Currently Serving

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka) · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 225 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

225

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

EP/13/2016

XXXXX vs XXXXX

29 Apr 2026

APNE0D0008052022 - 1 - OS No. 177 of 2022

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

KAVALI

PRESENT: Sri E.SUDHAKARA RAO,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX,

(29.04.2026)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 177 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Mavuluri Padmavathi wife of late Krishna Murthy, Aged about 49 years, Thimmasamudram village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District., … Plaintiff.

AND:

Mekala Malakondaiah son of Peda Chenchaiah, Aged about 60 years, Thimmasamudram village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendant

This SUIT coming on 15.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Malyadri , Advocates for the Plaintiff and Sri R.Nagendra Babu, Advocate for defendant and upon hearing the Counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

APNE0D0008052022 - 2 - OS No. 177 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs 3,74,696/- (Rupees three lack seventy four thousand six hundred ninety six only) basing on a Promissory Note.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

The Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 18% per annum to the plaintiff or to her order on demand, and thereafter the defendant failed to repay the promissory note amount to the plaintiff inspite of several demands made personally and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other and finally the plaintiff got issued legal notice through her counsel on 17.06.2022, but the defendant did not repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff . Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand the Defendant filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations and contended that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on 24.06.2019 and again on 1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and not executed promissory notes and no consideration was passed and two suit promissory notes are rank forgery and prayed to dismiss the suit.

APNE0D0008052022 - 3 - OS No. 177 of 2022

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues were settled for trial.

I S S U E S

1)Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ? 3)To what relief?

5.To prove her contention, the plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit and examined herself as PW1 and also P.Ws 2

Attester of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and PW3 is the Scribe of Ex.A2 and got marked Ex A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of defendant he himself was examined as D.W1 and no Exhibits were marked.

6.Heard counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 who are the plaintiff, and the Attesters of Ex A1 and Ex.A2 promissory note, Scribe of Ex.A2 is consistent and corroborating with each other and their evidence is also in accordance with Ex A1 and

Ex.A2 contents and the contents of Ex A1 to Ex.A4 and oral evidence of

P.Ws 1 to 3, clinchingly establish that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex A1 and Ex.A2 and failed to repay the borrowed amount to PW1 even after demanding the defendant to repay the

APNE0D0008052022 - 4 - OS No. 177 of 2022 borrowed amount under Ex.A3. And Defendant failed to prove that the

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged by the plaintiff to extract money from the defendant and prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

7.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 2 and the Ex A1 and

Ex.A2 promissory note does not contain the signature of the defendant and the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant on Ex A1 and Ex.A3 and filed this suit in collusion with P.Ws 2 and 3 to get unlawful gain from the defendant And submitted that the evidence of DW1 proves the same and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs

I S S U E Nos. 1 :

Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

8.At the outset this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a two Promissory Notes.

To prove her contention the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and also

P.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked Ex A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of defendant he himself was examined as D.W1, no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

APNE0D0008052022 - 5 - OS No. 177 of 2022

9.P.W1 is the Plaintiff. P.W2 is the Attesters of Ex A1 and

Ex.A2. P.W3 is the Scribe of Ex.A2.

10.D.W1 is the Defendant.

11.Ex.A1 is the Suit Promissory Note No:1 Dt 24.06.2019.

Ex.A2 is the Suit Promissory Note No:2 Dt:20.10.2019; Ex.A3 is the

Officer copy of the legal notice Dt:17.06.2022; Ex.A4 is the Postal receipt

Dt:17.06.2022;

12.It is the case of PW 1 as per the contents of the plaint and Ex

A1 to Ex.A4 that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and executed a Promissory Note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 under Ex

A1 and Ex.A2 promissory Notes, agreeing to repay the borrowed amount with interest at 18% per annum and thereafter failed to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff inspite of several demands made by her and even after issuance of Ex.A3 notice, hence PW1 filed the present suit.

13.PW1 deposed that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex.A2 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum to her or to her order on demand and thereafter failed

APNE0D0008052022 - 6 - OS No. 177 of 2022 to repay the borrowed amount inspite of several demands made by her and prayed to pass a decree in her favour as prayed for.

14.The plaintiff also examined P.W. 2 who is the attestor of Ex

A1 and Ex.A2, and he also deposed that defendant borrowed amount of

Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in his presence and he attested the Ex A1 and Ex.A2. and also examined PW3 who is the scribe of Ex.A2 and he also deposed in accordance with Ex.A2. Though P.Ws 1 to 3 were cross examined by the counsel for the defendant, nothing material was elicited from their evidence to discredit their evidence except for a few minor discrepancies with respect to the time of execution of Ex

A1, which is bound to occur due to long lapse of time from the date of execution of Ex A1. Apart from that, their evidence is consistent and corroborating with each other and also in accordance with Ex.A1 promissory note. So, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 establishes that defendant borrowed amount from P.W1 under Ex A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex

A1 and Ex.A2 also proves the same.

15.Though the counsel for the defendant argued there is discrepancy in the the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, As can be seen from Ex

A1 and Ex.A2 it shows it was executed in the year 2019 and P.Ws 2 and 3 gave evidence in court in the year 2025, which is five years after execution of Ex A1. So, due to lapse of time some minor discrepancies

APNE0D0008052022 - 7 - OS No. 177 of 2022 may creep in their evidence. So, the said objection of the counsel for defendant holds no water and cannot be accepted.

16.Further P.Ws 1 to 3 are not interrelated to each other and there is no reason shown by the defendant, for the plaintiff, P.Ws2 and 3 to forge his signature and file a false case against him. But the defendant failed to prove it. So, when there are no disputes between D.W1 and

P.Ws 1, there is no necessity for P.Ws 1 to 3 to depose false against defendant and file a false case against him.

17.Hence, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 are held to be trustworthy and establish that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff.

18.The counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant on Ex A1 and Ex A2 and filed this suit in collusion with P.Ws 2 and 3 and others to get unlawful gain from the defendant, and prayed to dismiss the suit.

19.The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, is consistent and corroborating with each other with respect to the borrowing of amount of Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an

APNE0D0008052022 - 8 - OS No. 177 of 2022 amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex.A2 in favour of plaintiff in their presence and it is substantive evidence and the evidence of D.W1 is not useful to the case of defendant as he denied his signature in written statement but failed to sent the Ex A1 and A2 promissory notes for comparison to the hand writing expert, through the court to established that the signature of defendant is forged on Ex A1 and A2 and prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for, taking into consideration the substantive evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3.

20.At the outset, in a suit for recovery of amount basing on a promissory note, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant borrowed amount from her and executed two promissory notes in her favour. Once the plaintiff establishes the execution of promissory note the onus shifts on to the defendant to establish that the suit promissory note is a forged one. As already discussed supra P.Ws 1 to 3 categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed amount from plaintiff and executed Ex A1 and A2 in her favour in their presence. So, the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 and documentary evidence under Ex A1 to Ex.A4 clearly establish that defendant received Rs 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lack twenty thousand only) from the Plaintiff on 24.06.2019 and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex.A2 promissory note in her favour.

21.Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is a clear case, where by the direct evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, Ex. A-1 to Ex.A4 has been

APNE0D0008052022 - 9 - OS No. 177 of 2022 proved. When once the document under Ex A1 and A2 are held to be genuine, there can be no other legal impediment to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Hence,it is held that Ex A1 and A2 is true, valid and supported by consideration and not forged one. Hence, issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

I S S U E No. 3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

22.In view of the findings given while answering issues 1 and 2.

wherein it is held that Ex A1 and A2 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and not forged one, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

I S S U E No.4:

To what relief?

23. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, directing the defendant, do pay to the plaintiff the suit amount of Rs 3,74,696/- (Rupees three lack seventy four thousand six hundred ninety six only) together with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs 2,48,000/- (Rupees two lack forty eight thousand only) from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of April,2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI.

APNE0D0008052022 - 10 - OS No. 177 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR Plaintiff: FOR Defendant:

PW.1:M.Padmavathi DW.1: Mekala Malakondaiah PW.2:Mavuluri Siddulu Naidu PW.3:Kurapati Kondaiah Naidu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

Ex.A1:Suit Promissory Note No.1, dt.24-06- 2019 for Rs.1,20,000/- Ex.A2:Suit Promissory Note No.2, dt.20-10-- NIL- 2019 for Rs.1,28,000/- Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice dated 17-06- 2022 Ex.A4:Postal receipt dated 17-06-2022

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION) , KAVALI

OS/177/2022

Mavuluri Padmavathi vs Mekala Malakondaiah

29 Apr 2026

APNE0D0008052022 - 1 - OS No. 177 of 2022

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

KAVALI

PRESENT: Sri E.SUDHAKARA RAO,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX,

(29.04.2026)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 177 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Mavuluri Padmavathi wife of late Krishna Murthy, Aged about 49 years, Thimmasamudram village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District., … Plaintiff.

AND:

Mekala Malakondaiah son of Peda Chenchaiah, Aged about 60 years, Thimmasamudram village, Jaladanki Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Defendant

APNE0D0008052022 - 2 - OS No. 177 of 2022

J U D G M E N T

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are :

APNE0D0008052022 - 3 - OS No. 177 of 2022

4.Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties the following issues were settled for trial.

I S S U E S

1)Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

1)Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount ? 3)To what relief?

5.To prove her contention, the plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit and examined herself as PW1 and also P.Ws 2

Attester of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and PW3 is the Scribe of Ex.A2 and got marked Ex A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of defendant he himself was examined as D.W1 and no Exhibits were marked.

6.Heard counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant.

Ex.A2 contents and the contents of Ex A1 to Ex.A4 and oral evidence of

APNE0D0008052022 - 4 - OS No. 177 of 2022 borrowed amount under Ex.A3. And Defendant failed to prove that the

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are forged by the plaintiff to extract money from the defendant and prayed to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

7.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that there are several discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 2 and the Ex A1 and

I S S U E Nos. 1 :

Whether the promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated as pleaded by the defendant?

8.At the outset this is a suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of suit amount basing on a two Promissory Notes.

To prove her contention the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and also

P.Ws 2 and 3 and got marked Ex A1 to Ex.A4. On behalf of defendant he himself was examined as D.W1, no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

APNE0D0008052022 - 5 - OS No. 177 of 2022

9.P.W1 is the Plaintiff. P.W2 is the Attesters of Ex A1 and

Ex.A2. P.W3 is the Scribe of Ex.A2.

10.D.W1 is the Defendant.

11.Ex.A1 is the Suit Promissory Note No:1 Dt 24.06.2019.

Ex.A2 is the Suit Promissory Note No:2 Dt:20.10.2019; Ex.A3 is the

Officer copy of the legal notice Dt:17.06.2022; Ex.A4 is the Postal receipt

Dt:17.06.2022;

12.It is the case of PW 1 as per the contents of the plaint and Ex

APNE0D0008052022 - 6 - OS No. 177 of 2022 to repay the borrowed amount inspite of several demands made by her and prayed to pass a decree in her favour as prayed for.

14.The plaintiff also examined P.W. 2 who is the attestor of Ex

A1 and Ex.A2, and he also deposed that defendant borrowed amount of

A1 and Ex.A2 also proves the same.

15.Though the counsel for the defendant argued there is discrepancy in the the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, As can be seen from Ex

APNE0D0008052022 - 7 - OS No. 177 of 2022 may creep in their evidence. So, the said objection of the counsel for defendant holds no water and cannot be accepted.

P.Ws 1, there is no necessity for P.Ws 1 to 3 to depose false against defendant and file a false case against him.

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, again he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,28,000/- on 20.10.2019 and executed Ex.A2 promissory note in her favour.

21.Hence, in view of the above discussion, it is a clear case, where by the direct evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, Ex. A-1 to Ex.A4 has been

I S S U E No. 3:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

22.In view of the findings given while answering issues 1 and 2.

I S S U E No.4:

To what relief?

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of April,2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI.

APNE0D0008052022 - 10 - OS No. 177 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR Plaintiff: FOR Defendant:

PW.1:M.Padmavathi DW.1: Mekala Malakondaiah PW.2:Mavuluri Siddulu Naidu PW.3:Kurapati Kondaiah Naidu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION) , KAVALI

OS/184/2025

Bank of Baroda,Kaligiri vs PASALA VEERAMMA

29 Apr 2026

APNE0D0004122025

- 1 - OS No. 184 of 2025

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

KAVALI

PRESENT: Sri E.SUDHAKARA RAO,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX,

(29.04.2026)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 184 of 2025

M/s Bank of Baroda, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies Act, 1970, having its head Office at Mandvi, Baroda, in the state of Gujarat and one of its Branches at Kaligiri SPSR Nellore District, AP 524 201, Rep.by its Branch Manager Chinnareddygari Satish Kumar son of Seenappa, Residing at Kaligiri, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiff

1. Pasala Veeramma wife of Bhaskar, Satyavolu Agraharam, Kommi, Kondapuram Mandal,

2. Gadde Rama Krishna son of Malakondaiah, Satyavolu Agraharam, Kommi, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District., … Defendants

APNE0D0004122025

- 2 - OS No. 184 of 2025

This SUIT is coming on before me for final hearing on 21-04-2026 in the presence of Sri V.Bhagya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendants having remained exparte and after hearing the Counsel of plaintiff, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.11,05,578.67/- being the principal and interest due under loan agreement dated 21-02-2022, executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff-Bank for Rs.8,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with a monthly interest at 7.55% p.a.

02. Brief averments of the plaint in a nut-shell are as follows:

The defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff-bank for requirement of Sanction of Credit Facility and submitted the loan application. On 21.02.2022 the plaintiff-bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- under Sanction of Credit Facility loan under loan Account

No:81250500001826 to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 7.55% p.a. The 1st defendant executed Sanction of credit facility, DP

Note, composite Hypothecation Agreement, the defendant 1 and 2 executed Declaration-cum-undertakings-cum-authoritiy on 21.02.2022 and Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt on 20.01.2025, and Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff-bank, the said defendants did not paid the loan amount. Inspite of several demands the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid the loan amount and finally the plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to the defendant On 01.4.2025, 1st defendant

APNE0D0004122025

- 3 - OS No. 184 of 2025

returned the said notice with false allegations and acknowledgment against 2nd defendant is awaited. Hence, the suit.

03. Inspite of service of notice, the defendants 1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and Hence they set exparte.

04. In support of the claim, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A10 are marked.

05. Heard the Counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now, the point for consideration is "whether the plaintiff-Bank

is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed

for?

07. POINT:

[a] In order to establish plaintiff-bank’s contentions, the Branch

Manager of plaintiff-Bank is examined as PW-1, and marked Exhibits A1 to A10. As the Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff under Exhibits A1 to A10. Exhibit A1 is the Original application form for

BKCC loan in favour of plaintiff Bank Dt:21.02.2022; Exhibit A2 is the

Original Sanction of credit facilities issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the defendants; Exhibit A3 is the Original DP note, Dt:21.02.2022; Exhibit

A4 is the Original composite hypothecation agreement for agriculture finance; Exhibit A5 is the declaration - cum-undertakings- cum authority.;

Exhibit A6 is the Original tobacco rytwari pass book issued by Tobacco board in favour of the 1st defendant, Exhibit A7 is the the Original letter of

Acknowledgment of debt Dt:20.01.2025; Exhibit A8 is the Account statement Dt:13.03.2025; Exhibit A9 is the Office Copy of legal Notice

APNE0D0004122025

- 4 - OS No. 184 of 2025

Dt:01.04.2025; Exhibit A10 is the returned notice of the 1st defendant;.

Since the Defendants remained ex-parte in the Suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendants 1 and 2 to the effect that they have admitted the case of the Plaintiff.

[b]Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and undiscredited evidence of PW1, coupled with Exhibits A1 to A10, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff-bank had established the suit claim under Exhibits A1 to

A10, and the failure of the Defendants 1 and 2 to discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintiff-bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff-bank.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the Plaintiff Bank a sum of

Rs.11,05,578.67/-with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.55% per annum on principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29 th day of April-2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Potti Venkata Suresh Exparte.

APNE0D0004122025

- 5 - OS No. 184 of 2025

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit A1: Original application form for BKCC loan in favour of plaintiff

Bank Dt:21.02.2022;

Exhibit A2: Original Sanction of credit facilities issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the defendants;

Exhibit A3: Original DP note, Dt:21.02.2022;

Exhibit A4: Original composite hypothecation agreement for agriculture finance;

Exhibit A5: Declaration - cum-undertakings- cum authority.;

Exhibit A6: Original Tobacco Rtywari pass book under TBGR No.28-091- 246

Exhibit A7: Original letter of Acknowledgment of debt Dt:20.01.2025;

Exhibit A8: Account statement Dt:13.03.2025;

Exhibit A9: Office Copy of legal Notice Dt:01.04.2025 with postal receipts;

Exhibit A10: Returned notice of the 1st defendant

For Defendants: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI.

EP/9/2024

KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA) PVT.LTD. vs SYED SHYROSE (JDR 3)

29 Apr 2026

APNE0D0000792024 - 1 - E.P.No.9 of 2024 in Disp.No.21 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KAVALI.

PRESENT: Sri E.SUDHAKARA RAO,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),Kavali.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX,

(29.04.2026)

E.P.No. 09 of 2024 in Dispute No.21 of 2019

M/s.Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt Ltd., Kavali Brnch, Rep.by its Assistant Divisional Manager… Decree Holder

Vs.

1. Shaik Zeenath

2. Shaik Jaleel Basha

3. Syed Shyrose son of Ibrahim, Aged about 31 years, Occp.Manager, Regional Office, Union Bank of India, Nellore R/o.D.No.22/223, Kummari Street, Big Bazaar, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Mohammed Mikhatha Fathima

5. Shaik Kareem … Judgment Debtors

This Execution Petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 17-03-2026 in the presence of Sri K.Guru Murthy, Advocate for D.Hr., and Sri Syed Kaleem Ahamed Rozedar, Adovate for 3rd J.Dr., was dismissed and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

APNE0D0000792024 - 2 - E.P.No.9 of 2024 in Disp.No.21 of 2019

O R D E R

1.The Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 48 of C.P.C., against the 3rd J.Dr only to attach his Salary through his

Garnishee i.e. The HR Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office,

Nellore, and the same salary may be sent to this Court's account for realization of the decree debt due to D.Hr.

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

The D.Hr/plaintiff obtained award against J.Dr 1 to 6/defendant 1 to 6 Jointly and severally on 18.02.2020 for an amount of

Rs.3,60,520/- with interest and costs. Thereafter, D.Hr requested the J.Dr 1 to 7 to pay the decretal amount, but J.Dr willfully avoided to pay the decretal amount. on that the DHr filed this Execution Petition against the 3rd JDr as he is jointly and severally liable to discharge the debt obtained by the 1st JDr., The 3rd J.Dr is working as an employee as Manager,

Regional Officer, Union Bank of India, Nellore. Hence, this petition was filed to attach the salary of 3rd J.Dr.

3. per contra the 3rd respondent filed their counter and denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that he is not aware of this award Dt:18.02.2020. The DHr has not taken any steps against 1st JDr or any other JDrs and simply filed this EP against this

JDrs only for attach of salary. the JDr further contended that he is getting net salary is of Rs.95,845/- after deductions and also obtained housing loan and paying installments to an amount of Rs.43,047/- for housing loan and another amount of Rs.23,114/- for the HL top up loan. and he is

APNE0D0000792024 - 3 - E.P.No.9 of 2024 in Disp.No.21 of 2019 drawing megre amount of Rs.29,684/- per month. And prays to dismiss the petition.

4.No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by DHr. On behalf of Jdr. Jdr himself filed his chief examination affidavit as RW.1, but he did not turn up for affirmation and Marking of Documents even on conditional order and hence his evidence is eschewed.

5.Heard DHr and Learned counsel for JDr reported party may be called. Hence it is treated as heard. .

6.Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the salary of 3rd J.Dr is liable to be attached towards realization of the decree amount? POINT:

7.As seen from the record, the EP was filed for realization of the decree amount basing on the award and decree passed in Dis

No.21/2019. Perusal of the certified copy of award in Dis.No.21 of 2019 reveals that the decree was passed in favour of plaintiff company/D.Hr for an amount of Rs.6,40,894/- with subsequent interest at 18% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.3,60,520/-. D.Hr filed this EP seeking to attach the salary of 3rd J.Dr.,

The present Execution Petition was filed on 07-02-2024. But, the judgment debtor's 1 to 7 failed to pay the EP amount inspite of having sufficient means. on that the DHr filed this present EP against the 3rd JDr.

and initially after receipt of the notice JDr did not turn up and he was set exparte, Later he filed petition along with counter and the same is allowed by this court and the 3rd Jdr., filed his counter and denied the allegations

APNE0D0000792024 - 4 - E.P.No.9 of 2024 in Disp.No.21 of 2019 made in the petition. And he further contended that he is getting net salary is of Rs.95,845/- after deductions and also obtained housing loan and paying installments to an amount of Rs.43,047/- for housing loan and another amount of Rs.23,114/- for the HL top up loan. and he is drawing megre amount of Rs.29,684/- per month. But no evidence to let-in on their behalf. Hence, the respondent/Judgment-Debtor No:3 is liable to pay the E.P. amount to the petitioner/Decree-Holder. Since the decree passed against the J.Drs are still in force, he is liable to pay the decree amount. Hence, the salary of 3rd J.Dr are liable to be attached. Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Petitioner/Decree Holder.

8.In the result, issue Rule 48 warrant to the Garnishee's on payment of process, directing to attach the salary of 3rd J.Dr., subject to

Section 60 CPC. Call on 11-05-2026.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer- G-III , corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 29th day of April, 2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) ,KAVALI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

Witness Examined :

For Decree Holder: For Judgment Debtor

- None - RW.1: Syed Shyrose

(Eschewed)

Documents Marked: NIL

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION), KAVALI.

OS/182/2025

Bank of Baroda,Kaligiri vs GUNJI ANKAMMA

29 Apr 2026

APNE0D0004102025

- 1 - OS No. 182 of 2025

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

KAVALI

PRESENT: Sri E.SUDHAKARA RAO,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kavali.

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX,

(29.04.2026)

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 182 of 2025

1. Gunji Ankamma wife of Venkat Rao, Saipeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Lekkala Malakondaiah son of not known, Medarametla Palem, Mutyalapadu village, Prakasam District. … Defendants

APNE0D0004102025

- 2 - OS No. 182 of 2025

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff-Bank against the defendants for recovery of Rs.8,29,330.81/- being the principal and interest due under loan agreement dated 24-02-2021, executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff-Bank for Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with a monthly interest at 7.65% p.a.

02. Brief averments of the plaint in a nut-shell are as follows:

The defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff-bank for requirement of Sanction of Credit Facility and submitted the loan application. On 24-02-2021 the plaintiff-bank sanctioned an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- under Sanction of Credit Facility loan under loan Account

No:81250500001742 to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 7.65% p.a. The 1st defendant executed Sanction of credit facility, DP

Note, composite Hypothecation Agreement, the defendant 1 and 2 executed Declaration-cum-undertakings-cum-authoritiy on 24-02-2021 and Letter of Acknowledgment of Debt on 24.01.2023, and Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff-bank, the said defendants did not paid the loan amount. Inspite of several demands the defendants 1 and 2 have not paid the loan amount and finally the plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice to the defendant On 29.4.2025, and acknowledgment is awaited. Hence, the suit.

APNE0D0004102025

- 3 - OS No. 182 of 2025

03. Inspite of service of notice, the defendants 1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and Hence they set exparte.

04. In support of the claim, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A9 are marked.

05. Heard the Counsel for Plaintiff.

06. Now, the point for consideration is "whether the plaintiff-Bank

is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed

for?

07. POINT:

[a] In order to establish plaintiff-bank’s contentions, the Branch

Manager of plaintiff-Bank is examined as PW-1, and marked Exhibits A1 to A9. As the Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 has remained undiscredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the Plaintiff under Exhibits A1 to A9. Exhibit A1 is the Original application form for

BKCC loan in favour of plaintiff Bank Dt:24.02.2021; Exhibit A2 is the

Original Sanction of credit facilities issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the defendants; Exhibit A3 is the Original DP note, Dt:24.02.2021; Exhibit

A4 is the Original composite hypothecation agreement for agriculture finance; Exhibit A5 is the declaration - cum-undertakings- cum authority.;

Exhibit A6 is the Original tobacco rytwari pass book issued by Tobacco board, Exhibit A7 is the the Original letter of Acknowledgment of debt

Dt:24.02.2023; Exhibit A8 is the Account statement Dt:15.04.2025; Exhibit

A9 is the Office Copy of legal Notice Dt:29.04.2025. Since the Defendants remained ex-parte in the Suit, it can be said that an adverse inference

APNE0D0004102025

- 4 - OS No. 182 of 2025

can be drawn against the Defendants 1 and 2 to the effect that they have admitted the case of the Plaintiff.

[b]Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and undiscredited evidence of PW1, coupled with Exhibits A1 to A9, this Court concludes that the Plaintiff-bank had established the suit claim under Exhibits A1 to

A9, and the failure of the Defendants 1 and 2 to discharge the same, and as such, the Plaintiff-bank is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the Point is answered in favour of the Plaintiff-bank.

08. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the Plaintiff Bank a sum of

Rs.8,29,330.81/-with subsequent interest at the rate of 7.65% per annum on principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 29 th day of April-2026.

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Potti Venkata Suresh Exparte.

APNE0D0004102025

- 5 - OS No. 182 of 2025

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Exhibit A1: Original application form for BKCC loan in favour of plaintiff

Bank Dt:24.02.2021;

Exhibit A2: Original Sanction of credit facilities issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of the defendants;

Exhibit A3: Original DP note, Dt:24.02.2021;

Exhibit A4: Original composite hypothecation agreement for agriculture finance;

Exhibit A5: Declaration - cum-undertakings- cum authority.;

Exhibit A6: Original Tobacco Rtywari pass book under TBGR No.28-094- 193

Exhibit A7: Original letter of Acknowledgment of debt Dt:24.02.2023;

Exhibit A8: Account statement Dt:15.04.2025;

Exhibit A9: Office Copy of legal Notice Dt:29.04.2025

For Defendants: - Nil -

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

(JUNIOR DIVISION)

KAVALI.

Order Record 224 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/9/2024	KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA) PVT.LTD. vs SYED SHYROSE (JDR 3)	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/13/2016	XXXXX vs XXXXX	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/177/2022	Mavuluri Padmavathi vs Mekala Malakondaiah	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/182/2025	Bank of Baroda,Kaligiri vs GUNJI ANKAMMA	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/184/2025	Bank of Baroda,Kaligiri vs PASALA VEERAMMA	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/268/2024	Bank of Baroda,Kavali vs YANAMALA VARA LAKSHMI	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/431/2025	DIVI PULLAIAH NAIDU vs DUBAGUNTA HYMAVATHAMMA	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/48/2022	PONNURU SUCHITHRA vs ORUGANTI SRINIVASULU	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/51/2022	ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK,KALIGIRI BRANCH,REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER vs SANGANA SREERAMULU	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/219/2015	XXXXX vs XXXXX	21 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/191/2020	vattikala ravindra babau vs Vssavalam thirupathaiah	20 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/49/2024	Mannalm Venkateswarlu vs Saaraa Koteswra Rao	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/233/2017	LAKKU NAGI REDDY vs SANA LAXMAMMA	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/166/2021	Chereddy Venkateswarlu Reddy vs Kakula nagendra prasad	15 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/33/2024	Nalabolu Srinivasulu Reddy vs Eedala Symalamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/59/2023	VADDE VARALAKSHAMMA vs VARDHINENI JYOTHI	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/73/2024	Kapil Chits(KOSTA)Pvt,Ltd, Kavali rep by its G.Sai Ramesh vs Boddu Satish	07 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/138/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Thummala Malyadri	07 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/211/2020	Penumalla Ramanaiah vs Bathalakondala Rao	06 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/482/2022	PALLAPOLU ROSI REDDY vs VONTERU MALAKONDAIAH	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/89/2022	Maddiboina Padma vs Lellapalli Amaranadh	12 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/131/2021	Chereddy Venkateswarlu Reddy vs Kadanuthala Divya	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/252/2021	Tirumalasetty Venkata Rao vs Guntupalli Srinivasulu	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/256/2024	State Bank of India,Chinna Annaluru vs RAGI JHANSI	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2022	munagala Hazarath Reddy vs Gottipati Mohan Rao	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/272/2025	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Yendluri Bala Sundaram	10 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/163/2016	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/295/2023	KAKARLAPUDI PRABHAKAR RAJU vs BOBBALA SRIHARI	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/5/2008	Ramala Narasa Reddy vs Vskurapati sakunthalamma	06 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/225/2024	CHAVALA MALLIKARJUNA vs CHEREDDY SUPRAJA	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/404/2023	GOTTIPATI SREENIVASULU NAIDU vs DEVARAPALLI MALYA GIRIDHAR REDDY	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/608/2022	KAVALI RURAL PS GOLLAPALLI SUPRAJA vs VEMPATI BALA GURAVAIAH AND BALAIAH	02 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/23/2025	Srikara Veeranjaneya Chit Funds Pvt Ltd, Legal Manager, Kosuri Venkata Rao, vs Sarvepalli Praveen Kumar	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/452/2023	PATAN ASLAM BASHA vs MEDARI JAYALAKSHMI	23 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/52/2024	Pandi Manjan vs Pasupuleti Venkata Rao	19 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/36/2023	PYDALA SRINIVASULU REDDY vs KONDURU VARAMMA	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/149/2019	Bogireddy Lakshminarayana Reddy vs Gunuputi Venkata Satya Ramesh Babu	18 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/149/2022	Canara Bank Kaligiri Branch vs Kuchi Kondapa Naidu	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/198/2023	CANARA BANK KALIGIRI BRANCH vs AREDDULA KONDAMMA	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/175/2019	Kalavakuri Srilatha vs Singamaneni Malakondaiah	13 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/138/2017	XXXXX vs XXXXX	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/110/2013	XXXXX vs XXXXX	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/128/2017	Belum Subba Reddy vs Lekkala Papi Reddy	05 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/330/2022	Jajam Krishna Veni vs Jajam Balakondaiah	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/210/2022	Chinige mamatha vs Devarapalli Malyagiridhar Reddy	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/211/2022	Chinige Malyadri vs Devarapalli Malyagiridhar Reddy	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/702/2022	AP State Enforcement Insepctor Bureau vs Katta Rttamma	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/835/2022	AP State Enforcement Inspector Bureau Vinjumur vs Chatla Shivaji	30 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/273/2025	DUGGISETTY RAMADEVI vs SHAIK JILANI BASHA	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/324/2023	GURRAM KALYAN CHAKRAVATHI vs MAKKINA DURGAPRASAD	27 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/374/2021	Special Enforcement Bureau kavali vs Paruchuri Srikanth	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/653/2018	SHO Kavali Rural P.S. vs Kesaboina Basava Lingaiah	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/722/2022	AP State Special Enforcement Bureau station kavali vs Pasupuleti Vengalarao	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/739/2022	AP State Special Enforcement Bureau Station kavali vs Belu Subbareddy	23 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/225/2020	TALACHERU KARUNA vs GUMMA VENKATA RAVI	20 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/8/2021	Gdudipalli Thrupathi Kavali rural ps vs Nellore Shafi	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/317/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Pulusu Suresh	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/329/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Kommu chitti Babu	12 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/330/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Pedineti Ramaiah	09 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/17/2021	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Kavali Branch vs Parasu Ramesh	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
CC/635/2022	SPECIAL ENFORECEMENT BUREAU KAVALI vs Vsmukku malyadri	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/679/2023	SEB Kaligiri vs Jaturi Narasinga Rao	06 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/324/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Subramani	02 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
CC/326/2024	Sub Inspector of Police Kavali Rural P.S vs Uppala raveendra	02 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/50/2021	Sri Sai Anjana Chits Funds India Pvt., Ltd., vs Gkkunnamaneni Subba Rao	16 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/531/2007	GADAMSETTY RANGAIAH vs GUNUPUDI RANGANAYAKAMMA	08 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/532/2007	GADAMSETTY RANGAIAH vs GUNUPUDI RANGANAYAKAMMA	08 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/103/2019	Gangapatnam Rama devi vs Thatavarthi Kondaiah	28 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/262/2020	Chinthakrindi Suresh babu vs Sk Nayavb Rasool	28 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/440/2022	KARNATI NEERAJAKSHI vs DARA KONDAIAH	27 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/319/2023	MANDA VENKATA RAO vs KONJETI HAZARATHAIAH	26 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/106/2019	Kamepalli Srinivasulu vs Kapuluri Baburao	17 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/272/2017	Rayipudi Lakshmi vs Davuluri Malakondaiah	08 Jul 2025	Judgement	—
OS/97/2019	Vijaya Bank kaligiri Bank vs Polu alias pesala Malayadri	27 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/137/2019	Kanumuru Srinivasulu Reddy vs Maddurupadu Sekar	19 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/302/2021	Devalla Seenaiah vs Pallapu Narayana	18 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/303/2021	Devalla Seenaiah vs Pallapu Narayana	18 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/337/2022	Kurapati Varada Reddy vs Parcvathareddy Mahesh Reddy	18 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/20/2023	BANDLA SEENAIAH vs PENUMALA MANGA RAO	17 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/74/2025	GOTHAM MALYADRI REDDY vs GOTHAM NARASIMHAREDDY	17 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/85/2025	MANDAPALLI VENU vs MANGILIPUDI VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY	17 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/175/2018	kollu venkaiah vs Vspuli subbaiah	16 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/218/2017	madduluri kalpana vs Dasari thanuja	16 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
CC/100127/2015	SK Khadar Basha vs Settipalli Prakasam	04 Jun 2025	Judgement	—
OS/281/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Kaligiri vs KARRA RAMESH	16 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/309/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Kaligiri vs VINTHA KRISHNA REDDY	16 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/323/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Kaligiri vs BOYILLA VENKATESWARLU	16 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/345/2023	ANDHRA PRAGATHI GRAMEENA BANK,KOMMI BRANCH vs PASALA BHASKAR	16 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/100/2018	Polimera subbarayudu vs Veeramreddy Venkateswarlu	08 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/141/2019	Medarametal Ramamoorthy vs Pasupuleti Ramesh	07 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/157/2017	RAVILLA SRINIVASULU vs NAMBURU SRINIVASA RAO	07 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/217/2018	syed masthan saheb @masthan vs Vsshaik allah basha	07 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/39/2024	DEVARAPALLI MALYADRI REDDY vs GANGAPATLA SUBBARAO	06 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/64/2022	Ejjagiri Kondalarao vs Ambati Maheswara Rao	06 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/289/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Kondapuram vs CHALLA RAVEENDRA BABU	06 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/207/2021	Dagumati Audi Sesha Reddy vs Nalagatla Srinivasa Rao	05 May 2025	Judgement	—
EP/40/2018	Sk. Meera Mohiddin vs Alahari Venkata Subba Rao	02 May 2025	Order	—
EP/45/2018	Vanjavaka Ramanamma vs Alaharei venkata Subba rao	02 May 2025	Order	—
OS/28/2020	Union Bank of India vs Tulibili Laxmaiah	02 May 2025	Judgement	—
OS/90/2021	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kaligir Branch vs Bandaru Nagaraju	02 May 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 224 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		19
Mar 2026		13
Feb 2026		14
Jan 2026		18
Dec 2025		4
Nov 2025		4
Sep 2025		1
Jul 2025		1
Jun 2025		11
May 2025		18
Apr 2025		17
Mar 2025		16

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao handled?

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao has handled 225 court orders since 2024 at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 9 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka).

Where is Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao currently posted?

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao is posted as PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao dispose cases?

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao disposes approximately 9 cases per month, based on 225 orders handled over their tenure at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka).

Since when is Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao serving?

Sri.E.Sudhakar Rao has been serving at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

OS 87%

CC 8%

EP 5%

Posting History

May 2024 — Present

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 225 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G. Vikram Sinha

Addl. Judicial Magistriate of Ist class

98 orders

← View all judges at Prl.Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Kavali (Taluka)