Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik

Senior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,561 court orders on record since 2022. 15 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, EP, OS cases.

1,561

Total Orders

Judgments

127

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/212/2023 Compromised

Kutala Hima Bindu vs P.Reddy Kumar

21 Apr 2025

APCH040003772023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Sri.D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Madanapalle

Monday, the Twenty-First (21st) day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P.No.212 of 2023

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between –

Kutala Hima Bindu, D/o K.Gopala Krishna, W/o P.Reddy Kumar, Hindu aged about 26 years, r/o D.No.2-193, Besant Road, Madanapalle Town, Annamayya District (A.P.) ….PETITIONER And –

P.Reddy Kumar, S/o P.Krishna Murthy, Hindu aged about 29 years, r/o D.No.1-108, K.Mekalavaripalle, Thamballapalle Mandal, Annamayya District (A.P.) ….RESPONDENT

This petition came up on 17.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Rajendra, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.K.Soma Sekhar, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)This petition is filed by the petitioner (wife) u/s.13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve her marriage with the respondent (husband) held on 21.05.2021 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

2)The brief facts of the petition are : - The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 21.05.2021 as per the Hindu rites and customs at the house of respondent at Kondakinda Mekalavaripalle of Thamballapalle

Mandal. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner presented 150 grams of

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP212/2023 gold ornaments to the petitioner and 18 grams of gold to the respondent besides silver articles weighing 2 ½ kilograms and also house hold articles. After marriage, the petitioner and respondent put up family at Yelahanka, Bengaluru as the respondent was employed as software engineer there. The couple lived happily for short period and since the date of marriage, the parents of respondent started to demand additional dowry and house hold articles and the father of petitioner paid

Rs.1,50,000/- as additional dowry on 06.06.2022. It is stated that the respondent is an alcoholic even prior to marriage, and he did not change his attitude even after marriage. The respondent, his father and brother used to sit together and consume liquor. The family members of respondent suppressed the wayward life style of the respondent and the petitioner became victim in the matrimonial home. The respondent used to beat the petitioner when she questioned his acts and he even tried to kill the petitioner. The family members also supported the respondent and they demanded to bring Rs.4,00,000/- to purchase flat at Bengaluru. It is stated that mediations were held for 4 times but they proved futile. Under compelling circumstances, the petitioner came out of the matrimonial home in the month of

April, 2022 and reached her parents house. The petitioner lodged criminal complaint before the police at I Town PS, Madanapalle which was registered as

Crime No.145/2022 and numbered as C.C.No.838/2022 on the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle. The petitioner filed DVC No.60/2022

before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. She also filed

M.C.No.74/2022 but the respondent did not pay anything to the petitioner. It is

stated that the respondent is having extra marital relationship with one Yemireddy

Anusha. The matrimonial tie is irretrievably broken down and there are no chances of reunion. Hence, the petition.

3)The respondent filed counter and pleaded that petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. The respondent admitted about performance of his

Page 2 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP212/2023 marriage with the petitioner on 21.05.2021 and also that he is working as a software engineer in Bengaluru. The respondent states that his parents spent the marriage expenses to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The respondent has never demanded the petitioner to bring additional dowry or properties and in fact the respondent has give amounts to the father of petitioner on so many occasions. The respondent has no habit of drinking and he is ready to undergo medical check up. The respondent and his family members were most affectionate towards the petitioner but she was not acting as a dutiful wife. The petitioner wanted to harass the respondent and his family members only to live separately at Madanapalle. The father of petitioner hastened the respondent to get a house property in Madanapalle and register the same in the name of petitioner. When the respondent’s mother sustained leg fracture, the petitioner adamantly quarreled with the respondent and went to her parents house by making galata. Later as the petitioner did not return to Bengaluru, the respondent was forced to come to Madanapalle and on the advise of petitioner, he lived at his native place K.Mekalavaripalle for some time. During Shivarathri festival, the petitioner went to her parents house at Madanapalle by taking all her jewellery and also cash of Rs.98,000/-. Then she did not turn up and when asked to return, she put a condition that the respondent should set up separate family at

Madanapalle. Having no other go, the respondent came down to Madanapalle and lived along with the parents of petitioner. The father of petitioner mortgaged all the gold ornaments of the petitioner and used for his personal needs. The respondent went to Bengaluru for search of house when the petitioner was pregnant, but the petitioner and her mother went to hospital and got abortion. The respondent convened mediation but the petitioner and her parents refused to send the petitioner along with the respondent. The petitioner and her parents beat the respondent and they foisted false cases against the respondent and his family members. The respondent is suffering from ill health since one year, but the petitioner did not

Page 3 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP212/2023 come to see him. It is stated that the petitioner has intentionally deserted the respondent and even today the respondent is ready for conjugal life with the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)During the course of enquiry, the petitioner herself was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The respondent himself was examined as

RW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5)Heard both sides.

6)Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

7)POINT : - The petitioner filed chief affidavit as PW.1 and stated that after filing of this petition the elders intervened and settled the dispute amicably.

Accordingly, the respondent has paid Rs.7,50,000/- to her towards full and final permanent alimony and she already took custody of her gold ornaments in the presence of elders. As per the terms of compromise, she withdrawn the cases filed by her against the respondent and his family members before the Lok Adalath. In view of the compromise, she has withdrawn all the allegations made by her against the respondent and his family members. From the chief affidavit of PW.1, Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.6 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card, Ex.P.2 are the positive photographs along with pen drive. Ex.P.3 is the office copy of petition in

M.C.No.74/2022, Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of FIR, Ex.P.5 is the office copy of

petition in DVC No.60/2022 and Ex.P.6 is the xerox copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage and the above documents also supports the same.

8)During cross examination, PW.1 deposed that as per the compromise

before the elders, she received Rs.7,50,000/- from the respondent towards

permanent alimony. She agreed not to claim anything against the respondent either

Page 4 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP212/2023 movable or immovable in future. She has withdrawn all cases viz., M.C., DVC and also criminal case filed by her against the respondent and his family members

before the Lok Adalath held on 08.03.2025. As per the compromise both have

agreed to take divorce by dissolving their marriage held on 21.05.2021.

9)The respondent filed chief affidavit as RW.1 in which he too stated that the elders have intervened and effected compromise in between them.

Accordingly, he paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement. The maintenance case and domestic violence case filed by the petitioner against him were settled before Lok Adalath on 08.03.2025. Both have agreed to take divorce. There are no children begot out of their wedlock and they are living separately since 3 years. During cross examination, RW.1 deposed that the matter was compromised before elders and they both agreed to take divorce. As per the compromise he paid Rs.7,50,000/- to the petitioner and he has no objection to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner by dissolving their marriage that took place on 21.05.2021. Both have agreed not to claim anything against each other in future.

The cases filed by the petitioner against him and his family members have been settled before Lok Adalath on 08.03.2025.

10)As seen from the above evidence, though both parties have made severe allegations against each other in the petition and counter, but during the course of enquiry, they stated that the matter was compromised with the intervention of elders and both have agreed to take divorce. The evidence lead by both parties would goes to show that absolutely there is no possibility for reunion between petitioner and respondent as wife and husband, which prompted the parents and elders to draw a compromise between the parties. Therefore, it is a just and proper case to dissolve the marriage between petitioner and respondent by granting a decree of divorce. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Page 5 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP212/2023

11)In the result,

a) The petition is allowed,

b) Marriage held 21.05.2021 between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved,

c) There shall be decree of divorce in between the petitioner and respondent,

d) No costs,

e) The office is directed to furnish a copy of decree of divorce to both parties at free of costs, vide provision u/s.23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Madanapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined PetitionerRespondent

PW.1K.Hima BinduRW.1P.Reddi Kumar

Exhibits marked for Petitioner Ex.P.1--Wedding card

Ex.P.2--Positive photographs – 2 Nos. along with pen drive

Ex.P.3--Office copy of petition in M.C.No.74/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madanapalle

Ex.P.407.08.2022Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.145/2022 of Madanapalle I Town PS

Ex.P.5--Office copy of petition in DVC No.60/2022 on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Madanapalle

Ex.P.6--Xerox copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner

Exhibits marked for Respondent -- Nil --

Id/- DVN

PCJ (SD), MPL

//FAIR ORDER// Dt.21.04.2025

Page 6 of 6

H.M.O.P/224/2021 Compromised

Y.Nagarjuna Reddy vs Nagireddy Nandini

24 Apr 2025

APCH040003612021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P.)

Present : - Sri.D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Madanapalle

Thursday, the Twenty-Fourth (24th) day of April, 2025

H.M.O.P.No.224 of 2021

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between –

Y.Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o Ramachandra Reddy, Hindu aged about 29 years, r/o Sumanth Sai Smile House, Flat No.204, Bandari Layout, Nizampet, Hyderabad; presently r/o Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle ….PETITIONER And –

Nagireddy Nandini, W/o Y.Nagarjuna Reddy, D/o Sivasankar Reddy, Hindu aged about 24 years, r/o Pitchikuntapalle, Gajjelakunta post, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District (A.P.) ….RESPONDENT

This petition came up on 23.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J.Ganapathi, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.M.Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for the respondent, upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following –

O R D E R

1)This petition is filed by the petitioner (husband) u/s.13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve his marriage with the respondent (wife) held on 06.12.2019 by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

2)The brief facts of the petition are : - The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2019 as per the Hindu rites and customs at Abhi Convention Hall, Rayachoti. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent put up family at Hyderabad and lived

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP 224/2021 happily for 2 months. The petitioner is the only son to his parents. The respondent was not giving respect to her in-laws and she used to leave the matrimonial home frequently and reach her parents house. The respondent was insisting the petitioner to set up separate family for which the petitioner did not agree. Finally the respondent reached her parents house in the month of August, 2020 and insptie of repeated requests made by the petitioner and his parents, and also medaitions, she did not return back. In the month of September, 2020 the petitioner set up separate family at Prasanth Nagar, Madanapalle and then the respondent joined him and lived for 2 months. Again the respondent started picking up quarrels stating that she has no liking towards the petitioner and does not want to live with him. In the month of April, 2021 during covid pandemic, the respondent left Madanapalle without the knowledge of the petitioner and later she did not return back inspite of efforts made by the petitioner. On 31.08.2021 the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent for which the respondent sent reply notice dated 08.09.2021 with false allegations. It is stated that on account of the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner has suffered a lot and since there is no possibility of reunion, prayed the court to grant the relief of divorce.

3)The respondent filed counter and pleaded that petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that soon after the marriage, the respondent has joined the petitioner at Hyderabad along with her in-laws and she never resided at Madanapalle. After the marriage, the respondent came to know that the father of petitioner belongs to Reddy community whereas his mother belongs to

Brahmin community. The mother of petitioner used to insist the respondent to wake up early in the morning hours and to lit deepam at Tulasi kota. The respondent informed the petitioner about the unrolled activities of his mother, but he too suggested to follow his mother. Hence, the respondent started to live separately in women hostel at Hyderabad. Subsequently, upon mediation held by elders, the

Page 2 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP 224/2021 respondent started to live with the petitioner and his parents at Hyderabad. It is stated that on 25.12.2021 the mother of petitioner picked up quarrel with the respondent and she threatened that if the respondent stays in the house, she would commit suicide. Then again the respondent started to live in hostel. It is stated that the respondent was harassed by the petitioner and his parents in order to extract dowry. The disputes arose in between the petitioner and respondent only due to unjust customary practices and there are no any personal disputes in between them.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4)During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. The respondent herself was examined as

RW.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

5)Heard both sides.

6)Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

7)POINT : - The petitioner filed chief affidavit as PW.1 by stating that after filing of this petition, both have amicably resolved their disputes and voluntarily agreed to take divorce. Accordingly, he paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent. He also handed over the gold ornaments to the respondent which were presented at the time of marriage. Out of the wedlock, no children were begot by the respondent and the respondent is not carrying pregnancy at present. The respondent also agreed not to claim any maintenance from the petitioner and shall not institute any cases against each other. He has withdrawn all the allegations made against the respondent. From the chief affidavit of PW.1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P43 were marked. Ex.P.1 is the wedding card, Ex.P.2 is the positive photograph, Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent and

Page 3 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP 224/2021

Ex.P.4 is the reply notice. There is no dispute with regard to the marriage and the above documents also supports the same.

8)During cross examination, PW.1 deposed that as per the advise of elders, both have agreed to take divorce and as per the compromise, he paid

Rs.5,00,000/- to the parents of respondent towards marriage expenses. Both have agreed not to claim anything against each other.

9)The respondent filed chief affidavit as RW.1 stating that during the pendency of this case, both have entered into compromise in the presence of elders and she has received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the petitioner towards marriage expenses. Both have exchanged their belongings including gold ornaments. She agreed not to claim anything from the petitioner in future and she has withdrawn all the allegations made against the petitioner. She has agreed to take divorce and that there are no issues out of the wedlock and she is not carrying pregnancy at present. During cross examination, RW.1 deposed that she agreed to take divorce in view of the compromise arrived in the presence of elders. As per the compromise she will not claim anything against the petitioner in future.

Page 4 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP 224/2021

11)In the result,

a) The petition is allowed,

b) Marriage held 06.12.2019 between the petitioner and respondent is dissolved,

c) There shall be decree of divorce in between the petitioner and respondent,

d) No costs,

e) The office is directed to furnish a copy of decree of divorce to both parties at free of costs, vide provision u/s.23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- D.VENKATESWARLU NAIK

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Madanapalle

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined PetitionerRespondent

PW.1Y.Nagarjuna ReddyRW.1N.Nandini

Exhibits marked for Petitioner Ex.P.1--Wedding card

Ex.P.2--Positive marriage photograph

Ex.P.331.08.2021Office coy of legal notice issued by the petitioner to the respondent

Ex.P.408.09.2021Reply notice

Exhibits marked for Respondent -- Nil --

Id/- DVN

PCJ (SD), MPL

Page 5 of 6

PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) COURT, MADANAPALLE | HMOP 224/2021 //FAIR ORDER// Dt.24.04.2025

Page 6 of 6

OS/46/2017

V Sudhakara vs G Gowtham Kumar

06 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

Present : -Sri.D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Principal Senior Civil Judge

FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge Madanapalle

Thursday, the Sixth (6th) day of April, 2023

O.S.No.46 of 2017

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between: -

V.Sudhakara, S/o V.Venkatappa, Hindu aged about 35 years, r/o D.No.IV-70-2-1-2, Donthi Street, Madanapalle, Annamayya District (A.P.) ….PLAINTIFF And: -

G.Gowtham Kumar, S/o G.Chandra Sekhar, Hindu aged about 30 years, r/o D.No.31-9-359, Kothapeta, Railway Station Road, Dharmavaram, Anantapuram District (A.P.) ….DEFENDANT

This suit came up on 16.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.C.R.Reddeppa Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.C.Gunteppa, Sri.G.Hussain Saheb, Advocates for defendant, upon hearing arguments and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of amount of

Rs.2,11,500/- being principal of Rs.1,50,000/- and interest of Rs.61,500/- due under ‘A’ marked promissory note dt.06.06.2015; Rs.2,11,500/- being

principal of Rs.1,50,000/- and interest of Rs.61,500/- due under suit ‘B’

marked promissory note dt.06.06.2015 with future interest and for costs.

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE | O.S.46/2017

2)The brief facts of the plaint are : - On 06.06.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. and executed two separate promissory notes for

Rs.1,50,000/- each. Later on, repeated demands, the defendant issued a chque bearing No.715079 dt.18.01.2017 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State

Bank of India, Dharmavaram in favour of plaintiff and when the said cheque was presented before the bank, it got dishonoured. Then the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.27.01.2017 and the same was received by the defendant on 01.02.2017, but he failed to discharge the debt. Hence, the suit.

3)Defendant filed written statement and pleaded that suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant are friends and out of friendship, defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.06.2015 and executed two promissory notes in favour of plaintiff each for Rs.1,50,000/-. It is stated that due to unavoidable circumstances, the defendant could not repay the debt and when the plaintiff pressurized him, he issued an empty cheque No.715079 in favour of plaintiff, upon which the plaintiff has returned the two promissory notes executed by him on 06.06.2015. It is stated that the present suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated ones and got up with the collusion of attestors and scribe. After receipt of notice dt.27.01.2017 from the plaintiff, the defendant and his mother Nageswaramma went to the plaintiff and discharged the entire amount with interest to the plaintiff and asked back the two promissory notes and empty cheques which were given by the defendant, but plaintiff stated that the same are in the custody of his

Advocate and he will return the cheque later and believing the same, the

Page 2 of 5

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE | O.S.46/2017 defendant returned back. It is stated that later the plaintiff filed criminal complaint against the defendant in C.C.No.234/2017 on the file of JMFC

Court, Madanapalle which is now pending. The plaintiff has filed this suit with false allegations and absolutely the there is no due of amount by the defendant as he already paid the same. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the suit and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the pleadings and documents, my learned predecessor framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory notes dt.06.06.2015 are genuine ones?

2. Whether the suit promissory notes dt.06.06.2015 for Rs.1,50,000/- each are forged ones as contended by defendant?

3. Whether the defendant has discharged the debt as contended by him?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

5)In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. When the matter came up for cross examination of PW.1, inspite of ample opportunities, the defendant did not cross examine PW.1 and finally on 16.03.2023, as the defendant was called absent and no representation, this court treated the cross examination of

PW.1 as nil and proceeded with the matter.

6)Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

7)The plaintiff examined as PW.1 has reiterated the contents of his plaint. Ex.A.1 is the suit ‘A’ marked promissory note dt.06.06.2015 and

Page 3 of 5

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE | O.S.46/2017

Ex.A.2 is the suit ‘B’ marked promissory note dt.06.06.2015 and both of them shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under them from the plaintiff agreeing to pay interest at 24% p.a. As per the contents, both the promissory notes were executed at Madanapalle. Ex.A.3 is office copy of legal notice and it shows that prior demand was made by the plaintiff to the defendant for repayment. Ex.A.4 is the reply notice dt.20.02.2017 got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. As per the contents of reply notice it was mentioned that plaintiff and defendant are friends and taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff has stolen the cheque leaf from the defendant and forged the signature of defendant. It was further mentioned in the reply notice that the defendant has never issued any cheque in favour of plaintiff. It is to be noted that the defendant in his written statement in this suit has pleaded that he himself issued cheque bearing

No.715079 to the plaintiff. So, it appears that defendant had taken two different pleas only to evade the suit debt. Moreover, when the defendant’s turn came to cross examine PW.1, he did not cross examine in support of his pleadings for forgery and fabrication. The defendant also not placed any oral or documentary evidence in support of his contentions and so an adverse inference can be drawn to the effect that whatever pleaded by him in the written statement is not correct. The testimony of PW.1 and the documents remained unrebutted by the defendant. Hence, it is opined that the plaintiff has proved his claim and is therefore entitled for a decree.

8)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.2,11,500/- + Rs.2,11,500/- =

Rs.4,23,000/- from the defendant with future interest, on principal amount of

Page 4 of 5

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE | O.S.46/2017

Rs.1,50,000/- each under suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes, 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.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

FAC ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PlaintiffDefendant

PW.1V.Sudhakara --Nil--

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A.106.06.2015Suit ‘A’ marked promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A.206.06.2015Suit ‘B’ marked promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A.327.01.2017Office copy of legal notice

Ex.A.420.02.2017Reply notice

Exhibits marked for Defendant --Nil--

Id/- Sri DVN.,

PSCJ, MPL

FAC ASCJ, MPL.

Page 5 of 5

H.M.O.P/52/2022

Durgam Nandini vs Pulla Anil Kumar

03 Feb 2023

(1)

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PILER.

PRESENT : Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik, Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. FAC Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

Friday this the Third( 3rd) day of February 2022.

H.M.O.P.No. 52 of 2022

Between :

Smt. Durgam Nandini. .. Petitioner

And :

Sri Pulla Anil Kumar. .. Respondent.

This Petition has came up for hearing on 20.01.2023 in the presence of Sri. A.V.Balasubramanyam, Advocate for Petitioner and respondent was set exparte having stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following :

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/wife against respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking to pass a decree of divorce for dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent; and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition affidavit in brief are that :

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 25.11.2020 at Sri Venkateswara Swamy Sannidhi, Tirumala in the presence of their parents, relatives and friends as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and as such the petitimner became the legally wedded wife of the respondent. At the time of marriage, customary presentations were exchanged. After the marriage the petitioner jopined the respodent at his native place to lead (2) their marital life and they lead their marital life for a period of 2 months only. Due to the above said lawful wedlock, they have begotten no issues. The petitioner further submits that, after the two months of the marriage, the petitioner came to know that the respondent has no employment and also the respondent has been addicted to bad voices of life like consuming alcohol and and womanizing etc., and as no otgher option to the petitioner, she adjusted to live with the respondent, as one day or the other the respondnt will change his attitude and will lead a responsible marital life, but the hopes of the petitioner remained as day dreams and the respondent started to harass the petitioner to bring dowry amount from her parental house as the respondent and his family members have not taken any amount from the petitioner or her family members at the time of the marriage. So also the sisters of the respondent who got their respective marriages, but they left their in- laws house and living along with the petitioner and respondent also used to interfere with the marital life of the petitioner and respondent and insisted the respondent to demand the petitioner to bring amount from her parental house and also insisted the respondent to beat the petitioner and at their instigation, the respondent used to beat the petitioner mercilessly in blue and black and the petitioner being the dutiful wife bear all sorts of the physical and mental harassments given by the respondent.

The petitinerfurther submits that, all these days the petitiner used to bear the humiliations anticipating cahang in the attitude of the respondent by efflux of time. But things began to turn worse from bad (3) as days passed on any physical and mental tortures of the respondent escalated as days passed. It has become highly vexed with her life but for the sake of their bright future, the petitioner managed somehow for all these days . As the harassment of the respondent and his family members reached to peak, the petitioner informed the same to her parental side family members and held mediations, but the respondent not headed the words of the elders and continued his adamant attitude towards the petitioner.

The petitioner further submits that, at last in the month of

February, 2022 due to the unbearable physical and mental tortures given by the respondent and his family members, the petitioner was forced to leave her matrimonial house and reached her parental house at yerrathivaripalli of Sodum mandal and living with them and thereafter also several mediations were held by the village and community elders with the respondent, but the respondent bluntly refused to take back the petitioner into his conjugal fold to lead the marital life. As such all efforts of the petitioner for persuading her husband have failed and the petitioner had left no other option, except filing of this petition for seeking relief of divorce from the respondent by this Hon’ble Court.

Hence there is no found of hope of re-union of the petitioner with the respondent. The petitioner seeking divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner did not file any similar petition in any other court and prays to dissolve the marriage.

3. The respondent is called absent, no representation, as such he was set exparte.

(4)

4. During enquiry, to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

Ex.P1 is wedding invitation card of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.P2 is marriage photos of the petitioner and respondent three in number along with CD.

5.Heard the petitioner’s counsel. .

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce, as

prayed for “?

POINT :

7. The petitioner in her chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents of the petition. The evidence of the petitioner is remained unchallenged. Thus, from the contents of the chief examination affidavit and from the documents filed by the petitioner, she proved her case that the respondent is her legally wedded husband and that he subjected her to cruelly without any reasonable cause. Hence, this

Court holds that the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage with the respondent as prayed for.

8. In the result,

a) The petition is allowed,

b) Marriage dated 25.11.2020 between petitioner and respondent is dissolved.

c) There shall be decree of divorce between petitioner and respondent. ,

d) No costs.

e) The office is directed to furnish a copy of decree of divorce to the petitioner at free of costs, vide provision u/s. 23(4) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

(5)

Typed to my dictation by the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of February, 2023.

Sd/- D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. FAC Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER :FOR RESPONDENT :

P.W1: D.Nandini . Exparte.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.P1 : Wedding invitation card of the petitioner and respondent. Ex.P2 : Marriage photos of the petitioner and respondent three in number along with CD.

FOR RESPONDENT : NIL.

Sd/- D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. FAC Senior Civil Judge, Piler.

IP/19/2021

C.Ramanappa vs K. Sulochana

28 Mar 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE

Present : - Sri.D.Venkateswarlu Naik

Principal Senior Civil Judge

FAC Addl. Senior Civil Judge Madanapalle

Tuesday, the Twenty-Eighth (28th) day of March, 2023

I.P.No.19 of 2021

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Between : -

1. Challa Ramanappa

2. Challa Sivanna

....Petitioners

And : -

1. K.Sulochana

2. P.Parvathamma

3. Challa Narayana

4. Challa Adenna

....Respondents

This petition came up on 02.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Seenappa, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondents remained ex parte; upon perusing the material available on record and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following : -

O R D E R

1)This petition is filed by the petitioner u/s.10 of Provincial

Insolvency Act to adjudicate him as INSOLVENTS against the respondents.

2)The brief contents of petition are : - The petitioners 1 and 2 are father and son and they are doing business in vegetables from the year 2015.

But due to covid-19 pandemic situation, there was downfall in the business due to which they borrowed amounts jointly from the respondents and

I.P.19/2021 DT.28.03.2023

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE

executed promissory notes. It is stated that they were paying interest promptly but on account of unprecedented rains, they could not market their products and the persons to whom the petitioners supplied vegetables stopped business and they sustained loss. Due to the above factors, the petitioners were unable to repay the amounts due to the respondents and further the respondents have started to harass them for repayment and they joined together in threatening the petitioners. It is stated that the petitoners have shown their liabilities under ‘A’ schedule and the assets under ‘B’ schedule and as they have no capacity to discharge the liabilities, they have filed this petition to declare them as insolvents.

3)Notice to R1 returned with an endorsement ‘refused’ and such endorsement of refusal is deemed service of notice. Notice to R2 to R4 served, but R1 to R4 choose to remain ex parte.

4)In the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

5)Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.

6)Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners can be declared as INSOLVENTS as prayed for?

7)POINT : - The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and he filed chief affidavit stating that he along with his son i.e., 2nd petitioner were doing vegetable business since the year 2015 and they successfully ran the business till the year 2020, but due to covid – 19 in the year 2020 their business fall down and due to which they have to borrow amounts from the

Page 2 of 4

I.P.19/2021 DT.28.03.2023

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE

respondent by executing promissory notes. It is stated that they were regular in paying the interest but due to heavy rains they could not market the produce and the persons to whom they were supplying the vegetables stopped their business and all these things resulted in incurring loss in their business and they could not repay to the respondents. It is stated that respondents have started threatening them and they cannot repay the debts to the respondents. On the other hand, the respondents did not choose to contest the matter and they remained ex parte and as such the evidence of

PW.1 remained unchallenged. Considering the petition averments and the evidence adduced by the 1st petitioner/PW.1 and the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners, this court felt that the petitioners are to be adjudicated as insolvents. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8)In the result, petition is allowed and an ex parte order is passed declaring the petitioners 1 and 2 as INSOLVENTS. Time for discharge is six months as per the provisions of Section 41 of Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

Sri D.Venkateswarlu Naik,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

FAC ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

PetitionerRespondents PW.1C.Ramanappa Ex parte

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Page 3 of 4

I.P.19/2021 DT.28.03.2023

ASCJ COURT, MADANAPALLE

--Nil--

Exhibits marked for Respondents --NIL--

Id/- Sri DVN.,

PSCJ, MPL

FAC ASCJ, MPL.

Page 4 of 4

Order Record 1,542 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/224/2021	Y.Nagarjuna Reddy vs Nagireddy Nandini	24 Apr 2025	Order	Compromised
OS/149/2018	T.Gowtham vs T.Venkatramana	23 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/12/2025	Sylu Pushpa vs Pula Ashok	23 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/75/2024	Karri Reddy Rani vs Kesavannagari Gangadharam alias Gangadhar	22 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/212/2023	Kutala Hima Bindu vs P.Reddy Kumar	21 Apr 2025	Order	Compromised
OS/221/2014	P Sujatha @ G Renuka vs G Sreenivasulu Reddy	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
EP/53/2023	Cheluri Venkatramana Reddy vs Pagide Jaya Kumari	15 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/213/2017	Pervali Sandeep Kumar vs P.Bhaskar Naidu	15 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/148/2024	A.Chakradhar vs A.Sesha Varalakshmi	15 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/7/2024	Kappala Suryanarayana vs Bhojanapu Sekhara ( Died )	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/71/2022	Kodi Bhuvaneswari vs Kaluvapalle Sreekanth	10 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2023	Duddu Madhukar Reddy vs Peddamekala Surekha	10 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/126/2024	K. Pavani vs G.Siva Kumar	10 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/1000009/2017	Nagella Jayachandra vs Budarapu Sathyanarayana	09 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/171/2024	S. Sravan Kumar vs T. Navateja	08 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/30/2023	N.Nithya Prakash Reddy vs O.Amarandha Reddy	04 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/11/2023	Kalva@Mondem Gangadhar @ Gangadhar Reddy vs Kalva Bhargavi @ Sumathi	04 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/47/2023	S.Rama Krishna Reddy vs Borusuambu Subbaiah	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/5/2025	K. Anusha alies Doodi Anusha alies Dudi Anusha vs K. Kondappa	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/7/2018	S.Sri harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/33/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/51/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/71/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/73/2018	Suray sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/103/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/121/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/219/2018	Suray Sri Harsha vs D.R.Tulasi Prasad	02 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/210/2024	S. Narendra vs Vsxxx	02 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/228/2024	J. Sunitha vs Vsxxxxx	02 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/233/2023	B.Venkata Bhargavi vs Yelakapalle Rajendra	02 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/29/2024	Naresh Babu Lankepalli vs Prashanthi Molokalapalle	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2021	Nallacheruvu Swetha vs Reddemmagari Manjunatha Reddy	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2022	M.Somasekhar Reddy vs M.Jyothi	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/195/2024	B alias M Bhunaneswari vs B. Rama Chandra	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/151/2024	G. Ravi Kumar Naidu vs G.Swathi	25 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/109/2024	P. Hemalatha vs P. Madhu	24 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/1000059/2017	N. Reddappa @ Reddappa Reddy vs Kanala Bharathamma	21 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/9/2025	Smt. E. Parvathi vs B. Balaji	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/76/2022	P.Harathi vs P.Nagarjuna	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/84/2024	Putta Sandhya Sree vs Gornamanedu Rajasekhar	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/100/2017	P.Rama Krishna Reddy vs P.Saritha	19 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/141/2016	K. Venkata Subbamma vs T. Subbarami Reddy	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/219/2022	Bojanapu Sudhir Kumar vs Bommisetty Dheeyanka Priya	18 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/1000062/2019	Gubiligari Rama Chandra vs C.Sudhakar	17 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/241/2024	M. Lakshmipathi vs Valipi Usha Rani	17 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/140/2024	E. Sunitha vs K. Chalapathi	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/167/2022	U@C.Sriramulu vs U@C.Amaravathi	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/176/2024	P. Sreevidya vs G. Vijay Kumar Reddy	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/232/2024	P. Srilatha vs R. Prasad Reddy	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/94/2022	Mude Sai Kumar vs Bukya Lalitha	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/185/2022	P.Nagaraja@Poreddi Nagaraja Reddy vs D.Rekha@Duddu Rekha	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/245/2024	B. Mallikarjuna Reddy vs B. Reddemma	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/49/2024	Balappagari Vishnuvardhan Reddy vs Tharapa Reddy Swetha	11 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/229/2024	R. Pavani vs G.Reddy Sekhar	11 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/17/2025	B. Naveen vs K. Vishnu Priya	10 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/54/2017	K.S. Ugandhar vs Smt. K.S. Bhargavi @ K.S. Reddhy Bhargavi	10 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/196/2024	R. Sudharshan vs C. Bhanumathi	10 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/116/2022	K.Sreekanth vs K.Bhuvaneswari	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/9/2023	Kirenmai vs J.Shantha Rani	07 Mar 2025	Order	—
SC/140/2023	SHO.Madanapalle II Town PS vs Rasani Bhanu Prakash	07 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/57/2022	Penabadi Sreenivasulu vs S.Gowthami	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/189/2022	Egavolla Lakshmi Devi vs Egavolla Uthanna	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/226/2024	Smt. A. Lokeswari vs A. Rami Reddy	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/1000030/2018	G.S.Ashok vs N.Sathya Narayana Murthy	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/131/2022	Sandra Bharath Kumar vs Siri Swathi	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/189/2024	B.Ravindra Reddy vs B. Roopa	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/237/2024	G. Dharani vs P. Chinna Babu	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/10/2025	G. Natesh Kumar vs K. Kanakaraju	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/1000018/2020	Gundla Venkatramana Reddy vs Buchigari Yerrappa	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/3/2019	Bysani Rathnapriya vs Bysani Ram Kumar	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/165/2018	Gajjala Nagi Reddy vs Gajjala Ramachandra Reddy	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/66/2023	D.Manohar Reddy vs M.Sumithra	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/142/2024	O. Chakrapani vs Obulannagari Aruna @ Abbu Aruna	28 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/79/2024	V. Surendra Reddy vs V. Sumalatha	25 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/122/2024	P.Sudha vs P. Ramesh	24 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/31/2023	G.Reddiah vs N.Reddy Sekhar	19 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/129/2020	B.Jayarama vs B.Reddy Radha	19 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/37/2022	O.R.Krishnaveni vs O.Niranjan Chetty	17 Feb 2025	Order	—
SC/5/2015	Y Chakravarthi@Chakri vs SHO, TALUK P.S	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
SC/462/2012	Y Vidhya Sagar vs SHO, TALUK P.S	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
S.O.P/4/2024	Faisal Mohammad Ali Mohammad Alwari @ Faisal vs Vsxxx	17 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/253/2017	Ankireddy Bhaskar Reddy vs S.Sudharshan Reddy	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/385/2015	B Lalithamma vs B Dakshayani	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/220/2022	Ebbili Siva Prasad vs E.Rajeswari	14 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/25/2024	M. Rama Krishna vs Smt. Akula Nirmala	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/80/2023	M.Hemalatha vs S.N.Gopinath	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/130/2024	Smt Y. Reddi Rani vs V. Prasad Reddy	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/135/2024	C. Surendra vs C. Kumari	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/167/2023	Kannemadugu Sai Dharani vs Kallapati Pradeep Kumar	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/187/2024	V. Sudhakara vs Vsxxx	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/125/2024	K. Sunitha vs K.Sreenivasulu Naidu	11 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/98/2024	M. Sekhar vs NIL	10 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/184/2024	B. Mahesh vs Smt. S. Bhargavi	10 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/191/2022	K.Mamatha vs S.Venkatramana	10 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2020	M.Narasimhlu vs T.Swapna	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/87/2024	Madini Deepa vs Saathipati Nataraja	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/111/2024	Poojari Lakshmana vs V.Subhashini	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2024	S. Nagarathna vs G. Narendra	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/163/2024	Smt. P. Nagamani vs M. Yeshwanth Kumar	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/177/2022	Maddireddigari Madhu Sri vs Y.Manohar	06 Feb 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,542 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		30
Mar 2025		37
Feb 2025		36
Jan 2025		37
Dec 2024		26
Nov 2024		22
Oct 2024		32
Sep 2024		50
Aug 2024		33
Jul 2024		42
Jun 2024		27
May 2024		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik handled?

Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik has handled 1561 court orders since 2022 at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler. The average disposal rate is 127 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik hear?

Based on available records, Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik primarily handles Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Where is Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik currently posted?

Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik available online?

Yes. 15 judgments by Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik dispose cases?

Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik disposes approximately 127 cases per month, based on 1561 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Since when is Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik serving?

Sri D. Venkateswarlu Naik has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler since 2022.

Case Types

H 63%

EP 16%

OS 15%

SC 2%

S 2%

IP 1%

AS 0%

L 0%

Posting History

Jul 2022 — May 2023

Senior Civil Judge · 95 orders
Apr 2022 — Apr 2025

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle · 1,375 orders
Apr 2022 — May 2023

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle · 91 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Karamsetty Ravi

Senior Civil Judge

9 orders

Sri Ziauddin Shaik

Principal Junior Civil Judge

505 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler