Sri.E.Anjaneyulu. B.A.,LLB

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOILAKUNTLA.

PRESENT : Sri E. ANJANEYULU, Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

F.A.C, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOILAKUNTLA

Monday, the second(2nd ) day of November, 2015.

Original Suit No. 82 of 2015

Between:

Shaik Modin Basha, S/o. Kudbuddin, aged 40 years, Muslim Agriculturist, R/o. Koilakuntla town of Koilakuntla mandal Kurnool District. …PLAINTIFF

And

G. Razia Basha @ G. Shaik Basha, S/o. Umar aged about 40 Years, R/o. Koilakuntla town and Mandal now working as Junior Assistant Zilla Parishad High School, Gulladurthy of koilakuntla Mandal, Kurnool District. … DEFENDANT

*****

This Suit coming on 30.10.2015 for Plaintiff’s evidence before me in the presence of Sri R. Premnath Babu Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the Plaintiff; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of the suit promissory note debts of Rs.81,000/­ being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 10­1­2013 executed by the defendant for Rs.50,000/­ in his favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interests and costs. 

2.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:­

On 10­1­2013 the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/­ from the plaintiff for his family necessities and executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interests at the rate of 24% per annum on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order.

Subsequently, the defendant did not pay any amount in­spite of repeated oral demands of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the suit pronote debts.

2

3. The suit summons through court was served personally on 6­9­ 2015 but the defendant failed to appear before the court on 9­10­2015. Hence the defendant was set exparte on 9­10­2015. On behalf of the plaintiff PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 is marked. 

4.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the material available on record in both oral and documentary evidence.

5.The point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

6.(a) In order to establish his contentions, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 on his behlaf, as the defendant has remained exparte it can be said that the evidence of Pw1 is remained un­ discredited and un­challenged. It would be relevant to refer to the document relied upon by the plaintiff under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note

dated 10­1­2013 for a sum of Rs.50,000/­ executed by the defendant in favour

of the plaintiff. As seen from Ex.A1 suit promissory note dated 10­1­2013, it is clear that the defendant signature contain on revenue stamp for twice, even though the defendant had borrowed amount for his family needs but he has not paid any amount to the plaintiff. Since the defendant has remained exparte in the suit it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he had admitted the case of the plaintiff that he has nothing to put­forth as a contest.

(b)Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and un­discredited evidence of

PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 suit promissory note, this court concludes and holds that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 and failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Hence the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

3

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.81,000/­ with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit and the date of decree, and thereafter with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/­

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2 nd day of November, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BANAGANAPALLE.

FAC, J.C.J,

KOILAKUNTLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Shaik Modhin Basha

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 10­1­2013.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BANAGANAPALLE.

FAC, J.C.J,

KOILAKUNTLA

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANAGANAPALLE.

PRESENT : Sri E. ANJANEYULU, Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

Tuesday, the thirteenth(13th ) day of October, 2015.

Original Suit No. 67 of 2015

Between:

Mallem Chandra Mohan Reddy, Son of Subba Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o. H.No.6­126, Nandavaram village, Banaganapalli mandal, Kurnool District. …PLAINTIFF

And

Kandula Pulla Reddy, Son of Venkata Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Business H.No.6­104­1, R/o. Nandavaram Village, Banaganapalle mandal, Kurnool District, … DEFENDANT

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the Suit Promissory Note debt of Rs.77,000/­, being the Principal and Interest due on the Suit Promissory Note, dated 23.04.2012, executed by the Defendant for Rs.50,000/­, in his favour, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 18% P.A. In­spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to repay the suit amount and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 22­4­2015; and filed on 22­04­2015.

Suit is valued at Rs.77,000/­ and a Court fee of Rs.2,946/­ is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 23­4­2012, when the defendant executed suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at Banaganapalle mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5

This Suit coming on 05.10.2015 for Plaintiff’s evidence before me in the presence of Sri M. Parasurami Reddy Advocate for the Plaintiff, and

Defendant having remained exparte this Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1) That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed;

2) That the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.77,000/­ with

subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till

the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from

the date of Decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.50,000/­; and

3) That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.5033­00 towards costs of the Suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 13 th day of October, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint2,946­00­ Stamp for Power 2­00Nil (Ex­parte) Pleader’s Fee2005­00 ­ Service of Process 80­00­ Total Rs. 5033­00 ­

 Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOILAKUNTLA.

PRESENT : Sri E. ANJANEYULU, Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

F.A.C, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOILAKUNTLA

Monday, the Second(2nd ) day of November, 2015.

Original Suit No. 46 of 2015

Between:

Sankepalli Chinna Reddy, aged 67 years, S/o. Chenna Reddy Hindu, Agriculturist. H.No.2/29, Injedu village, Uyyalawada Mandal, Kurnool District. …PLAINTIFF

And

Hariyapureddy Venkata Reddy, aged about 70 years, S/o. Hariyapureddy Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Agriculturist H.No.1-68, Bodemmanoor village Uyyalawada mandal,Kurnool District. … DEFENDANT

*****

This Suit coming on 30.10.2015 for Plaintiff’s evidence before me in the presence of Sri G. Bala Murali Krishna Advocate for the Plaintiff, and

Defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the Plaintiff; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.78,371/- being the principal and interest due on the suit promissory note dated 5-1-2013 executed by the defendant in his favour for a sum of Rs.60,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and for subsequent interests and costs.

2.The averments in the Plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

On 5-1-2013 the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 60,000/- from the plaintiff as a security for repayment of the said amount. The defendant had executed the suit promissory note dated 5-1-2013 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same together with interests at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Subsequently, the defendant did not pay any amount in-spite of several 2 demands of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit to recover the suit pronote debts with interest and costs from the defendant.

3. The suit summons of the defendant was served personally on 22- 6-2015 but the defendant failed to appear before the court on 7-8-2015.

Hence the defendant was set exparte on 7-8-2015. On behalf of the plaintiff

PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 is marked.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the material available on record in both oral and documentary evidence.

5.The point for consideration is “whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?

6.(a) In order to establish his contentions, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 on his behalf, as the defendant has remained exparte it can be said that the evidence of Pw1 is remained un- discredited and un-challenged. It would be relevant to refer to the document relied upon by the plaintiff under Ex.A1suit promissory note. It is clear that the defendant himself attested on revenue stamp for twice under Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Even though the defendant had borrowed amounts as security for repayment of the said amount. Since the defendant has remained exparte in the suit it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he had admitted the case of the plaintiff that he has nothing to put-forth as a contest.

(b)Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and un-discredited evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 suit promissory note, this court concludes and holds that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 and failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Hence the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.78,371/- with subsequent interest 3 at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit and the date of decree, and thereafter with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/-

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of November, 2015.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BANAGANAPALLE.

FAC, J.C.J,

KOILAKUNTLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : S. Chenna Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note dated 5-1-2013.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BANAGANAPALLE.

FAC, J.C.J,

KOILAKUNTLA

4

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANAGANAPALLE.

PRESENT : Sri E. ANJANEYULU, Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

Tuesday, the thirteenth(13th ) day of October, 2015.

Original Suit No. 67 of 2015

Between:

Mallem Chandra Mohan Reddy, Son of Subba Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o. H.No.6-126, Nandavaram village, Banaganapalli mandal, Kurnool District. …PLAINTIFF

And

Kandula Pulla Reddy, Son of Venkata Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Business H.No.6-104-1, R/o. Nandavaram Village, Banaganapalle mandal, Kurnool District, … DEFENDANT

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of the Suit Promissory Note debt of Rs.77,000/-, being the Principal and Interest due on the Suit Promissory Note, dated 23.04.2012, executed by the Defendant for Rs.50,000/-, in his favour, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 18% P.A. In-spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to repay the suit amount and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 22-4-2015; and filed on 22-04-2015.

Suit is valued at Rs.77,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.2,946/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.

Cause of action arose on 23-4-2012, when the defendant executed suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff at Banaganapalle mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This Suit coming on 05.10.2015 for Plaintiff’s evidence before me in the presence of Sri M. Parasurami Reddy Advocate for the Plaintiff, and

Defendant having remained exparte this Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1) That the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; 5

2) That the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.77,000/- with

subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the

suit till the date of Decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6%

per annum from the date of Decree till the date of realization on the

principal sum of Rs.50,000/-; and

3) That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.5033-00 towards costs of the Suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 13th day of October, 2015.

Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.

STATEMENT OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs. Stamp for Plaint2,946-00- Stamp for Power 2-00Nil (Ex-parte) Pleader’s Fee2005-00 - Service of Process 80-00- Total Rs. 5033-00 -

Junior Civil Judge, Banaganapalle.