Sri Ch.Madhu Babu

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: GURAZALA.

Present:- Ms.Manjulatha Araveti, M.Com.,B.L., Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

Dated 20 th day of JULY, 2022

OS.No. 320/2021

Between:-

Modepalli Sivabrahachari… Plaintiff.

And

Chittemesetty Vamsi...Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 13-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Ch.Koteswara Rao, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon filing the affidavit of the plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,29,833/- (Rupees Four Lakh twenty nine thousand eight hundred thirty three only) being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.5-10-2018 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff with interest @ 24% pa for subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

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

On 5-10-2018 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

Thereafter the plaintiff made several oral demands against the defendant to re-pay the loan amount under the suit promissory note, and on 13-8-2019 issued legal notice to the defendant to repay the debt amount, but in vain, at last on 15-2-2021 plaintiff again sent legal notice with regard to the payment of debt amount, but the defendant does not made any attempt to repay the loan amount and intentionally evading to discharge his liability under the promissory note. At last the plaintiff approached the court of law to recover the loan amount due under the promissory note against the defendant.

3.After registering the plaint this court issued summons to the defendant and the same was served on him and, no representation for defendant, servicing of suit summons held sufficient, hence accordingly the defendant remained set exparte. Since then the defendant failed to take any steps to set aside the exparte order dated 15-6-2022.

4. Now the point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of the suit as prayed for?”

5.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and the scribe and attestor of the Ex.Al were examined in chief as Pw2 and 3 and Ex. A1 to A5 got marked and the plaintiff filed his evidence in chief in lieu of chief examination affidavit as.

6.As the version of the plaintiff is not challenged by the defendant by appearing

before the court and not adduced any evidence to disprove the version of the

plaintiff. As Ex.A1 i.e. suit promissory note which comes under the definition of Sec.4 of N.I Act. As per Sec.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act laid down certain presumptions apply to all Negotiable Instruments unless the contrary is proved. Every Negotiable Instrument presumed to be made drawn, accepted, endorsed or negotiated or transfer should be for consideration. So after going through Ex. A1 ie., promissory note the maker of the promissory note ie., the defendant accepted to pay the amount mentioned in the instrument, it is presumed that it was accepted within the reasonable time of its date and

before its maturity to pay the amount. Up to this point the court has taken

favorable presumption in favour of the plaintiff as to the execution of Ex. A1 and the said presumption was not rebutted by the defendant by appearing

before the court.

7.Moreover, irrespective of the defendant side evidence the plaintiff’s version stands on its own strength.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in-favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,29,833/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 20 h day of July, 2022.

Sd/- A.Manjulatha,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1 : M.S.Brahma Chari PW.2: Kothapalli SrinivasachariNone PW.3: Shaik Allabakshu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

EX.A1 : Suit Promissory note dt.5-10-2018 executed by the defendant infavour of plaintiff. EX.A2 : is the Office Legal Notice. EX.A3 : is the Office Legal Notice, EX.A4 : Postal receipt EX.A5 : Returned cover.

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL.

Ild/- A.M.L. A.J.C.J,

FAC P.J.C.J.,

G.Z.L.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : MACHERLA

PRESENT: SRI CH. MADHU BABU

Principal Junior Civil Judge Macherla

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O. S. No.93/2023

Between:- Gogireddy Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Lakshma Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, Cultivation, R/o Subbareddypalem village, Macherla Mandal,

Palnadu District, Macherla JCJC.. Plaintiff

And

Perumalla Palamkaiah, S/o Chnadraiah, Hindu aged about 45 years, cultivation & Business, R/o Subbareddyplaem, village, Macherla

Mandal, Palnadu District, Macherla Mandal. ..Defendant

This suit is coming on this day i. e. on 20.04.2023 before me for hearing and consideration in the presence of Sri CH.Nagi Reddy, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant did not appear and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.640,425/- being principal and interest due on two promissory notes executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.4,40,000/- on 05-04-2021 and for Rs.1,00,000/- on 03-11-2021 respectively agreeing to repay both debts with interest at 24% p.a, each and for costs of the suit.

02.On 06-04-2023 the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed full satisfasction memo stating that both the plaintiff and defendant are compromised as per the advice of elders. The defendant paid the suit amount to the plaintiff. Hence the suit may be dismissed as adjusted out of court. Hence full satisfaction is recorded. In view of the recording of full satisfaction the suit of the plaintiff bank is liable to be dismissed without costs.

03. In the result, full satisfaction is recorded and the suit is dismissed with out costs as adjusted out of court.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Macherla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Macherla.