Currently Serving

Smt.C.Pavani

Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions Judge

Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex · Karimnagar · Telangana

Based on 8 recent orders

Smt.C.Pavani, Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana, India. 8 court orders on record since 2026. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CRLRP, AS, EP cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

AS/16/2021

Soma Sudha Rani vs Madishetty Anitha

06 May 2026

Fair 1 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, L.R.A.T-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt C.PAVANI, Chairman, L.R.A.T-cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

WEDNESDAY, THE 6th DAY OF MAY, 2026

APPEAL SUIT No.16 of 2021

Between:

Soma Sudha Rani, S/o.Nagender, Aged 53 years, Occ: TSRTC Employee, R/o.H.No.10-2-11/2, Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar. Appellant/Petitioner

AND

1) Madishetty Anitha, W/o.Rajashekar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Pvt. School Teacher, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari,HanmakondaofWarangalDistrict. (Respondent/Defendant No.1)

2) Moluguri Rama Devi, W/o.Veereshbabu, Aged about 55 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari,HanmakondaofWarangalDistrict. (Respondent/Defendant No.2)

3) Moluguri Veereshbabu, S/o.Late Ramaswamy, Aged about: 62 years, Occ: Retired TSRTC Employee, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanmakonda of Warangal District. (Respondent/Defendant No.3)

4) Moluguri Kalyan Kumar, S/o.Veereshbabu, Aged about 35 years, Occ: LIC Employee, R/o.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari,HanmakondaofWarangalDistrict. (Respondent/Defendant No.4)

Fair 2 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021

5) Moluguri Swathi, W/o.Kalyan Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, SubedariHanmakondaofWarangalDistrict. (Respondent/Defendant No.5)

Respondents/Defendants

This appeal filed against the Judgment and decree in O.S No.92 of 2018, dated 25.01.2021 on the file of the learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Between:

Soma Sudha Rani, W/o.Nagender, Aged 53 years, Occ: TSRTC Employee, R/o.H.No.10-2-11/2, Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar. Plaintiff

AND

1) Madishetty Anitha, W/o.Rajashekar, Age: 40 years, Occ: Pvt. School Teacher, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanmakonda of Warangal District, is the Defendant No.1.

2) Moluguri Rama Devi, W/o.Veereshbabu, Aged about 55 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanmakonda of Warangal District, is the Defendant No.2.

3) Moluguri Veereshbabu, S/o.Late Ramaswamy, Aged about: 62 years, Occ: Retired TSRTC Employee, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanmakonda of Warangal District, is the Defendant No.3.

4) Moluguri Kalyan Kumar, S/o.Veereshbabu, Aged about 35 years, Occ: LIC Employee, R/o.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari, Hanmakonda of Warangal District, is the Defendant No.4.

Fair 3 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021

5) Moluguri Swathi, W/o.Kalyan Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.2-7-501, Excise Colony, Subedari Hanmakonda of Warangal District.

Defendants

This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 29.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Dattatreya Rao, Advocate for Appellant and Respondents No.1 to 5 remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S No.92 of 2018, dated 25.01.2021.

2.The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents are the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the

Trial Court.

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

The defendant No.1 is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff.

The defendant No.2 and 3 are the parents of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.4 and the defendant No.5 is the wife of the defendant No.4. The defendant No.1 deserted her husband and she

Fair 4 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021 is residing at her parents house since two years prior to filing the suit. The defendant No.1 is under the influence of her parents and at their instance she deserted the brother of the plaintiff.

On 14.05.2017 at about 8.00 a.m the defendant No.1 to 5 went to the house of the parents of the plaintiff situated at Kisannagar and created nuisance by shouting and abusing her parents and the brother of the plaintiff and trespassed into the house of the parents of the plaintiff and beat the brother of plaintiff with hands and

Chappal. The brother of the plaintiff lodged a complaint at

Karimnagar III Town, police station at 11.00 a.m and as a counter blast the defendant No.1 filed a false complaint at the same police station at 6.30 p.m, but by influencing the police she got the FIR registered prior to the registration of FIR on the complaint given by the brother of the plaintiff. The defendants having knowledge that the plaintiff was not at the house at the time of the alleged incident, fraudulently and deliberately got her name mentioned in the complaint. The defendants managed the police and got the plaintiff summoned to the police station and the plaintiff gave a representation to the police stating that at the time of the alleged incident she was on duty and on submission of the certificate issued by her employer the name of the plaintiff was deleted from the Charge Sheet. Due to the illegal acts of the defendants the

Fair 5 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021 plaintiff sustained mental agony and was under the fear of arrest.

The plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants demanding them to pay an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards damages for defaming her. The defendant No.1 issued a reply notice dated 20.04.2018 making defamatory statements and false allegations against the plaintiff. The defendants with a malafide intention of harassing and defaming the plaintiff filed a false complaint against her. As such the plaintiff filed the suit seeking Damages of Rs.3,50,000/-.

4.All the defendants remained exparte.

5.In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A6.

6.After hearing the plaintiff the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, which is now under challenge before this Court.

7.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has not considered the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the defendant

No.1 who is the sister-in-law of the plaintiff, along with her family members trespassed into the house of the parents of the plaintiff and abused the parents and brother of the plaintiff and beat the

Fair 6 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021 brother of the plaintiff. It is contended that though the plaintiff was not present in the house on the date of the alleged incident, the defendants have intentionally included her name in the complaint with an intention to defame her and harassed her. It is contended that in the reply notice given to the legal notice the defendant No.1 made defamatory statements against the plaintiff and made false allegations against her. It is contended that the plaintiff proved that the defendants have intentionally included the name of the plaintiff in the complaint and tried to defame her by filing the copy of the complaint, Charge Sheet and the reply notice. It is further contended that the contentions and the evidence of the plaintiff remained unrebutted.

8.All the respondents remained exparte in the appeal also.

9.Basing on the contentions raised in the appeal and ongoing through the grounds of appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration.

1)Whether the appellant is entitled for damages as prayed for?

2)Whether the judgment of the Trial Court is legally and factually correct?

Fair 7 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021

10.POINT No.1 and 2:

The contention of the appellant is that intentionally the defendants included her name in the complaint, though she was not present in the house at the time of the alleged incident and defamed her and as such she is entitled for damages from the defendants. Perusal of the complaint under Ex.A1 shows that the name of the plaintiff was also included in the complaint in respect of the incident that occurred on 14.05.2017. Further as per the

Charge Sheet the name of the plaintiff was deleted as the independent and eye witnesses stated only against the accused

No.1 to 5 and the offence against the accused No.6 was not established.

11.The plaintiff is seeking Damages contending that the defendants have defamed her by filing a complaint against her.

The plaintiff has not made any allegation that the copy of the complaint was circulated among her relatives or friends in order to defame her. Further as per the complaint lodged by the brother of the plaintiff also the neighbors or relatives of the plaintiff were not present at the time of the alleged offence. In order to prove civil defamation the statement which is defamatory and which lowers

Fair 8 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021 the reputation of the plaintiff must the communicated to at least one person other than the person defamed. Further in order to claim damages for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must show the initiation of the legal process and continuation of the same against the plaintiff. Prosecution is not merely an investigation, but a formal proceeding in a Court of Law where the accused is tried for a crime. Further the plaintiff must also prove that she suffered Damage to her reputation due to the said proceedings.

In the present case admittedly at the investigation stage itself the name of the plaintiff was deleted and she was not tried by any

Court. Though the plaintiff contended that in the reply notice issued to her legal notice by the defendant No.1, she made false allegations and defamatory statements against the plaintiff, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the said reply notice was circulated to the relatives of the plaintiff in order to defame her. The plaintiff has not examined any person who had knowledge of the criminal complaint or the reply notice. Further the plaintiff has not mentioned as to how she quantified the damages claimed by her.

The plaintiff failed to prove that she is entitled for Damages.

There is no error in the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial

Court. In view of the above discussion point No.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

Fair 9 of 9A.S No.16 of 2021

12.In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-II), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

Chariman, L.R.A.T-Cum, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Chariman, L.R.A.T-Cum, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

OS/27/2024

Sardar Rajender Singh vs Panthangi Ramchander Rao

28 Apr 2026

FAIR 1 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, L.R.A.T – CUM - II ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE AT : KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt C.PAVANI, Chairman, L.R.A.T–Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

Tuesday, the 28th day of April, 2026

O.S No.27 of 2024

Between:-

1)Sardar Rajender Singh, S/o.Late Mohan Singh, Aged about 72 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-4-155, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar.

2)Nagender Singh, S/o.Late Mohan Singh, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-4-30, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar.

3)Preeti Harjus Kaur, W/o.Tarunpreet Singh, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.DSR Fortune Prime, C-Block, Flat No.502, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

4)Pavan R.B.Singh, W/o.R.B.Singh, Aged about 59 years, Occ: Legal Practitioner, R/o.DSR Fortune Prime, C-Block, Flat No.502, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

5)Mohd. Riyazuddin, S/o.Late Mohd. Raheemuddin, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Flat No.1, Door No.11-5-173, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Plaintiffs AND

1)Panthangi Ramchander Rao, S/o.Late P.Kondal Rao, Aged about 82 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2)Panthangi Venkata Narsimha Kondal Rao, S/o.P.Ramchander Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Private Employee,

Both are R/o.H.No.1-5-389, Kaman Road, Karimnagar.

Both are repesented by their registered AGPA Holder, Sardar Raghbeer Singh, S/o.Late Mohan Singh, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Sikhwadi, Karimnagar.

FAIR 2 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

3)Sardar Raghbeer Singh, S/o.Late Mohan Singh, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.8-1-576, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar. Defendants

This Suit is coming before me on 23-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Rajesh, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 3 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

This suit is filed seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale

dated 10.08.2022.

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

The defendant No.3 is the owner of the agricultural land admeasuring

Ac.2-11 gts in Sy.No.865 situated at Rampur, Karimnagar Town and District which is hereinafter referred to as the “suit schedule property” having purchased the same through the Agreement of sale cum GPA bearing document No.1475 of 2005 dated 07.02.2005 from the original owners

P.Ramachander Rao and P.V.N Kondal Rao. After the purchasing the property the defendant No.3 got constructed a small out house over the property which was assessed by the municipal authorities and house

No.8-1-576/1 was allotted to the said property and the defendant No.3 paid the property tax. In August 2022 the defendant No.3 offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs for a total sale consideration of

FAIR 3 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

Rs.70,00,000/- and the plaintiffs agreed for the same. The defendant No.3 executed the agreement of sale dated 10.08.2022 in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving the advance sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-.The balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Since December 2023 the plaintiffs requested the defendant No.3 to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute the sale deed, but the defendant No.3 postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs got issued a notice dated 18.07.2024 in the news paper to caution the public. Inspite of several requests the defendant No.3 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale.

3.All the defendants remained exparte.

4.In support of their case, the plaintiffs got examined the plaintiff No.1 as

PW1, one Raitharapu Konda Babu @ Raju, attesting witness of the

Agreement of sale as PW2 and one Bandari Shiva Kumar as PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A23.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the record.

FAIR 4 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

6.Now the points for determination are:

1)Whether the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?

2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for specific performance of the Agreement of sale dated 10.08.2022?

7.POINT No.1 and 2:

The contention of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No.3 being the owner of the suit schedule property offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and executed the Agreement of sale dated 10.08.2022 by receiving the part sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and inspite of several requests he failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs.

8.In order to prove their contentions, the plaintiffs relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to A23. Ex.A1 is the Original Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.1475/2005, dated 20.02.2022. Ex.A2 is the Agreement of sale dated 10.08.2022. Ex.A3 is the Public Notice issued in Eenadu News Paper. Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Ex.A5 is the Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1955-

58. Ex.A6 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59. Ex.A7 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62. Ex.A8 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 1962-63. Ex.A9 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963-64. Ex.A10 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1966-67.

FAIR 5 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

Ex.A11 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1967-68. Ex.A12 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1972-73. Ex.A13 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 1976-77. Ex.A14 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1979-80. Ex.A15 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-80.

Ex.A16 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1983-84. Ex.A17 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.A18 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 1988-89. Ex.A19 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91. Ex.A20 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92.

Ex.A21 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2001-02. Ex.A22 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-07. Ex.A23 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 2010-11.

9.The contention of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.3 is the owner of the suit schedule property is supported by Ex.A1. As per Ex.A4 to A23 pahanies the vendor of the defendant No.1 and 2 was the pattedar of the suit schedule property and thereafter the name of the defendant No.1 is reflected in the possessor column of the pahanies. Further as per Ex.A2 the defendant

No.3 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and received the part sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/-. The contention of the plaintiffs that they requested the defendant No.3 to execute the sale deed in their favour on several occasions is supported by the evidence of PW2 and PW3. As per

Ex.A3 the plaintiffs got issued a public notice and mentioning about the

FAIR 6 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024

Agreement of sale executed in their favour. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 remained unrebutted as the defendants remained exparte. Through the evidence of PW1 to PW3 supported by Ex.A1 to Ex.A23 the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and that they are entitled for specific performance of the Agreement of sale. In view of the above discussion point

No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. The plaintiffs shall deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of the suit within a period of two months from this date and on such deposit the defendant No.3 shall execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominee within two months thereof, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Chairman, LRAT-Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Sardar Rajender Singh - Nil -

PW2: Raitharapu Konda Babu @ Raju

PW3: Bandari Shiva Kumar

FAIR 7 of 7 O.S No.27 of 2024 :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1Original Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing document No.1475/2005, dated 20.02.2022.

Ex.A2Agreement of sale dated 10.08.2022.

Ex.A3Public Notice issued in Eenadu News Paper.

Ex.A4Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1954-55.

Ex.A5Certified Copy of Kasra Pahani for the year 1955-58.

Ex.A6Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1958-59.

Ex.A7Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1961-62.

Ex.A8Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1962-63.

Ex.A9Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1963-64.

Ex.A10Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1966-67.

Ex.A11Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1967-68.

Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1972-73.

Ex.A13Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1976-77.

Ex.A14Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1979-80.

Ex.A15Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1982-80.

Ex.A16Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1983-84.

Ex.A17Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1985-86.

Ex.A18Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1988-89.

Ex.A19Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1990-91.

Ex.A20Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1991-92.

Ex.A21Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2001-02.

Ex.A22Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2006-07.

Ex.A23Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2010-11.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - Nil -

Chairman, LRAT-Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

CRLRP/40/2025

Vedira Madhulatha Alias Gundelli Madhulatha vs Gudelli Raju Alias Rajesh,

05 May 2026

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt C.PAVANI, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Tuesday, the 5th day of May, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.40 OF 2025

( Against the Order passed in Crl.M.P No.927/2024 in DVC No.14 of 2020

dated 10.11.2025 on the file of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-

Cum-Special Mobile PCR Court at Karimnagar )

Between:

Vedira Madhulatha @ Gundelli Madhulatha, W/o.Rajesh, Age: 32 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.10-5-114, Kishannagar, Karimnagar. Revision Petitioner/Complainant

AND

Gundelli Raju @ Rajesh, S/o.Late Mondaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Reporter, R/o.Chenchulcheruvupalli, Koheda Mandal, Siddipet District.

Respondent/Respondent No.1

AND

2.Gundelli Laxmi, W/o.Late Mondaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,

3.Gundelli Laxman, S/o.Not known, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture,

4.Gundelli Laxmi, W/o.Laxman, Age: 50 years, Occ: Household,

5.Gundelli Sampath, S/o.Not known, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture,

6.Jeripothula Komuraiah, S/o.Not known, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

Respondent No.2 to 6 are R/o.Chenchelucheruvupalli v/o.Koheda Mandal of Siddipet District.

7.Kanakam Rajaiah, S/o.Not known, Age: 50 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.Eradapalli v/o.Keshavapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar District.

1/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025

8.Singapaka Laxmirupa, W/o.Ravinder, Age: 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-4-22 and 23, R/o.Sikwadi Near Marwadi Mandir, Karimnagar.

9.Singapaka Ravindar, S/o.Not known, Age: 36 years, Occ: Centring worker, R/o.H.No.2-4-22 and 23, R/o.Sikhwadi Near Marwadi Mandir, Karimnagar. Respondents No.2 to 9 not necessary parties

This petition is coming on 27.04.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T,Pranab Kumar, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and the Respondent having remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This revision petition is filed under Section 397 Cr.PC challenging the order passed by the III Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Cum-Special Mobile

PCR Court at Karimnagar in Crl.MP.No.927/2024 in DVC.no.14 of 2020 dated 10.11.2025.

2.As per the contents of the grounds of the revision the petitioner filed the

DVC no.14 of 2020 seeking various reliefs against the respondent and other parties and the respondent received the summons and engaged a counsel, but thereafter he failed to appear before the court and file the counter and as such he was set exparte on 15.09.2021. The respondent filed a petition seeking condonation of delay of 330 days in filing the set aside petition and the set aside petition under O.IX rule 13 CPC stating that due to his illhealth his counsel did not inform him the stage of the case and he could not file the counter. Inspite of granting sufficient time the respondent failed to file the counter and as such he was set exparte and an exparte judgment was passed 2/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025 on 27.09.2024 granting monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner.

The respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m from 05.12.2019 to 04.02.2024. The respondent had knowledge of the case proceedings and intentionally he was absent and only after an NBW was issued and the advocate commissioner was appointed to execute the NBW, the respondent filed the petition. The petition filed by the respondent to recall the NBW issued against the respondent was dismissed on 31.01.2025. Though the respondent contended that he was diabetic, the medical prescription shows that the respondent is suffering with fever, but no record is filed to show that the respondent was hospitalized. The trial court reviewed its order without any power. After hearing both sides the said petition was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 10.11.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Revision Petition.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed the DVC in 2019 and the same was allowed after four years. It is contended that the right of the respondent to file the counter was forfeited on 15.09.2021 and he filed a set aside petition on 08.04.2022 and the same was dismissed. It is contended that having knowledge of the pendency of the

DVC the respondent kept quiet for 9 years and thereafter he filed the set aside petition along with the delay petition without showing any valid reason for the delay and the same was allowed. It is contended that the respondent admittedly is working as a journalist and inspite of having sufficient income he 3/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025 failed to pay the monthly maintenance for even one month. It is contended that the respondent has not shown any sufficient cause for his non appearance and non filing of the counter. It is contended that the maintenance granted in the DVC is only 25% of the income of the respondent, which is proper and just.

4.The respondent failed to contest this revision petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Inspite of granting sufficient time the respondent failed to submit his arguments. Hence his arguments were recorded as Nil.

6.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the revision petitioner has made out any grounds to interfere into the correctness or illegality or findings of the order as provided under Section 397 Cr.PC ?”

7.POINT:

The contention of the revision petitioner is that inspite of the receipt of the summons and engaging a counsel intentionally the respondent remained absent before the trial court and failed to file the counter and contest the case and after the exparte judgment is passed only to delay the case proceedings he filed the set aside petition with a delay petition without showing any valid reasons for the delay and for his non appearance.

4/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025

8.Perusal of the record shows that the respondent was set exparte on 15.09.2021 for non appearance and for non filing of counter. As per the record the notice to the respondent was served by 15.04.2021. Further as per the petition filed in the CrlMP the respondent herein was not aware of the case proceedings till recently to the filing of the petition and due to the illheath of his previous counsel he did not inform him as to the stage of the case and that he has good grounds to contest the case and as such he engaged a new counsel and filed the set aside petition. The trial court by considering the grounds raised in the petition as bonafide allowed the petition subject to payment of costs. Further, though in the revision the petitioner contended that the delay was not calculated correctly, the delay has to be calculated from the date of the exparte judgment and not from the date on which the respondent was set exparte.

9.Further, though the petitioner contended that the respondent filed a set aside petition earlier and the same was dismissed and the subsequent officer allowed the similar petition again, perusal of the record shows that the earlier petition filed by the respondent is the set side petition seeking set aside of the exparte order dated.15.09.2021 and the petition under challenge in this revision is the set aside petition filed seeking set aside of the exparte judgment. The dispute between the parties is a matrimonial dispute. Further though the petitioner contended that the respondent has not filed any set aside petition, he filed Crl.M.P no.927 of 2024 under O.IX Rule 13 CPC 5/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

FAIR Crl.RP No.40 of 2025 seeking set aside of the exparte judgment, though in the petition, the date of the order is mentioned wrongly, which was not observed by the trial court also, more particularly in view of the fact that the exparte judgment was already passed. Having regard to the cause shown by the respondent and the nature of the case, one opportunity should be given to the respondent to contest the case on merits by compensating the petitioner with costs, which the trial court did. In view of the above discussion, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court except to the extent of the quantum of costs.

Hence, the point is held partly in favour of the petitioner.

10.In the result, the Criminal Revision petition is partly allowed confirming the order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P No.927 of 2024 and enhancing the costs imposed by the trial court to Rs.10,000/- payable to the petitioner by the respondent. Further the respondent shall file the counter in the main DVC by 03.07.2026 on which date the case is posted to before the trial court and as the DVC is of 2020 the trial court shall dispose the main DVC as expeditiously as possible.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of May 2026.

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

Copy to: The III Judicial Magistrate of First Class -Cum- Spl Mobile PCR Court at Karimnagar.

6/6 II ASJ, Karimnagar

AS/78/2022

Pachunoori Umarani vs Vadlakonda Nagalaxmi

30 Apr 2026

Fair 1 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, L.R.A.T-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt C.PAVANI, Chairman, L.R.A.T-cum- II Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

APPEAL SUIT No.78 of 2022

Between:

Pachunoori Umarani, D/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 48 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.2-10-1135, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

Appellant AND

1) Vadlakonda Nagalaxmi, W/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.2-10-1524/1, Plot No.302, Venkateswara Towers, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

Respondent/Plaintiff in O.S No.37 of 2015

2) Pachunoori Hanmandlu, S/o.Chandraiah (Died)

3) Pachunoori Sudheer, S/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.2-10-1198, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

4) Pachunoori Chandramohan, S/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-10-1198, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

5) Gajarla Ramadevi, W/o.Shankaraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.9-08-57, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

Respondents/Defendants No.1 to 4

This appeal filed against the Judgment and decree in

O.S No.37 of 2015, dated 09.04.2018 on the file of the learned

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

Fair 2 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

Between:

1) Vadlakonda Nagalaxmi, W/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 56 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.2-10-1524/1, Plot No.302, Venkateswara Towers, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. Plaintiff

AND

1) Pachunoori Hanmandlu, S/o.Chandraiah (Died)

2) Pachunoori Sudheer, S/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.2-10-1198, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

3) Pachunoori Chandramohan, S/o.Hanmandlu, Age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-10-1198, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

4) Gajarla Ramadevi, W/o.Shankaraiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.9-08-57, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

Defendants No.1 to 4

This Appeal Suit is coming before me on 30.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.Ramana, Advocate for Appellant and Respondents No.1, 3 to 5 remained exparte and the Appeal Suit is abated against Resondent No.2, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in

O.S.No.37 of 2015, dated 09.04.2018.

Fair 3 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

2.The appellant is a third party to the suit and the respondents are the plaintiffs and the defendants before the Trial Court. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.The brief averments of the plaint filed in the suit are as follows:

The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and 3 are the sons and the defendant No.4 is the younger daughter of the defendant No.1. The plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 4 are members of the Hindu Joint Family and they have an equal share in the joint family properties. The suit schedule A property was owned by the mother of the plaintiff by name P.Jagadamba who died in a road accident on 24.01.2002.

The suit schedule B and C properties are the ancestral properties acquired by the defendant No.1 from his father. The mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 3 agreed to give a share in the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff, but after the death of

Jagadamba the defendant No.1 to 3 in collusion with each other tried to sell the suit schedule properties to third parties.

Fair 4 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

The defendant No.1 to 3 created two Gift Settlement Deeds, dated 16.05.2012 and one Donation Deed, dated 09.01.2013 without any exclusive right over the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. As such she filed the suit seeking Partition and Separate Possession.

4.The defendant No.1 to 3 filed the written statement admitting their relationship with the plaintiff and contended that the suit schedule A property was purchased by the defendant No.1 with his own earnings and it is his self acquired property. As the defendant

No.1 was working at various places he used to send money to his wife for paying the property tax and she got the property tax receipts in her name. The wife of the defendant No.1 had no income to purchase the property. The suit schedule B property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and he gifted the same to the defendant No.2. The suit schedule properties are not joint family properties and the plaintiff has no share in the said property and at the instance of her husband she filed a false suit. Hence the defendant No.1 to 3 prayed to dismiss the suit. The defendant No.3 is remained exparte.

Fair 5 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

5.In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as

PW1 and one B.Laxmirajam as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

The defendant No.1 filed the chief affidavit as DW1, but as he died his chief evidence was eschewed.

6.After hearing both sides the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which is now under challenge before this Court.

7.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is the daughter of the defendant No.1 and without impleading her the plaintiff filed the suit and obtained a decree. It is contented that the appellant being a coparcener has a share in the suit schedule properties. It is contented that the appellant demanded for partition and a share and the respondent No.2 and 3 postponed the same and thereafter she got issued a legal notice on 10.03.2021 and she came to know that her elder sister filed the suit seeking partition by suppressing her existence. It is further contended that the appellant is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties.

8.All the respondents remained exparte in the appeal.

Fair 6 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

9.Basing on the contentions raised in the appeal and ongoing through the grounds of appeal, the following points would emerge for consideration.

1)Whether the appellant is entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties?

2)Whether the judgment of the Trial Court is legally and factually correct?

10.POINT No.1 and 2:

The appellant who is a third party to the suit filed the appeal claiming that she is one of the daughters of the defendant No.1 and she is also entitled for an equal share in the suit schedule properties. The appellant has not disputed the fact that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Perusal of the plaint and the written statement in the suit shows that there is no reference of the appellant therein.

In the family Pedigree shown in the plaint the appellant is not shown as the daughter of late Jagadamba and the defendant No.1.

Further even in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and in the chief affidavit of DW1 there is no reference of the appellant as the

Fair 7 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022 daughter of the defendant No.1. No suggestion was given to PW1 stating that one more daughter of the defendant No.1 is not arrayed as a party to the suit.

11.Further though the appellant claimed to be the daughter of the defendant No.1 she has not filed any document in support of the said contention. There is no evidence to show that the appellant is the daughter of the defendant No.1 and Jagadamba.

Further though the appellant contended that she got issued a legal notice dated 10.03.2021 seeking partition of the suit schedule properties, she has not filed the copy of the legal notice in this suit.

The appellant has not stated as to how she came to know about the suit filed by the plaintiff and when she came to know about the same. Though the appellant filed the appeal with the leave of the

Court, as she failed to prove that she is the family member of the plaintiff and the defendants and that she is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties, she is not entitled for any relief in the appeal. There is no error in the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court. In view of the above discussion point No.1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.

Fair 8 of 8A.S No.78 of 2022

12.In the result, the appeal suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Gr-II), corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Chariman, L.R.A.T-Cum, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

Chariman, L.R.A.T-Cum, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

SC/430/2018

SHO PS Karimnagar III Town/Kothapalli @ Kallepalli Bhagya, W/o Anil, Age 25 years, Chakali, House w vs Kothapalli Sunil S/o Kishan, 32 yrs, Rajaka, Master in Mamatha Hotel Near Court Chowrast

11 May 2026

Order Record 8 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/430/2018	SHO PS Karimnagar III Town/Kothapalli @ Kallepalli Bhagya, W/o Anil, Age 25 years, Chakali, House w vs Kothapalli Sunil S/o Kishan, 32 yrs, Rajaka, Master in Mamatha Hotel Near Court Chowrast	11 May 2026	OTHER	—
AS/16/2021	Soma Sudha Rani vs Madishetty Anitha	06 May 2026	JUDGMENT	—
CRLRP/40/2025	Vedira Madhulatha Alias Gundelli Madhulatha vs Gudelli Raju Alias Rajesh,	05 May 2026	ORDER	—
CRLRP/41/2025	Vedira Madhulatha Alias Gundelli Madhulatha, vs Gudelli Raju Alias Rajesh,	05 May 2026	ORDER	—
CRLRP/42/2025	Vedira Madhulatha Alias Gundelli Madhulatha, vs Gudelli Raju Alias Rajesh,	05 May 2026	ORDER	—
AS/78/2022	Pachunoori Umarani vs Vadlakonda Nagalaxmi	30 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	—
OS/27/2024	Sardar Rajender Singh vs Panthangi Ramchander Rao	28 Apr 2026	JUDGMENT	—
EP/2/2025	Shetti Shankaraiah Alias Shakrthi Shekar vs Arikilla Ramaswamy	27 Apr 2026	OTHER	—

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.C.Pavani handled?

Smt.C.Pavani has handled 8 court orders since 2026 at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 6 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.C.Pavani hear?

Based on available records, Smt.C.Pavani primarily handles Civil matters (Appeal Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.C.Pavani currently posted?

Smt.C.Pavani is posted as Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex, Karimnagar, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.C.Pavani available online?

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

How fast does Smt.C.Pavani dispose cases?

Smt.C.Pavani disposes approximately 6 cases per month, based on 8 orders handled over their tenure at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.C.Pavani serving?

Smt.C.Pavani has been serving at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex since 2026. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CRLRP 38%

AS 25%

EP 13%

SC 13%

OS 13%

Posting History

Apr 2026 — Present

Chairman LRAT- cum -II Addl District and Sessions Judge · 8 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Mr. S Shiva Kumar

Prl District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar

154 orders

Sri D. Venkatesh

I Addl District and Sessions Judge

753 orders

Smt. A. Neeraja

Spl Judge for Trial of cases under SCs and STs Act...

580 orders

J.Kavitha

Judge Family Court cum IV Addl District and Sessio...

474 orders

Mr. Yashwant Singh Chauhan

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate...

0 orders

Ms. Damerla Preethi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional...

1,206 orders

Sri Chirag Mehta

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class Mobile...

717 orders

Sri Banothu Rajeshwar

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Tra...

437 orders

Sri. Jamana Venkata Satya Raj Kiran

II Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- II Addition...

579 orders

Smt K Rani

Senior Civil Judge Karimnagar

40 orders

Nama Santosh Kumar

Spl Judge for Trail of SPE and ACB Cases -cum- VI...

7 orders

← View all judges at Karimnagar, PDJ Court Complex