D.vijaya Saradhi Raju

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Sri D.Vijaya Saradhi Raju, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 23 of 2018

Between:

E.Savithramma, W/o.Late Musalaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: S.C.Co.,Ltd., R/o.Vengal Rao colony, 3-Incline, Kothagudem town and mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Ubbani Susheela, W/o.Poulu,Age: 50 years, Occ: Track mans in Railways, R/o.Railway Quarters, Kothagudem town and mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri L.Ravikumar Naik, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff; and having stood for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.2,68,200/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred only) with costs and interest basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:

That, out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 02.04.2016 for her family necessities by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note debt with interest on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of defendant, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 11.09.2017, but of no avail. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant set exparte.

2

4.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 document.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant?

7.POINT:

PW.1: E.Savithramma, in her chief examination reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 document is marked. Ex.A1 is Promissory note

dated 02.04.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

8.On perusal of Ex.A1, it shows that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his case. The evidence of

PW.1 is unchallenged. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed against the Defendant for a sum of

Rs.2,68,200/- (Rupees Two lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred only) with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization, on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 24th day of April, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor Defendant PW.1: E.Savithramma-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 02.04.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/-

For Defendant -Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Sri D.Vijaya Saradhi Raju, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 229 of 2017

Between:

Yetti Bhadramma, W/o.Sammaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.4-1-181, Bapanakunta village, Manuguru Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Challa Veeranna, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age: 40 years, Occ: Rice Mill, Occ: Business and worker, R/o.H.No.2-1-321/1, Mangaligadda, Manuguru Town and Municipality, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. …Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B.Ramakotaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff; and having stood for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.2,17,460/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty only) with costs and interest basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:

That, out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 18.06.2015 for his family necessities by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaint.

3.The defendant set exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

2

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant?

7.POINT:

PW.1: Y.Bhadramma, in her chief examination reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 document was marked. Ex.A1 is Promissory note

dated 18.06.2015 for Rs.1,40,000/-.

8.On perusal of Ex.A1, it shows that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff proved her case.

The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed against the Defendant for a sum of

Rs.2,17,460/- (Rupees Two lakhs seventeen thousand four hundred and sixty only) with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization, on principal amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor Defendant PW.1: Y.Bhadramma-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 18.06.2015 for Rs.1,40,000/-.

For Defendant -Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Present: Sri D.Vijaya Saradhi Raju, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Thursday, this the 26th day of April, 2018

O.S.No. 203 of 2017

Between:

Mudragadda Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Postmaster, R/o.Rajapuram village, Chandrugonda mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

...Plaintiff.

And

Javvaji Venkata Krishna Rao, S/o.Brahmaiah, Age: 51 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Dachapuram village, Garikapadu post, Wyra mandal, Khammam District. …Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Santhosh Sahu, Advocate for Plaintiff; and Defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff; and having stood for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty one thousand only) with costs and interest basing on promissory note.

2.The brief averments made in the plaint are as follows:

That, out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff on 20.12.2014 for his family necessities by executing a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, the plaint.

3.The defendant set exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff.

2

6.Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant?

7.POINT:

PW.1: M.Nageswara Rao, in his chief examination reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 document was marked. Ex.A1 is Promissory note

dated 20.12.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

8.On perusal of Ex.A1, it shows that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his case. The evidence of

PW.1 is unchallenged. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed against the Defendant for a sum of

Rs.1,61,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty one thousand only) with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 26th day of April, 2018.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor Defendant PW.1: M.Nageswara Rao-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff Ex.A1: Promissory note dated 20.12.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendant -Nil-

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

3

TSKH070007272018

Presented on : 08-03-2018 Registered on : 20-03-2018 Decided on : 25-04-2018 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 17 days

IN THE COURT OF

Prl.Junior Civil Judge AT KOTHAGUDEM ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by G V MAHESH NATH

EP/100018/2018

Exhibit No.:

Decree Holder: Parupally Annapurnamma Age: 68 Occupation : House hold Address: R/o.AE-33, B-Colony, KTPS,Paloncha Town

VERSUS

Judgement Debtor:

Damarepu Seetharamulu Age: 50 Occupation : JPA in KTPS Address: R/o.G.175, A Colony, KTPS, Paloncha Town ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for Decree Holder: P.Nageswar Rao Advocate for Judgement Debtor: appearing for Damarepu Seetharamulu: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25-04-2018 )

SAW of J.Dr. served on Garnishee. Notice of J.Dr. returned unserved that the J.Dr. Is not residing in the given address. E.P. is filed against sole J.Dr. within two years and that notice to J.Dr. is not mandatory. J.Dr. called absent. Heard the learned counsel for D.Hr. Attachment made absolute. E.P. is closed.

Date : 25-04-2018 (G V MAHESH NATH)

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

KOTHAGUDEM

,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(G V MAHESH NATH)

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

KOTHAGUDEM

,KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSKH070002422015

Presented on : 20-02-2015 Registered on : 20-02-2015 Decided on : 26-04-2018 Duration : 3 years, 2 months, 6 days

IN THE COURT OF PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , KOTHAGUDEM

Presided Over by D VIJAYA SARADHI RAJU

OS/100033/2015

Exhibit No.:

Plaintiff: Mereddy Vasantha, Age 50 Yrs, Occ House wife, Ro H.No.6-9-44, Ganesh Basthi, Kothagudem town and Mandal, Khammam Dist

VERSUS Defendant: Akku Bhagyamma, Age 49 Yrs, Housewife, Ro Co, Ramesh Tailors, Chinna Bazar, Kothaguddem town and Mandal, Khammam Dist ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for Plaintiff: R.Vijay Kumar Advocate for Defendant: appearing for Akku Bhagyamma: Advocate

ORDER

(Delivered on 26-04-2018 )

The matter has been taken up in daily Lok Adalat. Both parties present. Filed joint memo that they have settled the dispute out side the court at the intervention of the elders, and filed terms and conditions under which they have settled the dispute. Heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis. Award is passed (VSA) as per the terms and conditions arrived between the parties.

Date : 26-04-2018 ( D VIJAYA SARADHI RAJU )

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

KOTHAGUDEM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS