 Sep 2021

H.M.O.P.No.21 OF 20211S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K. Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Tuesday, the Twenty First [21st] day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P. No.21 of 2021

Between:

1. Bachu Shiva Appanna, S/o. Satyanarayana, Hindu, age 30 years,

Coolie, R/o. D.No.3-121, P.Thimmapuram, Pithapuram Mandal,

PithapuramSeniorCivilJudgeCourtLimits,Aadhar

No.271683551350.

2. Bachu (Gutta) Appalaraju @ Apparna, W/o. Shiva Appanna, age 22 years, Housewife, D/o. Gutta Rambabu, R/o. D.No.1-42,

Lakshminarasapuram, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram Senior Civil

Judge Court Limits, Aadhar No.677672286084.

… PETITIONERS.

And

NIL. … RESPONDENTS.

*****

This Petition, coming on 20.9.2021, for the Evidence of the

Petitioners and Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri B.Ramakrishna,

Advocate for the Petitioners; and the Respondents being NIL; and upon hearing the Arguments on the side of the Petitioners; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.This Petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2, seeking a Decree of Divorce, by dissolving their Marriage, dated 14.06.2016, on the ground of their

Mutual Consent, and such other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the Case.

2.The averments in the Petition, in brief, are as follows:-

The Petitioner No.1 is the Husband of the Petitioner No.2.

They got married on 14.06.2016, at the House of the Petitioner No.2 at

Lakshminarasapuram, Pithapuram Mandal, as per Hindu rites and Caste

Customs. The Marriage was immediately consummated. The Petitioner

No.2 joined the company of the Petitioner No.1, and they lived happily for one year, at the House of the Petitioner No.1 at P.Thimmapuram.

H.M.O.P.No.21 OF 20212S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Thereafter, some disputes and differences arose in between the

Petitioners. As a result, they began living separately since 20.09.2017, and they developed ill feelings. During their wedlock, the Petitioners were blessed with a female Child, by name, Pravallika, aged about 18 months.

According to the Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.2 is not behaving well, and developed undue aversion and hatredness towards him, and she used to resort to petty things with him often. According to the Petitioner No.2, the Petitioner No.1 is not looking after her properly.

From the beginning, there are no proper understanding, love, admiration between the Petitioners. Because of the wide differences between them, the Petitioners are not interested to continue in the above state of affairs, and as such, they have decided to live separately on their own accord by obtaining Divorce on Mutual Consent.

The Elders, well wishers and Parents of both sides tried their level best for reunion of the Petitioners, but all their efforts are in vain.

The Petitioners are determined to dissolve their Marriage by obtaining a

Decree of Divorce on Mutual Consent. The Petitioner No.1 had agreed to return an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- by compensating the

Petitioner No.2 and their Daughter by name, Pravallika. The Petitioner

No.1 had given Rs.1,10,000/- on 27.01.2020, and Rs.1,50,000/- on 29.01.2020, through a Demand Draft drawn on Chaitanya Bharathi

Grameena Bank, Pithapuram, towards full and final settlement Alimony to the Petitioner No.2 and Pravallika. The Petitioner No.2 had agreed to take custody of their Daughter Pravallika, and the amounts paid, are inclusive of the maintenance of the Daughter. There is no collusion between the

Petitioners in filing this Petition. No previous or similar Petition is filed, or pending, for Divorce, in any Court. Hence, the Petitioners have filed this

Petition, seeking a Decree of Divorce, dissolving their Marriage held on 14.06.2016, on the ground of their Mutual Consent.

3.On behalf of the Petitioners, PW.1 and PW.2 are examined, and

Exs.P1 and P2 are marked.

H.M.O.P.No.21 OF 20213S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

4.Heard the Counsel for the Petitioners.

5.The Point for consideration is whether the Marriage of the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 can be dissolved, by a Decree of Divorce, on

the ground of their Mutual Consent, as prayed for by them?

6. POINT:- [a]To prove their contentions, the Petitioners No.1 and 2 have examined themselves as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively, and got Exs.P1 and P2 marked on their behalf. They had deposed in their respective

Chief Examination Affidavits, on par with the averments in the Petition, and further that the Petitioner No.1 had given Rs.2,60,000/- in total, to the Petitioner No.2; and that Petitioner No.2 had agreed to take the custody of their Daughter, and the amounts that are paid, are inclusive of the maintenance of the kid, as part of the full and final settlement. Ex.P1 is the Two Marriage Photographs, along with One Compact Disc. Ex.P2 is the Wedding Card. Both Exs.P1 and P2 shows that both the Petitioners are legally married Couple.

[b]As seen from the Petition, and the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2, it is clear that since 20.09.2017, the Petitioners are residing separately; and that they had settled the matter before the Elders, and agreed to take Divorce through Court, for dissolution of their Marriage by

Mutual Consent; and that the Petitioner No.1 had paid Rs.2,60,000/- in total, to the Petitioner No.2, towards the Alimony of herself and her

Daughter, who is under her care and custody. The evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 clearly shows that there is no chance for their Reunion, and that no purpose would be served, in keeping the Petitioners together. Since the

Marital tie between the Petitioners had broken, and cannot be restored, this Court is of the opinion that, it will be best for the future of the

Petitioners, if the Divorce is granted, so that they can lead independent lives. It is clear that the Petitioners came to an amicable Settlement, to avoid all the complications in future.

[c]In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes that the marital tie between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 cannot be

H.M.O.P.No.21 OF 20214S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

restored; and that they have sufficient ground for Dissolution of their

Marriage, by passing a Decree of Divorce, on the ground of their Mutual

Consent. Therefore, this Court holds that the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for dissolving of their Marriage, dated 14.06.2016, by way of

Divorce by Mutual Consent, as prayed for by them.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Petitioners.

7.In the result, the Petition is allowed, passing the Decree of

Divorce, dissolving the Marriage, dated 14.06.2016, between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 on the ground of their Mutual Consent. The

Petitioners shall bear their own Costs.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21 st day of September, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

P.W.1 : Bachu Shiva Appanna.

P.W.2 : Bachu (Gutta) Appalaraju @ Aparna.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Ex.P1: Two Marriage Photographs of the Petitioners No.1 and 2, along with Compact Disc.

Ex.P2:Wedding Invitation Card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

ORDER

H.M.O.P.No.21 OF 2021

Date:- 21.09.2021.

Part – I

H.M.O.P/3/2021

Attili Ravi kumar vs Nil

16 Sep 2021

H.M.O.P.No.3 OF 2021 1S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K. Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Thursday, the Sixteenth [16th] day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P. No.3 of 2021

Between:

1. Attili Ravi Kumar, S/o. Attili Suryanarayana (Late), Hindu, Attender in

Government High School at Rayagada, aged 39 years, Resident of

D.No.6-35-19, Gavarapeta, Tuni, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Attili Aparna, W/o. Attili Ravi Kumar, D/o. Chaganthi Satyanarayana,

Hindu, aged 25 years, Housewife, presently resident of D.No.70-2B- 4/1, Maszid Street, Sarpavaram Junction, Kakinada, East Godavari

District.

… PETITIONERS.

And

NIL. … RESPONDENTS.

*****

This Petition, coming on 14.09.2021, for the Evidence of the

Petitioners and Hearing before me, in the presence of Smt. K.Vishnu

Priya, Advocate for the Petitioners; and the Respondents being NIL; and upon hearing the Arguments on the side of the Petitioners; and upon perusing the entire material available on record; and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1.This Petition, under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2, seeking a Decree of Divorce, by dissolving their Marriage, dated 07.10.2011, on the ground of their

Mutual Consent, and such other relief as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the Case.

2.The averments in the Petition, in brief, are as follows:-

The Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded Husband of the

Petitioner No.2. The Marriage of the Petitioner No.1 with the Petitioner

No.2, was solemnized on 07.10.2011, at Patha Bazar Pogaku Varthaka

Samgam Bhavanam, Tuni, as per Hindu rites and Customs. The Marriage was immediately consummated. The Petitioner No.2 joined the marital

H.M.O.P.No.3 OF 2021 2S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

home of the Petitioner No.1. After the marriage, both the Petitioners lived together as Husband and Wife, at Tuni. During their wedlock, the

Petitioners were blessed with a Child on 24.12.2014, named as Attili

Raman Adhitya. Due to misunderstandings and difference of opinion between the Petitioners, they developed dislike towards each other, and since 2017, they started living separately. The family Elders of both sides made efforts for reunion, but in vain. There is no chance of reunion between the Petitioners. The Marriage is irretrievably broken down.

Hence, the Petitioners have decided to obtain a Decree of Divorce, by dissolving their Marriage, by Mutual Consent, so as to lead the rest of life happily and peacefully. There is no collusion between the Petitioners. No similar Petition is filed, or pending.

The dispute between the Petitioners was resolved between them, with Terms. Accordingly, the Petitioner No.1 had paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the Petitioner No.2, by way of Cash, on 15.02.2020, towards her

Permanent Alimony, and full and final settlement. The Petitioner No.2 had received the amount. The Petitioner No.2 agreed to hand over her Son, namely, Attili Raman Adithya to the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.2 agreed not to make any claim against the Petitioner No.1, seeking maintenance or property rights or share in the Property in future. The

Petitioners are not having any claim of any nature against each other, or over their properties in future. The Petitioner No.1 agreed that either himself or his family members will not interfere, or quarrel, or attack the

Petitioner No.2, or her family members. Hence, the Petitioners have filed this Petition, seeking a Decree of Divorce, dissolving their Marriage held on 07.10.2011, on the ground of their Mutual Consent.

3.On behalf of the Petitioners, PW.1 and PW.2 are examined, and

Exs.P1 and P2 are marked.

4.Heard the Counsel for the Petitioners.

H.M.O.P.No.3 OF 2021 3S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

5.The Point for consideration is whether the Marriage of the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 can be dissolved, by a Decree of Divorce, on

the ground of their Mutual Consent, as prayed for by them?

Chief Examination Affidavits, on par with the averments in the Petition, and further that the Petitioner No.1 had given Rs.5,00,000/-, and 3 sovereigns of gold to the Petitioner No.2; and that the custody, care, educational expenses, welfare and maintenance of their Son is with the

Petitioner No.1. Ex.P1 is the Wedding Card. Ex.P2 is the Three Marriage

Photographs, along with One Compact Disc. Both Exs.P1 and P2 shows that both the Petitioners are legally married Couple.

[b]As seen from the Petition, and the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2, it is clear that since 2017, the Petitioners are residing separately; and that they had settled the matter before the Elders, and agreed to take Divorce through Court, for dissolution of their Marriage by Mutual

Consent; and that the Petitioner No.1 had paid Rs.5,00,000/- and 3 sovereigns of gold to the Petitioner No.2, towards her Permanent

Alimony; and that the Son of the Petitioners is under the care and custody of the Petitioner No.1. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 clearly shows that there is no chance for their Reunion, and that no purpose would be served, in keeping the Petitioners together. Since the Marital tie between the Petitioners had broken, and cannot be restored, this Court is of the opinion that, it will be best for the future of the Petitioners, if the Divorce is granted, so that they can lead independent lives. It is clear that the

Petitioners came to an amicable Settlement, to avoid all the complications in future.

H.M.O.P.No.3 OF 2021 4S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

[c]In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes that the marital tie between the Petitioners No.1 and 2 cannot be restored; and that they have sufficient ground for Dissolution of their

Marriage, by passing a Decree of Divorce, on the ground of their Mutual

Consent. Therefore, this Court holds that the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for dissolving of their Marriage, dated 07.10.2011, by way of

Divorce by Mutual Consent, as prayed for by them.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Petitioners.

7.In the result, the Petition is allowed, passing the Decree of

Divorce, dissolving the Marriage, dated 07.10.2011, between the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 on the ground of their Mutual Consent. The

Petitioners shall bear their own Costs.

Typed to my Dictation, by the Stenographer, and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16 th day of September, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

P.W.1 : Attili Ravi Kumar.

P.W.2 : Attili Aparna.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

Ex.P1: Wedding Invitation Card of the Petitioners No.1 and 2.

Ex.P2:Three Marriage Photographs of the Petitioners No.1 and 2, along with Compact Disc.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

OS/33/2019

Allu Satyavathi and other vs Barla Seshuvulu and others

28 Sep 2021

O.S.No.33/2019 1 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K.Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth [28th] day of September, 2021.

Original Suit No.33 of 2019

Between: 1.Allu Satyavathi, W/o. Apparao, Hindu, Age 40 years, Household Duties, Godicherla Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Yellamanchili Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

2.Devara Bhavani, W/o. Varahalu, Age 33 years, Hindu, Household Duties, Namavaram Village, Payakaraopeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, Yellamanchili Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits. …PLAINTIFFS.

And

1. Barla Seshuvulu, W/o. Late Venkataswamy @ Tatabbayi, Hindu, Age 60 years, Household duties, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

2. Barla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Venkataswamy @ Tatabbayi, Hindu, Age 60 years, Household duties, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

3.Barla Krishnaveni, W/o. Ranavartha Vivek, Age 30 years, Hindu, Household Duties, C/o. Achuthamba Tailoring Institute, Opposite Siddarda degree College, Ramakrishna Colony, Pentakota Road, Tuni, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

4.Avala Dorayya, S/o. Maridayya, Hindu, Age 48 years, Driver, Housing Board Colony, Pedagantyada,Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka Principal Junior Civil

Judge Court Limits.

5.Molli Triveni, W/o. Ramanababu, Hindu, Age 31 years, Household Duties, Housing Board Colony, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

6.Molli Anjali, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, Age 25 years, Household Duties, Housing Board Colony, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka, Gajuwaka

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

7.Gorla Ramu, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age 24 years, Cooli work, Vakapalli Village, Sankhavaram Mandal, Prathipadu Principal Junior

Civil Judge Court Limits.

8.Gorla Srinu, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Hindu, Age 22 years, Cooli work, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil

Judge Court Limits.

9.Gorla Babji @ Lovaraju, S/o. Late Sriramulu, Age 20 years, Hindu, Cooli work, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

O.S.No.33/2019 2 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

10.Avala Gangaraju, S/o. Nookayya, Hindu, Age 50 years, Cultivation, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil

Judge Court Limits.

11.Loka Gangaraju, S/o. Appalaswamy @ Chinnabbai, Hindu, Age 36 years, Cultivation, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni

Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits.

12.Loka Raju, S/o. Appalaswamy @ Chinnabbai, Hindu, Age 33 years, Cultivation, N.S.Venkatanagaram Village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Principal Junior Civil Judge Court Limits. …DEFENDANTS.

This Suit, coming before me on this day for Hearing, in the presence of Sri P.V.S.R.Murthy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants No.1, 2, 4 to 12, are remained Exparte; and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this Court has delivered the following

JUDGMENT

The Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for Partition of the Plaint Schedule Properties into 8 equal and equitable shares with reference to good and bad qualities, and for delivery of possession of Two such shares to the Plaintiffs i.e., one such share to each of the Plaintiffs; and for future profits, and also for Consequential Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiffs over the Plaint Schedule Properties allotted to their shares; and for Costs.

The Counsel for the Plaintiffs had filed a Memo, stating that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have settled the matter out of Court, and the Plaintiffs are not pressing the Suit, and hence, the Suit may be dismissed without Costs. Memo is recorded. The Suit is dismissed without Costs, as not-pressed and settled out of Court.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28th day of

September, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

EP/10/2018

Vennela Rambabu@Ramu vs Alamanda Ramanamma

23 Sep 2021

E.P.No.10 of 2018 1 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

O.S.No.267/2012

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K.Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Thursday, the Twenty Third [23rd] day of September, 2021.

E.P.NO.10 of 2018 IN O.S.NO.267/2012

Between:

Vennela Rambabu @ Ramu, S/o. Late Polarao, Age 54 years, Business, R/o. S.Annavaram Village, D.No.1-46, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Junior Civil Judge Court Limits. …PETITIONER/ D.HR.

And

Alamanda Ramanamma, W/o. Naganna Dora, Housewife, D.No.10-39, Age 39 years, Atikivanipalem village, Tuni Mandal, Tuni Junior Civil Judge Court Limits. … RESPONDENT/J.DR.

This Execution Petition, coming before me on this day for Hearing, in the presence of Sri K.K.S.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the Petitioner/ Decree Holder, and the Respondent/ Judgment Debtor is remained Exparte, and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this Court has delivered the following

ORDER

This Execution Petition is filed under Order 21 Rules 22, 54, 64 and 66 of C.P.C., to issue Rule 22 Notice to the Judgment Debtor, and also issue Rule 54 notice to the J.Dr and attach the E.P Schedule Properties of J.Dr and thereafter order for Sale Notice under Order 21 Rule 64 and 66 of C.P.C., and order to Sale the attached Schedule Properties for realisation of full satisfaction of the decree amount from the sale proceeds in the interest of justice.

The Counsel for the D.Hr has filed a Memo, stating that the E.P may be dismissed, and the D.Hr may be permitted to file fresh E.P., as the D.Hr could not get the Sale Papers for lack of information for the Properties. Memo is recorded. Hence, the E.P. is dismissed. The Attachment over the E.P. Schedule Property shall remain in force, for a period of Six months from this day.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23rd day of September,

2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

E.P.No.10 of 2018 2 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

O.S.No.267/2012

ORDER

E.P.No.10 of 2018

O.S.No.267 of 2012

Dt. 23.09.2021

Part – I

Order Record 831 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/71/2021	Pilla Rajeswari vs Pilla Srinu	30 Sep 2021	Order	Compromised
OS/33/2019	Allu Satyavathi and other vs Barla Seshuvulu and others	28 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
EP/10/2018	Vennela Rambabu@Ramu vs Alamanda Ramanamma	23 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2021	Bachu Shiva Appanna vs Nil	21 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/3/2021	Attili Ravi kumar vs Nil	16 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2021	Devadi Subbulu @ Babji vs Nil	15 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2021	Narise Bharathi vs Narise Subrahmanyam	14 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/54/2020	Dasina Prasad vs Nil	13 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/83/2018	Bhonam Paniswara Prasad vs Keerthi Sri Devi	11 Sep 2021	Other	—
H.M.O.P/8/2021	Urla Srinivas vs Nil	08 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/17/2021	Guri Venkata Vara prasad vs Nil	07 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2021	Thumu Kanakamahalakshmi vs Thumu Satyanarayana	03 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2021	Kaakaadan Manikumar vs Kaakaada Ramalakshmi	03 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/51/2021	Ankamreddi Rajula Naidu vs Ankamreddi Varalakshmi	03 Sep 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2019	Surla Appalanaidu vs Surla Siva Kumari	02 Sep 2021	Order	—
OS/124/2012	Maduri Nagaraju vs Maduri Kodalarao	01 Sep 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/16/2021	Koyalada Nagesh vs Nil	01 Sep 2021	Order	—
EP/11/2020	M.S.N.Charities, Kakinada rep. by its executive officer, Kakinada vs Pulugu Chandrarao	31 Aug 2021	Order	—
EP/30/2019	Madduri Pavan Kumar vs Madduri Ganga Raju	31 Aug 2021	Order	—
OS/187/2018	Indian overseas bank rep by Kakarla Srinivasa Rao vs Chelluri Surya Padmavathi and two others	23 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/186/2018	Indian overseas bank,ramarao peta,kakinada rep by Kakarla Srinivasa Rao vs Anisetti Subbi Reddy	18 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/155/2015	Madduri Nagarau vs Mummidi Chakraveni	16 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
OS/203/2016	Madduri Gangaraju vs Madduri Nagaraju	16 Aug 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/48/2020	Ganta Chantibabu vs Nil	16 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/61/2020	Marisetti Koteswara Rao vs Nil	16 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/57/2021	Garlanka Veera Venkata Ramana vs Nil	12 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/62/2020	Bandaru Venkata Saibabu vs Nil	11 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2020	Nangina Mahesh vs Nil	10 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/49/2020	Ruthala Latchapatrudu vs Nil	09 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2021	Karneedi Raja Shekar vs Karneedi Vijaya Kamala	04 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2020	Pakalapati Surya Satya Naga Kumari vs Pakalapati Sivakumar @ Varma	04 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2021	Mummidi Swamy vs Nil	02 Aug 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2020	Chidagala Raju vs Nil	30 Jul 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/108/2019	Garlankala Veera Venkata Ramana vs Garlankala Sidhu	20 Jul 2021	Order	—
EP/6/2019	Anisetti Satyanandareddy vs Rongala Apparao	19 Jul 2021	Order	—
EP/1/2020	Guddati Satyanarayana vs Shaik Alisha	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/195/2017	Swamy reddy Pakeeru vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/196/2017	Swamireddy Sandesh Being minor rep by his father Swamy REddy Suri babu vs Gundra Jaggarao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/197/2017	Swamireddy Suribabu vs Gundra Jaggarao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/204/2017	Swamireddy Trimurthulu vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/205/2017	Swami reddy Pavan being minor Rep by Natural guardian Father vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/216/2017	Swamireddy Bhadra Rao vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/217/2017	Swamireddy Balu vs Gundra Jagga rao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/219/2017	Swamireddy Ayyappa vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/220/2017	Swamireddy Sai being Minor Rep by his Father Thrimurthulu vs Gundra Jaggrao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/310/2017	Swami reddy Subbalakshmi vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Order	—
OS/311/2017	Swami Reddy Sujatha vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/312/2017	Swami Reddy Srinivasa Rao vs Gundra Jagga Rao	10 Jul 2021	Other	—
OS/241/2016	P.Baburao vs P.Nalini	10 Jun 2021	Judgement	—
EP/18/2021	Chitra Bhadralaxmi vs Manimisetti Rambabu	03 May 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/12/2020	Dunna Gopi @ Gopi Krishna vs Avvari Haripriya @ Dunna Haripriya	28 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/55/2020	Tutta Santhi vs Nil	26 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/127/2018	Kothalanka Veerabhadracharyulu vs Kasipu Santhi	24 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/6/2020	Molli Satish Kumar vs Molli Aruna Devi	23 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/35/2020	Bejawada Sathibabu vs Bejawada Lakshmi	23 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2020	Jami Devi vs Nil	23 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2020	Domala Lavanya vs Nil	22 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2020	Masa Babji vs Masa @ Bathina Tulasi	20 Apr 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/42/2017	Kedarisetti Phani vs Shanmitha Rama lakshmi Prasanna	19 Apr 2021	Order	—
IP/3/2020	Yerapothina Veera Raghavulu vs Kancherla Nageswara Rao	16 Apr 2021	Order	—
OS/24/2019	Palika Srinivasa Rao vs Lingampalli Srinivasa Rao	16 Apr 2021	Judgement	—
FDP/1248/2019	Tamilisetti Venkata Suryanarayana Reddy vs Teku Durga Rao	09 Apr 2021	Order	—
EP/66/2018	Varada Veerabhadrarao vs Seeram Subrahmanyeswara Rao	01 Apr 2021	Order	—
EP/22/2019	Sri Surya Chandra Chits And Trading Co Rep By Manager vs Medisetti Rama	31 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/202/2017	Indian overseas bank,Pithapuram vs Chithapally Subbareddy	31 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/267/2011	Surada lakshmi vs Chokka Venkatesullu @ Venkatesh	31 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/243/2017	Indian overseas bank,Pithapuram vs Marvida Sunitha@Chintapalli Subbalakshmi	25 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/15/2019	Kallulri Subhadramma @ Ammaji vs Kalluri Somanna @ Somaraju	24 Mar 2021	Order	—
EP/5/2020	Nallamilli Arpana Kumar vs Mohammed Afzal Basha	22 Mar 2021	Order	—
EP/35/2019	TAMILISETTI SUDHAKARA REDDY vs KUNCHE VARAPRASADA RAO	19 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/36/2017	Anukula Nageswara Rao vs Muthinti Krishna	19 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/1/2021	Gampa Durga Vara Lakshmi @ Divya vs Gampa Venkata Krishna Bharat Kumar	18 Mar 2021	Order	—
EP/42/2019	Jyothula Siva Kumar vs Ponnada Rama Venkatesh	17 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/119/2018	Peruri Venkata Jagannadha Rao vs Reddy Manga Rao and another	15 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
OS/12/2020	Penta Satyanarayana vs Bavirisetti Manikyala Rao	08 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
IP/5/2018	Kanda Nageswara Rao vs Nakka Srinu	05 Mar 2021	Order	—
EP/65/2018	Lekkala Satyanarayanamurthy vs Kommu Prakashrao	04 Mar 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/11/2021	Nandipati Mani vs Nil	02 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/152/2018	Takasi Udaya Lakshmi vs Pendem Dhana Lakshmi	01 Mar 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/58/2020	Nallada Aswini Durga vs Nallada Lakshmana Rao	01 Mar 2021	Order	—
OS/170/2018	Smt. Sureddi Prabha vs Smt. Reddi Adi Lakshmi	27 Feb 2021	Other	—
OS/17/2020	Kurru Venkata Ramana Rao vs Adapa Ravi	26 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/46/2020	Geesala Sreenubabu @ Sreenu vs Geesala Dhanalakshmi	26 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/21/2019	Chinthakayala Varahalu vs Kurukuri Venkatarao	25 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/80/2018	Sri Seetarama Fisherman Cooperative Society unlimited. vs Muppidi Apparao and 18 others	24 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/39/2020	Yadla Atchi Babu @ Atchu Babu vs Yadla Prasanthi	24 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/45/2020	Karri Veera Venkata Ramana vs Nandyala Vijaya Lakshmi	24 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/3/2021	Mylavarapu Annapurna vs Gadepalli Venkata Rao (Died)	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/5/2019	Kothalanka Veerabhadracharyulu vs Ranganadham Suribabu	23 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/239/2017	Mortha Sudhakara Rao vs Darisipudi Bhaskara Rao	23 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/9/2021	Lalam Srinivas vs Nil	22 Feb 2021	Order	—
OS/10/2020	Chakka Manikya Nagabhushnam vs Molli Padma	19 Feb 2021	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/36/2020	Sunku Kameswara Rao vs Sunku Dhana Lakshmi @ Lakshmi	17 Feb 2021	Order	—
FDP/987/2019	Polavarapu Raju vs Valapala Thajanna	16 Feb 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/71/2017	K.Mrutyumjaya Rao vs Kuntamukkala Venkata Bala Sameera	15 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/61/2016	Gompa Gopanna vs K.Venkata Rao	08 Feb 2021	Order	—
FDP/986/2019	Reddi Adilakshmi vs Akula Rambabu	01 Feb 2021	Order	—
EP/49/2019	Thallapudi Ganesh babu vs Gundarapu Nagalakshmi	30 Jan 2021	Other	—
EP/47/2019	Vanaparthi Veerraghavulu vs Gummalla Lakshmikantham	29 Jan 2021	Order	—
H.M.O.P/32/2020	Inamarthy Jyothi vs Inumarthy Veera Venkata Ramana	28 Jan 2021	Order	—

Showing 100 of 831 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2021		17
Aug 2021		16
Jul 2021		16
Jun 2021		1
May 2021		1
Apr 2021		13
Mar 2021		18
Feb 2021		17
Jan 2021		12
Dec 2020		18
Nov 2020		33
Oct 2020		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI handled?

Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI has handled 943 court orders since 2018 at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram. The average disposal rate is 23 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI hear?

Based on available records, Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram.

Where is Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI currently posted?

Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI is posted as SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI dispose cases?

Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI disposes approximately 23 cases per month, based on 943 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram.

Since when is Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI serving?

Ms.C.K.GAYATHRI DEVI has been serving at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram since 2018.

Case Types

OS 47%

H 26%

EP 17%

SC 3%

FDP 3%

IP 2%

SCC 1%

S 1%

Posting History

Apr 2018 — Sep 2021

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 943 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Kum M.Vijaya Rameswari

Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram

2,255 orders

V. Venkata Aparna

Addl. Junior Civil judge cum J.M.F.C,Pithapuram

817 orders

Dr.m.babu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

758 orders

Sri P.Bhaskara Rao

Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Pithapuram

3 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Courts, Pithapuram