D.Tirumala Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HINDUPUR

PRESENT: Sri. D.Tirumala Rao,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Anantapuamu

(FAC) II Additional District Judge, Hindupur

Friday, this the 28th day of October, 2022

E.P.No.26/2017 in O.P.No.28/2012

Between:

Niriganti Aswarthamma W/o late Niriganti Narasimhappa, 51 years, R/o Kalipi village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapuramu District … Decree Holder

and

1. V. Rama Mohan S/o Venkata Subbaiah, major, 26-4-1816, RTC Colony, Hindupur

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, 4-1-3267 to 337, Abids, Hyderabad

3. K. Gopal Reddy S/o K. Pedda Nagappa, Kadarampalli, Kundurpi Mandal

4. D. Jaya Krishna S/o D. Gangappa, D.No.2/114, Kaggallu, Hindupur.

…. Judgment Debtors

This execution petition came before me on 09-09-2022 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri V.T. Venkata Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder, and of Sri C. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate for Judgment Debtor No.1, Sri B. Viswanath, Advocate for Judgment Debtor No.3, Sri K.C.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Judgment Debtor No.4, on hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is an execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 37 and Rule 38 praying this Court to recover an amount of Rs.4,69,793/- from the Judgment Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4 and on their failure to discharge the E.P. amount by committing them to the civil prison.

2.The brief facts of the case of the Decree Holder are that the Decree Holder obtained a joint decree against the Judgment Debtors No.1, 3 and 4 in a motor accident in O.P.28/2012 on the file of this Court. Thereafter, though it is known to the Judgment Debtors, they failed to discharge the said amount having sufficient means and they are trying to drag on the proceedings intentionally without making any payment. It is also the case of the Decree Holder that there is no appeal filed by them challenging the award and it attained finality and executable against Judgment

Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4. Hence, she filed the present petition.

2

3.The Judgment Debtor No.1 filed a detailed counter contending that the petition is not maintainable against him. He pleaded the total liability from

Judgment Debtor No.3. It is also pleaded that he has no means to discharge the E.p.

amount. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the E.P. against him.

4.The Judgment Debtor No.3 filed a detailed counter contending in the similar lines of Judgment Debtor No.1 saying that he has no means and sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount. The Judgment Debtor No.3 contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligent act of Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 4. Judgment

Debtor No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. Judgment Debtor No.1 is having means and sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount. The Decree Holder also knew the said fact that Judgment Debtor No.1 is having means and sufficient means to pay the E.P.

amount and he is the owner of the crime vehicle, but the Decree Holder and

Judgment Debtor No.1 colluded together and filed the above E.P. against this

Judgment Debtor only for wrongful gain. It is further contention of Judgment Debtor

No.3 that the Decree Holder did not file any documentary proof to show that this

Judgment Debtor has means. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the E.P. against him.

5.The Judgment Debtor No.4 filed a detailed counter contending in the similar lines of Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 3 apart from adding his grounds that Decree

Holder did not prove any means of him and he has no sufficient income either by salary or by landed property to discharge the E.P. amount. Moreover, he is suffering from ill health and he is depending upon others for his livelihood. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the E.P. against him.

6.To substantiate the case of the Decree Holder, the Decree Holder herself has been examined as PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P1 and P2. The Judgment Debtor

No.3 himself has been examined as RW.1. One Shaik Anwar was examined as RW.2.

The Judgment Debtor No.1 has been examined as RW.3. Exs.R1 and R2 are marked through RW.1 and RW.3.

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the Decree Holder and also the learned counsels for Judgment Debtors No.1, No.3 and No.4.

3

8.Basing on the above rival submissions and evidence available on record, now the points for consideration are

1.Whether the Decree Holder is entitled to the relief of arrest against Judgment Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4 on the ground that they are intentionally avoiding the payment of E.P. amount having sufficient means?

2.To what relief?

9.POINT No.1:-

The case of the Decree Holder is that she obtained a decree against Judgment

Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4. Even after decree, Judgment Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4 never discharged the decree amount having sufficient means and they are trying to delay the proceedings and they are also trying to drag on the matter one way or the other.

Hence, she filed the present petition.

10.To substantiate her case, the Decree Holder herself has been examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. By way of chief affidavit, PW.1 reiterated her case. During her cross-examination, it is elicited that she did not file any document to show that Judgment Debtor No.1 is having properties in his name. She denied the suggestion that she did not file any document to show that Judgment Debtor No.3 is having means. She denied the suggestion that Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 3 have no means.

11.Chief affidavit of Judgment Debtor No.3 has been filed as RW.1. By way of chief affidavit, Judgment Debtor No.3 deposed that Decree Holder and Judgment

Debtor No.1 colluded together. In fact, the crime vehicle is in the custody of

Judgment Debtor No.1. Judgment Debtor No.1 is doing transport business and he has more than six vehicles. Judgment Debtor No.1 has a big house worth about more than Rs.80 lakshs. Judgment Debtor No.1 is having means and ready means to pay the E.P. amount. He filed a copy of sale deed stands in the name of Judgment

Debtor No.1 and his wife to prove the means of Judgment Debtor No.1. Judgment

Debtor No.1 is also income tax assessee. The Decree Holder filed adangal stands in his name. But the property mentioned in the adangal is joint family property and it is dry land. There is no income derived from the said agricultural lands since 10 years as there are no rains. He has no means or ready means to pay the E.P.

4 amount. During his cross-examination, it is elicited that he owns 13 acres of agricultural lands which stands in his name. He has been earning an income of

Rs.50,000/- per month through agriculture. The land value per acre in their village is

Rs.1,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he is having 30 acres of agricultural land.

12.One Shaik Anwar was examined as RW.2. RW.2 deposed that he knows

Judgment Debtors Nos.1, 3 and 4. He further deposed that Judgment No.1 and No.3 are having means and sufficient means. They are having movable and immovable properties. Judgment Debtor No.1 is doing transport business. Judgment Debtor

No.1 is having more than six vehicles. Judgment Debtor No.1 is having own house worth about 30 laksh. To his knowledge, Judgment Debtor No.1 is having sufficient income from his transport business and he has means to pay the E.P amount.

Judgment Debtor No.4 has no means due to continuous draught in Ananthapuramu

District and he is unable to maintain his family at present and he is not in a position to pay the E.P. amount. During the cross-examination of RW.2, it is elicited that he knows Judgment Debtors Nos.1 and 3. He denied the suggestion that Judgment

Debtor No.3 is having sufficient means. He admitted that Judgment Debtor No.3 is having landed properties. He does not know the vehicle numbers of Judgment

Debtor No.1. He does not know one D. Jayakrishna/Judgment Debtor No.4. He denied the suggestion that Judgment Debtor No.4/Jaya Krishna is having sufficient means to pay the decree amount to the Decree Holder.

13. Judgment Debtor No.1 was examined as RW.3. RW.3 deposed that RW.1 filed a copy of sale deed dated 31.08.2018 under which his wife purchased a house for Rs.39,50,000/- and got it registered in the name of his wife and himself. In fact, he has no right over the said property as he did not pay any consideration amount or any other charges to that effect. The entire amount was met by his wife Lalitha

Kumari by selling her property for an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- on 06.02.2018. He has no means. During the cross-examination of RW.3, it is elicited that he did not file any medical record to show that he has been suffering from B.P. and Diabetes. He denied the suggestion that he is hale and healthy. He denied the suggestion that he has been maintaining Kaveri Travels for the last 30 years. He also denied the suggestion that himself and his wife jointly purchased the property under Ex.R1 and 5 he has share in the said property and he is trying to avoid the decretal amount.

14.Ex.P1 is copy of decree dated 17.11.2016 in O.P.No.28/2012 on the file of this

Court. Ex.P2 is 1-B namuna ROR in the name of Judgment Debtor No.3. Ex.P2 shows that there are lands in the name of J.Dr.No.3. J.Dr.No.3 denied the contents of

Ex.P2 saying that the lands are not giving any yielding in view of draught. But in his cross-examination, he admitted that he is earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month by way of agriculture. Ex.R1 is filed by RW.1 saying that Judgment Debtor

No.1 is having sufficient means and Judgment Debtor No.1 is having joint family property under Ex.R1. Judgment Debtor No.1 filed Ex.R2 stating that his wife sold away her property for an amount of Rs.85 lakhs and purchased the property covered under Ex.R1. He added that he is only named vendee and he did not pay any amount. To that extent there is no evidence, but the document itself proves that he has landed property, but it is in the name of Judgment Debtor No.1 and his wife. Its market value is Rs.39,50,000/-. So therefore, it is clear that Judgment Debtor No.1 is having sufficient means. As far as Judgment Debtor No.4 is concerned, he did not enter into witness box. But on his behalf, one Shaik Anwar was examined as RW.2.

RW.2 cleverly deposed that Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 3 are having sufficient means, but Judgment Debtor No.4 has no means. Judgment Debtor No.4 did not adduce any evidence and he did not enter into witness box.

15.The Decree Holder by relying on Ex.P1 and P2 clearly and categorically established the means of Judgment Debtor No.1, No.3 and No.4. Ex.P1 and P2,

Exs.R1 and R2 are public documents so that Court can make presumptions that the

Judgment Debtor No.1, No.3 and No.4 are having sufficient means. However, they are intentionally trying to avoid the payment of decretal amount. So therefore, it is clear and proved that the Decree Holder had obtained a decree under Ex.P1 and the said decree was not satisfied. Judgment Debtors No.1, No.3 and No.4 are having sufficient means to discharge the decree amount, but they are trying to delay the payment of decretal amount and they are also intentionally trying to avoid the decree amount and it is established on record. So therefore, it is the considered opinion of this Court that the Decree Holder is entitled for recovery of said amount and alternatively if the payment is not made by Judgment Debtor No.1, No.3 and

No.4, then they are liable to be detained in civil prison under Section 58 of Civil 6

Procedure Code. Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.POINT No.2:-

In the result, the E.P. is allowed with costs. Judgment Debtor Nos.1, No.3 and

No.4 are directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs.4,69,793/- to the Decree Holder within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the Judgment Debtors

No.1, No.3 and No.4 are directed to be detained in civil prison on payment of subsistence allowance by the Decree Holder for a period of 90 days or till no sooner the payment is made by issuing warrant.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of October, 2022.

Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao

Judge, Family Court –cum-

VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapuramu. (FAC) II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Decree Holder: Judgment Debtors:

PW.1 : Niriganti Aswarthamma RW.1 : K. Gopal Reddy RW.2 : Shaik Anwar RW.3 : V. Ramamohan

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DECREE HOLDER

Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Award dated 17.11.2016

Ex.P2 : 1-B Namuna issued by Talsildar, Kundurpi obtained through mee-seva

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR JUDGMENT DEBTORS

Ex.R1 : Copy of sale deed stands in the name of J.Dr.No.1 and his wife dated 31.08.2018 obtained through mee-seva, Ananthapuramu

Ex.R2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 06.02.2018 executed by Lalitha Kumari W/o Ramamohan in favour of S. Vishnuvardhan Reddy and M. Lakshmi Venkatesh

Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao

Judge, Family Court –cum-

VII Addl. District Court, Ananthapuramu. (FAC) II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

1

BEFORE THE MACT - CUM - II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HINDUPUR.

PRESENT: Sri. D.Tirumala Rao,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Anantapuramu.

FAC/II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

Friday, this the 28th day of October, 2022

M.V.O.P. 14/2017

BETWEEN:

P. Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o P.Thimma Reddy, aged about 46 years, cultivation, D.No.3/96, Guddam Nagepalli, Somandepalli Mandal, Anantapuramu. …. Petitioner

AND

1.Shaik Shafiualla, S/o S.Rafiq, Major, Business, D.No.26-4-B56, Ward No.26, Chowdeswary colony, Hindupur, Anantapuramu.

2.Shafiq, S/o Rafiq, aged 25 years, Driver Tyagarajanagar, Hindupur town, Anantapuramu District.

3.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co Ltd., Rep. By its Manager, 2nd Floor, 31, Opp.DBR Diagnoses, SD Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

…. Respondents

This petition came before me on 02-09-2022 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri C.Rama Chandra Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K.C. Raghunatha Reddy, Advocate for the 3rd respondent, the petition being dismissed against respondents 1 and 2and upon hearing petitioner and 3rd respondent and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

A W A R D

1. This is a petition filed under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three Lakhs only) with costs and interest thereon for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent.

2.The brief facts of the petitioner case are that the petitioner is hale ad healthy and he is doing cultivation and he is earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. On 04.08.2013 at about 1-00 PM, the petitioner was coming to Hindupur as pillion rider in motor cycle and when they reached near Manesamudram. Meanwhile, a new unregistered auto bearing its Chasis No.MBXDDDICFRF725981 came in opposite 2 direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and lost the control and hit the motor cycle bearing No.AP02-HO-136 in which the petitioner was travelling as pillion rider. As a result, the petitioner sustained head injury, his spinal cord was damaged. Due to that, his entire nerves system collapsed and took treatment in

Hindupur. Thereafter, he was shifted to NIMHANS, Hospital, Bangalore and the activation of entire body was lost and bed ridden for one year to get the activation of parts of the body though the petitioner was recovered to some extent. The petitioner is not in a position to do any work and thereby the petitioner became permanently disabled. The petitioner also took treatment at Baptist Hospital,

Bangalore. As the petitioner became permanently disabled, he cannot earn any thing from doing cultivation. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure and water bed and other equipments.

3.It is further case of the petitioner that this accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. On that a case was registered in

Cr.No.90/2013 by Hindupur Rural police against the driver of the Crime Vehicle under section 337 IPC & 304-A IPC. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is the driver of the Crime Vehicle, the respondent No.1 is owner of the crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the Crime Vehicle. It is alleged that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle chassis bearing No. MBXDDDICFRF725981 as such R.1 to

R.3 are jointly and severally liable for the loss sustained to the petitioner herein.

Hence, he filed the present petition.

4.The claim againstRespondents No. 1 and 2 is dismissed for default, due non payment of process.

5.The third respondent filed a detailed counter contenting that the petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts.

6.The third respondent denied the manner of accident, time of accident, registration of the case by the police. The 3rd respondent denied the insurance coverage to the accident vehicle and the liability of this respondent is only contractual one. It is further denied that the crime vehicle was not insured with the 3 3rd respondent. The crime vehicle was not having FC and RC apart from permit to fly on the roads. The first respondent violated the terms of policy. It is also alleged that the second respondent was not having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. No treatment was given to the petitioner. The petitioner never received an y injuries in the accident and it is created for the purpose of this case.

The further defence of the third respondent is that the claim of the petitioner is excessive. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7.Basing on the above rival pleadings, this Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the accident had happened on account of the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Auto

Chassis No.MBXDDICFRF725981?

2) Whether the driver of the offending Auto unregistered

Chassis No. MBXDDICFRF725981 possessed valid driving

license as on the material date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from which of the respondent?

4) To what relief?

8.To substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to Ex.A.6. Ex.A1 is the copy of FIR. Ex.A2 is copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is copy of wound certificate. Ex.A4 are medical bills 10 in number for Rs.9,866/-. Ex.A5 is Balaji Orthopedic and Trauma center receipt.

Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by Dr.R.Balaji. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, one V.Anand Kiran was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1. To support the case of the 3rd respondent one S.Malik Basha was examined as RW.2 and got marked Ex.B2. Ex.B1 is the attested copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2 is the authorization letter dt:25-08-2022.

9.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent.

10.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:-

Both issues are interlinked. Hence, clubbed together and answered at a time.

4

The case of the petitioner is that he met with an accident on 04-08-2013 at about 1-00 PM when the petitioner was going as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing

No.AP-02-HO-136, the crime vehicle came in opposite direction driven by R2 in a rash and negligent manner and lost control and with the motor cycle of the petitioner as such the petitioner sustained head injury and spinal cord injury.

11.To substantiate the case of the petitioner herein, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1. By way of chief examination, PW.1 reiterated his case apart from marking Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. During the cross of PW.1, it is elicited that he was proceeding on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. The crime vehicle was driven by R2 in a rash and negligent manner and it came in opposite direction and it dashed their motor cycle. He admitted that the auto was not having registered number at the time of accident. The rider of the motor cycle sustained simple injuries. One of the inmate of the auto died. He did not file rough sketch of the place of accident. He denied the suggestion that R2 was not having driving license to drive the auto at the time of accident. He also denied the suggestion that auto had no valid documents like permit, FC etc.,

12.On behalf of the third respondent, RW.1 and RW.2 were examined. RW.1 deposed that the crime vehicle was not covered with valid RC at the time of accident. The vehicle was not having valid permit and FC as on the date of accident.

The second respondent was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. During the cross examination of RW.1, it is suggested that the crime vehicle was not having fitness certificate, registration certificate etc.

13.RW.2 deposed that as per their office records, it is clear that their office did not issue any license in the name of R1. Their office was not having any record pertaining to the crime vehicle. During the cross examination of RW.2, it is suggested that the vehicle was registered in their office.

14.Ex.B1 is copy of policy having terms and conditions. Ex.B2 is authorization to

PW2. Basing on the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that PW.1 received injuries in the road accident occurred on 04-09-2014. Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 charge sheet and Ex.A3 wound certificate support the case of the petitioner herein in respect of the accident 5 and injuries to the petitioner herein. Mere accident and its proof is not sufficient.

The petitioner should be able to prove the liability on the part of the third respondent herein. It is undisputed fact that Ex.B1 policy is in force as on the date of accident, but Ex.B1 policy was issued with terms and conditions and subject to limitations. The petitioner successfully established his case in respect of the accident by relying on Ex.A1 to A3. The case of the petitioner is established that he received injuries in the road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent who is working under the control of the first respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle. So therefore, both R1 and R2 are liable for the loss caused to the petitioner herein jontly and severally. The case of the petitioner is that since the third respondent is the insurer, the third respondent is also liable along with R1 and R2 in terms of Ex.B1.

15.The case of the third respondent is that the crime vehicle was not having permit, fitness to fly on the road and it was registered with the concerned registering authorities. To that extent, he relied on the evidence of RW1 & RW2 read withEx.B1 & B2. Though, Ex.B1 is established to establish the relationship between R1 and R3 but Ex.B1 was issued subject to terms and conditions. As per the evidence of RW.2, it is clear that the crime vehicle was not registered and the crime vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness to that effect. So therefore, it is the considered opinion of this court that in view of the violations of the policy conditions, no liability can be fastened against R3 on the ground of violation of Ex.B1 policy. So, the liability shall be fixed on R1 and R2. But the claim against R1 and R2 was dismissed for default due to non payment of process by the petitioner himself. So therefore, in the absence of R1 and R2, no liability can be fixed and enforced against them even though, R3 was exonerated from its liability in view of the violation of the terms and conditions under Ex.B1 as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for R3. So therefore, in the absence of R1 and R2, the petitioner cannot succeed his claim.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed in the absence of R1 and R2.

Accordingly, these two issues are answered.

16.ISSUE NO.3:-

Since the issues 1 and 2 are answered against the petitioner herein and the liability against R3 was exonerated and in the absence of R1 and R2, the petitioner 6 cannot succeed his claim. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation in view of the dismissal of claim against R1 and R2. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any claim against R3. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

17.ISSUE NO.4:-

In the result, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28th day of October,2022.

Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao

Chairman, MACT -cum- VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. (FAC) II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENT:-

PW.1:P.Sreenivasa Reddy RW.1:V.Anad Kiran RW.2: S.Malik Basha

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:-

Ex.A1:Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2:Copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3:Copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A4:Medical bills 10 in number for Rs.9,866/-.

Ex.A5:Balaji Orthopedic and Trauma center receipt.

Ex.A6:Disability certificate issued by Dr.R.Balaji.

FOR RESPONDENT:-

Ex.B1: Attested copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.B2: Authorization letter dt:25-08-2022.

Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao

Chairman, MACT -cum- VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. (FAC) II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

In the Court of :II Addl.District Judge Hindupur

Present: Sri D. Tirumala Rao, Judge, Family Court, Ananthapuramu (FAC) II Additional District Judge, Hindupur

Case No. :OS/0000015/2021

Y.Suresh kumar S/o Y.C.Subbaiah Vs K.Jawaharlal Reddy S/o Pakkira Reddy

Date : 04-11-2022

Both parties filed joint memo stating that the matter was settled out of court. In view of the memo filed by both parties, the suit is dismissed as settled out of court. No costs.

Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao

II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur

In the Court of :II Addl.District Judge Hindupur

Present: Sri D. Tirumala Rao, (FAC) II Additional District Judge, Hindupur

Case No. :OS/0000040/2018

Chinna Mallappa Vs Talla Ramnjaneyulu

Date : 11-11-2022

The learned counsel for the Plaintiff filed a memo stating that he is not pressing the suit.

In view of the said memo. The suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

(FAC) Sd/- D. Tirumala Rao II Addl. District Judge, Hindupur