Ms. D. Lakshmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. D.Lakshmi, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 13th day of September, 2019.

O.S.No.322/2018

Between:-

Yeluri Vara Lakshmi, rep. by her Written Authority Agent, Yeluri Venkata Appa Rao … Plaintiff.

And

Pandiri Satyanarayana… Defendant.

This suit coming on 31.7.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

R.K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff represented by her Written Authority Agent i.e., his husband i.e., Yeluri Venkata Appa Rao against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,04,600/- on the foot of the promissory note dated 26.7.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/- and for costs.

2.In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:-

The defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 26.7.2015 for his family expenses executed promissory note in her favour on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum either to her or her order on demand. It is further case of plaintiff that inspite of demands made by her, the defendant did not choose to discharge the same and he postponed the same on one pretext or other and finally, she got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to discharge the debt. But, the defendant having received the notice, gave reply notice with false allegations.

Hence, she constrained to file the suit through her husband by giving

Written Authority to him. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed Written Statement by denying entire material allegations of the plaint and resisted the suit, interalia contended that the defendant originally borrowed an amount of 2

Rs.2,00,000/- only from Yeluri Venkata Apparao and upon his demand executed a promissory note in the name of plaintiff and that he is a close relative of the plaintiff’s family and he requested the plaintiff’s husband for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as he needed amount and taking advantage of his financial situation, the husband of plaintiff demanded him interest at the rate of 60% per annum and when he refused to pay such huge interest, the husband of plaintiff demanded him a collateral security of immovable property, for which also, he expressed his inability by stating that his property was kept in South Indian Bank, Guntur and then, at the instance of husband of plaintiff, he executed triple promissory notes for original amount borrowed by him in separate three promissory notes towards security purpose though he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further case of defendant that out of three promissory notes, one promissory note is executed in the name of plaintiff and the remaining two promissory notes in the name of her husband and that the husband of plaintiff insisted him to issue blank signed cheques towards security purpose and as he refused to hand over blank signed instrument, the plaintiff’s husband demanded him to execute separate promissory note towards interest to be paid in future in advance i.e., for Rs.61,000/- in his name and that the plaintiff with an intention to cheat him, obtained instruments conveniently and also obtained part payment endorsements on the promissory notes of her husband as if he already borrowed amount under promissory notes in the name of her husband and that the schedule was already kept in South Indian Bank and because of financial loss, he unable to pay the loan amount to the said bank and as such, the bank authorities have started SARFAESI Act proceedings long back and the properties attached was already mortgaged to the said bank and sale proceedings were already started and the said fact is known to the plaintiff. But, she suppressed the said fact and filed this suit as well as

Interlocutory Application for attachment of schedule property and now, the plaintiff is still in possession of three promissory notes which are kept in the custody of her husband for security of the amount borrowed by him and whenever, he used to make part payments, he asked the husband of the plaintiff to return the promissory note executed in favour of plaintiff.

But, the husband of plaintiff induced him by stating that the amount paid to him or to his wife is one and the same and promised him to return the promissory notes after receiving the interest and as he is ready to pay 3 interest agreed upon on the promissory note dated 26.7.2015 executed in favour of plaintiff, after deducting the payments made by the defendant, there is no principal amount due under promissory note and he is ready and willing to pay interest to the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and with some other allegations, he prayed the court that the suit not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings and material on record, the court framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 26.7.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the averments mentioned in written statement at para No.7 is true and correct?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5.Heard and perused the record.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, the husband plaintiff himself examined as PW1, besides examining the sole attestor of

Ex.A1 as P.W.2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

7.P.Ws.1 and 2 on one hand and D.W.1 on the other hand filed affidavits in lieu of their chief evidence as contemplated under Order 18

Rule 4(1) C.P.C. P.W.1 and D.W.1 deposed in detail in consonance with their pleadings. P.W.2 supported to the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the transaction covered under Ex.A1. All the witnesses were subjected to cross examine by both counsel at length. To avoid repetition, their detail evidence is not extracted, however, their relevant evidence will be discussed in due course of time.

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:-

8.Since both these issues are interrelated with each other, they are being discussed and decided together for the sake of convenience.

9.It is the specific contention and evidence of P.W.1 which reveals from his testimony that the plaintiff is his wife and he is representing on behalf of his wife as his wife gave written authority to him and as such, he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In support of his contention, he filed petition under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice along with suit and the same as allowed by permitting the plaintiff to file 4 the suit by P.W.1. It seems, the husband of plaintiff filed Rule 32 of Civil

Rules of Practice petition along with written authority or authorization said to have given by the plaintiff in favour of her husband (P.W.1) duly notarized.

10.It is the contention of learned counsel for defendant that evidence of P.W.1 is not valid as he did not obtain General Power of

Attorney from the plaintiff. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. On perusal of written authority filed by P.W.1, it reveals that the plaintiff gave consent to give evidence and authorized him to participate in all enquiries and trials, on all or necessary dates of adjournments of hearing as per instructions of legal adviser and directions of the court in cases to be filed on the file of civil courts having jurisdiction in respect of suit and to sue and to be sued in all kinds of courts mentioned in page No.2 of the said Written Authority or Authorization.

Therefore, in view of above recitals in said written authority, the plaintiff gave authority to P.W.1 not only permitting him to file suits, besides permitting him to give evidence before the courts in all kinds of civil suits on her behalf.

11.It seems the defendant well known about the written authority given by the plaintiff to P.W.1. But, he did not raise any objection in his written statement. Therefore, it can be said that the defendant has no objection to defend the case of the plaintiff by her husband. The defendant for the first time raised said objection by contending that P.W.1 has no right to file suit or to give evidence based on written authority given by the plaintiff. As stated above, when he did not raise any objection after filing the suit or in his written statement, his oral contention cannot be taken into consideration. Therefor, it can be said that P.W.1 is having every right to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

Hence, the contention of defendant in this regard cannot be tenable by virtue of written authority given by the plaintiff to P.W.1.

12.P.W.1 deposed that the defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his wife i.e., plaintiff on 26.7.2015 executed

Ex.A1 and subsequently, he failed to discharge the same and his wife got issued legal notice and he gave reply notice with false allegations. It is the specific contention and plea of the defendant that the husband of the plaintiff obtained three blank promissory notes each for Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from the amount borrowed by him under Ex.A1 and P.W.1 5 demanded him to execute three promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/- each and as such, he executed the same in favour of him, but not in favour of plaintiff. This court unable to understand when he allegedly borrowed amount from the husband of the plaintiff, as contended by him, as to why he executed promissory note in the name of plaintiff who is not having capacity to lend such huge amount to him. This court further unable to understand as to why he gave three separate promissory notes to P.W.1 for each Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from giving promissory note for Rs.61,000/- towards interest to be paid in future in advance in the name of P.W.1. He also contended that P.W.1 obtained part payments regarding two promissory notes given by him to P.W.1 though he did not borrow amount under two promissory notes from P.W.1.

13.On perusal of cross examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that there are three promissory notes of defendant are in his custody apart from Ex.A1. It was elicited from cross examination of P.W.1 that he could not produce those promissory notes before this court since there is time for filing suit under three promissory notes. P.W.1 admitted in cross examination that Ex.A1 did not disclose his presence as attestor at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and that there are two promissory notes executed by the defendant in his name for Rs.2,00,000/- each. There is no further cross examination with regard to the obtaining two promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/- each in favour of P.W.1. The defendant did not put any suggestion in cross examination of P.W.1 that P.W.1 obtained two promissory notes in connection with same transaction covered under

Ex.A1. It is suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination that Ex.A1 is materially altered by prefixing ‘2’ before ‘6’ and so also, beneath the signature of the defendant to save limitation. On careful perusal of Ex.A1, this court did not find any material alteration as contended by the defendant. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for plaintiff, this court has ample power to compare Ex.A1 by invoking Section 73 of Indian

Evidence Act. On keen perusal of Ex.A1, absolutely, there is no material alteration in Ex.A1 as alleged by the defendant in his written statement.

If at all there is material alteration as alleged by defendant, he would have sent Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove his plea. But, the defendant did not make any efforts to send Ex.A1 to hand writing expert to establish his plea. So, in the absence of such petition, the oral assertion of defendant that Ex.A1 is materially altered is ruled out.

6

14.It is also one of the contention of the defendant that the property which was attached before judgment in I.A.543/2018 was mortgaged in South Indian Bank and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to attach his property in this suit. The above contention of defendant cannot be taken into consideration since this court has no purview to consider the same.

15.As observed earlier, it is the contention of defendant that he did not execute Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff and he gave Ex.A1 apart from three other promissory notes in favour of P.W.1. It is not the contention of defendant that he did not execute Ex.A1 in the presence of P.W.2. In support of his contention, the plaintiff examined P.W.2 who is sole attestor of Ex.A1. P.W.2 categorically deposed that the transaction under Ex.A1 was taken place in his presence and that he deposed that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A1 in his presence and the defendant after receiving amount from the plaintiff executed Ex.A1 in her favour. On perusal of cross examination of P.W.2, it was elicited that both plaintiff and defendant are his relatives. The plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant on finance. It was elicited from cross examination of P.W.2 that at the time of lending amount, he and both parties were present. He pleaded ignorance about money transaction between parties. It seems, from the cross examination of P.W.2, the defendant did not suggest the plea that was taken in his written statement and material suggestions put to P.W.2 in his cross examination to P.W.2 regarding three other promissory notes obtained by P.W.1 at the time of execution of Ex.A1, besides obtaining cheque for Rs.61,000/- towards future interest under Ex.A1. The defendant simply suggested to P.W.2 by denying his presence at the time of lending amount by the plaintiff to defendant and his signature was obtained by the plaintiff just before filing the suit. If at all, the contention of the defendant is true and correct, he would have suggested the plea which was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination and as well as taken in his written statement even in cross examination of P.W.2. So, in the absence of such material suggestions to P.W.1, the contention of defendant regarding taking of two other promissory notes by P.W.1 in his favour is totally falsified. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the plaintiff discharged her initial burden by examining her husband as P.W.1, besides examining P.W.2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4. Now, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish his plea that was taken in 7 his written statement that the husband of plaintiff obtained three other promissory notes in his name apart from Ex.A1 on 26.7.2015. Admittedly, the defendant did not dispute that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.7.2015 by executing Ex.A1 with his own handwriting.

But, it is the specific contention of defendant that he borrowed the amount from P.W.1, but not from the plaintiff. When the plaintiff discharged her burden by examining her husband by giving authorization to her husband to depose on her behalf and examining P.W.2, it is for defendant to establish his plea. In support of his contention, he relied upon his sole testimony and relied upon Exs.B1 to B3. On perusal of his evidence, he reiterated his contention in the written statement in his chief affidavit. But, it seems, on perusal of cross examination of P.W.2, he deposed in his chief evidence, he deposed some other facts which were not at all taken in his written statement.

16.On perusal of cross examination of D.W.1, he deposed that

P.W.1 is his uncle by courtesy and both of them did cotton business. He clearly admitted that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he scribed Ex.A1 with his own hand writing. The counsel for plaintiff confronted Ex.A1 to the defendant and asked him whether he scribed it. The defendant after gone through the Ex.A1, he stated that the entire body column of Ex.A1 filled up by him. It was elicited from the cross examination of D.W.1 that he used to hand over filled promissory notes to the lenders. So, in view of above admission made by D.W.1 in his cross examination, it can be said that the defendant is habit of borrowing amounts from the lenders. He clearly denied in his cross examination that he has not given a single pie to the plaintiff in respect of

Ex.A1. D.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 obtained two filled promissory notes from him towards security of Ex.A1. He admitted the fact that P.W.1 did not file other suits against him in respect of alleged two promissory notes given by him towards security purpose. He further admitted that he has not given any cheques to the plaintiff in respect of Ex.A1. So, the remaining cross examination of D.W.1 is no way concerned to the suit transaction and the same is with regard to the loan availed by the defendant from the South Indian Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. Therefore, as stated above, this being suit filed for recovery of amount basing on promissory note, this court did not discuss and decide the debt of the defendant by mortgaging his property in this suit. So also, 8 though the defendant relied upon EXs.B1 to B3 in support of his contention, with regard to attachment of schedule property in the

Interlocutory Application, this original court is no way concerned to decide Exs.B1 to B3 and it is for the execution court to consider the said documents.

17.During course of trial, the counsel for defendant filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC praying the court to direct the plaintiff to produce three promissory notes which were in the custody of

P.W.1. The court after due enquiry passed orders stating that the contention of the defendant will be discussed and decided in the main suit. As observed earlier, as seen from cross examination of P.W.1, he clearly admitted that he has two other promissory notes said to have been executed by defendant in his favour. It is not the case of plaintiff or

P.W.1 that the two alleged other promissory notes available with P.W.1 are obtained in same course of transaction covered under Ex.A1. As observed earlier, when the defendant failed to prove his contention that he executed two other promissory notes each for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of P.W.1 during course of same transaction covered under Ex.A1, it cannot be said that the alleged two blank promissory notes said to have been in the custody of P.W.1 is in respect of promissory note transaction of this suit.

18.As observed earlier, the defendant himself admitted in his cross examination about borrowing amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note with his own hand writing, the court can draw the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

19.The legal proposition under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instruments Act can be stated hereunder for better appreciation.

“118. Presumptions as to negotiate instruments:- (a) of consideration; (b) as to date; (c) as to time of acceptance; (d) as to time of transfer; (e) as to order of indorsements; (f) as to stamp; (g) that holder is a holder in due course:- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.” 9

By virtue of Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, once the

Negotiable Instrument is proved or admitted, it is to be presumed that

Ex.A1 is executed for legal consideration unless contrary is proved.

20.In this regard, this court relied upon a decision reported in

Tummala Tirumala Rao Vs. Pemmasani Lakshmaiah reported in 2004(3)

ALT 422wherein, it was held that:- “Promissory note shall be presumed to be supported by consideration until contra is proved and burden lies on the promissor to rebut the said presumption.”

By virtue of Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the Negotiable Instrument is proved or admitted, it is to be presumed the suit document is executed for legal consideration unless contra is proved.

21.In Ponugupati Subba Rao Vs. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao reported in 1999(3) ALT 144, wherein it was held that:- “By virtue of Section 118(g) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution and once the execution is proved, burden shifted to the defendant to disprove it.”

22.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao

Vs. Tadikonda Ramulu and others reported in 2008 SAR (Cvl.) 710 SC, at para No.12 held that:- “Under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to pressume, until contrary is proved that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also settled legal position, the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would need the lower court to believe non-existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful and illegal.”

23.The said case was disposed by the Apex court by referring the earlier citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Barrel and

Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Pyarellal reported in 1993(3) SCC 38. In the said citation also, it was held that:- “Once execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is 10 supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.”

24.In view of the admissions of D.W.1 from his cross examination, he failed to establish his plea that was taken in his written statement and to dispel the case of plaintiff by placing preponderance of probabilities on record. Therefore, having considered the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 apart from Exs.A1 to A4, it can be said that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3:-

25.In the light of findings and discussion in issue Nos.1 and 2, it can be said that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

ISSUE No.4:-

26.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,04,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of September, 2019. Sd./- D. Lakshmi,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

G U N T U R.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1 : Y. Venkata Appa RaoD.W.1: P. Satyanarayana

PW2 : K. Vijay Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/25.8.2015 : Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2/14.5.2018 : Office copy of complaint along with documents. Ex.A3/ – : Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A4/21.5.2018 : Reply notice got issued by defendant. FOR DEFENDANT:-

Ex.B1/25.3.2017 : Notice given by South Indian Bank regarding mortgage of schedule property with them. Ex.B2/27.7.2017 : Notice given by Phonex ARC Private Limited. Ex.B3/13.11.2015: Encumbrance certificate of schedule property.

11

Ild./- D.L., P.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Ms. D.Lakshmi, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, this the 13th day of September, 2019.

O.S.No.322/2018

Between:-

Yeluri Vara Lakshmi, rep. by her Written Authority Agent, Yeluri Venkata Appa Rao … Plaintiff.

And

Pandiri Satyanarayana… Defendant.

This suit coming on 31.7.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

R.K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff represented by her Written Authority Agent i.e., his husband i.e., Yeluri Venkata Appa Rao against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,04,600/- on the foot of the promissory note dated 26.7.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/- and for costs.

2.In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint is stated as follows:-

The defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 26.7.2015 for his family expenses executed promissory note in her favour on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum either to her or her order on demand. It is further case of plaintiff that inspite of demands made by her, the defendant did not choose to discharge the same and he postponed the same on one pretext or other and finally, she got issued legal notice to the defendant demanding him to discharge the debt. But, the defendant having received the notice, gave reply notice with false allegations.

Hence, she constrained to file the suit through her husband by giving

Written Authority to him. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed Written Statement by denying entire material allegations of the plaint and resisted the suit, interalia contended that the defendant originally borrowed an amount of 2

Rs.2,00,000/- only from Yeluri Venkata Apparao and upon his demand executed a promissory note in the name of plaintiff and that he is a close relative of the plaintiff’s family and he requested the plaintiff’s husband for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as he needed amount and taking advantage of his financial situation, the husband of plaintiff demanded him interest at the rate of 60% per annum and when he refused to pay such huge interest, the husband of plaintiff demanded him a collateral security of immovable property, for which also, he expressed his inability by stating that his property was kept in South Indian Bank, Guntur and then, at the instance of husband of plaintiff, he executed triple promissory notes for original amount borrowed by him in separate three promissory notes towards security purpose though he borrowed only Rs.2,00,000/-. It is further case of defendant that out of three promissory notes, one promissory note is executed in the name of plaintiff and the remaining two promissory notes in the name of her husband and that the husband of plaintiff insisted him to issue blank signed cheques towards security purpose and as he refused to hand over blank signed instrument, the plaintiff’s husband demanded him to execute separate promissory note towards interest to be paid in future in advance i.e., for Rs.61,000/- in his name and that the plaintiff with an intention to cheat him, obtained instruments conveniently and also obtained part payment endorsements on the promissory notes of her husband as if he already borrowed amount under promissory notes in the name of her husband and that the schedule was already kept in South Indian Bank and because of financial loss, he unable to pay the loan amount to the said bank and as such, the bank authorities have started SARFAESI Act proceedings long back and the properties attached was already mortgaged to the said bank and sale proceedings were already started and the said fact is known to the plaintiff. But, she suppressed the said fact and filed this suit as well as

Interlocutory Application for attachment of schedule property and now, the plaintiff is still in possession of three promissory notes which are kept in the custody of her husband for security of the amount borrowed by him and whenever, he used to make part payments, he asked the husband of the plaintiff to return the promissory note executed in favour of plaintiff.

But, the husband of plaintiff induced him by stating that the amount paid to him or to his wife is one and the same and promised him to return the promissory notes after receiving the interest and as he is ready to pay 3 interest agreed upon on the promissory note dated 26.7.2015 executed in favour of plaintiff, after deducting the payments made by the defendant, there is no principal amount due under promissory note and he is ready and willing to pay interest to the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and with some other allegations, he prayed the court that the suit not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings and material on record, the court framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 26.7.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the averments mentioned in written statement at para No.7 is true and correct?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5.Heard and perused the record.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff, the husband plaintiff himself examined as PW1, besides examining the sole attestor of

Ex.A1 as P.W.2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

7.P.Ws.1 and 2 on one hand and D.W.1 on the other hand filed affidavits in lieu of their chief evidence as contemplated under Order 18

Rule 4(1) C.P.C. P.W.1 and D.W.1 deposed in detail in consonance with their pleadings. P.W.2 supported to the testimony of P.W.1 with regard to the transaction covered under Ex.A1. All the witnesses were subjected to cross examine by both counsel at length. To avoid repetition, their detail evidence is not extracted, however, their relevant evidence will be discussed in due course of time.

ISSUE Nos.1 and 2:-

8.Since both these issues are interrelated with each other, they are being discussed and decided together for the sake of convenience.

9.It is the specific contention and evidence of P.W.1 which reveals from his testimony that the plaintiff is his wife and he is representing on behalf of his wife as his wife gave written authority to him and as such, he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In support of his contention, he filed petition under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice along with suit and the same as allowed by permitting the plaintiff to file 4 the suit by P.W.1. It seems, the husband of plaintiff filed Rule 32 of Civil

Rules of Practice petition along with written authority or authorization said to have given by the plaintiff in favour of her husband (P.W.1) duly notarized.

10.It is the contention of learned counsel for defendant that evidence of P.W.1 is not valid as he did not obtain General Power of

Attorney from the plaintiff. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration. On perusal of written authority filed by P.W.1, it reveals that the plaintiff gave consent to give evidence and authorized him to participate in all enquiries and trials, on all or necessary dates of adjournments of hearing as per instructions of legal adviser and directions of the court in cases to be filed on the file of civil courts having jurisdiction in respect of suit and to sue and to be sued in all kinds of courts mentioned in page No.2 of the said Written Authority or Authorization.

Therefore, in view of above recitals in said written authority, the plaintiff gave authority to P.W.1 not only permitting him to file suits, besides permitting him to give evidence before the courts in all kinds of civil suits on her behalf.

11.It seems the defendant well known about the written authority given by the plaintiff to P.W.1. But, he did not raise any objection in his written statement. Therefore, it can be said that the defendant has no objection to defend the case of the plaintiff by her husband. The defendant for the first time raised said objection by contending that P.W.1 has no right to file suit or to give evidence based on written authority given by the plaintiff. As stated above, when he did not raise any objection after filing the suit or in his written statement, his oral contention cannot be taken into consideration. Therefor, it can be said that P.W.1 is having every right to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff.

Hence, the contention of defendant in this regard cannot be tenable by virtue of written authority given by the plaintiff to P.W.1.

12.P.W.1 deposed that the defendant having borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from his wife i.e., plaintiff on 26.7.2015 executed

Ex.A1 and subsequently, he failed to discharge the same and his wife got issued legal notice and he gave reply notice with false allegations. It is the specific contention and plea of the defendant that the husband of the plaintiff obtained three blank promissory notes each for Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from the amount borrowed by him under Ex.A1 and P.W.1 5 demanded him to execute three promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/- each and as such, he executed the same in favour of him, but not in favour of plaintiff. This court unable to understand when he allegedly borrowed amount from the husband of the plaintiff, as contended by him, as to why he executed promissory note in the name of plaintiff who is not having capacity to lend such huge amount to him. This court further unable to understand as to why he gave three separate promissory notes to P.W.1 for each Rs.2,00,000/-, apart from giving promissory note for Rs.61,000/- towards interest to be paid in future in advance in the name of P.W.1. He also contended that P.W.1 obtained part payments regarding two promissory notes given by him to P.W.1 though he did not borrow amount under two promissory notes from P.W.1.

13.On perusal of cross examination of P.W.1, it was elicited that there are three promissory notes of defendant are in his custody apart from Ex.A1. It was elicited from cross examination of P.W.1 that he could not produce those promissory notes before this court since there is time for filing suit under three promissory notes. P.W.1 admitted in cross examination that Ex.A1 did not disclose his presence as attestor at the time of execution of Ex.A1 and that there are two promissory notes executed by the defendant in his name for Rs.2,00,000/- each. There is no further cross examination with regard to the obtaining two promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/- each in favour of P.W.1. The defendant did not put any suggestion in cross examination of P.W.1 that P.W.1 obtained two promissory notes in connection with same transaction covered under

Ex.A1. It is suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination that Ex.A1 is materially altered by prefixing ‘2’ before ‘6’ and so also, beneath the signature of the defendant to save limitation. On careful perusal of Ex.A1, this court did not find any material alteration as contended by the defendant. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for plaintiff, this court has ample power to compare Ex.A1 by invoking Section 73 of Indian

Evidence Act. On keen perusal of Ex.A1, absolutely, there is no material alteration in Ex.A1 as alleged by the defendant in his written statement.

If at all there is material alteration as alleged by defendant, he would have sent Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to prove his plea. But, the defendant did not make any efforts to send Ex.A1 to hand writing expert to establish his plea. So, in the absence of such petition, the oral assertion of defendant that Ex.A1 is materially altered is ruled out.

6

14.It is also one of the contention of the defendant that the property which was attached before judgment in I.A.543/2018 was mortgaged in South Indian Bank and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to attach his property in this suit. The above contention of defendant cannot be taken into consideration since this court has no purview to consider the same.

15.As observed earlier, it is the contention of defendant that he did not execute Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff and he gave Ex.A1 apart from three other promissory notes in favour of P.W.1. It is not the contention of defendant that he did not execute Ex.A1 in the presence of P.W.2. In support of his contention, the plaintiff examined P.W.2 who is sole attestor of Ex.A1. P.W.2 categorically deposed that the transaction under Ex.A1 was taken place in his presence and that he deposed that the defendant himself scribed Ex.A1 in his presence and the defendant after receiving amount from the plaintiff executed Ex.A1 in her favour. On perusal of cross examination of P.W.2, it was elicited that both plaintiff and defendant are his relatives. The plaintiff lent the amount to the defendant on finance. It was elicited from cross examination of P.W.2 that at the time of lending amount, he and both parties were present. He pleaded ignorance about money transaction between parties. It seems, from the cross examination of P.W.2, the defendant did not suggest the plea that was taken in his written statement and material suggestions put to P.W.2 in his cross examination to P.W.2 regarding three other promissory notes obtained by P.W.1 at the time of execution of Ex.A1, besides obtaining cheque for Rs.61,000/- towards future interest under Ex.A1. The defendant simply suggested to P.W.2 by denying his presence at the time of lending amount by the plaintiff to defendant and his signature was obtained by the plaintiff just before filing the suit. If at all, the contention of the defendant is true and correct, he would have suggested the plea which was suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination and as well as taken in his written statement even in cross examination of P.W.2. So, in the absence of such material suggestions to P.W.1, the contention of defendant regarding taking of two other promissory notes by P.W.1 in his favour is totally falsified. In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the plaintiff discharged her initial burden by examining her husband as P.W.1, besides examining P.W.2 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A4. Now, the burden shifted to the defendant to establish his plea that was taken in 7 his written statement that the husband of plaintiff obtained three other promissory notes in his name apart from Ex.A1 on 26.7.2015. Admittedly, the defendant did not dispute that he borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 26.7.2015 by executing Ex.A1 with his own handwriting.

But, it is the specific contention of defendant that he borrowed the amount from P.W.1, but not from the plaintiff. When the plaintiff discharged her burden by examining her husband by giving authorization to her husband to depose on her behalf and examining P.W.2, it is for defendant to establish his plea. In support of his contention, he relied upon his sole testimony and relied upon Exs.B1 to B3. On perusal of his evidence, he reiterated his contention in the written statement in his chief affidavit. But, it seems, on perusal of cross examination of P.W.2, he deposed in his chief evidence, he deposed some other facts which were not at all taken in his written statement.

16.On perusal of cross examination of D.W.1, he deposed that

P.W.1 is his uncle by courtesy and both of them did cotton business. He clearly admitted that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he scribed Ex.A1 with his own hand writing. The counsel for plaintiff confronted Ex.A1 to the defendant and asked him whether he scribed it. The defendant after gone through the Ex.A1, he stated that the entire body column of Ex.A1 filled up by him. It was elicited from the cross examination of D.W.1 that he used to hand over filled promissory notes to the lenders. So, in view of above admission made by D.W.1 in his cross examination, it can be said that the defendant is habit of borrowing amounts from the lenders. He clearly denied in his cross examination that he has not given a single pie to the plaintiff in respect of

Ex.A1. D.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 obtained two filled promissory notes from him towards security of Ex.A1. He admitted the fact that P.W.1 did not file other suits against him in respect of alleged two promissory notes given by him towards security purpose. He further admitted that he has not given any cheques to the plaintiff in respect of Ex.A1. So, the remaining cross examination of D.W.1 is no way concerned to the suit transaction and the same is with regard to the loan availed by the defendant from the South Indian Bank by mortgaging the schedule property. Therefore, as stated above, this being suit filed for recovery of amount basing on promissory note, this court did not discuss and decide the debt of the defendant by mortgaging his property in this suit. So also, 8 though the defendant relied upon EXs.B1 to B3 in support of his contention, with regard to attachment of schedule property in the

Interlocutory Application, this original court is no way concerned to decide Exs.B1 to B3 and it is for the execution court to consider the said documents.

17.During course of trial, the counsel for defendant filed a petition under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC praying the court to direct the plaintiff to produce three promissory notes which were in the custody of

P.W.1. The court after due enquiry passed orders stating that the contention of the defendant will be discussed and decided in the main suit. As observed earlier, as seen from cross examination of P.W.1, he clearly admitted that he has two other promissory notes said to have been executed by defendant in his favour. It is not the case of plaintiff or

P.W.1 that the two alleged other promissory notes available with P.W.1 are obtained in same course of transaction covered under Ex.A1. As observed earlier, when the defendant failed to prove his contention that he executed two other promissory notes each for Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of P.W.1 during course of same transaction covered under Ex.A1, it cannot be said that the alleged two blank promissory notes said to have been in the custody of P.W.1 is in respect of promissory note transaction of this suit.

18.As observed earlier, the defendant himself admitted in his cross examination about borrowing amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and execution of Ex.A1 promissory note with his own hand writing, the court can draw the presumption under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments

Act.

19.The legal proposition under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable

Instruments Act can be stated hereunder for better appreciation.

“118. Presumptions as to negotiate instruments:- (a) of consideration; (b) as to date; (c) as to time of acceptance; (d) as to time of transfer; (e) as to order of indorsements; (f) as to stamp; (g) that holder is a holder in due course:- Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:-

(a) that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration.” 9

By virtue of Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, once the

Negotiable Instrument is proved or admitted, it is to be presumed that

Ex.A1 is executed for legal consideration unless contrary is proved.

20.In this regard, this court relied upon a decision reported in

Tummala Tirumala Rao Vs. Pemmasani Lakshmaiah reported in 2004(3)

ALT 422wherein, it was held that:- “Promissory note shall be presumed to be supported by consideration until contra is proved and burden lies on the promissor to rebut the said presumption.”

By virtue of Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the Negotiable Instrument is proved or admitted, it is to be presumed the suit document is executed for legal consideration unless contra is proved.

21.In Ponugupati Subba Rao Vs. Sikhakollu Pulla Rao reported in 1999(3) ALT 144, wherein it was held that:- “By virtue of Section 118(g) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution and once the execution is proved, burden shifted to the defendant to disprove it.”

22.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao

Vs. Tadikonda Ramulu and others reported in 2008 SAR (Cvl.) 710 SC, at para No.12 held that:- “Under Section 118(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to pressume, until contrary is proved that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also settled legal position, the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove non-existence of consideration by bringing on record such facts and circumstances which would need the lower court to believe non-existence of consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful and illegal.”

23.The said case was disposed by the Apex court by referring the earlier citation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bharat Barrel and

Drum Manufacturing Company vs. Amin Chand Pyarellal reported in 1993(3) SCC 38. In the said citation also, it was held that:- “Once execution of promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is 10 supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable.”

24.In view of the admissions of D.W.1 from his cross examination, he failed to establish his plea that was taken in his written statement and to dispel the case of plaintiff by placing preponderance of probabilities on record. Therefore, having considered the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 apart from Exs.A1 to A4, it can be said that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE No.3:-

25.In the light of findings and discussion in issue Nos.1 and 2, it can be said that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

ISSUE No.4:-

26.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,04,600/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of September, 2019. Sd./- D. Lakshmi,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

G U N T U R.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW1 : Y. Venkata Appa RaoD.W.1: P. Satyanarayana

PW2 : K. Vijay Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/25.8.2015 : Promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2/14.5.2018 : Office copy of complaint along with documents. Ex.A3/ – : Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A4/21.5.2018 : Reply notice got issued by defendant. FOR DEFENDANT:-

Ex.B1/25.3.2017 : Notice given by South Indian Bank regarding mortgage of schedule property with them. Ex.B2/27.7.2017 : Notice given by Phonex ARC Private Limited. Ex.B3/13.11.2015: Encumbrance certificate of schedule property.

11

Ild./- D.L., P.S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present:- Ms. D. Lakshmi, B.Sc.,LL.M., Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of September, 2019.

S.O.P.No.43 of 2019

Between:- 1.Gadde Santhamma, w/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 57 years, Housewife, 2.Chelli Ratna Sri, w/o. Subba Rao, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 37 years, Housewife, 3.Duggi Sandhya Rani, w/o.Venkaiah, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 35 years, Housewife, All are r/o. 113 Thalluru, Phirangipuram mandal,

Guntur District, Sattenapalli JCJC.... Petitioner.

And

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Kannavarithota, Guntur, Guntur JCJC. 2.Gadde Chilakamma, w/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 55 years, Housewife, r/o. D.No.6-73, 3.Pasumarthi Mary Rani, w/o. Ratna Kumar, D/o. Late Lokaiah, 32 years, Housewife, r/o.D.No.4-17-26. 4.Gadde Indira Priyadarsini, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 30 years, r/o.D.No.6-73, 5.Gadde Devi, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 27 years, r/o.D.No.6-73, Respondents 2 to 5 are r/o.Turakapalem, Pedapalakaluru, Guntur District. … Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. R. Sanjeeva Reddy, Sri B. Walter Babu, Advocates for the Petitioners and the Respondents 1 to 5 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This Succession Original Petition is filed under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the petitioners to issue Succession

Certificate in their favour empowering them to withdraw the amount lying in 1st respondent bank under different heads as shown in petition schedule 2 and for costs.

2.As seen from the averments of the petition and chief affidavit of the 1st petitioner as P.W.1, she is wife of deceased Lokaiah, and petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughters and her husband Lokaiah during his life time deposited amounts under different heads in 1st respondent bank and he died on 31.1.2007 and after death of her husband, they requested the 1st respondent authorities to disburse the amount under different heads in the name of said Lokaiah, but, the 1st respondent authorities informed them that the respondents 2 to 5 also approached them by claiming the amounts of deceased Lokaiah and the 1st respondent insisted them to furnish succession certificate from the competent court of law. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners relied upon Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is death certificate of late Lokaiah. Ex.P2 is Family Members Certificate issued by Tahasildar, Phirangipuram which evidence that the 1st petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of 1st petitioner and said deceased Lokaiah. Ex.P3 is copies of bank receipts. Ex.P4 is Aadhar cards of petitioners. It seems, after filing of this petition, inspite of giving general notice by way of publication, and notice to respondents, no objectors came forward denying the claim of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 also remained exparte without contesting the petition. As such, there are no legal impediments to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to withdraw the amounts lying in 1st respondent bank stands in the name of deceased Gadde

Lokaiah as shown in petition schedule and that the petition has to be allowed.

3.In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue Succession

Certificate in favour of the Petitioners empowering them to withdraw the amount lying in 1st respondent bank under different heads as shown in 3 petition schedule. Engross succession certificate accordingly on depositing of the Succession Duty.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of September,

2019.

Sd/-D.Lakshmi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:- Exparte.

P.W.1: G. Santhamma

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1/1.3.2007: Death Certificate of deceased G. Lokaiah Ex.P2/30.7.2018 : Family Members Certificate. Ex.P3/ – : Copies of Bank Receipts (4 in Nos.) Ex.P4/ – : Copies of Aadhar Cards of petitoners. Ex.P5/27.2.2019 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt. Ex.P6/ – : Postal acknowledgement.

For Respondents:- Nil (Exparte).

Sd/-D.Lakshmi,

PSCJ.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present:- Ms. D. Lakshmi, B.Sc.,LL.M., Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of September, 2019.

S.O.P.No.43 of 2019

Between:- 1.Gadde Santhamma, w/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 57 years, Housewife, 2.Chelli Ratna Sri, w/o. Subba Rao, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 37 years, Housewife, 3.Duggi Sandhya Rani, w/o.Venkaiah, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 35 years, Housewife, All are r/o. 113 Thalluru, Phirangipuram mandal,

Guntur District, Sattenapalli JCJC.... Petitioner.

And

1.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Kannavarithota, Guntur, Guntur JCJC. 2.Gadde Chilakamma, w/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 55 years, Housewife, r/o. D.No.6-73, 3.Pasumarthi Mary Rani, w/o. Ratna Kumar, D/o. Late Lokaiah, 32 years, Housewife, r/o.D.No.4-17-26. 4.Gadde Indira Priyadarsini, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 30 years, r/o.D.No.6-73, 5.Gadde Devi, D/o. Late Lokaiah, Hindu, 27 years, r/o.D.No.6-73, Respondents 2 to 5 are r/o.Turakapalem, Pedapalakaluru, Guntur District. … Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. R. Sanjeeva Reddy, Sri B. Walter Babu, Advocates for the Petitioners and the Respondents 1 to 5 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This Succession Original Petition is filed under Section 372 of the

Indian Succession Act, 1925 by the petitioners to issue Succession

Certificate in their favour empowering them to withdraw the amount lying in 1st respondent bank under different heads as shown in petition schedule 2 and for costs.

2.As seen from the averments of the petition and chief affidavit of the 1st petitioner as P.W.1, she is wife of deceased Lokaiah, and petitioners 2 and 3 are their daughters and her husband Lokaiah during his life time deposited amounts under different heads in 1st respondent bank and he died on 31.1.2007 and after death of her husband, they requested the 1st respondent authorities to disburse the amount under different heads in the name of said Lokaiah, but, the 1st respondent authorities informed them that the respondents 2 to 5 also approached them by claiming the amounts of deceased Lokaiah and the 1st respondent insisted them to furnish succession certificate from the competent court of law. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners relied upon Exs.P1 to P6. Ex.P1 is death certificate of late Lokaiah. Ex.P2 is Family Members Certificate issued by Tahasildar, Phirangipuram which evidence that the 1st petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of 1st petitioner and said deceased Lokaiah. Ex.P3 is copies of bank receipts. Ex.P4 is Aadhar cards of petitioners. It seems, after filing of this petition, inspite of giving general notice by way of publication, and notice to respondents, no objectors came forward denying the claim of the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 also remained exparte without contesting the petition. As such, there are no legal impediments to issue succession certificate in favour of the petitioners to withdraw the amounts lying in 1st respondent bank stands in the name of deceased Gadde

Lokaiah as shown in petition schedule and that the petition has to be allowed.

3.In the result, the petition is allowed. Issue Succession

Certificate in favour of the Petitioners empowering them to withdraw the amount lying in 1st respondent bank under different heads as shown in 3 petition schedule. Engross succession certificate accordingly on depositing of the Succession Duty.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 16th day of September,

2019.

Sd/-D.Lakshmi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Guntur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:- Exparte.

P.W.1: G. Santhamma

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:-

Ex.P1/1.3.2007: Death Certificate of deceased G. Lokaiah Ex.P2/30.7.2018 : Family Members Certificate. Ex.P3/ – : Copies of Bank Receipts (4 in Nos.) Ex.P4/ – : Copies of Aadhar Cards of petitoners. Ex.P5/27.2.2019 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt. Ex.P6/ – : Postal acknowledgement.

For Respondents:- Nil (Exparte).

Sd/-D.Lakshmi,

PSCJ.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.58.2/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.ph...

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur

Case No. :IP/0000003/2016 Chirumamilla Ashok Babu Vs Jagarlamudi Chenchu Lakshmi

Date : 06-11-2017

Business: Orders pronounced VSEO In the result, the insolvency petition is dismissed without costs Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED WITH OUT COSTS Disposal Date: 06-11-2017 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur 1 of 114/11/24, 15:46