Sri D. Yedukondalu

O.S.No.1088/2009 1/7 10-04-2012

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: - SRI D. YEDUKONDALU, B.A., B.L.,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Tuesday, the 10th day of April, 2012

O.S.No.1088/2009

Between:

Vejendla Jaya Sundari @ Jayamma ... Plaintiff

and

1. Pallepaga Jayanthi @ Bullemma

2. Metta Sunitha

3. Thangirala Sujatha

4. Nannepaga Satyanandam ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 03-04-2012 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Sivaji, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.K.Hari Babu, Advocate for defendant, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit against defendants 1 to 4 seeking the reliefs of:

a) Declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan; b) consequential recovery of possession of ABX1X2 portion in the ABCD property as shown in the plaint plan by removing the unauthorized constructions; c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property; d) mesne profits; and costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:

Originally, the plaint schedule property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan, belongs to one Pallepaga Sudhakara Rao and Manikyala Rao. Subsequently, on 25.05.1984, the plaintiff purchased the said property by way of a registered sale deed for valid consideration and the possession was delivered to the plaintiff by her vendors. The plaintiff was in continuous possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is vacant site. Due to that, neighbours and adjacent boundary owners were throwing waste material in to the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff thought that it was better to construct a compound wall and clear the site. She tried to lay mark for construction of the compound wall particularly on the northern side. The 1st defendant is the mother, defendants 2 and 3 are daughters of the 1st defendant and they are residing separately. The 4th defendant is the brother of 1st defendant. In the month of June, 2009, the 1st defendant made a futile attempt to occupy the ABCD property by dispossessing the plaintiff with the help of 4th defendant for which the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.533/2009 on the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge's Court, Guntur against defendants 1 and 4. The Court granted ad interim

exparte injunction against them. Immediately, after the receipt of the notice, the 1st defendant with the help of the 4th defendant highhandedly dispossessed the plaintiff from ABX1X2 portion of the plaint schedule property and she raised permanent structures over the same. The plaintiff is aged about 80 years and taking advantage of her old age and helplessness, the defendants 1 and 4 raised permanent structures as shown in the plaint plan. The said defendants filed their counters in the Interlocutory Application filed in O.S.No.533/09 stating that the 1st defendant is nothing to do with constructions made by the

O.S.No.1088/2009 2/7 10-04-2012

defendants 2 and 3 as they made the constructions on the relinquishment deed executed by 1st defendant in their favour in respect of ABX1X2 portion. The relinquishment deed if any in respect of the said portion by the 1st defendant in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 is null and void. The 1st defendant has no right to confer any rights in favour of the defendants 2 and 3 in respect of the plaint schedule property. Then, the plaintiff though that the relief asked in

O.S.No.533/09 is not fit for present grievance and she not pressed the said suit

with the permission of the court vide I.A.No.1682/09 dt.08.09.2009. The constructions raised by defendants in the said portion are illegal. They are high handedly enjoying the property of the plaintiff and they are enjoying considerable income for which they are also liable to pay mesne profits. As the defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff over the ABCD property and high handedly occupied ABX1X2 portion, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence the suit.

3) The 1st defendant filed her written statement and defendants 2 to 4 adopted the same. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows: She specifically denied the allegations in the plaint and submitted that they are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property as they are not the owners of the Northern boundary of the plaint schedule property. On 22.02.2006, she executed a registered relinquishment deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 relinquishing her rights in the property to the North side of the plaint schedule property which was as dilapidated house, by receiving consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Consequently, the 3rd defendant, on receiving a sum of Rs.1,43,000/- from the 2nd defendant, executed a relinquishment deed in her favour. The defendants 2 and 3 sold away the property in the month of February, 2008 to one Grandhi Siva Ramachandra Bhikshalu Guptha. As such, he is absolute owner of the Northern side property of the plaint schedule property as such, he is necessary and proper party to the suit. The property situated on the western side of the plaint schedule property also belongs to the 1st defendant. The defendants 1 and 3 relinquished their rights over the said property in favour of 2nd defendant on 15.03.2008 and since then, the 2nd defendant is residing with her family by raising a shed therein. As such, the defendants 1 and 3 are no way concerned with the schedule property and they did not dispossess the plaintiff nor occupied the plaint schedule property shown as ABX1X2. Hence, the question of mesne profits also does not arise. Previously, the plaintiff filed the suit vide O.S.No.533/2009 wherein she did not mention the dispossession and the occupation of the plaint schedule property. On filing the counter, the plaintiff not pressed the suit and filed the present suit. The plaint schedule property is vacant site and as such, the question of dispossession, does not arise. The plaintiff intentionally, wantonly and mischievously gave the false boundaries and false plan with a view to mislead the Court and to cause wrongful loss to the defendants and she prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4) Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the ABX1X2 portion of the plaint plan, having right and title in it and that subsequently, defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from that portion of the land?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have the reliefs against defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property, especially, in respect of ABX1X2 portion of the plaint plan, as prayed for? iii) To what relief if any ?

O.S.No.1088/2009 3/7 10-04-2012

5) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself gave evidence as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. On the other hand, the 4th defendant himself gave evidence as DW1 and he also examined DW2 on his behalf. No document is marked on behalf of the defendants.

6) Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants.

7) The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants did not dispute the title of the plaintiff over the property sown as X1X2CD, but, they disputed the title of the plaintiff over the property shown as ABX1X2 as shown in the plaint plan. It was under the possession and occupation of the plaintiff earlier to filing of the suit and at the time of filing the suit vide

O.S.No.533/2009. As the defendants forcibly occupied the said partition of the

property, the plaintiff was constrained to file this suit by not pressing the earlier suit with the permission of the Court. In order to prove the title to the plaint schedule ABCD property, the plaintiff herself gave evidence as PW1 by producing Exs.A1 to A4. As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule ABCD property from her vendors who purchased the property under Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the Office copy of the plaint in

O.S.No.533/2009 and Ex.A4 are the photographs relating to the plaint schedule

property. From the recitals of Ex.A1 and A2 and the evidence of PW1, it is clear that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule property. When the defendants, without having any title and by executing relinquishment deeds among themselves, occupied ABX1X2 portion of the property as shown in the plaint plan, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the said portion. They also raised constructions over the same. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for other reliefs as prayed for; and he prayed the Court for the decree the suit with costs. But, when this Court asked the plaintiff to file a fair copy of Ex.A2, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff did not turn up to file the fair copy of the Ex.A2.

8) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants argued that none of the defendants occupied the property belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff got executed Ex.A1 with false boundary recitals, especially, by showing false boundaries on the western side and Northern side of the plaint schedule property. The Advocate Commissioner also visited the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule as well as in Ex.A1, are not tallied either with the boundaries of Ex.A2 or with the land physically verified by the Advocate Commissioner. So, plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands by mentioning the wrong boundaries. On this ground alone, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, PW1 categorically admitted that the defendants were residing on the western side of the plaint schedule property by the time she purchased the property under Ex.A1. So, the defendants never occupied ABX1X2 property as it belongs to the father-in-law of the 1st defendant which was relinquished in favour of the 2nd defendant by defendants 1 and 3. The same is also clear from the evidence of DWs.1 and 2. Once, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration, she is not entitled for the consequential relief of recovery of possession and also for perpetual injunction and mesne profits. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

9) ISSUE No.1: It is the plaintiff who approached the Court alleging that the defendants occupied a portion of the plaint schedule property shown as ABX1X2 as shown in the plaint after filing of the suit vide O.S.No.533/2009 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur which plaint copy is marked under Ex.A3. Hence, it is for the plaintiff to prove that she was in lawful

O.S.No.1088/2009 4/7 10-04-2012

possession and enjoyment of the said portion of the plaint schedule property prior to filing of the suit vide O.S.No.533/2009, as alleged in this plaint. In order to prove the said fact, the plaintiff herself gave evidence as PW1 and produced Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A3 is the office copy of the plaint in O.S.No.533/2009 which is not disputed by the defendants. Ex.A4 are the photographs relating the plaint schedule property which is a vacant site. There is no dispute about the same. The allegation against plaintiff is that she wrongly described the boundaries of the plaint schedule property and she is claiming the property belonging to the defendants which was relinquished by defendants 1 and 3 in favour of the 2nd defendant. Hence, it is for the plaintiff to prove that she was in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit vide O.S.No.533/2009, especially, the portion of the property shown as ABX1X2. As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, she purchased an extent of 23.1/3 sq. yds. of site bounded by: East: Verichrla Nagamma @ Agnesamma; South: Compound Wall of Gali John; West: Site, Municipal Road; and North: Pallepaga Premaiah (at present 2nd defendant). So, there is no dispute about the fact that the property belonging to the defendants is situated on the Northern side of the plaint schedule property as on the date of Ex.A1. But, the dispute is with respect to the property shown as ABX1X2 in the plaint plan. Coming to the oral evidence of PW1, she described the boundaries in her cross examination as if the Municipal Road is situated on the Western side. Even as per the schedule annexed to the plaint, the Western boundary is shown as Municipal Road. But, in Ex.A1 which is original sale deed, though initially the western boundary is mentioned as Municipal Road, the word “site” is added to the Western boundary. As per the Western boundary recitals in Ex.A1, there is site and Municipal Road on the Western boundary of the plaint schedule property. But, the plaintiff has been claiming the property up to the Municipal road by leaving/including the “site” on the Western side. In her cross examination, she categorically admitted that the defendants are her relatives and they have been residing on the western side of the plaint schedule property prior to the property purchased by her under Ex.A1. So, from her own admission, it is clear that as on the date of purchasing the property by the plaintiff under Ex.A1, the defendants were residing on the Western side of the plaint schedule property. So, the question of mentioning the Western boundary as “Municipal road” alone by excluding property belonging to the defendants, does not arise.

9.2) Even otherwise, if the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A2 is taken into consideration, it clearly reveals that the vendors of the plaintiff had no property up to the Municipal Road on the Western side of the property sold to the plaintiff under Ex.A1. On keen observation of the recitals of Ex.A2, there was an old house in the property covered by Ex.A2, the boundaries of the house as well as the total site are separately given in Ex.A2. There is no dispute about the boundaries on the Eastern side and Southern side of the plaint schedule property even if Exs.A1 and A2 are compared. But, as per the recitals of Ex.A2, the boundaries of the house are: North: 6 feet width way leading to bazar and West: property belongs to some others. The boundaries of the total property are: West: Property belongs to Pallepaga Premaiah (father-in-law of the 1st defendant) and North: 6 feet width way to go to main road. But, coming to the recitals of Ex.A1, the western boundary is described as “site, Municipal Road” and the Northern Boundary is also wrongly described as the property belongs to Pallepaga Premaiah without mentioning the 6 feet width bazar/way leading to Main Road.

9.3) It is also clear from the Advocate Commissioner's report with the rough plan. As it could be seen from the rough plan, the property belongs to defendants, is situated between the plaint schedule property and Municipal Road which is shown as ABX1X2 and there is a passage to the plaint schedule

O.S.No.1088/2009 5/7 10-04-2012

property leading to a road situated on the Northern side of the plaint schedule property. The same is very clear from the photographs taken by the Advocate Commissioner coupled with his report. But, for the reasons best known PW1, she pleaded ignorance about the visit of the Advocate Commissioner, during her cross examination. However, as admitted by PW1, the property belongs to the defendants, is situated on the western side of the property covered by Ex.A1, even as on the date of purchasing property by her under Ex.A1. The same is also tallied with the link document under Ex.A2 and also with the Commissioner's report filed by the Advocate Commissioner. But, the plaintiff filed the suit as if she was in possession and enjoyment of the total ABCD marked portion of the property by the time of filing of the suit vide

O.S.No.533/2009 and subsequently, the defendants dispossessed her by

occupying ABX1X2 property as shown in the plaint plan. Once, the vendors of the plaintiff does not have any title over the ABX1X2 property, they can not convey anything to the plaintiff and consequently, this Court can not presume the possession of the plaintiff over the ABX1X2 property basing upon a wrong boundary recital in Ex.A1 which is not tallied with Ex.A2. Hence, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to prove that she was in possession and enjoyment of the ABX1X2 property having title and right over the same. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

10) ISSUE No.2: It is the plaintiff who sought the declaration over ABCD property, consequential recovery of possession over ABX1X2 property, the perpetual injunction in respect of ABCD property and also for mesne profits for use and occupation of ABX1X2 property by the defendants, apart from the costs of the suit. The defendants claimed their respective title over ABX1X2 property whereas the plaintiff also failed to establish her title over the same by virtue of the findings given by this Court in issue No.1. However, in a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiff to establish her title over the disputed ABX1X2 property irrespective of the weakness of the defendants to establish their own title. In other words, in order to prove the title of the plaintiff over the disputed property, the plaintiff shall stand or fall on her own legs and even if the defendants failed to establish their own title to their property, and the plaintiff also fails to establish her title over the disputed property, the plaintiff shall be non-suited. In this regard this Court relied upon a decision of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Sajana Granites, Madras and another VS. Manduva Srinivasa Rao and others, 2002(1) ALT 466 (D.B.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at para No.10, it was held: “That the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and for recovery of possession, can succeed only on the strength of his own title, and that it is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and prove the possible defects in the plaintiff's title and so if the plaintiff fails to establish his title, even if the defendant fails to establish his own title, plaintiff must be non-suited.”

In the present suit, there are inconsistencies in respect of boundary details in Exs.A1 and A2, especially, the boundary details on the Western side. The plaintiff failed to prove that her vendors had the property shown as ABX1X2 and they conveyed the same to her. In other words, as admitted by PW1 in her cross examination, as on the date of purchasing property by her, the defendants were already residing over the property purchased by her under Ex.A1. But, for the reasons best known to her, the plaintiff filed the suit as if she is the owner of the property shown as ABX1X2 by mentioning wrong boundary recitals. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for and consequentially, she is not entitled for recovery of the possession.

O.S.No.1088/2009 6/7 10-04-2012

10.2) In respect of the relief of Permanent Injunction and mesne profits is concerned, DWs.1 and 2 gave evidence on behalf of the defendants. As per the evidence of DW1, the property of the defendants, is situated on the Western side of the property purchased by the plaintiff and they are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW1, except eliciting the facts that who are the neighbouring boundary owners or whose property is situated near the plaint schedule property, nothing is elicited to prove that the plaintiff has property shown as ABX1X2 up to the Municipal Road on the Western side or the defendants are trying to interfere with the rest of the property belongs to the plaintiff. It may not be out of place to mention that DW1 categorically gave evidence in respect of boundary as shown in Ex.A2 which is omitted in the schedule annexed to Ex.A1 and the plaint. DW2, who is an independent witness, also supported the version of the defendants. He categorically deposed that the defendants never demolished the boundary wall of the plaintiff and they never tried to occupy the propertybelongs plaintiff. He also deposed in his cross examination that the 1st defendant succeeded her property after the death and her husband and father- in-law. Though he is unable to speak the survey number or the door number, his evidence need not be thrown away.

10.3) From the evidence on record, it is clear that the plaintiff omitted to state that some site is situated on the Western side between the property covered by Ex.A1 and the Municipal Road as shown in the Western boundary in Ex.A1. She also failed to plead the recitals of the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A2 which is the link document of Ex.A1. It is pertinent to mention that she herself admitted that the defendants were residing on the western side of her property even when she purchased her property under Ex.A1. But, she filed earlier suit vide O.S.No.533/2009 as if ABX1X2 property was under her possession. The admission made by PW1 is against to her own pleadings. It may not be out of place to mention that there is no dispute about the rest of the property excluding the property shown as ABX1X2. So, it is very clear that the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands. As such, she is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction and for recovery of the property shown as ABX1X2. She is not consequently entitled for mesne profits for use and occupation of the property. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

11) ISSUE No.3: In view of the findings given by this Court in issues 1 and 2, the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is the plaintiff who approached the Court having knowledge that the defendants were residing on the Western side of the property purchased by her under Ex.A1, by the time of purchasing property on 25.05.1984, and as if they occupied the property after she filed the suit vide O.S.No.533/2009. Hence, she is liable to pay the costs of the suit to the defendants and the plaintiff shall bear her own costs.

12) In the result, the suit is dismissed. The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the suit to the defendants and she shall bear her own costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 10th day of April, 2012.

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

O.S.No.1088/2009 7/7 10-04-2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendants: PW1: Vejendla Jaya Sundari @ Jayamma DW1: Nannepaga Satyanandam DW2: Dunna Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.No DATEDESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT A125.05.1984: Original sale deed. A229.05.1950: C.C. of sale deed. A3----; O/c of (Xerox) plaint in O.S.No.533/2009. A4----: Photographs - two in number

For Defendants: ---Nil-----

II A.Jr.C.J.

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20171/7

APGU000030402018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: D. YEDUKONDALU

II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 27th day of October, 2022.

E.P.No.973 of 2018

in

A.O.P.No.147 of 2017

Between: M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, having its Regd.Office at 123, Angappa Naiken Street, Chennai and having its Administrative Office at No.3-6-478, 4th Floor, Anand Estates, Liberty Road, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, having its branch office at Guntur – I, Rep.by its Authorized Division Exclusive and Power of Attorney Holder, Mr.V.Ravi Sankar. … Award Holder/Claimant.

And

1.Chunduru Adi Narayana, S/o.Ramanjaneyulu, resident of D.No.4-5-26/50/E, 1/2 Navabharath Nagar, Pattabhipuram, Ring Road, Guntur City, Guntur District. 2.Chunduru Lakshmi Suneetha, W/o.Adi Narayanana, resident of D.No.4-5-26/50/E, 1/2 Navabharath Nagar, Pattabhipuram, Ring Road, Guntur City, Guntur District. 3.Maddu Narasimha Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, resident of H.No.12-8-66, Kothapeta, Mangalababi Street, Guntur City, Guntur District.

… Judgment Debtors/Respondents.

This Execution Petition is coming on 08.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for A.Hr/Claimant and of Sri N.Rama Mohan Rao, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The Award Holder (herein after referred as Claimant) filed this Execution

Petition against the Judgment Debtors (herein after referred as Respondents) under

Order XXI Rules 54, 66 and 64 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short CPC) for attachment and sale of immovable properties belonging to the respondents 1 to 3 and realization of a sum of Rs.22,93,095/- due under the Award.

2) The Assistant General Manager of the Claimant filed his affidavit along with the Execution Petition stating that the amount mentioned in Column No.9 of the

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20172/7

Execution Petition was due to the claimant from the respondents. The respondents were having sufficient means to pay the amount due under the Award, but they were wantonly avoiding to pay the same to the claimant. After passing the Award, the respondent did not pay any amount to the claimant. Hence, the claimant prayed the

Court to order the attachment of schedule mentioned immovable property belonging to the respondents 1 to 3 under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC and to order proclamation and sale as required under Order XXI Rule 66 and 64 of CPC and also to realize the amount due under the Award for payment to the Claimant.

3) As the Execution Petition was filed within two years from the date of Award, my learned predecessor issued notice to the respondents as required under Order

XXI Rule 54 of CPC and on receipt of notices, the respondents 1 to 3 filed their respective counters. My learned predecessor passed an order overruling the objections raised by the respondents in their counters filed in obedience to the notice issued under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC. My learned predecessor also ordered attachment of schedule mentioned immovable properties as required under Order XXI

Rule 54 of CPC and the same was affected. Later, after filing sale papers and encumbrance certificates, my learned predecessor ordered sale notices as required under Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC and on receipt of sale notices, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to file their counters and remained exparte, whereas the 3rd respondent filed his counter.

4) The brief averments in the counter of the 3rd respondent were as follows: He was the absolute owner of the property mentioned in Door.No.12-8-66 with

Assessment No.15203, situated in T.S.No.267 at Mangalabhavi Street, Kothapet,

Guntur. The claimant filed execution petition against the 3rd respondent as well as the respondents 1 and 2 seeking the attachment of their properties and for sale of the same. The property belonging to the 3rd respondent was also attached along with the property of the respondents 1 and 2 and the claimant also filed encumbrance certificates and sale papers. This Court ordered notice to the 3rd respondent under

Order XXI Rule 66 of CPC. In fact, the 3rd respondent is only a guarantor to the debt incurred by the respondents 1 and 2. The registration value of the property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 itself was Rs.51,35,000/-, whereas the amount due in execution petition was Rs.22,93,095/- including the costs. But, the claimant was bringing the properties of the 3rd respondent also for sale with a view to harass him.

The 3rd respondent also filed an application under Order XXI Rule 59 of CPC for granting of stay of sale proceedings as the property of the respondents 1 and 2 itself was the more than enough to satisfy the amount due under the execution petition. If the amount was not satisfied even after the selling of the properties of the respondents 1 and 2, then the property of the 3rd respondent may be sold. Hence, it is

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20173/7

just and necessary to differ the sale of the property of the 3rd respondent till the property of the respondents 1 and 2 is sold. After adjusting the sale proceeds of the property of the respondents 1 and 2, then the claimant is at liberty to proceeding with the property of the 3rd respondent. Hence, he prayed the Court to proceed against the ‘A’ and ‘B schedule property of the schedule at the first instance, and then to proceed against the property of the 3rd respondent if the Award is not fully satisfied, and he prayed the Court to dismiss the execution petition and pass necessary orders.

5) I heard the learned counsel for the Claimant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

6) Now the points for determination are:

(1) Whether the 3 rd respondent is entitled to exclude his property from the

sale until the property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2 is sold and the

satisfaction is recorded?

(2)Whether this Court has jurisdiction to proceed further to conduct the

sale of the attached properties by virtue of the provisions of the Commercial

Court’s Act, 2015?

3) To what relief? ?

7) POINT No.1: The learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the claimant is entitled to execute the Award either jointly or severally against the respondents in terms of the Award and as such, it filed the Execution Petition against all the respondents. Hence, he prayed the Court to proceed against all the respondents and to sell the properties and also to realize the amount due under the

Award. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the claimant is not entitled to sell all the properties for realization of the amount due under the Award. He further argued that according to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 of

CPC, the Court may sell a portion of a property which is sufficient to satisfy the decree and the sale proceeds shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree. He further argued that non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 of CPC is a ground to set aside the sale. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Dipali Biswas & Ors., v. Nirmalendu Mukherjee & Ors. 1, wherein at Para No.20, it was observed as follows:

“It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Order XXI, Rule 64 casts not a discretion, but an obligation, to sell only such portion of the property as may be sufficient to satisfy the decree. In support of this proposition, the learned counsel for the appellants cited a few decisions, which we shall now deal with. In Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi vs. Pujari Padmavathamma & Ors.1 (1977 SAR Online (SC) 5 = (1977) 3 SCC 337), this Court held that the, “executing court derives 12022 SAR (Civ) 56

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20174/7

jurisdiction to sell properties attached, only to the point at which the decree is fully satisfied”, and that the words, “necessary to satisfy the decree”, clearly indicate that no sale can be allowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale proclamation. This Court went further to hold that the issue flowing out of Order XXI, Rule 64 goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the executing court and that therefore the fact that an objection in this regard was not raised before the executing court is not sufficient to put him out of court.” He further argued that after the Commercial Court’s Act, 2015 had come into force, the Civil Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction concurrently once the jurisdiction was vested with the Commercial Court established under the Commercial

Court’s Act, 2015. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the execution petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant argued to pass necessary orders on the jurisdiction of this Court.

7.1) As argued by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the decree holder brought the properties of the respondents 1 and 2 mentioning them in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedules attached to the decree stating the value of the said properties at

Rs.15,00,000/- and the property of the 3rd respondent showing its value at

Rs.10,00,000/-. So, the Claimant brought the properties of the respondents 1 to 3 for sale. During the enquiry conducted under Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC, the Field

Assistant of the Court visited the properties and affected the attachment. As per the warrant dated 06.10.2020, the amount ought to be realized under the Award including interest was Rs.31,32,899/-, the value of the property of the 3rd respondent was shown at Rs.70,00,000/- and the same was attached. Similarly, the property of the respondents 1 and 2 was also mentioned at Rs.70,00,000/- and the same was also attached. During the enquiry, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent filed the valuation certificate of the property of the respondents 1 and 2, according to which, the market value of the property of the respondents 1 and 2 was Rs.51,35,000/-. So, the Court may conduct the sale basing on the highest value mentioned by the Field

Assistant at Rs.70,00,000/-, or the minimum of value of the Sub Registrar mentioned at Rs.51,35,000/- relating to the properties of the respondents 1 and 2. So, the sale would start from a minimum value of Rs.51,35,000/-. The amount due under the warrant by the date of the attachment was Rs.31,32,899/- as on 06.10.2020. So, the property of the respondents 1 and 2 is sufficient to satisfy the amount due under the

Award and if the sale proceeds on the properties of the respondents 1 and 2 are not sufficient, then the claimant may proceed against the property of the 3rd respondent.

7.2) However, as per the result mentioned in the Award, the respondents 1 to 3 shall pay an amount of Rs.19,54,687/- with future interest and costs. The execution

Court may not find the distinction between the principal borrower and guarantor, and

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20175/7

it shall execute the Award as of a decree passed by a Civil Court as contemplated under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act No.26 of 1996). But, according to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 of CPC, any Court executing the decree may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale, or such portion thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold and proceeds of its sale or a sufficient portion thereof shall be paid to the party entitled under the decree to receive the same. So, the execution Court is empowered either to sell the total property or part of the property which is necessary to satisfy the decree.

So, the Court at this stage need not proceed for the sale of the property of the 3rd respondent and may proceed for the sale of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property belonging to the respondents 1 and 2. If the sale proceeds are insufficient to satisfy the amount due under the Award, then the Court may proceed for sale of the property of the 3rd respondent without any further notice. This point is answered accordingly.

8) POINT No.2:- The claimant filed the execution petition against the respondents 1 to 3 for attachment and sale of the immovable properties as required under the provisions of Order XXI Rules 54, 66 and 64 of CPC. The law is very well established that the execution of the Award can be made in any Court in India where the decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining even the transfer of the Award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s.Sundaram

Finance Ltd. Vs. Abdul Samad and Ors. 2 , Para No.22 , it was held as hereunder:

“We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.” So, the Award is executable in any part in India, as if, it was a decree passed by a

Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act No.26 of 1996.

So, as the property situated within the jurisdiction of the courts at Guntur, the claimant initiated the execution before the Principal District Court, Guntur, and the execution petition was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

8.1) As it could be seen from the execution petition, it was filed on 20.06.2018, whereas the Award was passed on 09.12.2017. By the date of filing the Execution

Petition, the amendment to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the Commercial

Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force with effect from 03.05.2018.

Moreover, as it could be seen from the Award, the amount involved in the Award was arising out of the agreement between the claimant and the respondents as the claimant extended finance to a tune of Rs.15 Lakhs to the 1st respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 stood as guarantors. The transaction between the claimant and 2https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91610695/

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20176/7

the respondents was in respect of loan. So, the dispute falls under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as the same is a Commercial Dispute relating to the ordinary transaction of a financier i.e., the Claimant. So, after establishment of a

Special Court in the cadre of District Judge at Vijayawada for the territorial jurisdiction over the Guntur District also under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and after reducing the specified value to Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 2(i) of the Commercial

Courts Act, 2015 by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 03.05.2018, the Claimant could have filed the Execution Petition before the Special

Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada as the amount exceeded Rs.3,00,000/-. In other words, the specified value was reduced to

Rs.3,00,000/- by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 and as such, the ordinary Civil Court could not exercise its jurisdiction over the Commercial Dispute and within the territorial limits of the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of

Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s

Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Pumps and

Compressors Ltd. & Anr. 3 , it was observed as hereunder:

“Let the High Court look into the same and respond on the aforesaid. Before the next date of hearing, the Registrar General of the High Court to file the specific affidavit pointing out the pendency of commercial cases/arbitration cases either by way of execution petitions or Section 34 of the Arbitration Act under Act, 1940 or under the 1996 Act in the respective Commercial Courts originally constituted, more particularly, the pendency in the Commercial Courts at Meerut, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Agra and Lucknow and the concerned Districts over which the aforesaid 4 Commercial Courts would have jurisdiction.” The said report was called from the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad when the regular

Courts were dealing with the Commercial Disputes and the same analogy could be applied here. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat while dealing the execution proceedings before the Commercial Courts in Arun Kumar Jagatramka Vs.

Ultrabulk 4 , at Para No.6.7, it was held as hereunder:

“The jurisdiction of the commercial court under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act extend to try all suits and applications relating to commercial dispute of specified value. The word 'specified value' has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Commercial Courts Act. The word 'applications' under Section 6 would include execution applications and also proceedings relating to commercial dispute of specified value. The jurisdiction of the commercial court therefore necessarily extends to the execution application arising from the judgment and decree of the commercial court.” So, once the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Vijayawada was established, this Court cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction over 3 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99577902/ 4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639515/

E.P.No.973/2018 in A.O.P.No.147/20177/7

the same dispute and same territorial limits. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the sale of the immovable properties belonging to the respondents. This point is answered accordingly.

9) POINT No.3:- In view of my findings in Point No.1, the claimant is entitled to proceed against the property of respondents 1 and 2 for sale and realization of the amount due under the Award and till such time, the sale against the property of the 3rd respondent shall be kept in abeyance. If the amount realized on the sale of the property of the respondents 1 and 2 is insufficient, then the property of the 3rd respondent can also be sold. However, this Court shall not conduct the sale without jurisdiction as answered in Point No.2. As such, the execution petition is liable to the dismissed, but by continuing the attachment over the properties of respondents 1 to 3 over a period of three months as required under Order XXI Rule 57 of CPC, and thereafter the attachments shall be ceased. The point is answered accordingly.

10) In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed by ordering the continuation of the attachment over the Execution Petition schedule immovable properties of the respondents 1 to 3 for a period of three months from the date of this order as required under Order XXI Rule 57 of CPC and thereafter, it shall be ceased.

No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of October, 2022.

Digitally signed by

DIRISALA

DIRISALA YEDUKONDALU

YEDUKONDALUDate: 2022.10.27 15:25:35 +0530

II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20151/7

APGU000044402019

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUNTUR.

PRESENT: D. YEDUKONDALU

II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, this the 27th day of October, 2022.

E.P.No.667 of 2019

in

A.O.P.No.163 of 2015

Between: M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Guntur-2 Branch, Represented by its Assistant General Manager/G.P.A.Holder, V.Ravi Sankar. … Award Holder/Claimant.

And

1.Mattupalli Rajyalakshmi, W/o.Surendranath, aged years, 169, Main Road, 7th Line, Sivanagaraju Colony, Guntur. 2.Mattupalli Surendranath, S/o.Venkata Pulla Rao, aged years, 169, Main Road, 7th Line, Sivanagaraju Colony, Guntur. 3.Komarabathini Wilson, S/o.Yesu, aged years, 7-17-151, 3rd Line, Sri Nagar, Guntur. 4.Shaik Vali, S/o.Nabi, aged 60 years, 8-3-132, 4th Line, Butchaiah, Thota, Guntur. (This E.P is filed against the Respondent No.3 only) … Judgment Debtors/Respondents.

This Execution Petition is coming on 28.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Narayana Murthy, Advocate for D.Hr/Claimant and of Sri G.Gangadhara Rao, Advocate for 3rd Judgment Debtor/3rd Respondent and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

The Award Holder (herein after referred as Claimant) filed this Execution

Petition against the 3rd Judgment Debtor (herein after referred as the 3rd Respondent) for realization of a sum of Rs.3,94,536/- by way of attachment of the salary according to the provisions of under Order XXI Rule 48 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short

CPC).

2) The Assistant General Manager of the Claimant filed his affidavit along with the Execution Petition. The brief averments in the affidavit were as follows: The

Claimant obtained the Award against the Respondents and after the Award, the

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20152/7

Claimant approached the Respondents and demanded them to pay the Award amount, but they failed to pay the same. As such, the Claimant was constrained to file the Execution Petition against the 3rd Respondent to recover the amount due to the Claimant by way of attachment of salary of the 3rd Respondent who was working as Record Assistant, at Government Junior College, Siripuram, Guntur and drawing the salary from the Principal, Government Junior College, Gannapudi road, Siripuram,

Guntur. Hence, he prayed the Court to order the attachment as per the provisions of

Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC, to withhold the attached amounts from the salary of the 3rd

Respondent and also realize the same. The Respondents did not prefer any application against the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short Act No.26 of 1996). Hence, the Execution Petition.

3) After registration of the Execution Petition, notice was ordered to the 3rd

Respondent and the 3rd Respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the counter of the 3rd Respondent were as follows: He specifically denied the material allegations mentioned in the affidavit of the representative of the Claimant and submitted that the

Claimant also filed another Execution Petition vide E.P.No.911/2020 in

A.O.P.No.163/2015 on the file of XII Additional District Judge – Cum – Family Court,

Guntur under Order XXI Rule 43 of CPC against the 1st Respondent for attachment of movables and the same was pending. By suppressing the said Execution Petition, the

Claimant filed this Execution Petition against the 3rd Respondent for attachment of his salary. The 3rd Respondent retired from Service and as such, the question of attachment of salary did not arise. The Claimant filed the Execution Petition only to harass the 3rd Respondent. The calculations mentioned in the Execution Petition including the interest were not correct. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the

Execution Petition.

4) I heard the learned counsel for the Claimant and the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent.

5) Now the point for determination is: Whether the Claimant is entitled to

execute the Award against the 3 rd Respondent while executing the Award

against the 1 st Respondent vide E.P.No.911/2020 in A.O.P.163/2015 before the

XII Additional District Court – Cum – Family Court, Guntur, as prayed for?

6) POINT: The learned counsel for the Claimant argued that the Award was passed against all the Respondents and as such, the Claimant was entitled to execute the Award as of a decree passed by a Civil Court against all the

Respondents or any one of the Respondents. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20153/7

the Execution Petition and to attach the salary of the 3rd Respondent. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent argued that the Award was not communicated to the 3rd Respondent for filing an Application under Section 34 of the

Act No.26 of 1996. He further argued that after passing the Award, the Claimant filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.911/2020 in A.O.P.No.163/2015 on the file of the

XII Additional District Court – Cum – Family Court, Guntur against the 1st Respondent suppressing this Execution Petition. He further argued that both the Execution

Petitions were filed for the total amount due under the Award and the amount was exceeding Rs.3 Lakhs of the specified value mentioned under the Commercial Courts

Act, 2015. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction to execute the Award. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Petition.

6.1) The Claimant filed the Execution Petition against the 3rd Respondent for execution of the Award and realization of the amount due under the Award according to the provisions of Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC. The law is very well established that the execution of the Award can be made in any Court in India where a decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining even the transfer of the Award.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s.Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Abdul

Samad and Ors. 1 , Para No.22 , it was held as hereunder:

“We are, thus, unhesitatingly of the view that the enforcement of an award through its execution can be filed anywhere in the country where such decree can be executed and there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings.” So, the Award is executable in any part in India, as if, it was a decree passed by a

Civil Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the Act No.26 of 1996.

But, according to the provisions of Section 36 of the Act No.26 of 1996, the Award shall be enforced in accordance with the provisions of CPC in the same manner, as if, it were a decree passed by a Civil Court when the time making for an application to set aside the Award under Section 34 of Act No.26 of 1996 was expired. According to the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act No.26 of 1996, an application for setting aside the Award may not be made after three months elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the Arbitral Award.

6.2) The 3rd Respondent contended that though the Claimant mentioned in the affidavit that the Respondents did not file any Application under Section 34 of the Act

No.26 of 1996, the Award itself was not communicated by the sole Arbitrator as required under Section 31 (5) of the Act No.26 of 1996. As it could be seen from the copy of the Award filed by the Claimant, there was a postal receipt to the effect that 1https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91610695/

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20154/7

the consignment was dispatched to the 3rd Respondent from the Claimant and the same was affixed to the copy of the Award. There was neither mention in the Award that the copy was communicated to all the parties nor a postal receipt in order to prove the communication of the Award by the Arbitrator was filed. In other words, the copy of the Award shall be communicated by the Arbitrator to the parties to an Award as required under Section 31 (5) of the Act No.26 of 1996, but not the Claimant. If the

Award is not communicated to the Respondents by the Arbitrator, the question of filing an Application under Section 34 of the Act No.26 of 1996 does not arise. The delivery of the Award to the parties under Section 31(5) of the Act No.26 of 1996 is not a mere formality, but it is a matter of substance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India while dealing with the said aspect in Anil Kumar Jinabhai Patel (Dead)

Through Legal representatives Vs. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel and Others 2 ,

wherein at Para No.16, it was held as hereunder:

“In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors [Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239], a three-Judge Bench of this Court, in respect to the issue of limitation for filing application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the arbitral award, held that the period of limitation would commence only after a valid delivery of an arbitral award takes place under Section 31(5) of the Act. In para 8, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 243, para 8) “8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) of Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passed that the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 32 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral award to the party, to be effective, has to be “received” by the party. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the party of the award sets in motion several periods of limitation such as an application for correction and interpretation of an award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings.” So, in order to calculate the limitation, the copy of the Award shall be delivered to the

Respondents and only after expiration of the limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act

No.26 of the 1996, the Award becomes enforceable under Section 36(1) of the Act

No.26 of 1996. So, in the absence of proof to the effect that the Award was communicated to the Respondents by the Arbitrator, I cannot come to a conclusion 2(2018) 15 SCC 178

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20155/7

that the time limited for filing the Application under Section 34 of the Act No.26 of 1996 is expired, and the Award has become enforceable. Hence, the Claimant is not entitled to enforce the Award without communicating the copy of the Award to the

Respondents by the Arbitrator as required under Section 31 (5) of the Act No.26 of 1996 and giving three months time as required under Section 34 (3) of the Act No.26 of 1996.

6.3) Moreover, the amount involved in the Award was arising out of a loan agreement and the transaction between the Claimant and the Respondents was in respect of loan transaction. So, the dispute falls under Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as the same is a Commercial Dispute relating to the ordinary transaction of financier i.e., the Claimant. So, after establishment of a

Special Court in the cadre of a District Judge at Vijayawada for the territorial jurisdiction over the Guntur District also under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and after reducing the specified value to Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 2(i) of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 03.05.2018, the Claimant could have filed the Execution Petition before the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of the Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada as the amount exceeded the specified value of Rs.3,00,000/-. In other words, the specified value was reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- by the Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 and as such, the ordinary Civil Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the Commercial Dispute and within the territorial limits of the Special

Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. Though the Award was passed on 26.10.2015, the Execution Petition was filed on 09.07.2019 after the

Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 came into force. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in M/s Chopra Fabricators and Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat

Pumps and Compressors Ltd. & Anr. 3 , it was observed as hereunder:

“Let the High Court look into the same and respond on the aforesaid. Before the next date of hearing, the Registrar General of the High Court to file the specific affidavit pointing out the pendency of commercial cases/arbitration cases either by way of execution petitions or Section 34 of the Arbitration Act under Act, 1940 or under the 1996 Act in the respective Commercial Courts originally constituted, more particularly, the pendency in the Commercial Courts at Meerut, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Agra and Lucknow and the concerned Districts over which the aforesaid 4 Commercial Courts would have jurisdiction.” The said report was called from the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court when the regular

Courts were dealing with the Commercial Disputes and the same analogy could be applied here. The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat while dealing the execution 3 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99577902/

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20156/7

proceedings before the Commercial Courts in Arun Kumar Jagatramka Vs.

Ultrabulk 4 , at Para No.6.7, it was held as hereunder:

“The jurisdiction of the commercial court under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act extend to try all suits and applications relating to commercial dispute of specified value. The word 'specified value' has been defined under Section 2(i) of the Commercial Courts Act. The word 'applications' under Section 6 would include execution applications and also proceedings relating to commercial dispute of specified value. The jurisdiction of the commercial court therefore necessarily extends to the execution application arising from the judgment and decree of the commercial court.” So, once the Special Court for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes,

Vijayawada was established, this Court cannot exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the same dispute and same territorial limits. Hence, this Court has no jurisdiction to execute the Award.

6.4) Moreover, the 3rd Respondent contended that the Claimant also filed

Execution Petition against the 1st Respondent by suppressing the present Execution

Petition and as such, the Claimant cannot execute the Award by suppressing the earlier Execution proceedings. The copy of the Execution Petition filed against the 1st

Respondent vide E.P.No.911/2020 in A.O.P.No.163/2015 before the XII Additional

District Court – Cum- Family Court, Guntur was enclosed to the counter, according to which, the Claimant initiated the Execution against the Respondent 1 and 2 under

Order XXI Rule 43 of C.P.C., for realization of the total Award amount including the amount mentioned in this Execution Petition with future interest and costs by way of attachment and sale of movable properties belonging to the Respondents 1 and 2.

The Claimant did not mention the proceedings of the earlier Execution Petition in this

Execution Petition in Column No.7 of the Execution Petition vide E.P.No.911/2020 in

A.O.P.No.163/2015 on the file of the XII Additional District Court – Cum – Family

Court, Guntur. So, the Claimant filed the second Execution Petition after filing this

Execution Petition by suppressing this Execution Petition.

6.5) However, the 3rd respondent did not point out any mistakes in calculation of interest and he did not file any document evidencing his retirement. However, this

Execution Petition is prosecuted after filing the Execution Petition against the respondents 1 and 2, there is no proof as to the communication of the Award by the

Arbitrator and the jurisdiction of this Court is after establishment of the Special Court of Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. Hence, from any angle, it is viewed the Claimant is not entitled to execute the Award against the 3rd 4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163639515/

E.P.No.667/2019 in A.O.P.No.163/20157/7

Respondent and the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

7) In the result, the Execution Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, dated this the 27th day of October, 2022.

Digitally signed by

DIRISALA

DIRISALA YEDUKONDALU

YEDUKONDALUDate: 2022.10.27 17:18:51 +0530

II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

C.C.No.3/2017 1/6

APGU000066162017

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR

SESSIONS DIVISION, GUNTUR

Present:- D.YEDUKONDALU,

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

FAC: VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur.

Friday, this the 9th day of September, 2022

Calendar Case No.3/2017

(Cr.No.474/2012 of Kothapet Police Station, Guntur)

1. Name of the The State : Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Complainant Guntur Urban.

2. Name of the AccusedA1: Sanaga Ravindra Reddy, S/o.Kotireddy, 33 years, Reddy, Mourya Apartment, 1/1, Syamala Nagar. A2: Sanaga Kotireddy. (Died)- Case abated against A2, as his death certificate was filed on 16.06.2022. A3: Sanaga Vellamma, W/o.Kotireddy, 55 years, Reddy, Mourya Apartment, 1/1, Syamala Nagar, Guntur. Charges: under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4

3. Nature of offence of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against A1 & A3.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the JudgeA1 & A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act.

6. Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act., and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) CrPC. The bonds and the bail bonds of A1 and A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as required under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. The case against A2 was abated as he died.

7. Property OrderThere is no order as to property as no property was produced before this Court.

This case is coming before me on 08.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri S.Brahma Nanda Reddy,

C.C.No.3/2017 2/6

Advocate for the A1 and A3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State: Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Guntur Urban filed this Police Report against A1 to A3 in Cr.No.474/2012 of Kothapet Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short D.P.Act).

2) According to the case of the prosecution, on 25.10.2009, L.W.2 – Pagadala

Sudhakar Reddy and L.W.3 Pagadala Subbalakshmi performed the marriage of L.W.1

Sanaga Sandhya with A1 at Saibaba Temple Kalyanamandapam, R.Agraharam,

Guntur. At the time marriage, they gave Rs.20 Lakhs cash, 20 Sovereigns of gold and 320 Sq.Yards of house site to A1 towards dowry and sent L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya to lead marital life with A1. At the time of marriage, A1 was doing job as Software

Engineer in Pune of Maharashtra. After the marriage, A1 went to the United States of

America on 20.11.2009 and returned to India on 20.01.2010. Later, L.W.1 Sanaga

Sandhya and A1 lead marital life at Vidya Nagar, Pune of Maharashtra State where

A1 subjected L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya to cruelty to bring additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents to go to the United States of America independently. Then,

L.W.2 Pagadala Sudhakar Reddy gave a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to A1, then A1 left L.W.1

Sanaga Sandhya with her parents and went to the United States of America. Later, he did not take L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya to the United States of America to lead marital life demanding additional dowry. L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya questioned A2 and A3 to send her to the United States of America to lead marital life with A1, but they refused to do so, demanding additional dowry as demanded by A1.

2.1) Then L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya presented a report to L.W.6 K.Nageswara

Rao, Head Constable 1441 and the same was registered as a case in

Cr.No.474/2012 under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act on 04.10.2012. The original First Information Report was sent to the Court, and the copy of First Information Report was sent to L.W.7 Ch.Seetaramaiah, Inspector of Police,

Women Police Station for investigation. During the investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 (in short CrPC). He also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He arrested A2 on 18.10.2012 and forwarded him to judicial custody. A1 was

C.C.No.3/2017 3/6 in the United States of America. A3 surrendered before the Court and was released on bail. Thus, the accused are liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. Hence, the charge.

3) The Learned IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur took cognizance of the offences under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

D.P.Act, and issued summons to A2 and A3 and Non-Bailable Warrant against A1.

Later, A1 was also surrendered before the Court and was released on bail. The copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of CrPC, and they were examined under Section 239 of CrPC by framing charges under

Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. The Charges were read over and explained to A1 to A3, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4) During the trial, L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya was found dead by committing suicide which lead the registration of a case under Section 304B of IPC and the same was committed to this Court and pending vide S.C.No.210/2016. Then, L.W.3

Pagadala Subbalakshmi moved Transfer Crl.M.P.No.1838/2016 on the file of Principal

Sessions Court, Guntur for transfer of this Calendar Case to this Court from IV

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Guntur, and the Hon’ble Sessions

Judge, Guntur was pleased to transfer the same by leaving the aspect as to

simultaneous disposal of both cases and modalities as to disposal to the discretion of this Court. So, this Court proceeded to conduct trial in both the cases.

5) During the trial, A2 died, his death certificate was filed on 16.06.2022 and the case against A2 was abated. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined L.W.2 Pagadala Sudhakar Reddy as P.W.1, L.W.3 Pagadala

Subbalakshmi as P.W.3, L.W.6 K.Nageswara Rao, H.C.1441 as P.W.3 and L.W.7

Ch.Seetaramaiah, Inspector of Police as P.W.4 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya was closed as died and the evidence of L.W.4 Devireddy Tirupathireddy was given up as died and the evidence of L.W.5 Devireddy Govinda Reddy was also given up as he was not in a position to give evidence.

6) After the evidence of prosecution was closed, A1 and A3 were examined under Section 313 of CrPC by examining the incriminating evidence available against them, they denied the same, and they reported no evidence on their behalf. Hence,

C.C.No.3/2017 4/6 defence evidence was closed.

7) I heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

A1 and A3.

8) Now, the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution proved its

case beyond reasonable doubt that A1 and A3 committed the offences

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, as

alleged by the prosecution?”

9) POINT:- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is for the prosecution to prove that A1 and A3 subjected L.W.1 Sanaga

Sandhya to cruelty as defined under Explanation to Section 498A of IPC, they also demanded and taken the dowry and thereby, they committed the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, as alleged by the prosecution. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.P1 to P6.

9.1) According to the evidence of P.W.1 Pagadala Sudhakar Reddy, after A1 and L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya lived in Pune, A1 left to the United States of America.

But, he categorically deposed that A1 was looking after his daughter properly during their marital life. He further deposed that his daughter did not give any report to Police against A1 and his parents, and they did not give any dowry at the time of marriage.

He further deposed that A1 never harassed his daughter for dowry. Except identifying his daughter’s signature as Ex.P1 report given by L.W.1 Sanaga Sandhya, nothing was proved against A1 and A3. He also denied a suggestion that he was examined by the Police, and he stated before the Police in Ex.P2, 161 CrPC statement. Similarly,

P.W.2 Pagadala Subbalakshmi also deposed that A1 was looking after her daughter properly, and she did not give any report to Police against A1 and his parents. She also denied a suggestion that she was examined by the Police, and she stated before the Police as in Ex.P3 161 CrPC statement. So, P.Ws.1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased Sanaga Sandhya turned hostile.

9.2) However, the prosecution examined P.W.3 K.Nageswara Rao and according to his evidence, he received Ex.P4 report from Sandhya and he issued

Ex.P5 First Information Report. The report under Ex.P2 including the statement of

C.C.No.3/2017 5/6 deceased Sandhya at best can be used either to contradict or corroborate the oral testimony of the witnesses under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and it does not form part of substantive evidence. P.W.4 Ch.Seetaramaiah, Inspector of

Police, deposed that after taking up the investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P6 rough sketch. The rough sketch does not assume any importance. However, he deposed that when he examined P.Ws.1 and 2, they deposed before him as in Exs.P2 and P3. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC can be used to corroborate their oral testimony as required under

Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and they do not have evidentiary value.

As the prime witnesses to the prosecution turned hostile, this Court is independently disposing this case as the Sessions case is pending for examination of other witnesses. Hence, there is no material on record to bring home the guilt of A1 and A3 for the alleged offences. As such, they are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

10) In the result, A1 and A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act., and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) CrPC. The bonds and the bail bonds of A1 and A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as required under Section 437A of CrPC. The case against A2 was abated as he died.

11) There is no order as to property as no property was produced before this

Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 9th of September, 2022.

Digitally signed by

DIRISALA

DIRISALA YEDUKONDALU

YEDUKONDALUDate: 2022.09.09 15:55:24 +0530 II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. FAC: VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Pagadala Sudhakar Reddy.---- Nil ----

PW2: Pagadala Subbalakshmi.

C.C.No.3/2017 6/6

PW3: K.Nageswara Rao, Retired A.S.I of Police.

PW4: Ch.Seetaramaiah, Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of L.W.1/Sanaga Sandhya.

Ex.P2: Statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 of CrPC.

Ex.P3: Statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 of CrPC.

Ex.P4: Report of L.W.1/Sanaga Sandhya.

Ex.P5: First Information Report.

Ex.P6: Rough Sketch.

For Defence:

- Nil -

Material Objects Marked --Nil-- Digitally signed by

DIRISALA

DIRISALA YEDUKONDALU

YEDUKONDALUDate: 2022.09.09 15:55:41 +0530 II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. FAC: VI Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur.

Copies to: -

1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravati

2. The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Guntur.

3. The IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur

5. The Director of Prosecution, Amaravati

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, VI Addl. Sessions Court (FTC), Guntur.

7. The Complainant.

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 20221/5

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTC) GUNTUR.

PRESENT: D. YEDUKONDALU

II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur.

FAC: VI Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Guntur

Tuesday, this the 30th day of August, 2022.

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 2022

in

Cr No.209/2022 of Disha Women Police Station

Between: Karnati Satish Babu (A1), S/o.Veerabhadra Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, 13954, Mansarde Ave Apt 261, Hemdon – VA 20171, USA, Native of Andukuru, Krosuru, Guntur District.

... Petitioner/A1

AND

The State/Station House Officer., Disha Women Police Station, Guntur, Rep., by its Addl.P.P. Guntur.

... Respondent/Complainant.

This petition is coming on this day i.e., on 29.08.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri C.M.Sharma, Advocate for Petitioner/A1 and the Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent/Complainant and upon perusing the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

The Petitioner/A1 filed this petition under Section 439 (1)(b) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) to relax the conditions imposed in

Crl.M.P.No.748/2022 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court for

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur connected to Cr.No.209/2022 of Disha Women

Police Station, Guntur.

2) According to the version of the Petitioner/A1, a case in Cr.No.209/2022 of

Disha Women Police Station was registered against him and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494, 495, 420, 506 r/w.109 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and Section 66E of Information Technology Act, 2000 (in short I.T. Act) and the trial Court granted bail vide Crl.M.P.No.748/2022 on 12.08.2022 imposing condition that he shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties and comply with condition that he shall attend before the Station House

Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Guntur on every Sunday between 10.30 A.M and 05.00 P.M., up to 3 months or until Charge Sheet is filed whichever was earlier.

He was released on bail and complied the condition on 14.08.2022. He further submitted that he was suffering from Psoriasis attached with swelling, immobility, pain and other symptoms of discomfort to the body and mind, not allowing him to attend to any part of his routine. He was advised not to expose himself to any hostile

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 20222/5

weather come in contact with any unhygienic atmosphere till he retains his normal condition which is likely to take about two months period. If he did not take care of the advice, he would be at risk of his health and the disease may spread to his entire body. The investigation was completed. He was in judicial custody for about 17 days including four days Police custody. The Petitioner/A1 moved this application under the compulsion of his treatment. Hence, he is unable to comply the condition by attending before the Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Guntur on every Sunday, and he was advised to file this petition. He filed this petition before the trial Court vide CFR.No.3342 dated 16.08.2022, but it was returned observing that the petition before the trial Court was not maintainable. Hence, the petition.

3) Notice was given to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and memo was filed. I heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 also filed written arguments.

4) Now the point for determination is: Whether the Petitioner/A1 is entitled

for relaxation of the conditions imposed, dispensing his appearance before the

Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Guntur, as prayed for?

5) POINT: The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/A1 argued that trial Court granted bail and while granting bail, the trial Court imposed a condition to appear

before the concerned Station House Officer, on every Sunday between 10.30 A.M

and 05.00 P.M., up to three months or until the Charge Sheet is filed. He further argued that the Petitioner/A1 is unable to appear before the concerned Station

House Officer for the reason that he is suffering from Psoriasis, and he is advised to prevent the exposure himself to any hostile weather come in contact with any unhygienic atmosphere till he retains his normal condition which is likely to take about two months period. He further argued that the Investigating Officer might have complied with the provisions of Section 41A CrPC as per the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar and Anr 1, wherein it was held as hereunder:

From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that a person accused of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the police officer only on its satisfaction that such person had committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. Police officer before arrest, in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent such person from committing any further offence; or for proper investigation of the case; or to prevent the accused from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear; or tampering with such evidence in 1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 20223/5

any manner; or to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to a witness so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the police officer; or unless such accused person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured. He further relied upon another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in

Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr 2, wherein at para

No.73(b), it was held as hereunder:

The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any direction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the Court followed by appropriate action. So, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India especially the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar’s case referred supra and reiterated in Satender Kumar Antil’s case referred supra.

5.1) However, in the present case, the Petitioner/A1 was already arrested, he was forwarded to judicial custody, and later he was also enlarged on bail. This petition was not filed by the Petitioner/A1 challenging his judicial custody. I do not understand the reason for filing these decisions in this petition especially referring too at Para No.8 of the written arguments. In other words, the Petitioner/A1 filed this petition only to relax the condition imposed while granting bail in

Crl.M.P.No.748/2022 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court for

Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor argued that the investigating agency seized five cell phones from the possession of the Petitioner/A1 to extract the data, the Petitioner/A1 never complied the condition especially appearing before the Station House Officer, Disha Women

Police Station, Guntur on 14.08.2022, 21.08.2022 and 28.08.2022, the Investigating

Officer came to know that the Petitioner/A1 also obtained new Passport in order to leave India and the Investigating Officer moved a petition for cancellation of the bail on 22.08.2022 itself. He further argued that the arrest of the Petitioner/A1 in one more case was pending, and the Petitioner/A1 also did not file any evidence regarding his disease particularly Psoriasis including the medical treatment and the medical advice. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

5.2) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 argued that the Petitioner/A1 filed this petition before the trial Court, but it was returned as not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention that the High Court or the Court of Sessions is competent to set aside or modify any condition imposed by a Magistrate when 2 2022 LiveLaw SC 577

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 20224/5

releasing any person on bail according to the provisions of Section 439(1)(b) of

CrPC. So, the trial Court could not have entertained the petition. But, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/A1 further argued that the Petitioner/A1 was sent to Police custody twice, and it was a “shame to judiciary”. The movement, the Police custody is ordered, a copy of such order is being sent to the Sessions Judge within 24 hours according to Rule 27 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1990.

The Rule was inserted to have a check on the orders relating to Police custody by the Magistrates. But, for the reasons best known to the learned counsel for the

Petitioner/A1, he vehemently argued that ordering the Petitioner/A1 to Police custody was a ‘shame to judiciary’.

5.3) As it could be seen from the Part I Case Diary, there were allegations against Petitioner/A1 that he contacted 5 marriages and the defacto complainant in this case came to know about his 4th marriage while watching video in You-Tube and later, she realized that the Petitioner/A1 cheated her stating that he contacted only one marriage prior to this marriage, and he not only took her money but also harassed her sexually. One of the serious allegations against the Petitioner/A1 was that he threatened her to post the videos and photos of defacto complainant which were taken in the bedroom without her knowledge in social media. So, the

Investigating Officer recovered 5 cell phones from the Petitioner/A1 and was investigating the case to analyze the data from the cell phones. The defacto complainant mentioned in the report to Police that the Petitioner/A1 threatened her that he had photos and videos taken by him when she was in bedroom, and he would upload the photos and videos in the social media. The trial Court had taken into consideration the fact that a part of the investigation was completed, but he was enlarged on bail for the reason that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, by imposing such condition. I am of the considerable view that there is nothing wrong in imposing such condition to enable the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, especially, the presence of the Petitioner/A1 may be required to access the data or analyze the data from the cell phones. In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the Petitioner/A1 contacted four or five marriages, suppressing the earlier marriages and disclosing only one marriage, and in view of the apprehension that he would fly to Foreign Countries, the condition imposed by the trial Court is sustainable. I do not find any reason to relax the condition, more particularly, when there is no evidence before the Court as to the alleged disease or the medical treatment or the medical advice. Moreover, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Petitioner/A1 did not comply the conditions on 14.08.2022, 21.08.2022 and 28.08.2022. So, I do not find any merit in filing the petition with regard to relaxation of condition imposed by the trial Court

Crl.M.P.No.1362 of 20225/5

while grating bail and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

6) In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to Stenographer, Grade – I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of August, 2022. Digitally signed by DIRISALA

DIRISALA

YEDUKONDALU

YEDUKONDALUDate: 2022.08.30 14:44:58 +0530 II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, FAC: VI Additional Sessions Judge,(FTC), Guntur.

Copy to:- 1.The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court for Prohibition & Excise Cases, Guntur. 2.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, VI ASJ (FTC) Court, Guntur. 3.The Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Guntur. 4.Sri C.M.Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner/A1. 5.eCourts via Case Information System.