Page No.1/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):
VIJAYAWADA
Present: Sri.Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao, B.A.L, B.L
VII Addl.Civil Judge(Senior Division),Vijayawada
Wednesday, this the 21st day of January,2026
O.S.No.63/2022
Between Komati Vamsi Krishna, S/o.Sudhakara Rao, aged about 31 years, R/o.40-6/1-6, Park Road, Revenue colony, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh…. Plaintiff
AND
Harmeet Singh Gujral, S/o.late Charanjit singh Gujaral, aged about 53 years, R/o.D.No.59A-8/4-2, Flat No.501, Vasavi Nagar, Rohan Residency, Patamata,
Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh....Defendant
This suit is coming on 26-12-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the Plaintiff, Sri S.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court :: JUDGMENT
1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.34,40,000/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.28-03-2019 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- borrowed and executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs.
Page No.2/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:
Plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the Plaintiff on 28-03-2019 for his family expenses and business needs and executed a promissory note in favour of the Plaintiff after receiving consideration on the even date by way of cash of Rs.10,00,000/- through the account of Plaintiff syndicate bank merged with canara bank vide his account NO.33431010005596 to the account of defendant through RTGS
SYNBR920190328005013 dated 28-03-2019 and cash of Rs.10,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the Plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by and on behalf of the Plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the debt under the suit promissory note except making vain promises from time to time. The defendant is not entitled for any debt relief Act 4 of 1938 Act 7 of 1977 or Act 45 of 1987. Hence the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit against the defendant.
3. Defendant filed written statement by denying the allegations of the plaint as false and interalia defendant is contending that the defendant and his brother
Jitender Jit Singh Gujral are doing business in partnership in automobiles under the name of JJ Motors,D.No.55-1-24, 100 Road, Autonagar, Vijayawada. His parents came down to Vijayawada about 50 years ago for business in automobiles. Defendant and his brother completed graduation, married and settled in Vijayawada. Because of their industry they have gained good reputation in the field of automobiles and their firm JJ Motors is now one of the reputed firms in sale of automobiles in Vijayawada. Not only the reputation in
Page No.3/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 the business, they have also acquired valuable properties and other assets with good financial status.
(ii)The defendant's uncle namely Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby engaged in chits and finance business and he is a member in Vijayawada Club.
The defendant is not a member but his brother is a member in the said club.
Thus, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao came into contact with his brother at
Vijayawada Club and gradually he developed friendship with them. The Plaintiff is the nephew of the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby and both carries finance business together and Mr.S.Harinadh is the clerk in the said chit and money circulation business.
(iii) Defendant and his brother are law abiding, innocent business persons.
Taking advantage of the same, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby made believed them that he is a loyal and genuine person Thus, friendship and family relation has been developed. The said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias
Bobby gradually induced defendant and his brother to join in the chits organized by him and made to believe them that he got financial discipline and sincere in business. Initially defendant joined in one of the chit being run by the said
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby for a value of Rs.1,00,000/- with
Rs.5,000/- as monthly installment and he succeeded in the auction held in the month of October, 2011.
(iv)The said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby asked defendant for a blank signed cheque and a blank signed promissory note as security as part of his business practice and custom to make the payment of the bid amount and he further promised and assured him that he would keep the blank signed cheque
Page No.4/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 and promissory note safely and he would return the same on expiry of the chit completely. Believing the same, he issued a blank signed cheque bearing No 625964 drawn on Syndicate Bank Vijayawada and a blank signed promissory note on 15-10-2011 reposing trust on him with a direction to keep those instruments safely and return the same after completion of the chit. He arranged the said instruments through his staff Mr.B.Sridhar who handed over the same to the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby.
(v)The said chit was completed on payment of all 20 monthly installments regularly but the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao Bobby did not choose to return the said security instruments on the pretext that those were misplaced somewhere and he could not trace those instruments despite his due search and that he would return those instruments safely and there is no scope for misuse in any manner. Defendant and his brother believed his words as they considered him as one of their family friend and they have forgotten the said issue later.
Thereafter they have also continued chits on the request of the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby and he used to return the blank instruments after completion of such chits, from time to time.
(vi) Since 2015 onwards, on many occasions, defendant and his brother and even their family members have extended hand loans to the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby and to the plaintiff herein either in cash or through account transfer, as part of good gesture relations and they used to repay the same as assured. Thus, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias
Bobby and the plaintiff gradually developed confidence with their acts, deeds and gestures.
Page No.5/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
(vii) In the month May, 2018 the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby further induced his brother to join in one of chit worth of Rs.20,00,000/- to be paid at Rs.80,000/- per month and he obliged and joined. On the very first auction conducted on 27-05-2018, his brother stood as successful bidder for
Rs.8,00,000/- and the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby asked to furnish security of two cheques and four promissory notes as usual in view of the high value of chit to make the payment of the prize amount. On 29-05-2018, his brother entrusted two blank signed cheques nos.140446 and 140447 drawn on Syndicate Bank Buckinghampet branch, Vijayawada-2 and four blank signed promissory notes as desired by him enabling him to make the prize amount with a direction to keep such cheques safely and return those instruments on conclusion of the chit obligations. On the instructions of the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby those instruments were arranged through their staff Mr.B.Sridhar and he received the same. But on 01-06-2018, his brother has calculated the rate of interest and he felt that he would forego considerable amount as commission and then he decided to discontinue the chit and to come out. Thus, his brother informed the same and asked the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby to substitute anyone else in his place and he obliged and there by chit was terminated but he did not choose to return the above mentioned two cheques and four promissory notes on the pretext that he was on tour and thereafter he postponed to return on one or the other reason but they did not suspect him.
(viii) Sometime in the first week of September, 2021, the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby asked brother of defendant to arrange amount in cash for short term hand loan to meet his business needs that lot of amount is
Page No.6/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 outstanding due to Covid-19 and he appears to be worry and tired. Upon such request, to help him in trouble situation his brother lend an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- lakh in cash as hand loan on 14-09-2021 at his home car parking area in view of spread of virus to the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias
Bobby and the amount was handed over to his clerk Mr. S. Harinadh on his instructions.
(ix) While the matter stood thus, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias
Bobby is very much loyal to TDP party and developed aversion against YSR
Congress Party. On 25-11-2020 brother of the defendant and some of their community leaders met the Hon'ble Chief Minister Sri YS Jagan Mohan Reddy and extended invitation to visit Gurudwara at Gurunanaknagar, Vijayawada. The
Hon'ble Chief Minister obliged and visited on 30-11-2020. Since then, the said
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby developed jealous, aversion and hatred feeling upon them and their family and started making comments sarcastically very often.
(x) On 15-09-2021 when the brother of the Defendant and his friend D.
Jagadish were standing on the road in front of his home during lunch time, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby came over there and had talks.
During talks, the brother of the Defendant asked the said Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao alias Bobby to repay his money of Rs.10,00,000/- as he was in some urgent business needs. But all of sudden, the said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias
Bobby lost his temper and used un-parliamentary language and absurdly uttered words against the sikh religion that they grabbed automobile business and assets in the entire Andhra and that they just migrated for livelihood and
Page No.7/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 outburst and that he would not repay the amount. As the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby commented on the religion, the brother of the
Defendant lost his balance and stoutly opposed and reprimanded the said
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby, but he shouted like anything that he would see the Defendant's end and show what he is. Since then, the Defendant and his brother keeping him away and relations were strained and disputes started.
(xi) The said Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby, the plaintiff and their men connived together and got issued two notices dated 25-10-2021 and 02-11-2021 through Edara Naga Sudheer and Lingannapeta Praveen Kumar that the brother of the Defendant borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- from them and issued cheque no.140447 and 140446 respectively and that such cheques were dishonored on presentation. The said individuals are strangers to the Defendant and his brother. The brother of the defendant filed a civil suit against the said Edara Naga Sudheer and Lingannapeta Praveen Kumar and also lodged a police complaint. The Plaintiff and his uncle Sunkara Venkateswara Rao developed grudge against the defendant and his family and filed the suit by forging and fabricating the blank signed promissory note available with him long time back through the plaintiff. There was no such alleged transaction in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The defendant lent an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- to Vamsi Finance, which belongs to the said Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao and the plaintiff on 27-03-2019 through RTGS and the same was repaid by RTGS on 28-03-2010. The suit promissory note is devoid of consideration. There is no debt in between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Page No.8/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
(xii) The plaintiff filed the suit suppressing the true facts and suggesting falsehoods. The suit is nothing but mere abuse of process of Law. There are no merits in the suit. The plaintiff totally depended on the hearsay evidence. A mere perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has no personal knowledge and thus the contents are nothing but vague and ambiguous. The plaintiff utterly failed to produce any substantial and prima facie evidence to substantiate that the defendant is trying to dispose off the same. The allegations of the plaintiff are nothing but illusory, moonshine, vague, ambiguous and baseless. The present suit and the petition are the hand work of the Plaintiff, his uncle
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and their henchmen.
(xiii) The defendant lent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by transfer on 27-03-2019 to M/s.Vamsi Finance to meet their necessities as hand loan for which the plaintiff and his uncle Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are responsible for the day to day business of the said business concern. The plaintiff and the said
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao being responsible persons for the said business concern repaid the same by transfer on 28-03-2019. Thus the alleged lending of amount of Rs 20,00,000/- to the defendant is out and out false and so also the manner of lending by transfer an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 28-03-2019 and
Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on the even date is incorrect and baseless. The defendant and his uncle whose name referred supra have colluded together and fabricated the suit promissory note which was available with them since long time. Thus the alleged suit transaction is nothing but created and concocted one.
The defendant did not borrow any amount in the manner alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend such an amount to the defendant particularly during the month of March, 2019 and prayed to dismiss
Page No.9/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 the suit with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor in office has been framed the following issues for trial :-
1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?
2. Whether the suit promissory note brought into existence in the circumstances stated in the written statement?
3.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recover the suit amount from the defendant?
4. To what relief ?
5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. On behalf of the defendant, DW1 to DW3 were examined and
Ex.B1 to Ex.B23 were got marked.
6. Heard on both sides. Perused the pleadings, evidence and documents of both parties.
7. Issue No.2:-
I have carefully perused the record and oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and other material available on record apart from my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the both parties.
8. It is the contention of the defendant that Sunkara Venkateswarao alias
Bobby has got friendship with the defendant and his brother and he induced him and his brother to join the chit organized by him and made to believe them that he got financial discipline and sincere in business. As such the defendant initially joined as one of the subscriber in the chit being run by the said Sunkara
Venkateswarao for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with Rs.5,000/- as monthly
Page No.10/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 installment and he succeeded in the auction held in the October 2011. The
Sunkara Venkateswarao asked the defendant to give blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to him as security as part of his business practice and custom to make the payment of the bid amount and he promised and assured that he will keep the blank signed cheque and promissory note and he would return the same on expiry of the chit completely.
9. Believing the same, the defendant issued a blank signed cheque bearing
No.625964 drawn on Syndicate Bank Vijayawada Branch and the blank signed promissory note on 15-10-2011. He arranged the said instruments through his staff Mr.B. Sridhar who handed over the same to the Sunkara Venkateswar Rao.
After completion of the chit, Sunkara Venkateswara Rao did not choose to return the said promissory note and cheque on the pretext that those were somewhere misplaced and he could not trace those instruments despite of his due search and he promised them that he would return the same, but he did not return the same. Subsequently, on 28-09-2021 the disputes arose in between the Sunkara Venkateswar Rao and his brother. Later, Plaintiff and his uncle
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao developed grudge against defendant and his family members and filed this suit by forging and fabricating blank signed promissory note available with him. Whereas it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from him and he executed a suit promissory note in his favour and the plaintiff is no way concerned with the alleged chit and Vamsi Finance of Sunkara Venkateswara Rao.
10. Since the plaintiff is denying the allegations of the defendant, the initial burden lies on the defendant to establish the same. In order to establish the
Page No.11/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 same, the defendant himself examined as DW1. He also examined his brother
Jitendra Jit Singh Gujral as a DW2 and Bellam Sridhar as a DW3. The defendant has relied upon Exs.B1 to B23 documents to substantiate his case. DW1 reiterated the averments of his written statement in his chief examination affidavit. Here, the DW1 mainly deposed that the plaintiff is the nephew of the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and the plaintiff and the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby jointly running the business in the name of Vamsi Finance. Further
DW2 and DW3 also deposed the same lines of the evidence of DW1 with regard to the jointly running of alleged business by the plaintiff and the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao.
11.Infact to run the non-banking finance company, it is necessary to obtain certificate from the Reserve Bank of India under section 45-IA of the RBI Act. If really the plaintiff and his uncle by name Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby together run the finance business jointly, certainly, the defendant would have filed the authorized copy of certificate of alleged Vamsi Finance before this court to establish the same as the proof of document will be available with the concerned authorities. But he did not do so. Further, it is not the case of the defendant that without having any license or certificate, the plaintiff and his uncle running the said finance business unauthorizedly.
12. Even to run the chit fund business, prior approval and registration with the competent authority under the Chit funds Act 1982 is mandatory with the object of protecting the interests of the subscribers. Even the defendant has not filed any proof of document before this court to show that the plaintiff and his uncle Sunkara Venkateswara Rao jointly running the alleged chit business at
Page No.12/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Vijayawada. Here the defendant has not filed any piece of paper before this court to show that he was joined as one of the subscribers in the chit being run by Sunkara Venkateswara Rao for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2011.
Even DW1 has not disclosed the subscriber number and how many persons were joined in the said chit as subscribers and when it was started and when the said chit was ended.
13.Further, the DW1 has not disclosed the date, month and year of he participated in the bid and for what amount he became the highest bidder in the said chit. Even the DW1 has not filed any proof of document to show that he paid the alleged chit installments amounts regularly either to the Plaintiff or
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. At first, it is the duty of the defendant to establish the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, but there is no such evidence on behalf of the defendant to elicit the said fact. Even the DW1 has not disclosed the date, month and year of when he requested the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao to return the said blank signed cheque and blank-signed promissory note to him. Further the defendant has not explained any valid reasons what prevented him either to obtain the receipt or the documents from the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao with regard to the non-return of the said blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque to him.
14.Further, the defendant has not issued any legal notice to the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao even prior to the filing of the suit for the return of the alleged blank-signed promissory note and blank-signed cheque to him. He has not given any report to the police concerned for non return of the alleged cheque and alleged promissory note even after the disputes arose in between Sunkara
Page No.13/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Venakteswara Rao and DW2. Further the DW2 also not filed any piece of paper
before this court to show that in the month of May 2018, he joined in the alleged
chit being run by the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao worth of Rs.20,00,000/- with
Rs.80,000 as monthly installment.
15.Further, DW2 categorically stated in his cross-examination that the contents of para Nos.3,5 to 8 of his chief examination affidavit are in respect of money transactions done in between the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and DW2 and the said transactions are no way concerned with the plaintiff. Further, he stated that he filed a documentary proof on behalf of the defendant to show that the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and plaintiff are jointly running the said chit fund business. Infact, the DW2 has not filed any piece of document before this court to show that the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby and Plaintiff are jointly running the alleged chit business. So, it is the duty of the defendant to establish the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. But here, except the oral testimony of the DW1 and DW2, there is no piece of document on behalf of the defendant to establish that the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and plaintiff are jointly running the chit business.
16.Further, DW1 categorically stated that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that DW2 joined in a chit of Rs.20,00,000/- and he stood as a successful bidder for Rs.8,00,000/-. Further, DW1 categorically admitted that there is no connection to the Plaintiff with regard to the instrument given to the
Sunkara Venkteswara Rao inrespect of Rs.20,00,000/- in the year 2018.
Further, Ex.B6 Bank statement dated 18.8.2017 shows that an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred from the defendant to Vamsi finance. Further
Page No.14/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Ex.B11 bank statement for the period from 1.3.2019 to 31.3.2019 clearly shows that Rs.10,00,000/- amount was transferred from the defendant account to
Vamsi Finance .Further, Ex.B8 bank statement dated 24.9.2018 clearly shows that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was transferred from the defendant account to the Vamsi Finance.
17. Though the said documents clearly shows that the aforesaid amounts transferred from the defendant account to the Vamsi Finance account, basing on the said documents it cannot be said that the Vamsi Finance is belongs to the plaintiff and Sunkara Venkateswara Rao without any satisfactory evidence on behalf of the defendant. Though it is mentioned in Ex.B22 message that Dear
Chit friends, our chit group is successfully completed with all your support. Hope you will continue the support in future with all your best wishes and Thanking you, Regards Bobby. Basing on the said message, it cannot be concluded that
Plaintiff and the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are jointly running the alleged chit as the Plaintiff has not sent the said message with regard to the alleged chit.
Further Ex.B22 did not contain the phone number and profile picture of the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is no way concerned with the same.
18. Here DW1 stated that he arranged a blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note through his staff Mr.B.Sridhar who handed over the same to the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. But contrary to the evidence of DW1, DW2 deposed in his cross-examination that he mentioned in his chief examination affidavit that he handed over the empty cheque and empty promissory note on 15-10-2011 to one Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. So the admission of the DW2 is falsifying the case of the DW1 that he handed over the blank signed cheque and blank signed
Page No.15/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao through DW3.
19.Further, the DW3 deposed contra to the evidence of DW1 that at the request of the DW1 and DW2 he handed over the alleged blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao on 15-10- 2011. Further, the DW3 nowhere disclosed where he handed over the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao. Further, the DW3 stated that except his oral words, he has no documentary proof to show that at the request of the defendant and his brother, he handed over the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note on 29-5-2018 to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. Further, the evidence of DW3 is quite contra to the evidence of DW2 with regard to the handover of the alleged blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and not corroborating with the evidence of DW1.
20. Further, there is no phone number of either the plaintiff or the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao on the WhatsApp message to show that they sent the said message either to the DW1 or DW2. Even there is no phone number of the DW1 or DW2 to show that they sent the Ex.B20 message to either the PW1 or the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. Further, basing on the unclarified message, it cannot be said that Vamsi Finance belongs to the plaintiff and the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao.
21.Further, Ex.B3 shows that on 5-4-2016 an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-was transferred from the defendant to the Plaintiff. The said transaction was for the year 2016. It was prior to the suit pronote transaction. Further, Ex.B9 shows that on 22-10-2018 an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was transferred from the
Page No.16/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 defendant to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. Ex.B12 shows that the wife of the
DW1 transferred an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 21-11-2016 and Rs.8,00,000/- on 22-11-2016 to the bank account of the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and the same was repaid to her by him on 29-12-2016 under Ex.B13.Ex.B15 clearly shows that on 5-4-2016 an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was transferred from account of DW2 to Vamsi Finance account and the same was repaid to him on 04-5-2016 under Ex.B16. Those transactions were for the year 2016 which were prior to the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Further DW2 stated in his cross examination that the plaintiff is not a party to the suit in O.S.No.125 of 2022 and Exs.B19 to B23 messages are not come to the phone number of the defendant.
22. Further, here except the oral testimony of the DW1 to DW3, there is no legally valid evidence on behalf of the defendant to show that Ex.B1 to
Ex.B23 documents are relating to the Ex.A1 suit transaction. Further basing on the said messages, it cannot be said that the defendant gave the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao in the alleged chit transaction in the year 2011. Further those documents are not at all helpful to the defendant to show that the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao colluded with the plaintiff, scribe and attester got forged and fabricated the suit promissory note against the defendant basing on the disputes between Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao and DW2.
23.Further, the defendant has not filed any piece of document to show that the alleged revenue stamp affixed on the Ex.A1 suit promissory note is for the year 2011. So it is the duty of the defendant to establish that he hand over the
Page No.17/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 blank signed promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao in the year 2011. Admittedly, no disputes arose in between the plaintiff and the DW1 and
DW2. Further, nothing was elicited by the defendant during the cross-examination of PW1 to show that there is a dispute in between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant also did not give any suggestion to the PW1 that Sunkara Venkatswara Rao belongs to the TDP party and DW1 and DW2 belong to the YSRCP party and DW2 invited the Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy to their apartment and on their invitation he came there. Even the defendant has not filed any piece of paper before this court to establish the same.
24.Further, PW1 clearly stated in his evidence that Vamsi Finance is related to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao. Further, PW1 denied the suggestion of the defendant that PW1 and Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are jointly doing real estate business under the name and style of Vamsi Finance. Further, PW1 stated that he is doing the mediation in the real estate business. Further, except the suggestion and denial, nothing was elicited by the defendant during the cross- examination of the PW1 to establish that PW1 and one Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao are jointly doing the Vamsi Finance business. No proof of document marked through PW1 by the defendant to elicit the said fact. Further, PW1 also denied that Ex.A1 suit promissory note was obtained by the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao during the chit transaction in the year 2011.
25.Further, there is no clarity in the suggestion given to the PW1 by the defendant that from whom the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao obtained the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Further, the defendant did not give any suggestion to the
PW1 that the defendant handed over the blank signed cheque and blank signed
Page No.18/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao through DW3 as a security to make the bid amount in the year 2011. When the defendant failed to give the said suggestion to the PW1, it can be presumed that the Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao had not taken the blank signed promissory note from the defendant in the year 2011 as a security for the bid amount.
26. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that the defendant miserably failed to establish that the Plaintiff and Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao jointly run the chit and finance business in the name of Vamsi
Finance and the defendant joined as a member of the alleged chit in the year 2011 and he handed over the alleged blank signed promissory note to the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao through DW3 as a security to the alleged chit bid amount. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
27. Issue Nos.1 and 3:
For the sake of convenience the Issue Nos.1 and 3 are discussed and decided conjointly as they are interrelated and to avoid redundancy in the discussion.
28.I have carefully perused the record and oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and other material available on record apart from my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the both parties.
29. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family and business expenses and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favor on the even date evidencing the same. Subsequently defendant failed to repay the suit-promissory note
Page No.19/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 amount to the Plaintiff inspite of repeated demands made by him. Whereas it is the contention of the defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed the Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour and in the year 2011 at the request of the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao who is the uncle of the plaintiff the defendant joined in the chit being run by Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao for a value of Rs.1,00,000/- and he succeeded in the auction held in the month of October 2011 and Sunkara Venkateswara Rao obtained the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque from the defendant as security as a part of his business and later after completion of said chit though the defendant demanded the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao to return the said cheque and promissory note, he did not return the same to him. Subsequently, the dispute arose in between the brother of the defendant and the Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao and basing on the said disputes he got forged and fabricated the suit promissory note in the name of the plaintiff with the help of scribe and attestors.
30.Since the defendant is denying the allegations of the plaintiff, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the execution of the Suit Promissory note. In order to establish the same, the plaintiff himself examined as a PW1 and he also examined one Nagoor Sharif as PW2, Shaik Anwar Basha as a PW3 and he has relied upon Exs.A1 to A3 documents to substantiate his case. PW1 reiterated the averments of the plaint in his chief examination affidavit. It is to be noted from the evidence of PW1 that the Defendant borrowed an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from PW1 on 28.03.2019 for his family expenses and business needs and executed a Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour by receiving the consideration on the even date at Vijayawada as he transferred an amount of
Page No.20/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Rs.10,00,000/- through his bank account Syndicate Bank presently merged with
Canara Bank Labbipet branch, Vijayawada vide account No.33431010005596 to the account of defendant through RTGS SYNBR920190328005013, dt.28.03.2019 and also received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash in the presence of PW2, PW3 and K.Vijay.
31. Further, the evidence of PW1 go to show that Ex.A1 suit promissory note transaction was took place in the presence of PW1 to PW3, defendant and
K.Vijay at the house of the PW1 Gollapudi. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 that PW3 scribed the Ex.A1 suit promissory note and signed as a scribe and
PW2 and K.Vijay attested on Ex.A1 suit promissory note as attestors in the presence of PW1 and the defendant. Further PW1 deposed that after receiving the entire consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-, the defendant subscribed his signature on the Ex.A1 suit promissory note in the presence of PW1 to PW3 and
K.Vijay.
32. Further, PW2 and PW3 who are the attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 suit promissory note categorically deposed that the defendant received an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the PW1 on 28.03.2019 for his family expenses and business needs and executed a Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the PW1 on the even date in their presence and in the presence of K.Vijay evidencing the same. Further, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 go to show that the Ex.A1 suit promissory note was executed at the house of the plaintiff situated at Gollapudi in the presence of PW1 to PW3 and K.Vijay. Further, it is clear from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that PW3 scribed the Ex.A1 suit promissory note and signed as a scribe and the K.Vijay and PW2 attested on Ex.A1 suit promissory
Page No.21/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 note as attestors and the defendant subscribed his signature on the Ex.A1 suit promissory note as an executant in their presence.
33.The learned counsel for defendant argued that the evidence of PW1 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 with regard to the place of execution of the suit promissory note as PW1 stated that Ex.A1 suit promissory note was executed at Gollapudi and PW2 and PW3 stated that Ex.A1 suit promissory note was executed at Vijayawada and on this ground alone, this suit is liable to be dismissed.
34.I do not accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant why because PW2 and PW3 categorically deposed in para No.3 of their chief examination affidavits by corroborating with the evidence of PW1 that
Ex.A1 suit promissory note was executed on 28-3-2019 at Gollapudi. Further the PW2 also stated in his cross-examination that Ex.A1 suit promissory note transaction took place in the house of the plaintiff. Even if it is presumed that
Ex.A1 suit promissory note executed at Vijayawada, the said place is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and this Honorable Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
35.Further here some minor discrepancies arose in the evidence of PW1 to
PW3 with regard to the arrival of the defendant, scribe and attestors to the house of Plaintiff as PW1 stated that at first instance, the defendant came to his house, thereafter Sharif and Akbar came to his house. PW2 stated that PW2 and defendant went to the house of the plaintiff. PW3 stated that he individually went to the house of the plaintiff. Infact, Power of memory is different from person to person. Infact, the Ex.A1 suit promissory note was executed on
Page No.22/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 28.03.2019. PW1 to PW3 were cross-examined on 19.12.2022. So, the PW1 to
PW3 gave their evidence 3 years 9 months after the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. When PW1 to PW3 gave their evidence after such long gap, certainly, some minor discrepancies arose in the evidence of PW1 to PW3 with regard to the arrival of the defendant and other witness to the house of the PW1 at the time of execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. So the said minor discrepancies cannot be taken into consideration.
36. Further here PW1 deposed that he transferred an amount of
Rs. 10,00,000/- from his account of Syndicate Bank presently merged with
Canara Bank, Labbipet branch, Vijayawada, vide his account
No.33431010005596, to the account of defendant through RTGS
SYNBR920190328005013, dt. 28.03.2019 . Here the defendant is mainly contending that he lent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by transfer on 27-03-2019 to M/s.Vamsi Finance to meet their necessities as a hand loan for which the
Plaintiff and his uncle Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are responsible for the day to day business of the said business concerned. DW1 further deposed that the
Plaintiff and Sunkara Venkateswara Rao being a responsible persons for the said business concerned repaid the same by transfer on 28-03-2019 and the amount said to have been allegedly lent by PW1 to the defendant through RTGS is not the amount lent by him and PW1 repaid the amount lent by the defendant on 27-03-2019 to the Vamsi Finance.
37. In order to prove the same, DW1 has relied upon Ex.B11 Bank statement.
Further, Ex.B11 bank statement clearly shows that the defendant transferred an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to Mr.Vamsi Finance, but not to the plaintiff. As stated
Page No.23/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 supra, the defendant has not filed any piece of document to establish that plaintiff and the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao together running the Vamsi Finance and the plaintiff is the partner of the Vamsi Finance. Further, without filing any valid document to establish the same by the defendant, it is not safe to believe the version of the defendant that the plaintiff and the Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao are jointly running the M/s.Vamsi Finance.
38.Even the Whats App messages filed by the DW1 and DW2 also not establish that the plaintiff and the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are jointly running the alleged Vamsi Finance. Without having any satisfactory evidence on behalf of the defendant, it is not safe to believe the version of the defendant that the PW1 repaid Rs.10,00,000/- on 28.03.2019 to the defendant. When the defendant failed to establish the same with satisfactory evidence, it can be presumed that the plaintiff lent the said amount to the defendant on 28.03.2019 under the Ex.A1 suit promissory note.
39.Further here, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 corroborating with the evidence of PW1 with regard to the receiving of the another amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- cash by the defendant from the PW1 on 28.03.2019 in their presence. Further, except the suggestion and denial, nothing was brought out by the defendant during the cross-examination of PW1 to PW3 to discard their evidence with regard to the non passing of the consideration under the Ex.A1 suit promissory note to the defendant. Further on perusal of the recitals of the
Ex.A1 wherein it is clearly establishes that the defendant received an amount of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the PW1 on 28.03.2019 for his family expenses and business needs in the presence of PW2 and PW3 and one K.Vijay and he
Page No.24/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note on the even date in favour of the PW1 in their presence evidencing the same.
40.Here the defendant has taken a plea that the Plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant. Here Ex.A2 and
A3 clearly shows that the defendant is an income tax assesse. Further, the recitals of Ex.A2 clearly shows that PW1 is having bank balance of
Rs.20,00,000/- as on 28-3-2019. So Exs.A2 and A3 clearly shows that the plaintiff is having financial capacity to lend an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the defendant. Nothing was elicited by the defendant during the cross-examination of PW1 to PW3 to disbelieve their testimony and no ill feelings were attributed against the PW1 to PW3 to go to the extent of giving false evidence against the defendant. I find no reasons to deny the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the contents of Exs.A1 to A3. Further, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the contents of Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 clearly establishes that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true one, but not fabricated one.
41. Since the plaintiff discharged the initial burden, the onus of proof shifts on the defendant to disprove the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In order to disprove the same, the DW1 mainly deposed that on the inducement of the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao, he was joined as one of the subscribers in the chit run by the Sunkara Venkateswarao for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with
Rs.5000/- as monthly installment and he succeeded in the auction held in the
October 2011 and as asked by the Sunkara Venkateswarao alias Bobby DW1 issued blank signed cheque bearing No.625964 in respect of account
No.33412200021948 drawn on Syndicate Bank Vijayawada and a blank signed
Page No.25/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 promissory note on 15-10-2011 as a security for the future chit installment amount with a condition to return the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note by the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao to him after completion of said chit.
42. Further DW1 deposed that after completion of the payment of all the chit installments by him, he requested the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao to return the said blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque to him. But he did not choose to return the said instruments by stating that those were misplaced and he could not trace those instruments despite of due search and he promised that he will return those instruments safely. But here the DW1 has not filed any piece of paper before this court to show that the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao run the alleged chit business and he was joined as one of the subscribers in the chit being run by the said Venkateswara Rao for a value of Rs.1,00,000/-. Even he has not disclosed his chit series number and how many persons were joined in the said chit. He has also not disclosed the names of the other subscribers. Even the DW1 has not examined the other alleged subscribers to elicit the said fact.
43. At first it is the duty of the DW1 to establish the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. But there is no such evidence on behalf of the defendant to establish the same. Generally the chit fund company will give no due certificate after the completion of the chit. Even the DW1 has not filed any no due certificate before this court to elicit that Sunkara Venkateswara Rao run the chit fund business. Further, the DW1 has not assigned any valid and cogent reasons why he has not obtained receipt from the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao for non return of the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque and
Page No.26/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 why he kept silent all these days without taking back the said instruments from him.
44.Further, the DW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that instruments which were given to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are no way concerned to the plaintiff. Further, the DW1 also stated that he has not filed any document to show that the plaintiff and Sunkara Venkateswara Rao are jointly doing finance business. But the DW2 also has not filed any piece of paper before this court to show that DW2 joined as a subscriber in the alleged chit run by the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao.
45. Further, the DW1 stated that he has not filed any document to show that his brother joined in chit of Rs.20,00,000/- and he stood as a successful bidder in the said chit. Even the DW2 also not disclosed the names of the other subscribers and DW1 was not examined the other subscribers of the alleged chit as a witness on his behalf to elicit the same. So it is the duty of the defendant to elicit the said fact by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. But here except the oral testimony of the DW1 and DW2, there is no satisfactory evidence on behalf of the defendant to elicit the said fact.
46. Further, the DW3 who is working as a clerk in the office of the defendant stated that he has no documentary proof to show that he hand over the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to the Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao. Further, he stated that the defendant did not give legal notice to the
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao for return of the blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note. If really the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque were not returned by the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao to DW1
Page No.27/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 after completion of the alleged chit, certainly, the defendant would have issued a legal notice by demanding him to return the said blank signed cheque and blank signed promissory note to him. Atleast he would have given a report to the police against him with regard to the non-return of the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque to him. But he did not do so. From this, it appears that the defendant must be sure that he has not given the blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheque and as such he has not taken any steps against the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao to take back the same from him.
47.Further, Exs.B1 to B23 are not at all helpful to the defendant to disprove the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note as those documents are no way related to the Ex.A1 suit promissory note transaction and those transactions were held in between Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and defendant Nos.1 and 2 prior to the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note and subsequent to the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. So, it is not safe to believe the version of the defendant basing on the oral testimony of the DW1 to DW3 without having any legally valid evidence on his behalf. So, it can be safely held that the defendant miserably failed to disprove the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note.
48. Once the Plaintiff has successfully proved the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note, the presumption envisaged under sec.118(a) of the N.I act has to be drawn until the contrary is proved. It is a rebuttal presumption. Infact every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. The presumption is based upon a principle and is not a mere technical provision.
Page No.28/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
While dealing with the words "until the contrary is proved" held that it was permissible for the Court to look into the preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the Ex.A1 suit promissory note or in the plaint does not exist. While dealing with the absence of consideration, the Court shall have to consider not only whether it believed that consideration did not exist but also whether it considered the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a reasonable man would, under the circumstance of a particular case could act upon the supposition that the consideration did not exist.
49. Once the defendant showed either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or by use of the other presumptions of law or fact that the promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration and at that stage, the presumption of law covered by Section 118 of the Act would disappear. Merely because the plaintiff came forward with a case different from the one mentioned in the promissory note it would not be correct to say that the presumption under Section 118 did not apply at all. Such a presumption applies once the execution of the promissory note is accepted or proved by the Plaintiff.
50. Here, defendant has failed to establish that the plaintiff and his uncle
Sunkara Venkateswara Rao alias Bobby both together doing finance and chit business and the defendant joined in a chit being run by Sunkara Venkateswara
Rao and he gave the blank-signed promissory note and blank signed cheque on 15-10-2011 to the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Further, as per Ex.B11, the defendant lent an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
Page No.29/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022 to the Vamsi Finance but not to the Plaintiff. But here there is no piece of document on behalf of the defendant to show that Vamsi Finance belongs to the plaintiff. Ex.B12 shows that the bank transaction done in between Sunkara
Venkateswara Rao and defendant in the year 2016. and Ex.B13 is the bank transaction statement of the defendant dt.29-12-2016. So, the Ex.B12 and
Ex.B13 transactions are prior to the execution of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note.
So, the said documents not at all helpful to the defendant. Further the defendant has not elicited anything during the cross-examination of PW1 to PW3 with regard to the non-passing of the consideration under the Ex.A1 suit promissory note from the plaintiff to the defendant. Except the oral evidence of the DW1 to DW3, there is no satisfactory evidence on behalf of the defendant to rebut the presumption.
51.As stated supra, mere denial of the passing of the consideration does not appears to be any defense and it is the duty of the defendant to establish the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, but there is no such evidence on behalf of defendant. So it can be safely held that the defendant miserably failedtorebutthepresumptionbyadducingcogentand convincing evidence. Further, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the contents of
Exs.A1 to A3 clearly establishes that PW1 received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the PW1 to PW3 under the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Here the defendant nowhere stated that he repaid the Ex.A1 suit promissory note amount to the PW1.
No proof of document filed by the defendant before this court to establish the same. So it shows that the defendant has to pay the Ex.A1 suit promissory note amount to the plaintiff as sought for. Accordingly, issue No. 1 and 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Page No.30/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Issue No.4:-
52.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of an amount of
Rs.34,40,000/- (Rupees Thirty four lakhs forty thousand only) with
subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount
of Rs.20,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of
decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of
realization.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court, this the 21st day of January,2026.
Sd/-Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao
VII Addl.CIVIL JUDGE (Senior Division), Vijayawada
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Plaintiff For Defendant
PW1 : Komati Vamsi Krishna DW1 : Harmeet Singh Gujral PW2 : Shaik Nagoor SharifDW2 : Jitender Jit Singh Gujral PW3 : Shaik Anwar BashaDW3 : Bellam Sridhar
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Plaintiff Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note stands in the name of Plaintiff dated 28-03-2019 Ex.A2 : Income tax returns for the financial year 2021-22 stands in the name of Plaintiff Ex.A3 : Income tax returns for the financial year 2019-2020
For DEFENDANT
Ex.B1 : Certified Copy of Cheque dated 28-03-2019 Ex.B2 : Photograph Ex.B3 : Statement of account for the period form 03-04-2016 to 05-05-2016 issued by Canara Bank, Vijayawada Ex.B4 : Statement of account relating to 06-12-2016 issued by Canara Bank, Vijayawada Ex.B5 : Statement of account relating from 15-03-2018 to 16-03-2018 issued by
Page No.31/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Canara Bank, Vijayawada Ex.B6 : Statement of account relating to 18-08-2017 issued by Canara Bank, Vijayawada. Ex.B7 : Statement of account relating to 21-08-2017 issued by Canara Bank, Vijayawada. Ex.B8 : Statement of account relating to 24-09-2018 issued by SBI, Vijayawada. Ex.B9 : Certified copy of statement of account relating from 20-10-2018 to 23-10-2018 Ex.B10 : Certified copy of statement of summary issued by HDFC Bank statement relating to 29-01-2019 Ex.B11 : Account statement of DW1 issued by SBI from 01-03-2019 to 31-03-2019 Ex.B12 : Account statement issued by Punjab national bank statement from 21-11-2016 to 22-11-2016 Ex.B13 : Account statement issued by Punjab national bank for 29-12-2016 Ex.B14 : Cheque book issued by Syndicate bank in the name of DW1 Records relating to bank a/cNo.33412200021948. Ex.B15 : Certified copy of statement of account issued by Canara Bank relating to account of DW.1’s brother statement from 05-04-2016 to 06-04-2016 Ex.B16 : Certified copy of statement of account issued by Canara Bank relating to account of DW.1 statement from 04-05-2016 to 05-05-2016
Ex.B17 : Certified copy of 3rd party affidavit in O.S.No.63/2022 on the file of this court Ex.B18 : Certified copy of summon issued in O.S.No.125/2022 on the file of V Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
Ex.B.19 is the download copy of the message between the plaintiff from his mobile number '9676799999' and JJ Singh's mobile number '9705678777' during the period from 15-06-2022 to 15-09-2022 along with certificate under Sec.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.B20 is the download copy of the message between the plaintiff from his mobile number '9676799999' and JJ Singh's mobile number '9705678777' during the period from 28-12-2018 to 29-08-2019 along with certificate under Sec.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.B21 dated 03-01-2022 is the Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.125/2022 on the file of V Addl.Junior Civil Judge Court Vijayawada against Sunkara Venkateswara Rao and others.
Ex.B22 is the download copy of the messages between the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao from his mobile number '9676999999' and JJ Singh's mobile number '9705678777' during the period from 20-07-2013 to 24-11-2020 along with certificate under Sec.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Page No.32/32 APKR040001702022O.S.No.63/2022
Ex.B23 is the download copy of the message between the Sunkara Venkateswara Rao from his mobile number '9676999999' and JJ Singh's mobile number '9705678777' during the period from 22-10-2018 to 27-04-2021 along with certificate under Sec.65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sd/-Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao
VII Addl.CIVIL JUDGE (Senior Division), Vijayawada