Smt G.Anusha
Prl. Junior Civil Judge
Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex · Siddipet · Telangana
Smt G.Anusha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana, India. 2,003 court orders on record since 2016. 26 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.
Featured Judgments
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
:AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday this the 31st day of December, 2019
CC.No. 05 of 2015
Between :
Metuku Laxmareddy S/o Jagadeshwar Reddy, age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Theegalakuntapally V/o Koheda Mandal of Karimnagar District. … Complainant A N D
Danaboina Rajeshwari W/o Venkatesham, age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Koheda Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District. …Accused
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 138 NI ACT *** This case is coming before me for Hearing in the presence of Sri B. Raja Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri D. Nagaraju, Advocate for accused and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both parties present, their counsels are also present. A petition
U/Sec. 257 Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant through his counsel.
Petition is allowed. Hence this complaint is dismissed as withdrawn and the accused is acquitted.
Written and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2019.
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED
NIL
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
:AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Thursday the 08th day of December, 2016
D.V.C. No.12 OF 2014 Between :
Gaini Sathavva W/o Late Papaiah age: 57 years, Occ: House rest, R/o Regulapally Village of Bejjanki Mandal of Karimnagar District. … Petitioner A N D
Mamidi @ Gaini Latha W/o Gaini Anil Kumar D/o Mamidi Kailasam, age: 26 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Pariveda V/o Koheda Mandal of Karimnagar District.
…Accused PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 *** This case is coming before me for process in the presence of Sri. G. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Respondent called absent. Petitioner absent no representation.
Hence petition dismissed as process is not paid.
Written and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of December, 2016.
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT
NilNil
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT
Nil Nil
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
:AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday the 13th day of March, 2018
D.V.C. No.21 OF 2014 Between :
Kuncham Jyothi S/o Ramesh, age: 21 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Baswapoor, V/o Koheda Mandal of Karimnagar District. … Petitioner
A N D
1. Kuncham Ramesh S/o Kanukaih, age: 21 years, Occ: Contractor,
2. Kuncham Kanakaiah W/o Ilaiah, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
3. Kuncham Yadamma W/o Kanukaiah, age: 41 years.
All are R/o Baswapoor V/o Koheda Mandal of Karimnagar District.
… Respondents
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 & & &
This case is coming before me for cross examination in the presence of Sri. Y. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri. A. Balkishan Advocate for the Respondents No.1 to 3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both parties called absent. No representation conditional orders are not complied. P.W.1 is not present for his cross since filing of chief affidavit on 03012017. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this case. As such chief affidavit of P.W.1 is eschewed and this DVC is dismissed for default for the reason of non prosecution.
Written and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2018.
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS
NilNil
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS
Nil Nil
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD
Wednesday the 24th day of July, 2019
I.A.No. 382 of 2018 in I.A.No. 173 of 2018 in
O.S. No.63 OF 2018
Between :
1. Shanigarapu Venkata Swamy S/o Kistaiah, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture.
2. Shanigarapu Saraiah S/o Kistaiah, age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculutre.
3. Shanigarapu Latha W/o Rajaiah,age: 33 years,Occ: Agriculture.
4. Shanigarapu Murali S/o Kistaiah, age: 32 years, Occ: Agriculture.
All are R/o 148, Malapally H/o Kuchanapally village of Husnabd Mandal of Siddipet District. … Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4
A N D
Shanigarapu Rajaiah S/o Chandraiah, age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Malapally H/o Kuchanapally village of Husnabad Mandal, Siddipet District. All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o Potharam V/o Bejjanki Mandal of Siddipet District. … Defendant
SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 2A C.P. C ***
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Raghuveer and B. Srikanth, Advocates for plaintiff No. 1 to 4 and Sri P. Devadas, Advocate for Defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
1. The present petition is filed U/O 39 R2A praying this court to send the respondent to civil prison for disobedience of injunction order passed by this court. The contents of the affidavit annexed to the petition are that having knowledge about the adinterim orders passed against the respondent, the respondent trespassed into the suit property on 1305 2018 and thus prayed to punish the respondent for disobedience of the injunction order.
2. The respondent filed his counter stating that he is present in Mumbai and never went to malapalli Village and the notices in the present suit were received by his agnates on his behalf that the petitioners have not narrated the details at all of the manner in which respondent breached the orders and thus prayed to dismiss the petition.
3. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for ?.
4. Perused the material on record. This court has passed the adinterim orders dated 24042018 directing the respondent not to use the well which is dug by them. At the outset, it would be pertinent to state that the standard of proof required to be established by the petitioner in a petition U/O 39 R2A is as equal as that is required to proof the guilt of the accused in criminal cases. Let us examine if the petitioner could prove the same. The petitioner has only stated in the affidavit that the respondent has trespassed into the Suit schedule property on 1305 2018. Though he got filed photos the petitioner has not even stated any thing about such photoes in his affidavit. In the absence of which this court cannot presume anything. Further when the respondent contends that he is staying in Mumbai since 10 years, the petitioner has not given any explanation. For it to satisfy this court. The manner of causing disobedience of injunction has not been satisfactorily stated by the petitioner to enable this court to believe that breach of order took place.
Hence it can be concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the alleged breach by the respondent and accordingly this petition fails.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Written and Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of July, 2019.
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED.
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT
NilNil
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT
Nil Nil
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday the 25th day of June, 2019
O.S. No.159 OF 2017
Between :
Ragula Thirupathi, … Plaintiff A N D
1. Ragula China Yellaiah,
2. Ragula Agaiah,
3. Ragula Sammaiah, … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sunkari Ashok Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P. Devadas Advocate for defendant No. D2, D3 and the defendant No.1,2,3 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Counsel present and stated that his party is not receiving any thing hence prayed. In these circumstances this court is constrained to hold that the plaintiff is not interested in proceeding with the case. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June,
2019.
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Monday the 24th day of June, 2019
O.S. No.22 OF 2015
Between :
Gillella @ Jillella Yugunder Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gillella @ Jillella Madhavi Kyasa Santhosh
2. Kandi Balamani.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Srinivas Reddy and K. Shivashankar Goud, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri S. Ashok Kumar Advocate for defendant No. D1 and the defendant No.2 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff evidence not filed inspite of several chances. It is understood that the plaintiff is not interested to proceed with this case. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of June,
2019.
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday the 14th day of August 2015
O.S. No. 59 OF 2010
Between :
Kemsarapu Venkataiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Voriganti Mallaiah
2. Voriganti Ram Reddy
3. Voriganti Malla Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Rajamouli (Raju) Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, counsel for plaintiff present evidence not adduced. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of August
2015
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday the 6th day of July 2015
O.S. No. 32 OF 2015
Between :
Geetla Chinna Raji Reddy S/o Chinna Ram Age: 70 years Occup:Agriculture R/o Ippalapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar. … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bommideni Bjhumaiah S/o Mallaiah,age:38 years Occ: Agriculture
2. Bommideni Mallaiah S/o Rajaiah age:62 years Occ:Agriculture.
Both are R/o Ippalapally village of Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar district. … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli (Raju) Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri G.Sammi Reddy Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
I.A.No. /2015 filed Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w 151 C.P.C. Memo filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff sold out the suit land and that the plaintiff intending to withdraw the suit.
Notice given to counsel for the defendant who endorsed ‘seen’. In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of July
2015
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday the 7th day of September 2015
O.S. No. 115 OF 2010
Between :
1. Pudari Odelu @ Pedda Odelu
2. Poodari Komuraiah … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Keshaveni Ravi
2. Keshaveni Sadaiah
3. Keshaveni Kumaraswamy
4. Keshaveni Ilamma … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri R.Kanakaiah Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent evidence not adduced. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
September 2015
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 22nd day of September 2015
O.S. No. 114 OF 2008
Between :
Kallem Raji Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kallem Chinna Raji Reddy
2. Kallem Amruthamma
3. Kallem Srinivas Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sadaiah, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri Y.Linga Reddy Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant No.3 present. Pw.2 called absent. Plaintiff called absent. Pw.2 called absent. No representation. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
As the case is of the year 2008, I see no reason to further adjourn the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 1st day of September 2015
I.A.No. 777 of 2012 in
O.S. No. 252 OF 2011
Between :
Banda Ravinder S/o Chandraiah age: 42 years R/o Hasanparthy village and Mandal of Warangal District. … Petitioner/Defendant A N D
Banda Sammaiah S/o Erra Mallaiah (late) age: 42 years R/o Bheempally village of Kamalapur Mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondent/plaintiff
SUBJECT:PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF C.P.C. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for petitioner/Defendant and of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy Advocate for respondent/plaintiff and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Costs not paid. Written statement not filed. It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. Conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday the 16th day of September 2015
O.S. No. 236 OF 2011
Between :
Bagotham Mallaiah S/o Komuraiah age:60 years Occ:Agriculture R/o Kothagattu village of Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar District.
… Plaintiff A N D
Bagotham Ashaiah S/o Komuraiah age:65 years R/o Kothagattu village of Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT:SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Smt.K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Counsel for defendant represented that sole defendant died. The suit is for perpetual injunction.
As the suit is for perpetual injunction no cause survives against the Legal Representatives of deceased/defendant. Hence the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 30th day of June 2015
O.S. No. 161 OF 2014
Between :
1. Mohammed Mustafa S/o Shaik Naseeruddin age:60 years Occup: Retired employee.Now residing at H.No.522, Gopalpur, Hanamkonda, District Warangal.
2. Mohammed Chand Pasha S/o Shaik Naseeruddin age:57 years, Occup:, Now residing at Huzurabad village and Mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
3. Mohammad Jalal Pasha S/o Shaik Naseeruddin, age:50 years Occup:Agriculture, Labour R/o H.No.21 Ellabotharam village of V.Saidapur Mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiffs A N D
Mohammad Hyder Pasha sS/o Shaik Naseeruddin age:48 years, Occup:Advocate R/o H.No.21 Ellabotharam village of V.Saidapur Mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT:SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Defendant called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday the 7th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 20 OF 2010
Between :
Akula Mallesham S/o Narayana age:70 years Occ:Business R/o Jammikunta town and Mandal of Karimngar district. … Plaintiff A N D
Mohammad Hyder Pasha sS/o Shaik Naseeruddin age:48 years, Occup:Advocate R/o H.No.21 Ellabotharam village of V.Saidapur Mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT:SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Defendant called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of June
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 27th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 16 OF 2015
Between :
A.Linga Murthy S/o Late Chandramouli Age: 37 years Occ:Junior Advocate R/o Kothapally village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnaar district.
…Plaintiff A N D
K.Saritha D/o K.Prakash, Age: 31 years, Occ:Advocate R/o Huzurabad, District:Karimnagar … Defendant
SUBJECT:SUIT FOR DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE
MRRIAGE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AS
INVALID. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Yadagiri Sharma, Advocate for plaintiff Sri D.Bhadraiah Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present and represented that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 13th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 262 OF 2011
Between :
A.Linga Murthy S/o Late Chandramouli Age: 37 years Occ:Junior Advocate R/o Kothapally village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnaar district.
…Plaintiff A N D
K.Saritha D/o K.Prakash, Age: 31 years, Occ:Advocate R/o Huzurabad, District:Karimnagar … Defendant
SUBJECT:SUIT FOR DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE
MRRIAGE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT AS
INVALID. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Yadagiri Sharma, Advocate for plaintiff Sri D.Bhadraiah Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present and represented that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday the 2nd day of November 2015
O.S. No. 22 OF 2010
Between :
1. Mohammad Akbar Pasha
2. Mohammad Amzad Pasha …Plaintiffs A N D
1. Sukishala Madhava Rao
2. Sunkishala Srinivasa Rao
3. Sukishala Babu Rao
4. Sunkishala Thirupathi Rao
5. Sunkishala Ravinder Rao … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Both counsel represented that the case is compromised out of the court and requested the court to dismiss the suit. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 11th day of August 2015
I.A.No.530 of 2013 in I.A.No.774 of 2011 in
O.S. No. 166 OF 2009
Between :
1. Bommideni Laxminarayana
2. Bommideni Sathish
3. Bommideni Agaiah
4. Bommideni Mallaiah
5. Bommideni Rathnamma
6. Bommideni Veeramallu
7. Shanigarapu Vijaya
8. Madishetti Swarupa
9. Bommideni Anandam 10.Bommideni Ramesh … Petitioners/Defendants
A N D
1. Bommideni Anjaneyulu
2. Bommideni Venkatesh
3. Bommideni Sadanandam … Respondents/Plaintiffs
SUBJECT : PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Md.Hyder Pasha, Advocate for Petitioners/Defendants 1,2,4 to 10 and Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for Respondents/plaintiffs and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for the respondents present. Petitioners called absent. No representation till 4.30 p.m. Arguments not adduced. Conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of August
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 27th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 90 OF 2009
Between :
Wadikari Sambaiah S/o Veeraiah, age:48 years Occ:Agriculture R/o Gunturupally H/o Gopalpoor village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiff A N D
Vattemla Ailaiah S/o Komuraiah, age: 35 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Shanigaram village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district. … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant present. Plaintiff called absent no representation.
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 3.10 p.m. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 3rd day of December 2015
O.S. No. 300 OF 2012
Between :
Vaddepally Rama Lingam S/o Rajaiah, age:69 years, Occ:Agriculture R/o Kanagarthi village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiff A N D
Shiddamshetty Mogilaiah S/o Late Ramaiah, age: 80 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Kanagarthi village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the suit is compromised and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 3rd day of December 2015
O.S. No. 77 OF 2014
Between :
1. Siddamshetty Ramaiah S/o Late Mogilaiah, age:51 years, Occ:Private employee.
2. Siddamshetty Damodar S/o Mogilaiah, age:45 years, Occ:Gumastha. Both are R/o Kanagarthi village of Jammikunta mandal revenue of Karimnagar district now at Bodupal, Hyderabad. … Plaintiffs A N D
Vattepally Rama Lingam S/o Rajaiah, age:69 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o H.No.7474/D, Beside Saraswathi Shishu Mandir, Krishna Colony, Jammikunta town and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Linga Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs and defendant present. Both Counsels present. Memo filed stating that the suit is compromised out of the court and that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 1st day of December 2015
O.S. No. 54 OF 2014
Between :
1. Asari Laxmi W/o Rajaiah age:54 years, Occ: Household.
2. Asari Nagesh S/o Rajaiah, age:27 years, Occ: Agriculture.
Both are R/o Rajapur village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Chinthireddy Linga Reddy S/o Bal Reddy, age:65 years,Occ:Agriculture.
2. Chinthireddy Buchi Malla Reddy S/o Govinda Reddy, age:50 years Occup:Agriculture.
3. Chinthireddy Raji Redy S/o Ella Reddy, age:47 years, Occ:Agriculture
4. Pinreddy Linga Reddy S/o Chinna Papaiah, age:65 years, Occ:Agriculture.
5. Chinthireddy Sammi Reddy S/o Malla Reddy, age:37 years, Occ:Agriculture.
All R/o Rajapur village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri I. Madhukar Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation till 3.30 p.m. costs not paid. Conditional orders not complied. As seen from the record inspite of granting several opportunities, Pw.1 failed to appear before the court.
It deems that the Pw.1 is not interested in prosecuting the suit. As the case is of the year 2010 and also identified matter. I see no reason to further adjourn the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
R E C E I P T
Received the following documents
consisting of (33) papers for getting the
signatures of the then Hon’ble Presiding
Officer.
Ex.A1 is the certificate issued by the gramapanchayat dated 19102000
Ex.A2 is the original tax receipts for suit house dated 1351993
Ex.A3 is the original tax receipts of suit house for the year 199394
Ex.A4 is the original tax receipt of suit house for the year 199495
Ex.A5 is the original tax receipts of suit house for the year 200001
Ex.A6 is the original tax receipt of suit house for the year 199900
Ex.A7 is the original tax receipt of suit house for the year 200001
Ex.A8 is the death certificate dated 15101999
Ex.A9 is the certificate of residence issued by M.R.O., Saidapur dt.26.7.
2002
Ex.A10 is the residence certificate issued by M.R.O. dt.2872001
Ex.A11 is the Extract of copy of voter list for the year 2000
Ex.A12 is the Voter identity cards issued by election commissioner (4 in
No.) dt.15121995
Ex.A13 is the house tax receipts dated 15102001.
(MOHD.TAJUDDIN)
Superintendent ADM Court, Karimnagar
This is a suit vide O.S.No.140 of 2006 filed by Suravaram
Sudarshan Reddy through Sri T.Dayakar Rao,Advocate for perpetual injunction in respect of suit land measuring 0-18 guntas in Sy.No.314/E situated at Elkathurthy mandal against
Chinthalapani Devender Reddy, Dr.Chinthalapani Kishan Reddy and Smt.Edavelli Anitha, and written statement was filed on 18.9.2006, issues were framed on 7.11.2009, Subsequently,
IA.No.1100/13 was filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint
and it was allowed on 17.12.2013 and amendment was carried out, neat copy was filed. On 20.7.2015 Exs.A1 to A14 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. Subsequently, Pws 2 to 4 were examined on behalf of plaintiff and plaintiffs side evidence was closed on 6.10.2015. On behalf of defendants Dw.1 to Dw.3 were examined, Exs.B1 to B9 are marked. Now the case is posted to 21.12.2015 for cross examination of Dw.3.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 17th day of December 2015
S.C.S. No. 19 OF 2013 Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd Huzurabad Branch, R/by its T.Srinivas.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Oruganti Mallesh
2. Nalvala Sammaiah
3. Md.Sarwar
4. Oruganti Ilaiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 2,24300 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 17th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 140 OF 2011
Between :
Nagula Shankaraiah s/o Rajaveeru … Plaintiff A N D
1. Sardhana Komuraiah s/o Ashalu
2. Sardhana Sambaiah s/o Komuraiah
3. Sardhana Ailaiah s/o Komuraiah
4. Sardhana Rajaiah s/o Komuraiah
5. Sardhana Ailaiah s/o Ashalu
6. Sardhana Sambaiah s/o Ailaiah
7. Sardhana Vemana s/o Sambaiah
8. Sardhana Komuraiah s/o Ailaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday the 18th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 176 OF 2011
Between :
1. Laxmipathi Raghava Reddy
2. Miriyala Sridhar
3. Cholleti Gangadhar
4. Thatipally Rajamouli … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Mokili Mallaiah
2. Mokili Veeraiah @ Veeranna
3. Mokili Ratna
4. Mokili Rajanna
5. Nagurla Devaiah
6. Mokili Lingaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ayodya Ramaiah, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday the 18th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 48 OF 2011
Between :
Challa Saroja … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gollena Komuraiah
2. Allepu Rajamma
3. Allepu Yellamma
4. Allepu Sammaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. MALLESHAM, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 17th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 185 OF 2011
Between :
Medudula Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Nalla Raji Reddy
2. Abbidi Vivek Vardhan Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.SATHYANARAYANA, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday the 28th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 10 OF 2009
Between :
Kura Bikshapathi … Plaintiff A N D
Bashaveni Lingaiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri T.DAYANANDA RAO, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant reported ready. Pw.1 called absent, no representation. Conditional orders not complied. As seen from the record inspite of granting several opportunities lPw.1 failed to appear
before the court.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
As the case is of the year 2009 and also identified case. I see no reason to further adjourn the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 29th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 223 OF 2015
Between :
Sriram chits Private Limited, Jammikunta Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Muduganti Narotham Reddy
2. Venumuddla Venkata Ram Reddy
3. Maram Swadesh Kumar … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.58,85700 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.LAXMANA MURTHY, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant paid the entire suit amount and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of December 2015
I.A.No.910 of 2013 in O.S. No. 44 OF 2012 Between :
Pallerla Venkatnarayana … Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
1. Pallerla Mahender
2. Pallerla Kiran
3. Pallerla Lachamma … Respondents/Defendant s
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 18 OF CPC *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.AMARENDER REDDY, Advocate for petitioner/Plaintiff and the Respondents/defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 96 OF 2011
Between :
Narralingamma Rajaiah @ Raji Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gurijala Veeraiah
2. Gurijala Rajeeru
3. Gurijala Saramma
4. Marri Sammaiah
5. Gurijala Lalitha … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
As seen from the record the plaintiff is called absent since several adjournments.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 261 OF 2011
Between :
Yamsani Thirumala … Plaintiff A N D
1. Katanguri Satyanarayana Reddy
2. Dr.Shanigaram Thirupathaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
As seen from the record the plaintiff is called absent since several adjournments.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 13 OF 2011
Between :
Marka Ashok … Plaintiff A N D
1. Panjala Mallaiah
2. Basaveni Mallaiah
3. Guddelugula Saritha … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Ravinder, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of December 2015
O.S. No. 19 OF 2015
Between :
Karingula Ravi … Plaintiff A N D
1. Chintham Sanjeeva
2. Chintham Rambabu
3. Vanke Sambaiah
4. Gopu Lingaiah
5. Neelam Lakshmi
6. Karetlapally Babu Rao
7. Vanke Srinivas
8. Machenapally Thirupathi
9. Machenapally Chander Rao
10.Kanchem Mondaiah
11.Karatlapally Ramulu
12.Naredla Bhadraiah
13.Lagide Thirupathi
14.Chintam Srinivas
15.Chintam Sai Reddy
16.Midivelly Naresh
17.Gandla Dharmaiah
18.Marri Ramalingam
19.Gottem Sammaiah
20.Gottem Sarakka
21.Manda Laxman
22.Boge Mallesham
23.Kanishetty Raji Reddy
24.Karingula Komuraiah
25.Murahari Pullaiah
26.Karingula Sammakka
27.Yamsani Suresh
28.Kashinadham
29.Vijay
30.Putta Rajaiah
31.Kadari Sathaiah @ Appala Sathaiah
32.Karingula Ravi
33.Karingula Sadaiah
34.Dasri Rajakka … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Anand Mohan, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 19th day of November 2015
O.S. No. 277 OF 2012
Between :
Challa Adi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Challa Shankar Reddy
2. Challa Malla Reddy
3. Eda Kumar … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.SRIDHAR BABU, Advocate and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both Counsel present. Heard both counsel. Steps not taken, suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 12th day of November 2015
O.S. No. 204 OF 2013
Between :
Chandragiri Radha … Plaintiff A N D
Damanampally Chandrashekar … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTI0N ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.RAMAESH, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.SRINIVAS REDDY, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both parties present. Both counsel present. Both the parties represented that the case is compromised before the elders. Memo filed by both the parties is received.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday the 5th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 198 OF 2013
Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Shaik Ahmed
2. Bandari Rajaiah
3. Gevangi Bikshapathi
4. Maloth Santhosh
5. Perka Mallaiah
6. Mohd Ameeruddin … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 71,10700 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of January
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 5th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 03 OF 2010
Between :
Ravula Thirupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Churukanti Bhoom Reddy
2. Vollala Rajamouli
3. Nomula Laxmi
4. Sailla Renuka … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.S.REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, M.RAJAMOULI, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation. As seen from the record,
Pw.1 is called absent several times.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of January
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 4th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 170 OF 2011
Between :
1. Gorre Odelu
2. Gorre Rajamma … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Choppari Kumar
2. Choppari Vikram
3. Choppari Radha
4. Choppari Radha … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.SATHYANARAYANA, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri, G.LAXMANA MURTHY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintifff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of January
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 5th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 05 OF 2010
Between :
Sailla Renuka … Plaintiff A N D
1. Ravula Thirupathi Reddy
2. Ravula Ramana Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.RAJAMOULI, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, G.SAMMI REDDY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation. As seen from the record.
Pw.1 is called absent several times.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of January
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday the 18th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 67 OF 2011
Between :
Kotha Kamala Devi … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kotha Venkat Narayana Reddy
2. Kotha Veera Reddy
3. Kotha Ashok Reddy
4. Chelmela Aruna Devi
5. Darm Indira
6. Thota Sharada … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.SHESHAIAH, Advocate for plaintiff and Smt. K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for D2, Sri K.Sathyanaryana, Advocate for D3 and he is set exparte, Defendant No.1 and 4 called absent, set exparte, the defendant No.5 and 6 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present and represented that the sole plaintiff died and that the suit is not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 21st day of January 2016
O.S. No. 17 OF 2015
Between :
Kondaparthi Vamshikrishna S/o Venkat Reddy @ Venkateshwarlu, age:27 years, Occup:Agriculture R/o Thummanapally village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnaar district. … Plaintiff A N D
Banala Swami Reddy S/o Rama Kistaiah, age: 40 years, Occup: Agriculture R/o Thummanapally village of Huzurabad mandall of Karimnagar district C/o Madhusudhan Reddy Collony Chityal village of Jeedimatla Mandal of Hyderabad.
…Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR CANCELLATION, CANCEL OF WITHDRAWAL
OF REGISTERED GIFT SETTLEMENT DEED
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for plaintiff and SRI M.RAJAMOULI, Advocate for Defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
I.A. No.42 of 2016 allowed by advancing the date of hearing from 28.01.2016 to today i.e. 21012016. Both counsel present, Plaintiff present. On enquiry the plaintiff represented that he is not interested in prosecuting the suit. The counsel for plaintiff represented that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed as the parties have compromised.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 2nd day of February 2016
O.S. No. 160 OF 2010
Between :
1. Chinthireddy Vasudeva Reddy
2. Chinthireddy Ramakrishna Reddy … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Katkuri Ramana Reddy
2. Chinthireddy Madhukar Reddy
3. Chinthireddy Mahender Reddy
4. Chinthireddy Sampath Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri, G.SAMMI REDDY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant No.1present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation, evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday the 27th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 120 OF 2011
Between :
1. Gotte Lingaiah
2. Gotte Ramesh … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kalva Odelu
2. Kalva Parvathalu
3. Kalva Sammaiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for plaintiffs and SrI G.Srinivas, Advocate for Defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Counsel for plaintiff represented that the matter is compromised out of the court that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 28th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 174 OF 2010
Between :
1. Prathapagiri Rajaiah
2. Prathapagiri Ganesh Rao … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Godugu Rajender
2. Godugu Saraiah
3. Godugu Mallaiah
4. Godugu Srinivas
5. Godugu Ravi
6. Godugu Sampath
7. Godugu Sammaiah
8. Katanguri Srikanth Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri, N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 4th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 142 OF 2010
Between :
Erraballi Chandraiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Polsani Rajshwar Rao
2. Polnani Rama Rao
3. Pochala Kumara Swamy
4. Pochala Kiran … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, K.P.Eashwarnath, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent, no representation. Costs not paid, conditional orders not complied. As seen from the records inspite of granting several adjournments Pw.1 failed to appear before the court.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 5th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 202 OF 2012
Between :
Abdul Nabi … Plaintiff A N D
Appala Ravi … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present, steps not taken. Heard. Perused the record. Suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 5th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 130 OF 2010
Between :
Abdul Nabi … Plaintiff A N D
Appala Ravi … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, K.Seshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. On 24.4.2015 the counsel for defendant filed a memo stating that the defendant died. Heard the counsel for plaintiff perused the record. The suit is filed for injunction simplicitor.
As no cause services against the L. Rs. Of deceased defendant, the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 5th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 47 OF 2011
Between :
Madire Mallamma … Plaintiff A N D
1. Madire Yadagiri
2. Madire Uma … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, J.Ranga Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, no representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 25th day of January 2016
E.P. No. 52 OF 2014 in O.S.No.68 of 2002
Between :
Vadlakonda Agaiah … Decree Holder A N D
1. Akinapalli Kishore
2. Akinapalli Gopal …Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri, K.Ramesh, Advocate for J.Dr.No.2. The E.P. is dismissed as not pressed against J.Dr.No.1 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor No.2 present. Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for Decree Holder, the same is recorded. Hence the Execution Petition is terminated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 25th day of January 2016
E.P. No. 55 OF 2014 in O.S.No.71 of 2002
Between :
Vadlakonda Padma … Decree Holder A N D
1. Akinapalli Kishore
2. Akinapalli Gopal …Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri, K.Ramesh, Advocate for J.Dr.No.2. The E.P. is dismissed as not pressed against J.Dr.No.1 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor No.2 present. Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for Decree Holder, the same is recorded. Hence the Execution Petition is terminated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 25th day of January 2016
E.P. No. 57 OF 2014 in O.S.No.73 of 2002
Between :
Vadlakonda Sudheer Kumar … Decree Holder A N D
1. Akinapalli Kishore
2. Akinapalli Gopal …Judgment Debtors
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri, K.Ramesh, Advocate for J.Dr.No.2. The E.P. is dismissed as not pressed against J.Dr.No.1 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor No.2 present. Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for Decree Holder, the same is recorded. Hence the Execution Petition is terminated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 10th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 272 OF 2011
Between :
1. Sriram Dasharatham
2. Sriram Krishnaswamy … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Ravula Ravi
2. Pudari Sarojana … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri, M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant No.1 present. Plaintiff called absent, no representation.
Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 9th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 98 OF 2011
Between :
Koudagani Kankaiah S/o Rajaveeru … Plaintiff A N D
Ganta Saraiah S/o Chandraiah … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, M.Kondaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 11th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 233 OF 2011
Between :
Madadi Asok Kumar Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Tahsildar, Jammikunta … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri, A.G.P. for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 11th day of February 2016
S.C.S. No. 15 OF 2012 Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd.Jammikunta Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Jakke Rajaiah
2. Thota Mogili
3. Jakke Srinivas
4. Jangapalli Kistaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.1,64400 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 and 3 set exparte. The defendant No.2 and 4 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 15th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 286 OF 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd.Huzurabad Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Banala Sadanandam
2. Gollapelli Mogilaiah
3. Gadamalla Rajeshwar
4. Chittal Rajaiah
5. Sarva Naganna … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.21,93800 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff. The case against Defendant No.1 is abated. The defendant No.2,5 set exparte. The defendant No.3 and 4 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 229 OF 2015
Between :
1. Arelli Venkataiah
2. Arelli Rajamma … Plaintiffs A N D
Arelli Rajamouli … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for PlaintiffS and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Process not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 18th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 14 OF 2011
Between :
Rontala Sammaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Chunchu Rajamallu … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for PlaintiffS and SRI M.RAJAMOULY, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called abent, evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 108 OF 2009
Between :
Rontala Sammaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Chunchu Rajamallu … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for PlaintiffS and SRI M.RAJAMOULY, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called abent, evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 18th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 86 OF 2011
Between :
Rontala Sammaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Chunchu Rajamallu … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.RAMANA RAO, Advocate for PlaintiffS and SRI M.RAJAMOULY, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called abent, evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 21st day of January 2016
O.S. No. 86 OF 2011
Between :
Narayanadas Kanthamma … Plaintiff A N D
Sonnaila @ Narayanadas Agaiah … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI M.RAJAMOULY, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant present, plaintiff called absent. No representation evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday the 28th day of January 2016
S.C.S. No. 05 OF 2014 Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd.Jammikunta Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Sribashyam Vijay Kumar
2. V.Srinivas
3. M.Swamy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.2,37300 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff. The Defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 108 OF 2009
Between :
M/s Siri Goods transport R/by its Managing Partner Mandalapu Suryanarayana Rao … Plaintiff A N D
1. Shanigaram Ailaiah
2. Bollaveni Yellaiah
3. Vanthadupula Anjaiah
4. Kallepalli Ramesh
5. Kanukam Mallaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI P.SAJAN KUMAR, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI M.VEERASENA REDDY, Advocate for defendantS and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 3.00 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 28th day of January 2016
O.S. No. 74 OF 2012
Between :
Vallempatla Eswaraiah … Plaintiff A N D
Deviti Sattaiah @ Satyanarayana … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI K.SESHAIAH, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsel present, counsel for defendant reported that sole defendant expired. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
As the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor no cause services against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant. Hence the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
January 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 25th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 41 OF 2011
Between :
1. A.V.Ashok Kumar
2. Akkapally Komuraiah
3. Kore Odelu … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Pabbu Ramesh
2. Pabbu Subhash
3. Pabbu Sampath
4. Gopagani Srinias
5. Gopagani Thirupathi
6. Gopagani Sathish
7. Gopagani Ramesh
8. Ravula Shanker … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI N.BHUMI REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI P.SADANADAM, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiffs called absent. Evidence not adduced costs not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 230 OF 2011
Between :
1. Avireneni Sudhakar Rao
2. Avireneni Malla Rao … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Kamshetti Mallaiah
2. Ponaganti Swamy Rao … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.SESHAIAH, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI P.SADANANDAM, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff Called absent. Evidence not adduced costs not paid.
Conditional order not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interesting in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of March 2016
O.S. No. 26 OF 2010
Between :
Pathi Shyamsunder Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Danda Venkateshwar Reddy
2. Danda Laxmi
3. Danda Vijender Reddy
4. Danda Vijaya … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SAMMI REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiffs and SRI T.DAYANANDA RAO, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Heard. Steps not taken, suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 14th day of March 2016
E.P. No. 123 OF 2013 in O.S.No.64 of 2012
Between :
Bobbala @ Nomala Srimanthi … Decree Holder A N D
Bobbala Chilukamma …Judgment Debtor
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.SESHAIAH, Advocate for Decree Holder and SRI J.RANGA RAO, Advocate for Judgment Debtor and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Heard. Perused the record. As the suit is restored to file, this E.P.is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of February 2016
E.P. No. 39 OF 2015 in O.S.No.317 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Privte Limited, Huzurabad Branch R/by its Zonal Legal Officer M.Shiva Prasad … Decree Holder/Plaintiff A N D
1. Burri Thirupathi
2. Pendyala Komuraiah
3. Matla Chandramouli
4. Easampally SarlyNelly Kanakaiah
5. Mata Venkateshwarlu
6. Javvaji Kanakaiah
7. Burri Rajaveeru
8. Manchikatla Ram Mohan Prasad
9. Mandala Radhika Reddy …Judgment Debtors/Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SAMMI REDDY, Advocate for Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtors not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for Decree
Holder/Plaintiff, In view of the same the Execution petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 9th day of March 2016
S.C.S.No.21 of 2014
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Privte Limited, Huzurabad Branch R/by T.Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Thallapally Srinivas
2. Gandi Chandramouli
3. Guthikonda Sadanandam
4. Komuravelli Yashoda
5. Manchikatla Ram Mohan Prasad
6. Mandala Radhika Reddy … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SRINIVAS, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of February 2016
O. S. No.224 of 2015
Between :
Vemula Manoher … Plaintiff A N D
Syed Anwar … Defendant
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.SAMMAIAH, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, No representation. Process not paid, conditional ordersnot complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 25th day of February 2016
I.A.No. 309 of 2015 in IA.No. 661 of 2012 in O. S. No.244 of 2012
Between :
Bonagiri Mogili … Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
Bonagani Thirupathi … Respondent/Defendant
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI S.SARANGAM, Advocate for Petitioner/Plaintiff and SRI P.SRIDHAR BABU, Advocate for Responent/defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for respondent present, petitioner called absent. No representation. Costs not paid. Chief examination affidavit not filed, conditional orders not complied.
Hence the petition is dimissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday the 24th day of February 2016
O.S. No. 220 OF 2015
Between :
Murahari Narsaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Yalla Ram Reddy
2. Mutyala Ravinder Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI Y.RAMESH, Advocate for plaintiff and SRI K.SRINIVAS REDDY, Advocate for Defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Defendants present, Plaintiff present. Both counsel present, memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the suit is compromised out of the court and that the suit is may be dismissed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 25th day of February 2016
O. S. No.266 of 2011
Between :
Baddam Malla Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kandadi Srinivas Reddy
2. Kandadi Mahender Reddy … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI N.SATHYANARAYANA, Advocate for plaintiff and SRI G.SATHYAARAYANA REDDY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiff called absent, costs not paid. Evidence not adduced, conditional order not complied
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
February 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 9th day of March 2016
O. S. No.94 of 2011
Between :
1. Penala Udaya Bhaskar
2. Penala Mallikarjun … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Chintla Sammaiah
2. Chintala Rajamouli … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.AMARENDER REDDY, Advocate for plaintiffs and SRI J.V.RAJU, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintifs called absent. No representation, costs not paid.
Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of March 2016
O. S. No.206 of 2011
Between :
1. Kande Raju
2. Kande Ajay … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Chandupatla Venkat Reddy
2. Erra Sammaiah
3. Jaini Sharadha
4. Jaini Chandramouli
5. Erra Nagaraju
6. Kampally Pochamma
7. Chityala Odelu
8. Rachapally Komuraiah
9. Parla Sadaiah
10.Ramu Saraiah
11.Rachapally Saraiah
12.Rachapally Mogili
13.Erra Pochaiah
14.Erra Narsaiah … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.ANJANEYULU, Advocate for plaintiffs and SMT.K.VIJAYA REDDY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintifs called absent. No representation, costs not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 15th day of March 2016
O. S. No.243 of 2011
Between :
1. Yalla Mohan Reddy
2. Yalla Ram Reddy … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Danda Narsaiah
2. Danda Yadaiah
3. Vardhineni Ravinder … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.SAMMI REDDY, Advocate for plaintiffs and SRI K.SESHAIAH, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintifs called absent. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 15th day of March 2016
O. S. No.84 of 2011
Between :
Gollapally Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kalvala Venkati
2. Somandla Beeraiah
3. Somandla Komuraiah
4. Somandla Ailaiah
5. Moluguri Hanmanthu
6. Kalvala Pochaiah
7. Moluguri Komuraiah … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI M.RAJAMOULI, Advocate for plaintiff and SRI K.SESHAIAH, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant No.7 present, counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. Further evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Already the evidence of Pw.1 is eschewed.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of March 2016
O. S. No.111 of 2011
Between :
Sudireddy Venkateshwarlu @ Venkateshwar Rao … Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
Sudireddy Vasantha Rao … Respondent/Defendant
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate for Plaintiff and SRI P.SESHAIAH, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, the counsel for the plaintiff hasrepresented that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of March 2016
O. S. No. 119 of 2011
Between :
Chidurala Sanjeeva Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Chidurala Sammi Reddy
2. Chidurala Susheela
3. Chidurala Srinivas Reddy … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for the plaintiff has not pressed the suit. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 17th day of March 2016
E.P.No. 66 of 2013 in O. S. No.187 of 2004
Between :
Shriram Chits Private Limited R/by its G.P.A. Holder …Decree Holder/ Plaintiffs A N D
1. Mohammad Faizuddin
2. Ravula Koteshwar
3. Gunde Ramchandar
4. Ladila Narayana …Judgment Debtors/Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for Decree Holdewr/plaintiff and the Judgment Debtor/defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent, no representation. Process not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petitioner. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of March 2016
O. S. No. 148 of 2015
Between :
Kokkula Vijayagiri … Plaintiff A N D
Bheemani Radhamma … Defendant
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called abasent. No representation, evidence not adduced.
As seen from the record inspite of granting several adjournments, the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence.
It deems that the plaintiff not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of March 2016
O. S. No. 06 of 2013
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited R/by it’s Legal Officer Sri M.Manikyam … Plaintiff A N D
1. Sandula Narayana
2. Mohammed Ramzan
3. Neduri Sammaiah
4. Chinnala Mallaiah
5. Udari Swamy … Defendant
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full satisfaction memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of March 2016
O. S. No. 80 of 2011
Between :
Jamanjyothi Parameshwar … Plaintiff A N D
1. Tenkurala Rajeer
2. Tenkurala Ravinder
3. Tenkurala Thirupathi
4. Tenkurala Mahender
5. Tenkurala Srinivas
6. Dingiri Jaganatham … Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri J.Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant. Plaintiff called absent. No representation.
Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of March 2016
O. S. No. 178 of 2014
Between :
1. Devasani Laxmi
2. Devasani Kishore
3. Devasani Rajitha … Plaintiffs A N D
Racharla Padma … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF LEGAL HEIRS ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Hanumaiah, Advocate for plaintiffs and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Process not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 28th day of March 2016
E.P.No. 36 of 2013 in O. S. No.64 of 2011
Between :
Kapil Chit funds Private Limited, Huzurabad …Decree Holder/ Plaintiff A N D
1. Mulkala Vijaya Rao
2. Sheelam Shekar
3. Dusa Rajalingu
4. Kathapally Venkat Reddy …Judgment Debtors/Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Decree Holder/plaintiff and the Judgment Debtor/defendant called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the same, the Execution Petition is closed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of March 2016
E.P.No. 63 of 2013 in O. S. No.57 of 2005
Between :
Shriram Chits Private Limited, Jammikunta …Decree Holder/ Plaintiff A N D
1. Tellam Muralimadhu
2. Nimmala Rajaiah
3. Garige Raju
4. Bandavaram Narsimhamurthy …Judgment Debtors/Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for Decree Holder/plaintiff and the Judgment Debtor/defendant No. 3 not appeared. The Judgment Debtor/defendant No.4 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. Heard. Process not paid.
Conditional orders not complied. Execution Petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of March 2016
O. S. No. 213 of 2012
Between :
Alli Srihari … Plaintiff A N D
1. Edulakanti Narender Reddy
2. Dasari Srinivas Reddy
3. Banala Sadanandam
4. E.Lingaiah
5. B.Veeraswamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ram Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Ravinder, Advocate for defendants 1 to 4. The case agsint defendant No.5 is dismissed and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiff called absent, No representation. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of March 2016
O. S. No. 226 of 2011
Between :
Mididoddi Bagya … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bathula Thirupathi
2. Molugu Venu
3. Chityal Raja Karna … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Thirupathi, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 6th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 232 of 2011
Between :
Chokkarapu Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Yamsani Rajendra Prasad
2. Yamsani Sridevi … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 4th day of April 2016
E.P.No. 74 of 2013
Between :
1. Bissadi Gopal
2. Bissadi Rathnakar …Decree Holder/Plaintiff A N D
1. Thatipelli Rajaiah (died) his L.Rs. Defendants No.3 to 5)
2. Boini Sammaiah
3. Thatipelly Sampath
4. Thatipelly Narsingam
5. Dasari Laxmi
6. Chandragiri Sarojana …Judgment Debtors/Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI K.SAMBA MURTHY, Advocate for Decree Holder/plaintiff and Sri G.SAMI REDDY, Advocate for Judgment Debtor/defendant No.3. The J.Drs/defendants No.2,5,6 called absent set exparte. The E.P.against J.Dr/defendant No.4 is dismissed due to non payment of process and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. As per office note warrant is executed.
Hence Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 12th day of April 2016
O. S. No.252 of 2015
Between :
Banda Komuramma … Plaintiff A N D
1. Panthati Sudhakar
2. Mandal Tahsildar, Jammikunta
3. Village Revenue Officer, Rachapally.
… Defendants
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI N.BHUMI REDDY, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Husband of the plaintiff present. The counsel for the plaintiff hasrepresented that the suit is not pressed against the defendants and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 13th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 262 of 2015
Between :
Madipalli @ Medipalli Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
Kummari Babu Rao @ Goddali Babu … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Mahender, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 3.40 p.m. since call work. Evidence not adduced, conditional order not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 18th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 127 of 2014
Between :
Sandi Thirupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bavu Lingaiah
2. Bavu Ravinder
3. Bavu Mallaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Vijaykumar, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel prsent. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff, who represented that the case is compromised out of the court and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed. The counsel for the defendant represented no objection. In view of the same the suit is suomotu advanced to this day.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 13th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 231 of 2012
Between :
Chokkam Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Routhu Sarojana
2. Gaddam Nandaiah
3. Gaddam Sammaiah
4. Gaddam Rajanarsu … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Rajaram, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendants. The defendant No.1 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant No.3 present. Plaintiff called absent. No representtion till 3.15 p.m. since call work evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 19th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 121 of 2011
Between :
Panjala Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Marka Ashok … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Ravinder, Advocate for defendant. and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Eevidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the26th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 83 of 2013
Between :
Gampala Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Gampala Pushpa … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.S.Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Process not paid. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismiissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the26th day of April 2016
O. S. No. 155 of 2014
Between :
Kokkula Sathish … Plaintiff A N D
1. Polu Rajaiah
2. Polu Mogili
3. Polu Sampath … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Srinivas Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri N.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present, defendants 1, 2 present. On enquiry the plaintiff reported that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed. Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff is intending not pressed the suit, is received.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the27th day of April 2016
O. S. No.100 of 2015
Between :
Jajula Raju … Plaintiff A N D
1. Polneni Thirupathi Rao
2. Bala Shravan
3. Pole Komuraiah
4. Putta Ramesh
5. Ram Babu
6. Singireddy Ram Reddy
7. Sarla Thirupathi
8. Kola Ramesh
9. Akkati Sanjeeva Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismiissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the27th day of April 2016
O. S. No.279 of 2012
Between :
1. Myakala Komuraiah
2. Myakala Thirupathi … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Gulla Ilaiah
2. Gunti Ravinder … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Kaladhar, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 4.50 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismiissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the27th day of April 2016
I.A.No. 75 of 2015 in OS.No. 17 of 2006
Between :
1. Anupuram Rajaiah
2. Thaduri Sammakka … Petitioners/D1, D3 A N D
1. Anupuram Bhagya … Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Anupuram Venkataiah …Respondent/Defendant No.2.
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9 OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rama Swamy, Advocate for petitioners/D1, D3 and Sri M.Thirupathi, Advocate for respondents/plaintiffs and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. Memo filed by the counsel for the petitioners/defendants1 &3 not pressing the petition is received.
In view of the memo, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 30th day of November 2015
OS.No. 138 of 2013
Between :
Shriram Chits Pvt. Limited, Jammikunta … Plaintiff A N D
1. Md.Iqbal Pasha
2. Vollala Sriramulu … Defendants
CLAIM; SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF RS.54,77600 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff the suit against D1 dismissed, the defendant No.2 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has paid the entire suit amount and that the suit may be dismissed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 21st day of September 2015
OS.No. 10 of 2015
Between :
Boorla Ramesh … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bairi Sadaiah
2. Vangala Sampath … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION &
DECLARATION OF TITLE
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Shyamsunder, Advocate for defendants the defendants not filed written statement within 90 days, hence the defendants set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation till 3.00 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the case.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Saturday, the 30th day of April 2016
OS.No. 187 of 2011
Between :
1. Edulakanti Devender Reddy
2. Edulakanti Srinivas Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Edulakanti Ravinder Reddy … Defendant
CLAIM; SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both parties present. Both counsel present. Memo filed praying the court to dismiss the suit as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of December 2015
OS.No. 15 of 2011
Between :
1. Boini Pochaiah
2. Boini Rajamma … Plaintiffs A N D
Boini Rajakomuraiah … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation.
Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of September 2015
OS.No. 02 of 2010
Between :
Marka Ramesh … Plaintiff A N D
Vodnala Prabhakar … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 5.00 p. m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 13th day of October 2015
OS.No. 45 of 2012
Between :
Polu Veeraiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Polu Pedda Mondaiah
2. Polu Bhadraiah
3. Polu Chinna Mondaiah
4. Polu Ramakka
5. Polu Rajaiah
6. Polu Ravi
7. Polu Mallaiah
8. Polu Devener
9. Polu Rajaiah 10.Polu Mogili
11. Polu Sampath
12. Polu Srinivas
13. Polu Mogili
14. Polu Veeraiah
15. Bongoni Veeranna
16. Godugu veeraswamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for the defendants present, counsel for the plaintiff present. Steps not taken, Suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 21st day of September 2015
OS.No. 122 of 2011
Between :
Pulluri Madhava Rao … Plaintiff A N D
1. Lingampally Vanitha
2. Lingampally Ashok Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for the defendants present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 3.00 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of September 2015
S.C.S.No. 08 of 2014
Between :
M/s Kapil Chitfund Private Limited , Jammikunta Branch … Plaintiff A N D
1. Md.Abeed
2. N.Venkata Ramana Swamy
3. Md.Abdul Kabheer
4. Md.fzalul Rahaman Khan
5. Md.Umar … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 3,07500 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 5 called absent, set exparte. The defendants 2 to 4 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Mondday, the 7th day of December 2015
OS.No. 121 of 2015
Between :
Jali Narender Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Kankanala Thirupathi Reddy … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for plaintiff and Smt. K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff and defendant present. On enquiry the plaintiff represented that the suit may be dismissed as withdrawn. I.A. No. /2015 filed by the counsel for plaintiff under order 23 Rule 1 CPC is allowed.
In view of the same the suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 31st day of Augst 2015
OS.No. 25 of 2015
Between :
Aparada Kumar … Plaintiff A N D
1. Aparada Thirupathi
2. Aparada Srinivas
3. Aparada Ravi … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Rajendram, Advocate for defendants, the defendants 1 and 2 called abent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 3.45 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of August
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 30th day of October 2015
E.P. No. 144 of 2012 in ARB.No.2578 of 2011
Between :
M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Jammikunta Branch … Decree Holder A N D
Choppari Saraiah … Judgment Debtor
CLAIM: EXECUTION PETITION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for Decree Holder and Sri Gurram Srinivas, Advocate for Judgment Debtor, and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 18th day of September 2015
O.S. No. 166 of 2014
Between :
Meka Prameela … Plaintiff A N D
Thodeti Nagaiah … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 14th day of December 2015
S.C.S. No. 14 of 2014
Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch R/by its Authorized T.Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Cherala Sridhar
2. Parupati Sanjeeva Reddy
3. Cherala Ramesh Babu … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 3,11100 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant No.1 called absent, set exparte, the defendant No.2 and 3 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of
December 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 26th day of October 2015
S.C.S. No. 02 of 2014
Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch R/by its Authorized T.Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Besagoni Prabhakar
2. Arelli Rayamallu
3. Vadlakonda Ilaiah
4. Bongoni Mogilaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 2,92900 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 4 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 4th day of November 2015
S.C.S. No. 1 of 2015
Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch R/by its Authorized T.Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bollam Sammaiah
2. Routhu Nageshwar Rao
3. Siraveni Komuraiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 1,69100 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 and 3 s not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 21st day of September 2015
O.S. No. 10 of 2015
Between :
Boorla Ramesh … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bairi Sadaiah
2. Vangala Sampath … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri B.Shyam Sunder and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff calleld absent. No representation till 3.00 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the case.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
September 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 9th day of June 2015
O.S. No. 80 of 2015
Between :
Kukkala Adhilaxmi … Plaintiff A N D
Kukkala Lalitha … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present, counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the plaintiff stating that the case is compromised outside the court and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed. The said memo is recorded.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of June
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 56 of 2013
Between :
Akula Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kadari Veeraiah
2. Akula Sampath … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri J.Ranga Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Plaintiff present. On enquiry, the plaintiff reporesented that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 30th day of October 2015
E.P. No. 01 of 2014 in ARB.No.1081 of 2012
Between :
M/s Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Jammikunta Branch … Decree Holder A N D
Taduri Mallesh … Judgment Debtor
CLAIM: EXECUTION PETITION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor/Respondent called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 4th day of November 2015
S.C.S. No. 15 of 2014
Between :
M/s Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch R/by its Authorized T.Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Valabhoju Gopala Krishna Chary
2. Theegulla Srinivas Reddy
3. Manchikatla Ram Mohan Prasad
4. Mandala Radhika Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs. 2,34600 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Full Satisfaction Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff. In view of the same the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of
November 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 2nd day of June 2016
O.S. No. 101 of 2011
Between :
Vangala Sakkubai … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gande Nagabhushanam
2. Gande Rajamouli
3. Gande Somalingam
4. Chidirala Saraswathi
5. Cholleti Laxmaiah
6. Thodupunuri Chandramouli
7. Mukka Manemma
8. Yemsani Saraswathi
9. Gande Jagadishwaraiah
10.Gande Muralidhar
11.Gande Saroja
12.Gande Ravinder
13.Gande Shashidhar
14.Gande Sridhar
15.Gande Gyanender
16.Bejagam Vanaja … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for D1 to D3, Sri L.V.R.Rao, Advocate for D4, Sri J.S.N.Rao, Advocate for D9 Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for D10 to D16. The defendants 5 to 8 and 10 to 16 are set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Steps not taken, suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of June
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 29th day of June 2015
O.S. No. 207 of 2011
Between :
Godugu Mallesh @ Pedda Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Godugu Mallaiah
2. Godugu Sammaiah
3. Godugu Saraiah
4. Godugu Ailamma
5. Poleneni Satyanarayan Rao
6. Juguru Sadanandam … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for D2,D3,A4 and Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for D1,D5,D6 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Evidence not adduced costs not paid. Conditional orers not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of June
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of October 2015
O.S. No. 56 of 2013
Between :
Akula Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kadari Veeraiah
2. Akula Sampath … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri J.Ranga Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Plaintiff present. On enquiry, the plaintiff reporesented that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
October 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 26th day of July 2016
O.S. No. 57 of 2016
Between :
Keesara Ramaswamy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Nune Chinna Rajaiah
2. Garige Odelu … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF RS. 1,00,000 00 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Shyamsunder, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri B.Kaladhar, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the matter is settled out of the court that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of July
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 25th day of August 2015
O.S. No. 206 of 2012
Between :
Nathadi Buchi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. C.Bashi Reddy
2. Aitha Ramesh … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for D2,D3,A4 and Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for D1,D5,D6 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Evidence not adduced costs not paid. Conditional orers not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of June
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 1st day of July 2015
O.S. No. 35 of 2012
Between :
Veerameni Kishan Rao … Plaintiff A N D
1. Pendyala Ravinder Reddy
2. Katangoori Raji Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the suit is compromised outside of the court and that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
Notice given to other side. The said memo is recorded.
In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of July
2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 25th day of July 2016
O.S. No. 63 of 2016
Between :
Mandha Santhosh … Plaintiff A N D
1. Thoutam Venkata Swamy
2. Thoutam Laxmikanthamma
3. Thoutam Jayakrishna … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the parties have compromised out of the court that the suit may be dismissed.
In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of July
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 27th day of July 2016
O.S. No. 102 of 2016
Between :
Milkuri Jagan Mohan Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kankala Ailaiah
2. Kankala Kumar
3. Kankala Komuraiah
4. Kankala Kumaraswamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the matter is settled out of the court that the suit may be dismissed.
In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of July
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 27th day of July 2016
O.S. No. 102 of 2016
Between :
Milkuri Jagan Mohan Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kankala Ailaiah
2. Kankala Kumar
3. Kankala Komuraiah
4. Kankala Kumaraswamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the matter is settled out of the court that the suit may be dismissed.
In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of July
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 8th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 200 of 2012
Between :
Lakkireddy Thirupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Lakkireddy Venkat Reddy
2. Lakkireddy Sambashiva Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecution the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 11th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 91 of 2014
Between :
Busa Srinivas Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Busa Mohan Reddy … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri T.Sayanna, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present and represented that the case is compromised out the court. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff is received.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 221 of 2012
Between :
Kasam Rajeshwaramma … Plaintiff A N D
Kasam Ramchandra Reddy … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecution the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 110 of 2011
Between :
Muske Veeraju … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer (Shivalayam)
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner, Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 16th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 31 of 2015
Between :
Sabbani Vigneshwari … Plaintiff A N D
1. Musham Chandramouly
2. Musham Satyan
3. Musham Srinivas
4. Munigala Anandam … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 195 of 2011
Between :
Burra Narsamma … Plaintiff A N D
Burra Srinivas … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rdday of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 188 of 2015
Between :
Sadula Krishna Murthy … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Commissioner, Nagarapanchayat, Huzurabad.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar
3. The District Collector, Karimnagar
4. Town Planning Officer, Huzurabad
5. Vadluri Vijay Kumar @ Brahmachary, Chairman, Nagarapanchayat, Huzurabad.
… Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.KUMARA SWAMY, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.LAXMANA MURTHY, Advocate for D1,D4,A5 and Sri A.G.P. for D2,D3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present and filed a petition to advance the date of hearing on the ground of compromise. The said petition is allowed by advancing the date of hearing from 08.09.2016 to 24.08.2016. Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the suit may be dismissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of August 2016
I.A.No. 966 of 2012 in O.S. No. 20 of 1998
Between :
Kankanala Shyamsunder Reddy … Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
1. Kankanala Narsimha Reddy
2. Kankanala Raji Reddy
3. Aligireddy Yugender Reddy
4. Aligireddy Yugender Reddy
5. Aligireddy Senakar Reddy
6. Puliyala Banasheela
7. Challa Soujanya
8. More Narmada
9. Panchika Anjuramma
10.Billa Suguna
11.Naredla Yamunamma
12.Polapelly Samyuktha
13.Gootam Vijaya
14.Naredla Venkatnarsamma … Respondents/Defendants
SUBJECT; PETITION U/O 26 RULE 13 CPC FOR PASSING FINAL
DECREE AFTER APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONER
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Veerasena Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Plaintiff and the Respondents/defendants set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present and represented that the petition may be dismissed.
In view of the same, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 24th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 109 of 2012
Between :
Sanga Amareshwar … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kandukuri Subhadra
2. Kandukuri Ashok
3. D.Earamma
4. Kandukuri Anil Kumar
5. Kandukuri Surender … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Chidambarnath, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 228 of 2012
Between :
Renikuntla Kistaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Ambala Babu … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PEPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, costs not paid. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. As the suit is of the year 2012 and also identified case. I see no reason to further adjourn the case.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17th day of August 2016
O.S. No. 213 of 2011
Between :
1. Manchala Sathyanarayana
2. Ramidi Anjali … Plaintiffs A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 172 of 2011
Between :
Erragolla Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Banda Srinivas … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Nagaraju, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation till 5.00 p.m. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 128 of 2011
Between :
Gogula Swarajya Laxmi … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 127 of 2011
Between :
1. Kondapaka Chandra Shekar
2. Kondapaka Ramesh
3. Kondapaka Laxminarsaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced,
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 124 of 2011
Between :
Bingi Jagannadham … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 125 of 2011
Between :
Badam Suresh Babu … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 126 of 2011
Between :
Kothakonda Naga Raju … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 129 of 2011
Between :
Kondapaka Satyanarayana … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 130 of 2011
Between :
Thadishetti Jyothi … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 193 of 2011
Between :
Arelli Mogili … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced,
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 88 of 2011
Between :
Thadicharla Ashalu … Plaintiff A N D
1. Mohd Server
2. Bolla Ramesh
3. Sidduri Bucham Rao … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.G.Rabbani, Advocate for D1 and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for D2,D3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced,
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 8th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 306 of 2012
Between :
Kodari Kanukaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Kodari Komuraiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
As the case is for the year 2012 and also identified case. I see no reason to furtther adjourn the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
September, 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 17 day of August 2016
O.S. No. 12 of 2011
Between :
Bingi Jagannadham … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Manager/Executive Officer, Kashi Vishveshwara Swamy Temple (Shivalayam), Jammikunta.
2. Assistant Commissioner Endowments, Karimnagar
3. Deputy Commissioner Officer, Warangal Zone at Warangal.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, A.G.P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 18 of 2012
Between :
Thatipelli Anasurya … Plaintiff A N D
Lande Aruna … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
As per docket order dated 15.03.2016, sole plaintiff expired. Steps not taken suit is dismissed for abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 22nd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 99 of 2016
Between :
Boora Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Boora Chandramouli
2. Gajavelly Jeeyar Swamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
August 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 195 of 2011
Between :
Bura Narsamma … Plaintiff A N D
Bura Srinivas … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 22nd day of August 2016
O.S. No. 37 of 2011
Between :
Erugesi Sampath Rao … Plaintiff A N D
1. Pathakala Manemma
2. Pathakala Narsaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy and N.Srinivas, Advocates for the defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Steps not taken, counsel for plaintiff called absnt. As per docket order dated 12.04.2016, sole plaintiff died. Steps not taken suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
August 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of August 2016
O.S. No.66 of 2014
Between :
Muske Kistaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Chennamadhava Ramaraju
2. Chennamadhavuni Sarala @ Aruna … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Prathap and G.S.N.Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for the defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff has not pressed the I.A. No.602 of 2016. Hence I.A. No.602 of 2016 is dismissed as not pressed. Perused the record. Heard. The suit is filed for simple injunction. As no cause services against the L.Rs of deceased defendant
No.2 in a suit for injunction the suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed as abated. The suit against defendant No.1 alaready dismissed. Hence the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of August
2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 179 of 2013
Between :
Gurram Venkateshwarlu … Plaintiff A N D
1. Dulam Kavitha
2. Bathini Sharath Chandrabose
3. Singanaveni Vengal Rao
4. Sangu Govardhan Reddy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI B.KALADHAR, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri M.RAJAMOULY, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. As seen from the record inspite of granting several adjournments the plaintiff fialed to serve summons to defendant No.1 by way of publication.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit against defendant No.2 is dismissed. Already the suit against defendant No.3, 4 is dismissed and the suit against defendant
No.2 is dismissed as abated. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 245 of 2015
Between :
Kathula Surender … Plaintiff A N D
1. The Tahasildar, Kamalapur mandal
2. The Panchayat Secretary, Kamalapur.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF LEGAL HEIR ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri A.G.P for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff called absent. As per docket order dated 18.02.2016. Sole plaintiff died, steps not taken. Hence suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 121 of 2016
Between :
Dontharaju Saraswathi … Plaintiff A N D
1. Thallapalli Sammaiah
2. Thallapalli Rajamouli
3. Ankuri Thirupathi Reddy
4. Ankuri Sadashiva Reddy.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendants 1, 3, 4 called absent. No representation. Counsel for plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the matter is compromised out of the court and the suit may be dismissed. In view of the memo the suit is dimissed as not pressed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 58 of 2012
Between :
Bura Venkateshwarlu … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kaneboina Kumara Swamy
2. Kaneboina Jagadish
3. Sandela Kumara Swamy … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Shyamsunder, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiff called absent since several adjournments. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Since the suit is of the year 2012 and also identified case, I see no reason to further adjournment the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 8th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 79 of 2012
Between :
1. Mothe Mondaiah
2. Mothe Rajaiah
3. Chelpuri Laxmi
4. Pidishetti Pochamma
5. Akarapu Rajamma
6. Shanigarapu Kanakamma
7. Nampelli Shanthamma
8. Appala Kousalya … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Thirunahari Narasimha Swamy
2. Somireddy Madhusudhan
3. Somireddy Ram Reddy
4. Shanigarapu Rajaiah … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Sayanna, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Plaintiff called absent. Counsel for plaintiff represented that the suit is compromised out of the court and that the suit may be dismissed.
In view of the same, the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 109 of 2015
Between :
Bojjapally Popsham @ Poshaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kalakota Vinay
2. Kalakota Sadanandam … Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for Plaintiff and process not paid by the plaintiff and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant No.1, and 2 Called absent. No representation. Process not paid conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 209 of 2015
Between :
Sollu Ramchandram … Plaintiff A N D
Sollu Venkat Swamy … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendants called set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 8th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 306 of 2012
Between :
Kodari Kanukaiah … Plaintiff A N D
Kodari Komuraiah … Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
As the case is of the year 2012 and also identified case. I see no reason to further adjourn the case. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
To be Print ((((((((((((
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 27th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 16 of 2013
Between :
Devasani Mallesham … Plaintiff A N D
Nagula Mondaiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTIUON ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 27th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 159 of 2002
Between :
Banothu Rajamma … Plaintiff A N D
Banothu Badru … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTIUON ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced,
It deemds that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 28th day of September 2016
O.S. No. 92 of 2016
Between :
1. Chinthala Rajaiah S/o Late Rajamallu
2. Chinthala Lingaiah S/o Late Rajamallu
3. Chinthala Rajaiah S/o Late Odelu
4. Chinthala Ravi S/o Late Muthaiah
5. Chinthala Sampath S/o Late Venkataiah 1.
… Plaintiffs A N D
1. Chinthala Lingaiah S/o Odelu
2. Chinthala Komuraiah S/o Rajaiah
3. Chinthala Sadaiah S/o Late Rajaiah
4. Chinthala Srinivas S/o Late Ailaiah
5. Eerelli Beeraiah S/o Odelu
6. Golden Granites … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri E.Raja Reddy and Avinash Reddy, Advocates for plaintiffs and Sri T.Venugopal, Advocate for D1 to D4, Sri B.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for defendant No.5 and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for D6 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Defendants called absent. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs that the suit is not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 27th day of September 2016
E.P. No.45 of 2008 in O.S. No.604 of 2004
Between :
Kommidi Linga Reddy … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Polu Ashok
2. Polu Kiran Kumar … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION FILED U/O XXI RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and Process not paid and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Process not paid. Petitioner called absent. As seen from the record, the petititioner is called absent since several adjournments. It deemds that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of
September 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 14th day of October 2016
O.S. No.128 of 2012
Between :
Muppidi Venkat Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Naini Komuraiah
2. Sirra Mallaiah
3. Gattu Kanakaiah
4. Kunarapu Kanakaiah
5. Bandi Rajaiah
6. Banda Laxmaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Sesheshaiah, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditionall orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 13th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 11 of 2014
Between :
Chittimalla Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Chitimalla Veeresham
2. Chitimalla Hari Babu … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for the plaintiff represented that the matter is compromised and that the suit may be dismissed. In view of the same, the suit is suuomotu advanced to this day.
In view of the representation made by the counsel for plaintiff the suit is dimissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 14th day of October 2016
O.S. No.183 of 2012
Between :
1. Smt.Danda Renuka
2. Danda Dilip Reddy
3. Danda Karthik Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Marka Mogilaiah
2. Junnoju Ravinder … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditionall orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 17th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 58 of 2015
Between :
Jali Ram Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Kankanala Jaipal Reddy … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sadashivudu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Bhagavan Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Counsel for plaintiff filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out of the court and that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the memo the suit is dimissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 18th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 34 of 2012
Between :
Engala Bhoomaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Vengala Odamma
2. Vengala Komuraiah
3. Vengala Kanukaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouli, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B. Shyamsunder, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Counsel for plaintiff present. Defendant called absent. No representation. The counsel for the plaintiff has represented that the suit is compromised and that the suit is not pressed.
In view of the memo the suit is dimissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 18th day of October 2016
O.S. No.102 of 2012
Between :
Bollam Prabhakar … Plaintiff A N D
1. Manga Rajaiah
2. Manga Komuraiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Defendant No.2 present.
Evidence not adduced conditionall orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 18th day of October 2016
O.S. No.208 of 2011
Between :
Karnakanti Janardhan Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Karnakanti Linga Reddy … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Bhumi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for plaintiff called absent, steps not taken. Hence the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
To be print. 21.10.2016.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 18th day of October 2016
O.S. No.257 of 2012
Between :
Gattu Raju @ Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gattu Sathaiah
2. Gattu Sadaiah
3. Gattu Srinivas
4. Gattu Ramakrishna
5. Gattu Maduramma … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri N.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel absent. Plaintiff called absent. No representation.
Evidence not adduced. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 09 of 2012
Between :
Rodda Vanamala … Plaintiff A N D
1. Sambu Pedda Rajaiah
2. Sambu Thirupathi … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 259 of 2011
Between :
Sambu Pedda Rajaiah @ Rajaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Pedda Mogili
2. Rodda Vanamma … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 333 of 2012
Between :
Beemoju Muthilingam … Plaintiff A N D
1. Oruganti Sammi Reddy
2. Oruganti Laxmi … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
To be print 22.10.2016.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 203 of 2011
Between :
Peddireddi Raghupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gannaram Laxminarayana
2. Dhani Yellaiah
3. Peddireddi Bhagyamma
4. Peddireddi Thirupathi Reddy
5. Peddireddi Raji Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants 1 t 3 and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for defendant No.4 and 5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of October 2016
O.S. No. 38 of 2012
Between :
1. Peddamma Komuramma
2. Peddamma Yugender … Plaintiffs A N D
Peddamma Rajkumar … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L. V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for defendant and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for defendant No.4 and 5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 21st day of October 2016
O.S. No. 85 of 2012
Between :
Neela Ramaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Boragala Sailu
2. Borgala Ailamma
3. Boragala Rajaiah
4. Boragala Yellaiah
5. Boragala Durgamma … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 21st day of October 2016
O.S. No. 216 of 2012
Between :
Buchala Rajaiah … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Mukka Swamy
2. Mukka Mohan … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for defendant No.4 and 5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 03 of 2015 in Arbitration No. 237 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Mididoddi Bikshapathi
2. Manda Ramesh
3. Punna Balaiah
4. Bandaram Bhaskar … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 36 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILATION ACT, 1995 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Respondents/Judgment debtors not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 38 of 2016 in Arbitration No. 257 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Gujjeti Laxmaiah
2. Gottemukkala Sammi Reddy
3. Chopperi Pochamallu
4. Chopperi Sadananandam … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 40 of 2016 in Arbitration No. 465 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Shaik Imran
2. Uppala Dhasharatham
3. Shaik Mahaboob Pasha
4. Gorre Ramesh
5. Mohd Habeebur Rahaman … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 35 of 2016 in Arbitration No. 254 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Rallbandi Srinivas
2. Katla Laxmanna
3. Udutha Buchaiah
4. Appala Sathaiah
5. Yemula Ramesh
6. Sirikonda Sudhakar … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 36 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILATION ACT, 1996 ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 51 of 2015 in Arbitration No.421 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Ponaganti Murali
2. Gattu Ramulu
3. Erroju Sampath Kumar
4. Sollu Sampath … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for petitioner present. The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 48 of 2015 in Arbitration No.234 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Adla Veeraiah
2. Adla Venkataiah
3. Yemula Ravi Kumar
4. Amarlapudi Vijaya Prakash … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 26tsh day of October 2016
E.P. No. 44 of 2016 in Arbitration No.244 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Muniganti Shankara Chary
2. Kannoju Eashwaraiah
3. Gabbeta Narender
4. Vemuganti Raju … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 26st day of October 2016
O.S. No. 153 of 2012
Between :
Narege Ravinder … Plaintiff A N D
Banda Vimala … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Shankaraiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Smt. K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Counsel for defendant present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 28st day of October 2016
O.S. No. 49 of 2016
Between :
1. Yalla Raji Reddy
2. Yalla Malla Reddy … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Yalla Raghupathi Reddy
2. Yalla Linga Reddy
3. Yalla Lachavva
4. Yalla Tirumala … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and the defendants called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 1st day of November 2016
O.S. No. 87 of 2012
Between :
Muppidi Venkat Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Koonarapu Sailu
2. Naini Lingaiah
3. Bandi Chandraiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Shankaraiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Smt. K.Vijaya Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 1st day of November 2016
O.S. No. 229 of 2012
Between :
Girimalla Venkata Swamy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Girimalla Veera Swamy
2. Girimalla Thirumala … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sadaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Ramesh and Sri K.Devaiah, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 1st day of November 2016
O.S. No. 250 of 2012
Between :
1. Gangam Raghava Reddy
2. Gangam Raji Reddy … Plaintiffs A N D
Gangam Narender Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant present. Plaintiffs called absent. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 1st day of November 2016
O.S. No. 186 of 2013
Between :
Gadham Radhamma … Plaintiff A N D
1. Bandari Sammaiah
2. Bandari Bakkaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.V.Ranga Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Ganesh and P.Sadanandam, Advocates for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
To be print.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 3rd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 17 of 2012
Between :
1. Bhupathi Eashwaraiah
2. Bhupathi Srinivas … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Garide Mogili
2. Garide Srinivas … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Thirupathi, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocates for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Defendant No.2 present. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 3rd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 95 of 2012
Between :
1. Kadari Raja Durgaiah @ Durgaiah
2. Kadari Ilaiah … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Podeti Ravi
2. Podeti Swamy
3. Podeti Venkata Swamy
4. Podeti Mallaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocates for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 3rd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 148 of 2012
Between :
Arelli Rayamallu … Plaintiff A N D
Arelli Komuraiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 25tsh day of October 2016
E.P. No. 46 of 2016 in Arbitration No.264 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Mysa Srinivas
2. Thipparapu Rajaiah
3. Puppal Iylaiah
4. Mysa Rama Swamy
5. Mysa Ankoos … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of
October 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 2nd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 204 of 2012
Between :
Korni Thirupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Routhu Rajaiah
2. Routhu Narayana … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sadananadam, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiff called absent since several adjournments. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 2nd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 154 of 2012
Between :
Korni Thirupathi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Myakala Venkat Reddy
2. Myakala Malla Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri J.V.Raju, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Counsel for defendants present. Plaintiff called absent since several adjournments. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 7th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 52 of 2012
Between :
Kommidi Malla Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Panchayat Secretary, G.P., Damera
2. The Thahasildar, Elkathurthy
3. The District Panchayat Officer
4. District Water Management Authority, Karimnagar, R/by Project Director.
5. District Collector, Karimnagar.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri A. G. P. for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 7th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 223 of 2011
Between :
1. Bobbala Raji Reddy
2. Bobbala Ravindler Reddy
3. Bobbala Sujatha … Plaintiffs A N D
M/s Sri Venkateshwara Exports … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Smt & Sri K. Vijaya Reddy and K. Bhagavan Reddy for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Plaintiffs called absent. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 197 of 2015
Between :
Amaragonda Mallaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Gunti @ Guniti Komramma
2. Gunti Ramesh
3. Thonti Laxmi
4. Thonti Raju … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Bhadraiah, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant No.1 called absent set exparte, the process not filed for defendant No.2 to 4 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 55 of 2012
Between :
Atla Venkateshwarlu … Plaintiff A N D
1. Manchikatla Sammaiah
2. Thallapally Bikshapathi … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Md. Musthafa, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 302 of 2012
Between :
Polsani Srinivas Rao … Plaintiff A N D
Polsani Nageshwar Rao … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present during call work plaintiff called absent when the matter was taken up for hearing. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 240 of 2015
Between :
Mandati Sammi Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Kotte Sanjeeva Reddy … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri N. Bhoomi G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present and represented that sold defendant has expired. Perused the record. The suit is file for injunction simplicitor. As no cause services agianst the legal representatives of deceased defendant in a suit for injucntion. The suit is dimissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 15th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 91 of 2016
Between :
Md. Sarfaraj Hussain … Plaintiff A N D
Jama Masjid, Edgah & Khabrastan, Huzurabad R/by its Secretary. … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Laxman Raju and Syed Jameel Ahmed, Advocates for plaintiff and Sri P.V.Raghava Reddy, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Defendant present. Memo filed by the plaintiff that the suit is not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 17th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 83 of 2012
Between :
Thupakula Ramaswamy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Sheelam Srinivas
2. Madduri Shankaraiah … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant No.1 present. Plaintiff called absent. Evidence not adduced. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of November 2016
O.S. No. 73 of 2015
Between :
Shaik Khasim … Plaintiff A N D
Shaik Hussain … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Mahender, Advocate for plaintiff and the plaintiff process not paid and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent, No rerpresentation. Process not paid. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 7th day of October 2016
E.P. No. 42 of 2016 in Arbitration No.278 of 2014
Between :
Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Pulyala Rajkumar
2. Mididoddi Srinivas
3. Molugu Venkat Narayana
4. Mididoddi Sridhar
5. Pulyala Ilaiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and process not paid by the petitioner for R2 to A4. Sri Md.Musthafa, Advocate for R1 and R5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same the Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 136 of 2013
Between :
Thadishetti Laxmi … Plaintiff A N D
1. Nimma Venkataiah
2. Nimma Suresh
3. Nimma Thirupathi
4. Nimma Ramesh … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M. Rajamouly, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant No.1 present. Plaintiff present. Both counsels present.
I.A.No. 861 of 2016 is allowed by advanced the date of hearing to today.
Memo filed by the plaintiff not pressing the suit. In view of the memo, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 23rd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 79 of 2016
Between :
Lakkarsu Buchaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Lakkarsu Vijaya
2. Lakkarsu Srinivas … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants alled absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 29rd day of November 2016
O.S. No. 129 of 2013
Between :
Kodari Odelu … Plaintiff A N D
1. The General Manager, Bharathi Air Tel Pvt. Ltd., II & III Floor Splendid Towers, Begampet, Hyderabad.
2. Makala Ailu Komuramma … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Shravan Kumar & K. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.1 and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendant No.2 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of
November 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 2nd day of December 2016
O.S. No. 215 of 2012
Between :
Devulapally Sambaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Devulapally Rajaiah
2. Devulapally Venkatamallu
3. Moola Srinivas
4. Mamidi Odelu … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Sathish, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K. Seshaiah, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation. Plaintiff called absent on last adjournment also. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
December 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 2nd day of December 2016
O.S. No. 106 of 2014
Between :
Rekula Kishan Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Gulam Afzal … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF RS. 87,16700 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Muralikrishna Rao & G.Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K. Vijayakumar, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of
December 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 6h day of December 2016
O.S. No. 135 of 2012
Between :
Pathi Sahaiah … Plaintiff A N D
1. Pathi Srinivas Reddy
2. Puli Durgaiah
3. Parlapalli Sanjeev
4. Puli Jaihind … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sadaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Veerasena Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of
December 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 6h day of December 2016
O.S. No. 205 of 2012
Between :
Madadi Dasharadha Ram Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
Madadi Sridhar Redd … Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sami Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of
December 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 6h day of December 2016
O.S. No. 72 of 2010
Between :
1. Dondapati Prathap Reddy
2. Dondapati Susheela … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Dondapati Sai Reddy
2. Moram Malla Reddy
3. Moram Thirupathi Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Linga Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri P. Sridhar Babu, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsels present. Plaintiff No.1 and 2 present, defendant
No.1 present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is not pressed. In view of the memo the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of
December 2016.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 23rd day of March 2017
O.S. No. 98 of 2014
Between :
Korimi Lachaiah @ Komuraiah S/o Mallaiah, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Gollagudem H/o Perkapalli village of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Korimi Samuel S/o Mallaiah, age: 60 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Gollagudem H/o Perkapalli village of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Rajamouly, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Memo filed by the counsel for defendant that the sole defendant died on 18.08.2016. Perused the record the suit is filed for bare injunction. As no cause survives against the legal representatives of the deceased defendant in a suit for injunction, the suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of March
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 23rd day of March, 2017
O.S. No. 52 of 2017
Between : Kondla Papaiah s/o Veeraiah, age: 52 years, occup: Business R/o # 8153, Govt.hospital road, Jammikunta town and mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiff A N D
1. M/s Mani Sai Master Cable Networks, Jammikunta R/by its Managing directors by Sri Yalla Sampath Reddy s/o Gopal Reddy and others.
2. Yalla Sampath Reddy s/o Gopal Reddy, age: 47 yrs, R/o # 74 17/3, Main road.
3. Yada Srinivas S/o Venkateshwarlu, age:41 years, R/o # 279, Kothapally
4. Domakuntla Ravi s/o Kailasam, age: 42 years, R/o 3111/4/1, Near Grain Market.
5. Takkallapally Rajeshwar Rao S/o Rama Rao, age: 41 yrs, R/o 2 449/A, Huzurabad road.
6. Chaduvu Rajender Reddy s/o Venkat Reddy, age: 34 years, R/o # 7590/7/A, KVK Road,
7. Kanumulla Ganapathi s/o Komuraiah, age: 45 years R/o 24 53, near Housing Board colony.
8. Aitha Mahesh s/o Sattaiah, age: 40 years R/o 1174, near Bus stand.
9. M/s Sri Lakshmi Digital Communication, Near Sreeram Nursing Home R/by its partners.
All are occupation: Business R/o Jammikunta town and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Arun Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is not pressed. On enquiry, the plaintiff represented that the suit may be dismissed not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of March,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2017
O.S. No. 935 of 2010
Between :
1. Pamera Sampath Rao (died)
2. Pamera Shylaja
3. Pamera Devender Rao
4. Pamera @ Ailneni Sindhura
5. {a,era Vodua Sagar Rap
6. {a,era {re, Sagar Rap (Plaintiff Nos.4 to 6 impleaded as per orders in I.A.No.890 of 2016, dated 03032016).
… Plaintiffs A N D
1. Bompally Linga Rao
2. Bompally Devener Rao
3. Kodati Devender Rao … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sami Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri T.Dayananda Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. Arguments not adduced. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs called absent since several adjournments. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiffs are not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of March
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017
E.P. No. 43 of 2015 in O.S. No.66 of 2012
Between :
Rachamalla Srinivas s/o Kotaiah, age: 39 years, occup: Agriculture/LIC agent R/o Bheempalli village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
Manda Subash Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, age: 37 years, Government Teacher R/o Chinthalapally village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district presently working at M.P.P.S.Gangaram village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondent/Judgment Debtor
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the respondent/Judgment Debtor called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Warrant is effected as per office note. Attachment is made absolute. Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 25th day of April, 2017
E.P. No. 96 of 2016 in O.S. No. 18 of 2013
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Huzurabad branch R/by its Zonal Legal Officer, M.Shiva Prasad S/o Shekar, age: 34 years, R/o Huzurabad, Dist. Karimnagar.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Kurra Ravi S/o Kanakaiah, age: 31 years, occ: Van Driver R/o 2131/1, Post & village Kothapally, Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Thirupathi Sammaiah s/o Veeraiah, age: 44 years, occ: Security guard, Emp.No.02572710, PF No.HYD022001516, O/o SCCL, S & PCBHP, RGMBhoopalpalli Area R/o Q.No.530, Krishna Colony, Bhoopalpalli of Warangal district.
3. Kurra Sammaiah S/o Kanakaiah, age: 42 years, occ: General Mazdoor, Emp.No.01453620, PF No.HYD130000167, O/o SCCL, HSGDK2, RGMRamagundam 1 Area R/o G104, Mangalapally, Godavarikhani, District: Karimnagar.
4. Koneti Rajaiah S/o Veeraswamy, age: 33 years, occ: LDC/RC, Emp.No.3185, NPDCL,LTD, Post and village Jeellela, mandal Huzurabad, District: Karimnagar.
5. Kurra Kanakaiah s/o Sailu, age: 47 years, occ: Daily worker R/o 2131/1, Post & village: Kothapally, mandal Jammikunta, district: Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST J.Drs.2 to 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the respondents/J.Drs.2 to 4 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Warrant is effected on the office of J.Dr.2 to 4. Attachment is made absolute. Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of April,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017
E.P. No. 86 of 2016 in O.S. No. 341 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Jammikunta branch R/by its Zonal Legal Officer, M.Shiva Prasad S/o Shekar, age: 34 years, R/o Huzurabad, Dist. Karimnagar.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Palakurthy Thirupathi S/o Yellaiah, age: 30 years, occ: Auto Rikshaw R/o H.No.520, Dharmaram village of Elkathurthy mandal of Karimnagar district. Present address H.No.528, Damera village of Elkathurthy mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Palakonda Sammaiah S/o Yellaiah, age: 56 years, occ: Handling Labour, No.G11305, CPF No.24054, FCI, Jammikunta R/o H.No.451/10, Madipally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Gujjeti Laxmaiah s/o Ellaiah, age: 47 years, occ: DPS Labour, No.G12102, CPF No.24092, FCI, Jammikunta R/o H.nO.27 18/2, Durga Colony, Near: Ambedkar Chowk, Post and mandal of Jammikunta of Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST J.Drs.2 AND 3. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the respondents/J.Drs.2 and 3 not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
As per office note, warrant is served on the office of JDr.No.3.
Attachment is made absolute. Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of April,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017
O.S. No. 03 of 2013
Between :
Bhoopathi Satyanarayana S/o Late Mogilaiah, age: 55 years, occup: Business R/o Huzurabad village and manda of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Bajjoori Rajamani
2. Nagunoori Rama Devi
3. Bhoopathi Ravinder
4. Bhoopathi Krishna Murthy
5. Pokala Parameshwari
6. Jooluri Annapoorna
7. Pulluri Padmaja
8. Allenki Lakshmi … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Suresh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M. V.Shastry, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Memo filed on 17.02.2017 that plaintiff died on 6.10.2016. Steps not taken suit is dismissed as abated.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of April,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 3rd day of July, 2017
O.S. No. 165 of 2013
Between :
Nampally Ilaiah s/o Bhoomaiah, age: 60 years, occ: Labour R/o Bornapally village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Akosu Parameshwari w/o Venkataswamy, age: 55 years, occ: Labour R/o Bornapally v/o Huzurabad m/o Karimnagar district.
2. Satikim Nambaiah s/o Mallaiah, age: 55 years, occ: Singareni employee R/o Hahalyanagar, Bornapally village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri k. K. Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri L. V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 4th day of July, 2017
O.S. No. 44 of 2013
Between :
1. Pinreddy Padma W/o Late Mahender Reddy, age: 36 years, occ: Agriculture.
2. Pinreddy Soumya D/o Late Mahender Reddy, age: 10 years (minor) R/by her natural mother plaintiff No.1.
Both are R/o Mallannapally village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiffs A N D
1. Pinreddy Rajamma W/o Late Thirupathi Reddy, age: 70 years, occ: Nil.
2. Pinreddy Venkat Reddy s/o late Thirupathi Reddy, age: 38 years
Both are R/o H.No.159/3, Elabaka village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendant No.1, Sri N.Bhoomi Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.2 and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for defendant No.3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 6th day of July, 2017
I.A.No. 951 of 2015 in I.A.No.462 of 2014 in O.S. No. 128 of 2014
Between :
1. Vasala Ravi S/o Narsaiah, age: 45 years, occ: Agriculture.
2. Vasala Durgamma W/o Narsaiah, age: 63 years, occup:Agriculture.
Both are R/o Thanugula village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioners/Defendants A N D
Jupaka Komuramma W/o Rajanarsu, age: 50 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Thanugula village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondent/Plaintiff
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for petitioners/Defendants and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for Respondent/Plaintiff and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Counsel for respondent present. Petitioner called absent. No representation. Conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the suit hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 18th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 28 of 2016 in O.S. No. 262 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Jammikunta Branch R/by its Zonal Legal Officer, M. Shiva Prasad S/o Shekar, age: 34 years R/o Jammikunta of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Md.Ashiq Ali s/o Yakub Ali, age: 38 yrs, Occ: Business R/o 141 26/1, Abadi, post and mandal of Jammikunta of Karimnagar dist.
2. Sk.Mohammad Ali s/o Dawood Ali, age: 33 years, occ: PC, Godavarikhani PS, R/o Post & mandal of Jammikunta of Karimnagar district.
3. Gumpa Rajender Prasad s/o Chandramouli, age: 36 years, occ: SA, UPS, Kistampet R/o 65232, Gandhi road, Karimnagar district.
4. Bajela Mogili s/o Komuraiah, age: 43 years, occ: Driver TSRTC,Godavarikhani Depot R/o Indiranagar village Chelpur post of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR No.1,2,4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Petitioner/D.Hr. Process not paid and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Process not paid, conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the `18th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 17 of 2014 in O.S. No. 92 of 2012
Between :
Billa Raji Reddy s/o Mohan Reddy, age: 38 years, R/o Vennampally village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D Manda Subash Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, age: 38 years, occupation: Government teacher, Primary School, Gangaram village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar district R/o Chinthalapally village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11OF C.P.C.AGAINST
JUDGMENT DEBTOR.
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Shyamsunder, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Respondents/Judgment Debtor not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. As per office note
dated 09.03.2017, warrant is served in the office of Judgment Debtor.
Attachment is made absolute. Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the `19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 61 of 2011 in O.S. No. 36 of 2010
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Huzurabad Branch R/by its Manager, M. Ram Mohan Prasad s/o Sathyanarayana.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Abushi Sammaiah s/o Veera Swamy, age: 40 years, Occ: DPS, H/L, O/o FCI, Jammikunta, R/o H.No.1611971, Mothukulagudem, Jammikunta, Dist;: Karimnagar.
2. Mudedla Ravi s/o Rajamallu, age: 34 years, occ: DPS, H/L, O/o, FCI, Jammikunta R/o Kokarlapally, Mdl: Regonda, District: Warangal.
3. Sairi Mogilaiah s/o Venkataiah, age: 52 years, occ: DPS, H/L, O/o, FCI, Jammikunta R/o H.No.2725, Mothkulagudem village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
4. Gampa Ravi s/o Pochaiah, age: 37 years, occ: DPS, H/L, O/o, FCI, Jammikunta, R/o H.No.16187,Mothkulagudem village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 43 & 64 OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 AND 3. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and Sri Y.Linga Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents/Judgment Debtors, the respondent/J.Dr.No.1 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petitioner called absent since several adjournments. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the `19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 113 of 2013 in O.S. No. 79 of 2011
Between :
Shriram Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., R/by its G.P.A. Holder … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Reddaboina Sampath
2. Pittala Sampath
3. Reddavena Sammaiah
4. Pulipaka Banaiah.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11(2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and Sri K.Samba Murthy, Advocate for the Respondents/J.Drs, and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. Petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the `19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 130 of 2013 in O.S. No. 177 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Jammikunta Branch R/by Legal Officer, M. M.Manikyam s/o Saraiah, age: 33 years, occ: Legal Officer R/o Huzurabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Takur Ravi.
2. Matla Yadagiri
3. Takur Bhawar Singh
4. Takur Balamma
5. Ravikanti Raj Kumar
6. Edulakanti Srinivas Reddy
7. Ampati Lalitha … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 5. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents/Judgment Debtors, the Respondent/J.Dr.No.1 and 5 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. Conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the `19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 03 of 2016 in O.S. No.45 of 2005
Between :
Nampalli Srinivas s/o Satyanarayana Murthy, age:60 years, occup: Retired Vysya Bank Employee R/o 1231/2, Huzurabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
Burra Kumar S/o Venkatachalam, age: 35 years, occ: Business R/o H.No.11148, Upstairs of SubRegistrar office, Huzurabad proper of Karimnagar district.
… Respondent/Judgment Debtor
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF
C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR.
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Responden/J.Dr. called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. Conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 20th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 51 of 2016 in O.S. No. 79 of 2013
Between :
Gulli Bondaiah s/o Mondaiah, age: 56 years, occ: Govt.employee R/o Ambedkar Colony, Jammikunta proper and mandal of Karimnagar district. … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Ellandula Shobha w/o Suraiah
2. Ellandula Suraiah S/o Rajaiah
3. Ellandula Bhadraiah s/o Rajaiah
4. Ellandula Radha w/o Late Odelu
All are R/o Mothukulagudem village of
Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Respondent/J.Dr.No.1 to 4 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Conditional orders not complied. It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 24th day of July, 2017
E.P. No. 38 of 2015 in O.S. No.318 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Jammikunta Branch R/by Legal Officer, M. M.Manikyam s/o Saraiah, age: 33 years, occ: Legal Officer R/o Huzurabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Patha Bhadraiah s/o Lasmaiah
2. Patha Lingaiah s/o Ramulu
3. Rachapally Sathaiah s/o Yellaiah
4. Muddasani Thirupathi s/o Yellaiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Respondent/J.Dr.No.1 to 4 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. Petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
O.S. No. 159 of 2016
Between :
Gurrala Veeraiah s/o Mallaiah, age: 63 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Bonthupally village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Karka Vanaja
2. Karka Sainath Reddy
3. Junnuthula Raja Gangi Reddy
4. Bhoomadi Raji Reddy … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Seshaiah, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
I.A.No.834/2017 allowed by permitting the petitioner/plaintiff to withdraw the suit with permission to file fresh suit, subject to period of limitation. Hence the suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 27th day of July, 2017
O.S. No. 57 of 2017
Between :
Akinapalli Ramesh s/o late Sathaiah, age: 58 years, occup: Business R/o H.No.1467, Huzurabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Akinapally Ashok
2. Prabhakar Rao
3. K. Yadagiri.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Aitha Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri R. Kiran Singh, Advocate for defendant No.1 and Sri K.Seshaiah, Advocate for D2,D3 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Memo filed by the counsel for plaintiff that the parties compromised out of court and that the suit is not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 1st day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 202 of 2011
Between :
Gundla Rajeeru s/o Gattaiah, age: 60 years, occup: Agriculture R/o Seethampeta village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Chiluka Suresh @ Sudharshan s/o Rajesham, age: 30 years, R/o Seethampeta village of Jammikunta mandal of karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Defendant present plaintiff called absent. No representation.
Plaintiff called absent on previous adjournments also. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
I.A.No.210 OF 2016 in O.S. No. 110 of 2007
Between :
Bongoni Mogili S/o Yellaiah, age: 55 years occ: Agriculture R/o 3 4, Venkepalli village of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
1. Bongoni Komuraiah (died)
2. Bongoni Raju
3. Bongoni Yellaiah
4. Bongoni Vijaya
5. The Large Sized Coop Society, Venkepalli R/by its president.
… Respondents/Defendants
SUBJECT:PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 4 & 9 R/W 151 OFCPC ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for R3,R4/D3,D4. The R2 to R4/D2 to D4 called absent set exparte. The petition against R5/D5 is dismissed. and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 19th day of July, 2017
I.A.No.210 OF 2016 in O.S. No. 110 of 2007
Between :
Bongoni Mogili S/o Yellaiah, age: 55 years occ: Agriculture R/o 3 4, Venkepalli village of Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
1. Bongoni Komuraiah (died)
2. Bongoni Raju
3. Bongoni Yellaiah
4. Bongoni Vijaya
5. The Large Sized Coop Society, Venkepalli R/by its president.
… Respondents/Defendants
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Amarender Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for R3,R4/D3,D4. The R2 to R4/D2 to D4 called absent set exparte. The petition against R5/D5 is dismissed. and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Counsel for petitioner has not pressed the petition. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 21st day of July, 2017
I.A.No.786 OF 2017 in O.S. No. 164 of 2015
Between :
1. Aitha Jayaprakash s/o Rajamouli, age: 55 years, occ: Business R/o Near Gandhi Chowk, Jammikunta village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Aitha Kishore S/o Jayaprakash age: 30 years, occ: Business R/o Near Siti Cable, Jammikunta village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Gampa Srinivas s/o late Venkatrajyam, age: 45 years, occ: Business R/o Siddipet C/o Gampa Srinivas, Near siti Cable Jammikunta village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioners/Plaintiffs A N D
Desu Ravinder s/o Veeresham, age:49 years, occ: Business R/o H.No.2933, Jammikunta village and mandal of karimnagar district.
… Respondent/Defendant
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam,Advocateforpetitioners/plaintiffsandthe Respondent/Defendant set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Process not paid,. It deems that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 21st day of July, 2017
I.A.No.310/2015 in I.A.No.351/2010 in O.S. No. 67 of 2010
Between :
Lyadella Mogili S/o Rajaiah, age: 62 years, occ: Agriculture & Kalali R/o Madipally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Plaintiff A N D
1. Thallapally Damodar
2. Ponaganti Komuraiah
3. Ponaganti Raji Reddy
4. Ponaganti Sudhakar.
… Respondents/Defendants
SUBJECT: PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE IX OF CPC ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam,Advocate for petitioner/plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for R1/D1 and Sri M.Sadaiah, Advocate for R2 to R4/D2 to D4 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petitioner called absent since several adjournments. It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of August, 2017
E.P. No. 39 of 2016 in A.R.C. No.255 of 2014
Between :
M/s Rao Brothers Chit Funds Pvt.Ltd., Jammikunta Branch … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Konda Srinivas S/o Komuraiah
2. Aluvala Chakradhar S/o Madhusudan
3. Ponuganti Prabhakar S/o Rajamallu
4. Repala Shankaraiah S/o Komuraiah
5. Rangu Venkateshwarlu s/o Ramchandraiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the Respondent/J.Dr.No.1 to 4 called absent, set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. Process not paid. Petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of July,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 9th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 53 of 2012
Between :
Mothukuri Rajeshwer Alias Habeeb s/o Nandaiah, age:45 yrs, occup: Coolie R/o Huzurabad proper and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Gandu Rajaiah s/o Mallaiah, age: 40 years.
2. Oruganti Sammi Reddy s/o Kanakaiah, age: 50 years
3. Oruganti Laxmi W/o Sammi Reddy, age: 46 years
All are R/o Dammakkapeta village of Huzurabad mandal Revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent on previous adjournments also. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 9th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 41 of 2014
Between :
Chukkala Vajramma w/o Rajaiah, age: 52 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Sriramulapeta village of Veenavanka mandal of Veenavanka mandal, presently at Vittal Nagar, Godavarikhani town of Ramagundam mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Chukkala Kanakamma w/o Rajaiah
2. Chukkala Ramulu s/o Rajaiah
3. Chukkula Srinivas s/o Rajaiah
4. Jangili Lingaiah s/o Parvathalu
5. Jangili Odemma w/o Lingaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri T.Sayanna, Advocate for defendants and the defendants called absent, set exaparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff called absent since several adjournments. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 19 of 2014
Between :
Mudide Someshwar s/o Mallaiah, age: 50 years, occup: Ayurvedic Doctor R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district presenting at Nizamabnad town and district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Mudide Srinivas S/o Mallaiah, age: 47 years, occup:Agriculture R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUB: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE & RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Sheshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff called absent on last adjournment also.
Evidence not adduced. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 18 of 2017
Between :
Sesala Mogili s/o Late Ramaiah, age: 60 years, occ: Rtd Singareni Employee R/o Mothkulagudem village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiff A N D
Sammeta Ramesh S/o Komuraiah, age: 42 years, occup:Barbour R/o New Indiranagar village of Huzurabad town and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUB: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.20,00000 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and the plaintiff not paid the process and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
Conditional orders not complied. Suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 9th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 137 of 2017
Between :
Edla Raji Reddy s/o Yella Reddy, age: 65 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Duddenapally village of V.Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Chinnayalam Laxmi w/o Narayana Reddy, age: 50 years R/o Duddenapally village of V.Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUB: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant present and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff present, defendant present. On enquiry the plaintiff represented that the matter is compromised out of court and that the suit is not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is suomotu advanced to this day. Memo filed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the same, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 10th day of August, 2017
E.P. No. 21 of 2013 in O.S. No.145 of 2012
Between :
Kanneboina Odelu s/o Rayamallu, age: 80 years, occup:Agriculture R/o Venkatraopalle village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district. … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
Kanneboina Srinivas s/o Lingaiah, age: 35 years, occ: Ex.Sarpanch R/o H.No.160, Venkatraopalle village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Respondent/Judgment Debtor
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF
C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR.
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the petitioner not paid the process and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of August, 2017
E.P. No. 39 of 2016 in ARC.No.255 of 2014
Between :
M/s Rao Brothers Chit fund Pvt. Limited, Jammikunta Branch.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Konda Srinivas s/o Komuraiah
2. Aluvala Chakradhar s/o Madhusudhan
3. Ponuganti Prabhakar S/o Rajamallu
4. Repala Shankaraiah s/o Komuraiah
5. Rangu Venkateshwarlu s/o Ramchandraiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR Nos.3,4,5. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the petitioner not paid the process and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. The counsel for petitioners has not pressed the petition. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 11th day of August, 2017
O..P. No. 07 of 2013 Between :
Kathmandi Shanker s/o Rajeshwar Rao, age: 35 years, occ: Agriculture & contested Ward Member R/o H.No.1118, Vavilala village H/o Papakkapalli of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. … Petitioner A N D
1. Shanigarapu Thirupathi s/o Ailaiah, age: 32 years, occ: X Ward Member H/o Papakkapalli, Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district
2. The Election Officer, Vavilala Grampanchayat
3. The District Collector, Karimnagar
4. The District Panchayatraj Officer, Karimnagar
5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar
6. The Tahasildar, Jammikunta mandal.
7. Arelli Rajamallu s/o Rajaiah, age: 44 yrs, R/o Vavilala
village H/o Papakkapalli, Jammikunta mandal of
Karimnagar district.
… Respondents
SUBJECT: UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 AND 2 SECTION 26 OF CPC ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for petitioner and Sri B.Kaladhar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Sri A.Venkateshwar Rao, AGP for R2 to R6. The Respondent No.7 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Petitioner called absent since several adjournments, evidence not adduced. It deems that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 18th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 03 of 2014
Between :
Mudide Someshwar s/o Mallaiah, age: 50 years, occup: Ayurvedic Doctor R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district presenting at Nizamabnad town and district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Mudide Srinivas S/o Mallaiah, age: 47 years, occup:Agriculture R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Ramesh, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Sheshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Counsel for defendant present. Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff called absent on last adjournment also.
Evidence not adduced. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 222 of 2016
Between :
Kodipaka Upender @ Upender Rao s/o Yellaiah, age: 68 years, occ:Business R/o 1033 (old No.1021), Huzurabad village and mandal revenue of Karimnagar, presently residing at Hyderabad.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Kodipaka Shankaraiah S/o Yellaiah
2. Kodipaka Adi Lakshmi W/o Veeraganti Sathya Prakash
3. Veeraganti Sathya Prakash S/o Swamy
4. Kodipaka Prashantha D/o Ramesh
5. The Commissioner, Nagara panchayath, Huzurabad
Defendants 1 to 4 are R/o 1033 (old No.1021), Huzurabad village and mandal revenue of Karimnagar district … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3, Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant No.4 and Sri G.Laxmana Murthy, Advocate for defendant No.5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff absent on last adjournments also. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 7th day of September, 2017
O.S. No. 69 of 2016
Between :
Gurram Abbaiah S/o Raghavulu, age: 70 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Eklaspur village of V.Saidapur mandal of karimngar district. … Plaintiff A N D
1. Radharapu Ailaiah S/o Rajaiah
2. Radharapu Mallaiah s/o Rajaiah … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Sayanna, Advocate for plaintiff, the suit against defendant No.1 dismissed. The defendant No.2 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
September, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 7th day of September, 2017
O.S. No. 69 of 2016
Between :
Gurram Abbaiah S/o Raghavulu, age: 70 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Eklaspur village of V.Saidapur mandal of karimngar district. … Plaintiff A N D
1. Radharapu Ailaiah S/o Rajaiah, age: 40 years, occ:Agriculture R/o Eklaspur village of V.Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Radharapu Mallaiah s/o Rajaiah, age: 35 years, occup:Agriculture R/o Eklaspur village of V.Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district (now residing at Peddampally H/o Rekonda village of Chigurumamidi mandal of Karimnagar district) … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.Sayanna, Advocate for plaintiff, the suit against defendant No.1 dismissed. The defendant No.2 called absent set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of
September, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 18th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 03 of 2014
Between :
Mudide Someshwar s/o Mallaiah, age: 50 years, occup: Ayurvedic Doctor R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district presenting at Nizamabad town and district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Mudide Srinivas S/o Mallaiah, age: 47 years, occup:Agriculture R/o Guniparthy village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Krishna Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Sheshaiah, Advocate for defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced .
Plaintiff called absent on last adjournments also. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of August, 2017
I.A.No.717 of 2016 in O.S. No. 235 of 2015
Between : 1.Vemula Srinivas S/o Malla Reddy, age:41 yrs, occup:Agriculture 2.Vemula Anil S/o Malla Reddy, age: 46 years, occup: Agriculture Both are R/o Mallannapally H/o Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. … petitioners/Defendants A N D
Vemula Jalapathi @ Jalapathi Reddy S/o Adi Reddy, age:68 years, occ: Agriculture R/o Mallannapally H/o Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district … Respondent/plaintiff
SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 OF CPC ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sadaiah, Advocate for petitioners/Defendants and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for Respondent/plaintiff and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Petitioners called absent. No representation. Conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of August, 2017
I.A.No.718 of 2016 in O.S. No. 235 of 2015
Between : 1.Vemula Srinivas S/o Malla Reddy, age:41 yrs, occup:Agriculture 2.Vemula Anil S/o Malla Reddy, age: 46 years, occup: Agriculture Both are R/o Mallannapally H/o Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district. … petitioners/Defendants A N D
Vemula Jalapathi @ Jalapathi Reddy S/o Adi Reddy, age:68 years, occ:Agriculture R/o Mallannapally H/o Rachapally village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district … Respondent/plaintiff
SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER SECTION 5 OF INDIAN LIMITATION ACT ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M.Sadaiah, Advocate for petitioners/Defendants and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for Respondent/plaintiff and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following : : O R D E R :
Petitioners called absent. No representation. Conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 30th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 171 of 2013
Between :
Panuganti Sharabanda Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, age: 42 years, occup: Agriculture R/o Dandepally village of Elkathurthi mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D 1.Chinthakunta Vijender Reddy s/o Late Ravinder Reddy, age: 28 yrs 2.Chinthakunta Venugopal Reddy s/o Late Ravinder Reddy age:26 yrs
Both occup: Agriculture and R/o Dandepally village of Elkathurthi mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Vijaykumar, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 18th day of August, 2017
O.S. No. 91 of 2017
Between :
Seshala Mogili S/o Late Ramaiah, age: 60 years, occup: Rtd Singareni Employee R/o Mothkulagudem village of Jammikunta mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D 1.Gande Raju s/o Sambaiah, age: 40 yrs, occup:Agriculture 2.Gande Bharathi W/o Raju, age:35 yrs, occup: Agriculture.
Both R/o Madhavarao palle village of Mulugu mandal of Warangal district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF Rs.1,00,000/ ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Process not paid.
Conditional orders not complied. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
August, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 31st day of October, 2017
I.A.No. 205 of 2016 in O.S. No. 160 of 2010
Between : 1.Chinthi Reddy Ramkrishna Reddy s/o Vasudeva Reddy, 47 years.
2. Chinthi Reddy Vasudeva Reddy s/o Ella Reddy, age: 70 years.
Both occup: Agriculture R/o Kannapur village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioners/Plaintiffs A N D 1.Katukoori Ramana Reddy s/o Malla Reddy, 65 yrs,occ:Agriculture R/o H.No.579/2, Parlapally village of Thimmapur mandal in Karimnagar 2.Chinthireddy Madhukar Reddy s/o Raja Reddy, age:41 years occup:Agriculture R/o Kannapur village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. 3.Chinthireddy Mahender Reddy s/o Venkat Reddy, age: 46 years R/o Kannapur village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. 4.Chinthireddy Sampath Reddy s/o Venkat Reddy, age:38 years,occ: Agriculture R/o 41686, Sharelingampally town and mandal of Rangareddy district. … Respondents/Defendants
SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER ORDER IX RULE IX OF C.P.C. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Sarangam, Advocate for petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Petitioners called absent. No representation. Chief examination affidavit not filed, conditional orders not complied. Hence the petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of
October, 2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 8th day of August, 2017
E.P. No. 80 of 2016 in ARCBNo.385 of 2013
Between :
Kapil Chits ( Kakatiya ) fund Pvt. Limited, Jammikunta Branch, Zonal Legal Officer, M.Shiva Prasad S/o Shekar, age: 34 yrs, R/o Huzurabad … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Reva Thirupathi s/o Mallaiah
2. Aluvala Chakradhar s/o Madhusudhan
3. Ponuganti Prabhakar S/o Rajamallu
4. Repala Shankaraiah s/o Komuraiah
5. Rangu Venkateshwarlu s/o Ramchandraiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR Nos.3,4,5. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the petitioner not paid the process and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. The counsel for petitioners has not pressed the petition. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of August,
2017.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 6th day of July, 2015
O.S.No. 51 of 2010
Between :
Jeedi Yellamma W/o Late Rajaiah, age: 60 years, occupation: House wife R/o H.No.2135, Kothapally village of Jammikunta mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Bodikala Bhadraiah S/o Raja Narsaiah @ Rajanarsu, age: 38 years,
2. Bodikala Sammaiah S/o Raja Narsaiah @ Rajanarsu, age: 38 years, occupation :Government Teacher.
3. Bodikala Rajesh Alias Raju S/o Rajanarsaiah @ Rajanarsu, age: 30 years. 4,.Bodikala Raja Narsaiah @ Rajanarsu S/o Mallaiah, age: 70 years
All are R/o Kothapally village of Jammikunta mandal revenue of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court doth order and decree: : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. Counsel for plaintiff present. Evidence not adduced conditional orders not complied. It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of
July, 2015.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. D. BHAVANI CHANDRA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Friday, the 13th day of September, 2013
O.S.No. 92 of 2009
Between :
1. Mohammed Mujamil S/o Late Masood, Age: 22 years, occupation: Student R/o Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar.
2. Mohammed Mabbasher S/o Late Vasi, age: 20 years. Occupation: Student R/o Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Mohammed Sami S/o Ashraf, age:55 years, occupation:Employee R/o Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
4. Mohammed Gousoddin S/o Ashraf @ Ashoroddin, age: 45 years, occupation: Private Employee R/o Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Khaza Kaleemulla S/o Mohd. Sarwar, age: 38 years, occupation: President, Mosque and Edgah Management Committee, Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandalof Karimnagar district.
2. Farooq Ali S/o Kharath Ali, age: 35 years, occupation: General Secretary, Mosque and Edgah Management Committee, Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Ponnam Rajaiah S/o Mallaiah, age: 55 years, occupation: Kalal, Mosque and Edgah Management committee, Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district.
4. Bolla Srinivas S/o Sri Mallaiah, age: 35 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Malangoor village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for plaintiffs and Sri Md. Jaffar, Advocate for defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff absent. Costs not paid, no representation till 4.45 p.m.
Plaintiff not appearing and proceeding with the case inspite of granting several adjournments and opportunities. I see no reasonable grounds to grant further time, this listed matter. Hence suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of
September, 2013.
( R.SREE
LEKAHA )
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 14th day of March, 2018
O.S.No. 48 of 2017
Between : Bura Venkateshwarlu … Plaintiff A N D
1. Kodiguti Bala Raju
2. Kothuri Indrasena
3. Esampally Prabhakar
4. Matla Ravi
5. Tammadaveni Sambaiah
6. Katherla Ailaiah
7. Kanneboina Sammaiah
8. Marem Kumar
9. Dabbeta Ashok
10. Sandyala Sammaiah
11. Kanneboina Lingaiah
12. Dabbeta Ramachandru
13. Dharmula Mogili
14. Dharmula Sadanandam
15. Dharmula Ramesh
16. Dharmula Srikanth … Defendants SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Shyamsunder, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for D1 to D3, 7 and 8, Defendants 5, 6, 9 to 16 remained exparte and the suit is dismissed against D4 as not pressed and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of
March, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 5th day of March, 2018
O.S.No. 135 of 2017
Between : Pakide Srinivas … Plaintiff A N D
1. Peesala Chinna Veeranna
2. Murahari Laxminarayana
3. Mekala Ilaiah
4. Pakide Chinna Shankaraiah
5. Mekala Rajamma
6. Mekala Samrajyam
7. Morthala Rajeshwar Rao
8. Godugu Ravi
9. Gudekari Vimala
10. Dasi Rajaiah
11. Are Sammaiah
12. Godaragani Srinivas
13. Elagandula Srihari
14. Garampally Rajeshwar Rao … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION *** This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Sathyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for D1 to D4 and D6 to D10. The suit dismissed against D5, D11, D12, D14 for non payment of process. The defendant No.13 set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Evidence not adduced, conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of
March, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 6th day of March, 2018
O.S.No. 194 of 2017
Between :
Singireddi Raji Reddy … Plaintiff A N D
1. Ramidi Laxmaiah
2. Ramidi Shivapriya … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Rajamouli, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B. Suresh, Advocate for the defendants. The suit against D2 dismissed and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Process of defendant No.2 not paid. The suit against defendant
No.2 is dismissed. On 02.022018, the counsel for defendant No.1 filed a memo stating that the defendant No.1 died on 14.01.2018. Perused the record, the suit is filed for injunction simplicity. As no cause surveyors against the L.Rs of deceased defendant No.1, in a suit for injunction the suit against defendant No.1 is dismissed as abated. Hence the suit is dismissed against the defendants.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of
March, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 23rd day of January, 2018
E.P. No. 42 of 2017 in A.R.B. No. 531 of 2014
Between :
Kapil Chits ( Kakatiya ) fund Pvt. Limited, Jammikunta Branch, R//by its Zonal Legal Officer, M.Shiva Prasad S/o Shekar, age: 34 years, R/o Huzurabad of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder
A N D
1. Dheeti Bheemanna
2. Doli Kumara Swamy
3. Madderla Rajaiah
4. Nallabelli Vidyasagar … Respondents/Judgment Debtors.
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO. 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Goskula Srinivas, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
As per office note, warrant served on the office of J.Dr.No.4.
Attachment is made absolute. Execution Petition is closed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of
January, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 15th day of February, 2018
E.P. No. 129 of 2013 in O.S. No. 176 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chits fund Pvt. Limited, Jammikunta Branch, R/byits Legal Officer, M.Manikyam S/o Saraiah, age: 33 years, R/o Huzurabad of Karimnagar district.
… Petitioner/Decree Holder
A N D
1. Patha Sammaiah
2. Patha Lingaiah
3. Aushada Mogilaiah
4. Patha Rajaiah … Respondents/Judgment Debtors.
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 (2) OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G. Sammi Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
Both counsel present. Heard both counsel. Perused the record.
The Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad has granted stay in this
Execution Petition till the disposal of A.S.No. 24 of 2017. Hence, this
Execution Petition is closed with a liberty to the D.Hr. To file fresh
Execution Petition after the disposal of the A.S.No. 24 of 2017, subject to the result of A.S. No. 24 of 2017.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of
February, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Monday, the 16th day of April, 2018
O.S.No. 130 of 2012
Between :
1. Tharigoppula Anasuya
2. Dameruppula Bala Nagamma
3. Uppula Anjali
4. Paladugula Maha Laxmi
5. Kothapally Neelamma
6. Nalapoor Suguna
7. Narlapuram Subhadra
8. Sandikonda Bhagyamma
9. Marripalli Rukmini 10.Marripalli Sudha 11.Kandikonda Indiara … Plaintiffs A N D
1. Singirikonda Anjaneyulu
2. Singirikonda Satyanarayana
3. Singirikonda Prasad
4. Singirikonda Harishankar
5. The Mandal Thahasildar, Elkathurthy.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR RECTIFICATION OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE
RECORDS AND GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION
*** This case is coming before me for hearing Sri L.V.Ramana Rao, who was died Advocate for plaintiff on record and Sri G.Yadagiri Sharma, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 4 and Sri learned A.G.P. for defendant No.5 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Defendant No.2, 4 present and representing the defendant No. 1 and 3 represented that the counter claim is not pressed. Memo filed by the counsel for defendants 1 to 4 that the counter claim of the defendants 1 to 4 may be dismissed as not pressed. In view of the same, the counter claim of the defendants 1 to 4 is dismissed as not pressed.
The suit of the plaintiffs was already dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of
April, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Thursday, the 19th day of April, 2018
O.S.No. 282 of 2012
Between :
Naredla Subhashini D/o Late Suman, age: 19 years, occupation : Engineering student R/o Jammikunta town and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Veenavanka Sadananda Chary S/o Veera Chary, age: 48 years, occupation: Welder,
2. Veenavanka Vanamala W/o Sadananda Chary, age: 40 years, occupation: House wife,
Both are R/o H.No.2153/1, Near : A.P.H.B. Colony, Jammikunta town and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Sridhar Babu, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent, counsel for plaintiff requested time conditional orders not complied.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of
April, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Wednesday, the 18th day of April, 2018
O.S.No. 76 of 2014
Between :
Lakide Rajeshwar Rao S/o Chinna Nagoji, age: 70 years, occupation : Agriculture R/o Pangidipally village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Mukkera Ailaiah S/o Lingaiah, age: 50 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Pangidipally village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Beeraiah, age: 40 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Vangapally village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Gadde Kishan Rao S/o Rajeshwar Rao, age: 45 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Jojunurpally H/o Marripallygudem of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
4. Karatlapally Veeraiah S/o Bappaiah, age: 43 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Pangidipally village of Kamalapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing, Sri L.V.Ramana Rao (died), Advocate for plaintiff and in the presence of Sri G.Sammi Reddy, Advocate for the defendants and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff called absent on last adjournments also.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of
April, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUZURABAD
PRESENT: SMT. R.SREE LEKHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUZURABAD
Tuesday, the 18th day of April, 2018
O.S.No. 80 of 2012
Between :
Samella Devasahayam s/o Sailu, age: 62 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Veenavanka village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Karengula Amruthamma W/o Late Rajaiah, age: 65 years, occupation: House wife R/o H.No.106164(226), Kisan Nagar, Near: Hanuman mandir, Karimnagar district.
…Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT. ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Deepak Kumar Advocate for plaintiff and Sri K. Sanjeeva Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Pw.1 called absent. No representation. Pw.1 called absent on last adjournments also.
It deems that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the suit.
Hence the suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of
April, 2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUZURABAD
To be print)))))))))))))))))))))
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday, the 22nd day of March, 2019.
O.S.No. 72 of 2015
Between :
Kavva Ragava Reddy S/o Late Ram Reddy, age: 42 years, occupation:Agriculture R/o H.No.130/2, Jyothinagar, Near Govt. Hospital, Husnabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Kavva Venkat Reddy S/o Late Ram Reddy, age: 52 years, Agriculture R/o H.No.571, Arepaly, Jyothinagar, Behind Indane Gas Office, Husnabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Kavva Raji Reddy S/o Late Ram Reddy, age: 45 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o H.No.578/1, Arepally, Potlapally road, Husnabad village and mandal of Karimnagar district.
3. Bantu Sampath S/o Mallaiah, age: 32 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o H.No.250 Madadha village of Husnabad mandal of Karimnagar district.
4. Kathula Yellaiah s/o Komuraiah, age: 42 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Rekonda village of Chigurumamidi mandal of Karimnagar district.
5. Muppedi Madhusudhan Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy, age: 66 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Parlapally village of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district. … Defendants
SUBJECT: SUIT FILED FOR GRANT OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Smt. M. Thirumala Devi, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B. Raja Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.1 to 3. The defendant No.4 and 5 set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Costs of Rs.5,500/ were received by the counsel for defendants.
Memo filed as to payment of costs. Hence this suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of
March, 2019.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday, the 3rd day of May, 2019.
O.S.No. 167 of 2017
Between :
1. Doggala Narsaiah S/o Rajaiah, ag;e: 72 years, occupation: Retired employee R/o Dacharam village of Bejjanki mandal of Siddipet district.
2. Doggala Kanukavva D/o Rajaiah, age: 62 years, occup: Household R/o Dacharam village of Bejjanki mandal of Siddipet district.
… Plaintiffs
To whomso ever concerned.
...Defendant
SUBJECT: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF LEGAL HEIRS ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of SRI T. Venugopal, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Exparte evidence not filed. Both plaintiffs called absent. Hence this suit is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of
May, 2019.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Wednesday, the 27th day of March, 2019.
O.S.No. 16 of 2019
Between :
Koluguri Jayaraju S/o Komuraiah, age: 62 years, occupation: Retired employee R/o Ichullapally H/o Kannaram village of Velair mandal of warangal Urban district.
… Plaintiff A N D
1. Mankali Ramchander S/o Venkata Rajaiah, age: 65 years,
2. Sandaveni Saraiah S/o Rajalingaiah, age: 50 years.
Both are occupation: Agriculture R/o Ichullapally H/o Kannaram village of Velair mandal of Warangal Urban district.
… Defendants
CLAIM: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY OF RS. 2,38, 00000 ***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Murali Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Memo filed by plaintiff counsel stating that the matter is settled out of court. Not press memo filed. The same is recorded. The suit is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of March,
2019.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Friday, the 12th day of April, 2019.
O.S.No. 135 of 2016
Between :
Police Laxmil l@ Yendra Laxmi w/o Narsimhulu @ Narsaiah, age: 25 years, Occupation: Agriculture & House wife R/o Dacharam village of Bejjanki mandal of Karimnagar district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Yendra Anjaiah S/o Narsaiah, age: 58 years, occupation: Agriculture R/o Narsimhulapally H/o Muthannapet village of Bejjanki mandal of Karimnagar district. …Defendant
CLAIM: SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF TITLE AND PERPETUAL
INJUNCTION
***
This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant set exparteand having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Costs not paid.
Evidence of plaintiff not adduced inspite of more than five adjournments.
Hence suit of plaintiff is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of April,
2019.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT. G. ANUSHA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD
Tuesday, the 5th day of March, 2019.
I.A. No. 120 of 2018 in OS.No. 142 of 2017
Between :
Chepyala Venkatesh s/o Mallaiah, age: 38 years, occupation: Kiranam R/o Husnabad town and mandal of Siddipet district.
… Plaintiff A N D
Gugulothu Raju Nayak S/o Not known, age: 30 years, occupation: Labour R/o Mallcheru thanda H/o Regonda village of Akkannapet mandal of Siddipet district. … Defendant
CLAIM: PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 9 OF CPC. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Jagathpal,AdvocateforPetitioner/plaintiffandthe Respondent/defendant set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following : : O R D E R :
Petitioner called absent. No representation. Hence this petition is dismissed for default.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of March,
2019.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD
FAC: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUSNABAD
Thursday, the 26th day of July, 2018
E.P. No. 27 of 2017 in O.S. No.52 of 2002
Between :
UCO Bank Husnabad Branch R/by its Manager Sri H.Phani S/o H.Krishna, Age: 40 years, occupation: Senior Manager R/o Husnabnad village and mandal. … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Methini Venkataswamy S/o Komuraiah, age: 47 years, occupation: Agriculture.
2. Methini Komuraiah s/o Not known, age: 70 years, occupation: Agriculture.
Both are R/o Gandhinagar village of Husnabad mandal of Siddipet district.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 OF C.P.C.AGAINST
JUDGMENT DEBTORS.
***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Bala Kishan, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and Sri S.Mallesham, Avcoate for Respondents/Judgment Debtors and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The learned counsel for Decree Holder has not pressed the
Execution Petition. The counsel endorsed the same on the docket.
Hence the present Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of July,
2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SRI K.K.V. BULI KRISHNA,
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD,
FAC: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD
Thursday, the 12th day of July, 2018
E.P. No. 06 of 2015 in O.S. No.119 of 2012
Between :
Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited., Husnabad Branch R/by its Zonal Legal Officer, M.Skhiva Prasad S/o Shekar, Age: 34 years R/o Husnabad, Karimnagar. … Petitioner/Decree Holder A N D
1. Alkapelly Swamy S/o Yellaiah, age: 42 years, occup: Agriculture R/o H.No.286/1, Mogilipalem village of Thimmapur mandal of Karimnagar district.
2. Madupu Krishnama Chakry S/o Linga Murthy, age: 46 years, Occup: Medicine Marketing R/o H.No.210448, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.
3. Rangu Umadevi D/o Venkatrathanaiah, age: 40 years, occupation: Business,Kiranam shop R/o 66256/2, Sharmanagar, Karimnagar
4. Chindam Ravinder S/o Rajaiah, age: 32 years, occ:Branch Manager O/o Kapil Chit funds Pvt. Ltd., Husnabad Branch, Karimnagar.
5. Tkhangallapelly Sampath S/o Ilaiah, age: 29 years, occup: A.O. O/o Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Husnabad Branch, Karimnagar.
… Respondents/Judgment Debtors
SUBJECT: EXECUTION PETITION U/S 21 RULE 11 OF C.P.C.AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 3. ***
This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S.Mallesham, Advocate for petitioner/Decree Holder and the respondents/Judgment Debtors not appeared and having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court made the following: : O R D E R :
The learned counsel for Decree Holder has not pressed the
Execution Petition. Hence this Execution Petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of July,
2018.
PRL.JUNIORCIVIL
JUDGE
HUSNABAD
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT.G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
HUSNABAD
Tuesday, the 13th day of February 2018
O.S.No.141of 2017
Between :
Chepyala venkatesh S/o Mallaiah, , Age: 38yrs, occ: Kiranam R/o Husnabad town And mandal of Siddipet district.
AND Sudagoni Sathish S/o Mallaiah, age: 30 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Pandidlla villaged, Husnabad mandal, Siddipet district.
Subject: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
This case is coming before me on 13022019 for hearing in the presence of Sri, K. Jagathpal Advocate for plaintiff. And having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following:
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Even then the file is being pased over from call work. It is observed from the docket that the plaintiff is absent since long time nor he showed any interest in pursuing his case by filing chief affidavit even after conditional orders. Hence this court is ionclined to dismiss the susit of the plaintiff for default
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of February
2019 .
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD.
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :AT: HUSNABAD
PRESENT: SMT.G. ANUSHA
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUSNABAD
Tuesday, the 13th day of February 2018
O.S.No.141of 2017
Between :
Chepyala venkatesh S/o Mallaiah, , Age: 38yrs, occ: Kiranam R/o Husnabad town And mandal of Siddipet district.
AND Sudagoni Sathish S/o Mallaiah, age: 30 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o Pandidlla villaged, Husnabad mandal, Siddipet district.
Subject: SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY
This case is coming before me on 13022019 for hearing in the presence of Sri, K. Jagathpal Advocate for plaintiff. And having been heard and having stood over for consideration the court delivered the following:
O R D E R
Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Even then the file is being pased over from call work. It is observed from the docket that the plaintiff is absent since long time nor he showed any interest in pursuing his case by filing chief affidavit even after conditional orders. Hence this court is ionclined to dismiss the susit of the plaintiff for default
Pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of February
2019 .
PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
HUSNABAD.
---
1 CC No.217 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : HUSNABAD
Present:Smt. G.Anusha, Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
HUSNABAD.
MONDAY, ON THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
CALENDAR CASE No.217 of 2018
Between:
The State through SHO, Police Station, Husnabad (Cr. No.96 of 2017) … Complainant AND
A1.Anarasi Srinu @ Gurrala Srinivas Goud @ Gurrala Srinivas Goud @ Khasim s/o. Guralla Anthaiah, 35 years, Budigejangam, Occ: Business, r/o. H.No.128 78, Pragathinagar, Sircilla Town, now residing at H.No.15413/2A, Gandhinagar, Kamareddy. A2.Nayakere Shiva @ Shiva Lingaiah @ Shivalingam @ Shivlinappa s/o. Chandraiah, 34 years, Caste: Lingayath, Occ: Driver, r/o. H.No.3849/1, Shanthinagar, Sircilla, now residing at Gandhinagar, Kamareddy. A4.Ragula Rajitha @ Gurrala Rajitha w/o. Gurrala Srinivas Goud @ Anarashi Srinu, 26 years, r/o. H.No.15416/A, Gandhinagar, Kamareddy. A5.Perugula Radhika @ Zubeda w/o. Perugala Shivalingaiah @ Naikereshavia, 28 years, Muslim, no Hindu r/o. H.No.3848/1, Shanthinagar, Sircilla now at Gandhinagar of Kamareddy town. A6.Ragula Gopal Rao s/o. Chandraiah, 52 years, Munnurukapu, r/o. Machareddy. … Accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6
This case is coming on 13.12.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri. P.Ravikiran for the state; Sri. P.Devadas, Advocate for accused No.1, 4 and 6 and Sri. G.Raghuveer, Legal Aid Counsel for accused No.2 and 5 and having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
The SubInspector of Police, Police Station, Husnabad filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and against the accused No.4 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 of IPC.
2 CC No.217 of 2018
2.The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that on 25.4.2017 at 11.00 pm the complainant Banka Raju/PW1 came to Police Station and lodged complaint stating that, the owner of Khushi Wines, situated at outskirts of Potharam (S) village namely, Polavelli Rajinikanth s/o. Lingareddy who handed over the shop to him to maintain it. Usually on 24.4.2017 at 10.00 pm he closed the said shop by locking it and went to home. On 25.4.2017 at 6.00 am, PW1 received phone call from one Gajula Viswheswar @ Ganesh s/o. Ramgopal stating that the shop shutter lifted and CC cameras broken. Then PW1 rushed to scene of offence and found some unknown offenders gained enty into shop by ligting shutter and broken CC cameras DVR and stolen 1) 10 Cartons of Officer Choice quarter bottles, 2) 5 cartons of MC whisky quarter bottles, 3) 10 cartons of Beer bottles, 4) 1 Carton of
IB Whisky bottles and the total worth of stolen property is of Rs.87,600/. Thus prayed to take necessary action.
3.Basing on the complaint given by PW1, M.Sanjay, SI of Police, Husnabad registered a case in Cr. No.96 of 2018 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC and took up investigation. During course of investigation, M.Sanjay, SI of Police examined and recorded statement of PW1. Later, M.Sanjay SI of Police visited scene of offence and prepared Crime Detail Form (hereinafter referred as
CDF) in the presence of PW3 and Ileni Srindhar Reddy (LW5) and examined and recorded statements of PW2, Chitti Pradyumna Reddy (LW2) and Chirram Raju (LW4). On 13.6.2018 at 3.00 pm, PW9 apprehended accused No.1 to 3, 7 and 8 at
MNR X Road, Pasalvaadi village and on interrogation in the presence of Pws.4 and 5, they voluntarily confessed to have committed offence along with other offences, then he prepared the confession and recovery panchanama. Later on 21.6.2018,
PW9 apprehended accused No.5 and on interrogation in the presence of above said mediators i.e., Pws.4 and 5 he also voluntarily confessed to have committed offence 3 CC No.217 of 2018 on that, PW9 prepared confession and recovery panchanama wherein accused No.5 revealed that he is involved in the offence committed and confessed by the accused
No.1 and 2. Later on 24.6.2018, PW9 apprehended accused No.4 and 6 and on interrogation in the presence of Pws.6 and 7, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence on that PW9 prepared confession and recovery panchanama of accused persons during which the accused No.4 and 6 also disclosed that they are involved in the offence committed by the accused No.1 and 2. Later PW8 produced the accused No.1 and 2 and 4 to 6 before this court on PT Warrant, then they were remanded to judicial custody on 14.8.2018.
4.The case was taken on file against accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC and is numbered as CC. No.217 of 2018.
5.On appearance of accused No.1, 4 and 6 and on producing the accused No.2 and 5 from Central Prison, Warangal, copies of documents were furnished to accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).
6.Thereafter the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 were examined U/Sec.239 of
Cr.P.C, charges for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined witnesses PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 as indicated in appendix of evidence besides which MO.1 – Cash of Rs.10,000/ is marked by PW9.
8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the incriminating oral and documentary evidences against them and reported no defence.
4 CC No.217 of 2018
9.Now the point for determination is “whether prosecution established guilt
of the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 for offences punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of
IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”
10.Heard both sides.
Arguments on behalf of prosecution and defense:
11.Learned APP argued that as per the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 it is clear that the theft took place at Kushi Wines, Potharam Husnabad and as per the evidence of
PW9, who is the investigating officer and also as per the panchanamas Ex.P7 to
P9,the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus prayed to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of
IPC.
12.On the other hand the learned counsel for accused argued that PW1 admitted during cross examination that he does not maintain any stock register and further admitted that he has not stated as to how much stock was sold on the previous day of alleged theft and that PW2 admitted that he does not remember what all were missing from his shop. It was further argued that on the previous day no invoice was submitted by the Pws.1 and 2 as to how much stock was sold and how much is remained. Further the panch witnesses turned hostile and PW9 has not recovered the bike and car from the possession of accused No.1 and further no recovery has been made by the police as such, argued that a false case has been lodged against Accused No.1, 4 and 6. The learned leagal aid counsel on behalf of accused No.2 and 5 argued in the same lines as that of accused No.1, 4 and 6.
Answer to point based on evidence on record:
13.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 and 2 gained entry into
Kushi Wines Shop at Potaram village and committed theft of 10 cartons of Officer
Choice Quarter bottles, 5 cartons of MC whisky quarter bottles, 10 cartons of beer 5 CC No.217 of 2018 bottles, 1 carton of IB Whisky bottles and also broken the CC cameras in the shop, stolen the DVR and thus they have stolen property worth Rs.87,600/. The offence took place on the midnight of 24.4.2017. On complaint given by PW1 a case was registered for the offences U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC. During the course of investigation PW8 received information from PW9 CI of Police, Sanga Reddy that accused No.1 and 2 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence of theft of
Wine bottles at Kushi Wine shop, Husnabad. Basing on the confessions of accused
No.1 and 2, it was revealed that accused No.4 to 6 received the stolen property i.e., wine bottles from accused No.1 and 2 and they sold the same at their belt shop at
Machareddy and the amount Rs.85,000/ that is obtained is shared by them such that accused No.1, 4 who are wife and husband have received Rs.35,000/ and accused No.2 and 5 who are wife and husband have received Rs.35,000/, accused
No.6 who is father of accused No.4 has taken Rs.15,000/.
14.In order to prove the case the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 besides MO.1 on their behalf.
15.Pws.1 and 2 are the defacto complainant, owner of Kushi Wines respectively.
PW1 deposed that after he closed Kushi Wine Shop on 24.4.2017 at 10.00 pm, he received a phone call from one Gajula Ganesh at 7.00 am on the next day i.e.,on 25.4.2017 in the morning stating that the shutter of Kushi Wine shop is half open and the lock was also broken. On his information, he immediately went to Kushi
Wine shop and found that the CC Cameras in the shop were broken, DVR was stolen . He also found that 10 OC Boxes, 5 MC Boxes, 10 Beer Cases, 1 IB Box are missing and the total value is around Rs.86,000/ he immediately informed about the incident to his owner i.e., PW2. On their instructions he estimated the loss and gave complaint to Police. He got marked Ex.P1 as his complaint.
6 CC No.217 of 2018
16.He clearly stated that he does not know who committed theft of the said property in their shop. During cross examination he admitted that he did not give any stock register and further stated that the informant Gajula Ganesh was not present when he came to shop.
17.PW2 who is the owner of Kushi Wine Shop deposed that he was informed by
PW1 about the missing of wine bottles, breaking of CC Cameras and stealing of DVR in his shop and further stated that it is maintained by Polapalli Rajanikanth/LW3 and himself. During cross examination he admitted that he has not given any document to show what is the stock sold by them on the previous day and that no invoice pertaining to the purchase of stock in Kushi WineShop is ever given to police and that PW1 has never given him information as to what is the remained stock after selling on 24.4.2017.
18.PW3 is the panch witness for crime detais form (hereinafter called as CDF) and he got marked Ex.P2 stating that Police conducted panchanama in respect of the theft that took place at Kushi Wines Shop of Potaram village.
19.Pws.4 and 5 are stated to be the panch witnesses for confession and recovery of accused No.1, 2 and 5. PW4 deposed that he recorded the confession in presence of police with regard to the theft committed at Kandi village and that he only remembers one of the accused names as Srinu and that he is not able to recognize the persons present in the court. He got marked only his signature as Ex.P3 on the confession and seizure panchanama. During cross examination by learned APP he admitted that the accused herein have committed theft at Kandhi village and also at other places and Police recovered Rs.10,000/ from possession of accused No.1, 2 and 5 and that after knowing the contents of the confession and seizure panchanama he put his signature. But, again during the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused, accused No.1, 4 and 6, he again admitted that the 7 CC No.217 of 2018 recovery of Rs.10,000/ was made by the Police themselves and he does not know the truth and false of such recovery.
20.PW5 also deposed during chief examination that he put his signature on the panchanama conducted by Police pertaining to the theft of a car. He further stated that he can recognize the persons who are in the custody of Police at that time and stated that those persons are not present in the court. During cross examination by learned APP he stated that the panchanama was conducted for the offence of theft of car and he got marked his signature as Ex.P4.
21.PW6 is stated to be the panch witness for confession and recovery of accused
No.4 and 6. He deposed that CI of Police, Sanga Reddy has taken him and PW7 to the house of accused No.4 but, the house was locked, CI of Police, Sangareddy opened the lock of the house and asked them to search the house of accused No.4.
But, they could not obtain any material from accused No.4. Later they were taken to
Police Station where they observed accused No.4, 6, 2 and 5 were present at Police
Station. He further stated that he signed on some papers on the instructions of police, who stated that those persons have committed theft in wine shops. He got marked his signature as Ex.P5. PW7 who is the one who accompanied PW6, stated that Police apprehended accused No.4 and 6 and have taken him along with PW6 to house of accused No.4 and 6, when they opened the lock of the house of accused
No.4, searched they have not found anything. He further deposed that the CI of
Police, Sangareddy stated to him that they have committed theft of wine bottles in shops and obtained his signature on the panchanama. He got marked Ex.P6 as his signature. During cross examination by learned APP he denied to the suggestion that Police seized liquor bottles and prepared confession and recovery panchanama and that he is deposing false to bring the accused No.4 and 6 out of this case.
8 CC No.217 of 2018
22.PW8 who is the investigating officer in the present case deposed that on the information from the Sangareddy Police Station that the accused persons pertaining to this present case were involved in the present offence, he arrested the accused herein and have collected the certified copies along with crime property from
Sangareddy Police Station and the accused were produced through a PT Warrant in the present case. He further stated that he examined Pws.1 and 2 and conducted panchanama.
23.PW9 is the Circle Inspector of Police, Sangareddy, who deposed that he apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 while performing vehicle checking along with his staff on 13.6.2018 near MNR Cross Roads, Pasalavadi village. He found a car bearing registration No.TS17A6174 coming from Narsapoor to MNR Cross Roads, stopped the said vehicle and duirng enquiry the persons of the said vehicle tried to escape as such, they were apprehended by him. He further deposed that another motorcycle was stopped by them after stopping of the above car with a five minutes gap. The registration number of motor vehicle is TS02EA8891. Those persons confessed to have committed some offences. He stated that he secured the presence of Pws.4 and 5 and got the confession recorded of accused No.1 and 2 pertaining to crime No.343 of 2015 of Sangareddy Rural Police Station for the offence U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC. During their confession those two persons have stated that apart from other offences committed by them they also committed an offence at
Husnabad in Cr. No.96/2017 i.e., the present crime. He got marked the confession of accused No.1 and 2 as Ex.P7. He further stated that subsequently accused No.5 was arrested as the receiver of stolen property from accused No.1 and 2. He got prepared the confession of accused No.5 in presence of Pws.5 and Smt. Kalala
Sravani. He deposed that accused No.6 was also arrested basing on the confession of accused No.1 and 2 and Rs.10,000/ were recovered from accused No.6 on 23.6.2018. He got marked the confession and recovery of accused No.6 as Ex.P8.
9 CC No.217 of 2018
He recognized accused No.1, 2 and 6. Further basing on the same confession under
Ex.P7 of accused No.1 and 2, he apprehended accused No.4 and 5 separately on two different dates i.e., on 21.6.2018 and 23.6.2018. He got the confession of accused No.4 recorded in presence of PW6 and PW7. Thereafter he sent a radio message to all the concerned investigating officers whose police station limits were disclosed in the confessions of the accused persons No.1, 2 and 4 to 6. He got marked Ex.P9 and P10 which are the confession panchanama of Accused No.4 and 5.
24.From the testimonies of Pws.1 and 2 it is clear that theft took place in Khushi
Wines shop, Potharam village. Though the defense tried to rais a doubt that as the invoices and stock registers were not submitted by Pws.1 and 2 theft of wine bottles has not at all taken place. But no suggestion was given that the CC camers were not broken and that the DVR was not stolen. Hence it can be held that theft has taken place at Khushi Wines shop. Basing on the material on record it is clear that there are no direct witnesses in the present case who witnessed the accused persons committing the offence. The entire case of prosecution is dependent only upon the confessions and recovery panchanamas prepared by PW9. Now let us see whether the prosecution is successful in proving the confession and recovery in the present case.
25.As per Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act confession to Police Officer is not to be proved against the accused. In the present case the property that was stated to have been recovered from the accused persons is Rs.10,000/ that too from accused
No.6.
26.On perusal of the confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.6 under Ex.p8, it is clear that the said confession was prepared by securing the panch witnesses i.e., Pws.6 and 7. It is requried by the prosecution to prove the said 10 CC No.217 of 2018 confession and recovery through Pws.6 and 7. Both were examined by the prosecution in which, none of the witnesses have deposed about the recovery of
Rs.10,000/ from accused No.6. The prosecution could do nothing but, only got marked Ex.P5 and P6 signatures of those panch witnesses. Pws.6 and 7 categorically have not supported the prosecution case to any extent. Unfortunately, it appears that the prosecution also does not know what was the recovery made in presence of Pws.6 and 7. PW7 was cross examined by the prosecution and was suggested that Police recovered liquor bottles in his presence. It is in fact, not the liquor bottles but Rs.10,000/ that was recovered in this case in presence of Pws.6 and 7. As such, it can be stated that prosecution voluntarily failed to prove the confession and recovery of accused No.4 and 6 through PWs.6 and 7. Consequently the guilt of accused No.4 and 6 stands not proved by prosecution.
27.It is observed that the Police/PW9 have prepared the confessions of accused
No.1 and 2 in presence of Pws.4 and 5 on 13.6.2018. Here the prosecution is required to prove the confession of accused No. 1 and 2 through Pws.4 and 5. On perusal of the testimonies of Pws.4 and 5both of them turned hostile stating that they are not able to recognize the persons whose confessions were recorded by them. The only evidence in support of prosecution in this aspect is that of PW9.
Admittedly, there is no recovery from accused no.1 and 2 and their confession is only the basis for connecting the other accused persons to the present crime. When the panch witnessses have not supported the prosecution case, consequently, the confession of accused no.1 and 2 stands not proved by the prosecution. When there is no recovery along with the confession the sole evidence of PW9 who is the investigating officer cannot inspire the confidence to any extent however it may be as it is hit by Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence guilt of accused No.1 adn 2 is not proved by prosecution.
11 CC No.217 of 2018
28.As per the deposition of PW9, the confession of accused No.5 was recorded in the presence of PW5 and Smt. Kalala Sravani. Even on perusal of Ex.P10 marked through PW9, it appears that the said confession is recorded in their presence. But, there is no recovery attached to that confession. Here the prosecution has examined only PW5 who has turned hostile and has not supported it. The prosecution has not made any attempts to examine the said Smt. Kalala Sravani when she is the other panch witness, for the reasons best known to the prosecution alone. Consequently the guilt of accused No.5 also stands not proved by the prosecution. Further in the present case it was disclosed from the confession of accused No.1 that he along with accused No.2 have committed theft at Husnabad by means of an auto which was stolen by them. The Police have not made any attempts to find out what happened to the stolen Auto nor even made attempts to recover the same. All these go to show that this charge sheet is laid against the accused persons in a routine manner without actually conducting proper investigation.
29.From the above discussion it can be concluded that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the offence U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC against the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6.
30.In the result, the accused No.1, 2 and 4 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.457 and 380 of IPC accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of SIX months. MO1 – Cash of Rs.10,000/ is ordered to be confiscated to the State. As accused No.2 and 5 are detained in Central Prison, Warangal, the
Superintedent, Central Prison, Warangal is hereby directed to set them at liberty if they are not involved in any other crime. Office concerned is directed to send the 12 CC No.217 of 2018 copy of judgment to Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal herewith to accused
No.2 and 5.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of December, 2019.
Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,
Husnabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENSE: PW1 – Banka Raju Nil PW2 – P.Rajanikanth PW3 – Nagaraju Srikanth PW4 – Nalla Anjaiah PW5 – Chithala Pentesh PW6 – Chamanthula Bhanuchander PW7 – S.Naveen PW8 – D.Sudhakar PW9 – P.Narender
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Crime Detail Form Ex.P3Signatures of PW4 (15) in number Ex.P4Signatures of PW5 (15) in number Ex.P5Signature of PW6 on confession panchanama of Accused No.4 and 6 Ex.P6Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama of Accused No.4 and 6 Ex.P7Confession panchanama of accused No.1 and 2 Ex.P8Confession and recovery panchanama of accused No.6 Ex.P9Confession panchanama of accused No.4 Ex.P10Confession panchanama of accused No.5
FOR THE DEFENSE:
Nil 13 CC No.217 of 2018
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO.1 – Cash of Rs.10,000/ recovered from accused No.6
Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,
Husnabad.
1 DVC No.15 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : HUSNABAD
Present:Smt. G.Anusha, Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
HUSNABAD.
TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE No.15 of 2015
Between:
1.Mamidi Manjula w/o. Thirupathi Reddy, age 35 years, Occ: Housewife, r/o. Gudatipalli v/o. Husnabad mandal, presently residing at her parents house Anthakkapeta v/o. Husnabad mandal of Karimnagar District.
2.Mamidi Soumya d/o. Mamidi Thirupathi Reddy, age 13 years,
3.Mamidi Ravinder Reddy s/o. Mamidi Thirupathi Reddy, age 13 years, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors through her next friend, her natural mother i.e., petitioner No.1 presently residing at her parents house, Anthakkapet v/o. Husnabad mandal of Karimnagar District. … Petitioners AND
Mamidi Thirupathi Reddy s/o. Late Malla Reddy, age 40 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o. H.No.113, Gudatipalli v/o. Husnabad mandal of Karimnagar District. … Respondent
This case is coming on 10.12.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.Mallesham and Sri. G.Jumlal Naik, Advocates for petitioners; Sri. Y.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for respondents and having been heard and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
: O R D E R :
This is petition is filed U/Sec.12 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 praying this court to direct the respondent:
(a)To provide shelter to petitioners No.1 to 3;
(b)Prohibiting the rspondent from committing any act of domestic violence; 2 DVC No.15 of 2015
(c)Directing to pay an amount of Rs.5000/ each to petitioners No.1 to 3 towards their maintenance, for food, cloth and shelter and educational expenses of petitioners No.2 and 3;
(d)To restrain the respondents ane his relatives from entering into the portion of the house of respondent in which petitioners No.1 to 3 are living;
(e)To restrain the respondents from disturbing the possession of petitioners
No.1 to 3 in the house in which the petitioners living;
(f)To direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation to the petitioners No.1 to 3 for mental agony, harassment meted out by respondent.
2.The petitioners submit that petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent whose marriage took place on 12.3.2001 at Anthakkapet village and at the time of her marriage her parents gave an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs cash, 5 tulas of Gold and other household articles worth Rs.25,000/ to the respondent and his parents.
Thereafter the petitioner No.1 and respondent were blessed with two children i.e., petitioners No.2 and 3 herein. They got them joined in Hostel for their education for about 5 years, petitioner No.1 and respondent lived happily. Thereafter the respondent started harassing the petitioner No.1 physically and mentally that she did not bring sufficient dowry and the respondent used to beat petitioner No.1 indiscriminately. The petitioner No.1 silently tolerated the cruel attitude of respondent No.1 keeping in view of the marital tie but the respondent intensified his harassment and demanded additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh from the petitioner
No.1. Panchayats were held two to three times in presence of elders and they warned the respondent to look after the petitioners No.1 to 3 well as such the respondent took the petitioners to his house. Thereafter the respondent looked after the petitioners for a period of two years only. After two years again the 3 DVC No.15 of 2015 respondent started harassment and threatened petitioner No.1 not to live in his house and demanded her to leave his society and beat her indiscriminately. Finally in the month of May, 2015 the respondent necked out the petitioner No.1 along with petitioner No.2 and 3 from his house by threatening her not to enter into his house without bringing additional dowry of Rs.1.00 lakh. Petitioner No.1 is not having any capacity to maintain herself. On the other hand the respondent is an agriculturist and is having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.500 guntas at
Ramaram village of Husnabad mandal and is earning an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs per annum and is also having liquid cash. The petitioners No.1 to 3 require a minimum maintenance of Rs.5,000/ each towards their food, clothing, shelter, medicine and educational expenses and prayed to allow this petition.
3.The respondent filed his counter admitting that petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and that their marriage was taken place in the year 2001 at
Anthakkapet. The giving of dowry was denied by respondent. It was also admitted that petitioners No.2 and 3 are his children. But the harassment stated by the petitioner No.1 was denied. It was stated that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are in the custody and maintenance of respondent. The respondent admitted petitioner No.2 at Kakatiya Residential school at Huzurabad and now petitioner No.2 is studying 9th class and that the expenses are borne by the respondent herein. It was further stated that the respondent admitted petitioner No.3 at Ekasila Residential School,
Hanamkonda and she is studying 4th class and that those expeneses are also borne by respondent. It was stated that the respondent is incurring an amount amount of
Rs.25000/ and Rs.42000/ towards their school and hostel fee besides this an amount of Rs.50,000/ is incurred towards clothing, shelter, medical expenses of petitioners No.2 and 3.
4 DVC No.15 of 2015
4.It was further stated that petitioner No.1 is adamant in nature and she used to quarrel with resopndent on trivial issues. The respondent tolerated the attitude of the petitioner No1, keeping in view of the welfare of the petitioners No.2 adn 3 but she did not change her attitude. It was stated that one day petitioner No.1 voluntarily left the society of respondent without his knowledge and also the consent of respondent was not obtained. Regarding which the respondent got conducted panchayat before elders. Though the elders advised petitioner No.1 to come and join the society of respondent, the petitioner No.1 bluntly refused to do so. It was stated that the respondent used to do agriculture works with the assistance of petitioner No.1 but, as the petitioner No.1 deserted the respondent
No.1 and due to drought conditions the respondent is unable to perform agriculture works as such he is not having sufficient means to maintain petitioner No.1 separately. It was stated that the respondent is ready to maintain petitioner No.1 if she comes and joins his society.
5.Now the point for consideration is “whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?”
6.In order to prove her case the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and her evidence is closed. But, respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW1 and further the respondent got examined Rws.2 to 4 on his behalf. Petitioner got marked Ex.P1 on her behalf.
7.Pw1 filed her chief affidavit reiterating the contents of her petition and stood for cross examination. During cross examination she stated that she left her matrimonial home about three years back. It was elicited that the motherinlaw of
PW1 was murdered about six years back and after the death of her motherinlaw in the year 2012 she went to her matrimonial home. It was elicited that the said murder case was registered against the her and the same was acquitted and then 5 DVC No.15 of 2015 only she went to her matrimonial home and stayed for about three years. She stated that the respondent beat her for about 2 to 3 times and she has not filed any criminal case against the respondent and that she did not join the respondent; Her children are in the custody of respondent since two years and that she does not know what they are studying. She further stated that she does not remember after how many days of coming from her matrimonial home she filed this case. She denied to the suggestion that since the year 2012, the petitioner No.2 is studying at
Huzurabad and petitioner No.3 is studying at Ekasila High School, by staying at
Hostel. She denied to the suggtestion that she has not visited the school of petitioners No.2 and 3. She stated that respondent is suffered from mental illness since 4 to 5 years and she never took respondent to Hospital for treatment. She stated that she is residing at her parents house at Anthakkapet village. She further stated that she does coolie work and earns Rs.200/ per day. She stated that respondent is having Ac.500 guntas of land in Sy. No.316 at Ramaram village and further stated that she has not filed any document to prove the same. She stated that she doesnot know how much amount the respondent earns per year. She stated that she has no proof to submit that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are maintained by her before last two years. She stated that the respondent necked her only and not petitioners No.2 and 3. It was admitted that Gudatipally village was merged in the formation ot Gouravelli reservoir and that the agricultural lands belonging to his fatherinlaw have been merged in the formation of said reservoir.
It was admitted that she has given an application to concerned land acquisition authorities to stop payment to respondent which has been obtained as compensation by stating that the respondent is suffering from mentally illness. She also admitted that on condition that the respondent shall deposit Rs.5.00 lakhs from the compensation amount in her name, she came out from the house of respondent.
It was also admitted that a criminal case U/Sec.302 IPC was lodged by her sisters 6 DVC No.15 of 2015 inlaw agianst her as her motherinlaw wanted to give compensation amount pertaining to her share to her sistersinlaw, she also stated that she is not ready to join the respondent unless Rs.9.00 lakhs is deposited in her account towards security. She denied the other suggestions. She got marked Ex.P1 which is the original study certificate, dt.14.6.2011 belonging to RW3. During cross examination she denied to the suggestion that it is created for the purpose of this case.
8.After the evidence of Petitioner was closed, respondent himself filed his chief affidavit i.e., RW1 who reiterated the contents of counter and stood for cross examination during which it was admitted that PW1 is his wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 are his children. He stated that petitioners No.2 and 3 have studied at
Gudatipalli village and later he joined them at Mallaram where they studied 6th and 7th classess. He denied to the suggestion that petitioners No.2 and 3 have studied till 5th class at Anthakkapet village. He admitted that a criminal case was lodged aginst himself and PW1 when his mother died. He denied to the suggestion that he necked out petitioner from his house in the year 2015. He stated that he is working as labour at present as Ac.700 guntas of his agriculture land was submerged in the construction of Gouravelli Reservoir. He stated that he was given a compensation of Rs.17.00 lakhs for house and Rs.8.00 lakhs towards R&R Package and that R&R package is given to the family members residing in the region of the said Gouravelli dam. He denied to the suggestion that PW1 is entitled for a share in R&R package amount. He stated that the said amount was received when his father was alive as such PW1 has no right to claim any share. His father died in the year 2011. It is admitted that he has not recieved the amount under R & R package as PW1 has made an application before concerned RDO not to release the said amount. He stated that he purchased Ac.500 guntas of land at Ramaram village. He denied to the suggestion that he is earning an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs from agricultural land 7 DVC No.15 of 2015 and that at the time of filing this case petitioners No.2 and 3 were in the custody of
PW1 and he has forcefully taken their custody later and he denied the other suggestions.
9.RW2/B.Lachi Reddy filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of counter and stood for cross examination during which he stated that he knows the reason for dispute between PW1 and RW1 and after the death of mother of RW1, both of them separated. He further that he does not know that RW1 has an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1000 guntas at Ramavaram village. He stated that though RW1 was sanctioned an amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs and Rs.8.00 lakhs separately towards R&R package as a complaint was given by RW1 against him the said amount was with held and was not obtained by him. He denied the suggestion that he obtained the custody of his children forcibly. He stated that there were no panchayats held betwen PW1 and RW1 for settlement. He denied the other suggestions.
10.RW3 who is the daughter of RW1 and PW1 got filed her chief affidavit stating that PW1 is her mother and petitioner No.3 is her brother. She further stated that at the time of filing this petition herself and her brother were with her father i.e., the respondent. She stated that she never stayed with her mother at any time i.e., at the time of filing this petition or subsequent to filing this petition. She stated that at the time of filing this petition she was studying in a private residential school at Huzurabad and she is now studying Inter First Year at Siddipet by staying in a Private Hostel. She stated that her father is bearing all her expenses and is taking care of them.
11.During cross examination she stated that she studied at Gudatipally village from 1st to 6th class and at that time her mother stayed in her grandmothers place at Anthakkapet village for about two years. She denied to the suggestions that 8 DVC No.15 of 2015 respondent necked out her mother as such her mother/PW1 brought them to
Anthakkapet village and she stayed there. She stated that after filing this case herself and her brother never went to their mother/PW1 and that they do not know about their mother’s health and she denied the other suggestions. She further stated that her mother left herself voluntarily and that she does not know the reason for it.
12.RW4 who is the son of respondent and petitioner No.1 was examined by the respondent. As he is a minor and a child of 14 years after satisfaction of his competency to stand as a witness, this court proceeded to record his evidence.
During chief examination he stated that he did not study at Anthakkapet village at any time and from 1st class to till today he studied in Ekashila. During cross examination he stated that he never studied in little flower school at Husnabad. He further stated that his mother stayed with them during his 7 to 8 years of age. He further stated that his mother herself left the house and at the time of filing this case he was with his father/respondent. He denied the other suggestions.
13.From the testimony of PW1 and Rws.1, 3 and 4 it is clear that the petitioner
No.1 is the wife of respondent, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of
PW1 and RW1. In order to seek any relief from any court of law it is required by the parties to come with clean hands and they are under obligation to place the material facts before this court. In the present case as the relationship between
PW1 and RW1 was admitted as it can be stated that PW1 has a domestic relation ship with PW1. It is required by the petitioner to prove that she has suffered domestic violence in the hands of respondent. In order to prove the same she examined herself alone and admitted categorically that if she gets Rs.9.00 lakhs from the respondent she is ready to join the respondent. It is her admission that she has stopped the payment of compensation amount to respondent herein by giving 9 DVC No.15 of 2015 an application that RW1 is suffering from mental illness. She filed this petition stating that herself and her children were necked out by the respondent and that she is maintaining her children, looking after their expenses towards education, health, food and shelter. But, to her utter surprise, Rws.3 and 4 who are the petitioners No.2 and 3 deposed before this court that at the time of filing this petition they stayed with respondent i.e., their father is looking after their education and other necesities. It was also brought on record that their father is looking after their educatyion by joining them in private schools and hostels. With this evidence on record, the petitioner claims that respondent has necked out her subjecting her to domestic violence is to be suspected. Hence it can be stated that the petitioner has not placed the material facts before this court and has claimed wrongly that at the time of filing this petition she is looking after her children. Further it was stated by the petitioner that she was subjected to indiscriminate beating in the hands of respondent but she has not filed any medical certificate regarding the injuries received by her in the said beating. No specific dates were mentioned as to when she received such beatings. Further she admitted that she has not filed any criminal case against the respondent and hence it gives force to the suggestion that she was not at all beaten by respondent at any time. In order to prove the domestic voilence alleged by the petitioner, she has not placed any credible material before this court.
In turn it appears that petitioner herself is creating trouble to the respondent as she admitted that she gave complaint before the concerned authorities not to release the compensation amount to the respondent by stating that the respondent is suffering from mental illness. Petitioner has not mentioned about this in her petition or in her chief affidavit. She has not atleast mentioned that the respondent is suffering from mental illness in her petition. Through this, this court cannot keep any credence on the evidence of petitioner.
10 DVC No.15 of 2015
14.Further PW1 stated that the respondent has wilfully necked her out from his society and that she is staying in her parents house. Except her self serving statement that she has been necked out by the respondent no evidence was brought on record by her in any manner at least to prove that she is residing in her parents house. Moreover Rws.3 and 4 together categorically stated that PW1 left the society of the respondent voluntarily. Further PW1 admits in her cross examination that on condition of deposit of Rs.5.00 lakhs she admits to join the society of respondent. With this clear admission on record, the conduct of PW1 appears that she filed this case only for the purpose of recieving of her share of such compensation from the respondent. The courts will not grant any relief to any prty if latches are found on such party. PW1 filed this petition baselessly by mentioning that she requires maintenance for her children i.e., Rws.3 and 4. This definitely amoutns to suppression of material facts which shall disentitle her in obtaining any relief.
15.On perusal of Ex.P1 Study Certificate, dt.14.6.2011 it is understood that
RW3 is staying at Anthakkapet village during year 20112012. Though it has been got marked by PW1 it is of no use to her as the present case is filed in the year 2015 and that she herself admitted that she is residing away from the respondent since 3 years by the time of giving her evidence in this case. Hence even though it was proved by petitioner that RW3 has studied in the year 20112012 at Anthakkapet
School, it is not helpful for PW1 in any manner.
16.Hence in view of foregoing discussion it can be held that the petitioner failed to prove that she has been subjected to domestic violence in the hands of respondent. As the petitioner has also failed to prove that the respondent has wilfully necked her out from his society it can be considered that she herself refused to join the respondent as compensation amount was not deposited by the 11 DVC No.15 of 2015 respondent towards security and hence this court is of opinion that petitioner is not entitled to receive any maintenance from the respondent.
17.From the above discussion it can be held that the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed for and hence petition is liable to be dismissed.
18.In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2019.
Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PETITIONER(S): FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):
PW1 – Mamidi ManjulaRW1 – Mamidi Thirupathi Reddy RW2 – Baddam Raji Reddy RW3 – Mamidi Soumya RW4 – Mamidi Ravinder Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PETITIONER(S):
Ex.P1Original Study Certificate, dt.14.6.2011 belonging to RW3
FOR THE RESPONDENT(S):
Nil
Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad.
1 CC No.165 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : AT :
HUSNABAD
Present:Smt. G.ANUSHA,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
H U S N A B A D.
TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 05th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
CALANDER CASE No.165 of 2015
Between:
Pachimatla Kanakaiah S/o Mallaiah, Age: 54 years, Occ: Kalal, R/o Husnabad Village and Mandal of Karimnagar District.
…Complainant A N D
K. Sambaiah S/o Kanakaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3815/36/21A, J.J.Nagar, Ambedkar Nagar Malkajigiri, R.R. District. … Accused
This case is coming on 05102021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri., V. Murali Mohan Advocates for the complainant and of Sri. Devadas Pittala Advocate for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The complainant filed this complaint U/sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. (hereinafter referred as “N.I. Act”).
2. The allegations in the complaint in brief are as under:
That the complainant and one Mr. Srinivas are friends and he approached the complainant and requested to arrange an amount of Rs 1,70,000/ to his friend namely K Sambaiah , the accused herein for his welding shop business. In the 2 CC No.165 of 2015 month of March 2015 the complainant and his friend Mr. Srinivas came to the accused and requested to arrange the said amount . Believing the said Srinivas and also the accused the complainant arranged an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/ and handed over the said amount to the accused on 12032015 while so the complainant promised to return the amount on or before 15052015. The accused also issued a post dated cheque bearing number 142685 dated 15052015 from the account of the accused with the Andhra Bank Kapara , Sainik Puri Branch. Later the complainant presented the said cheque in the account of the complainant on 1505 2015. Thereafter the banker sent the cheque for clearance. Subsequently on 1605 2015 the said cheque was returned for the reason of insufficient funds. Later the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused to let him know about the dishonour of cheque. On 13062015 the said legal notice was returned to the complainant counsel with an endorsement on the said cover as “Unclaimed returned to sender” and on 18062015 and the same was received by the complainant on 25062015. As the accused failed to make payment the present complaint is filed for dishonour of cheque.
3. The case is taken on file against accused for the offence U/s.138 N.I Act. On appearance of the accused; he was furnished with copies of documents; he was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C; accusation leveled against him was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 on his behalf. PW.2 was also examined on behalf of the complainant. Later when the complainant reported closure of his evidence.
5.After closure of evidence on behalf of the complainant, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of witness for complainant, were read over and explained to him in 3 CC No.165 of 2015
Telugu, for which he denied and reported that he has evidence on his behalf.
Accused adduced his evidence as DW.1. Ex R1 to R11 were marked.
ARGUMENTS:
6. FOR COMPLAINANT:
The LEARNED counsel for complainant argued that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,70,000/ from the complainant and that in discharge of the said debt, accused issued Ex.P1/cheque, and when it was presented for collection under Ex P2 deposit receipt, it was dishonoured and intimation was accordingly given to the complainant about dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused vide cheque return memo, Ex P4. A notice was sent to the accused under Ex.P6, which was unclaimed and returned under Ex.P5 Registered postal acknowledgment, but the accused failed to pay the amount .That the accused got marked Ex R1 to R11 but none of them are related to the complainant and that there is no registration number on those exhibits. But the sign of complainant is present on Ex D4,D5,D6. Thus prayed that the accused is liable to be convicted.
7. FOR ACCUSED:
Per contra, the contention of learned counsel for accused argued that the complainant made use of the cheques of the accused which were given to one
Manikanta finance enterprises and has filed the present case. That the legal notice was returned "unclaimed" as such the accused could not reply the same.
8.On the strength of the above rival contentions, the following points would arise for determination:
1. Whether the accused has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,70,000/ from the complainant on 12032015 and issued Ex.P1 – cheque in favour of the complainant in discharge of the said debt?
2. Whether Ex.P6 – legal notice satisfies the requirements under clause
(b) of proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act?
4 CC No.165 of 2015
3. Whether the complainant has made out the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act against the accused?
4. Whether the accused is liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and, if so, to what sentence?
9. EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
(i)PW.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the contents of complaint and stood for cross examination. The defense of the accused is that, the complainant/PW1 is a partner in Manikanta finance and the accused has taken an amount of Rs. 50,000/ in the said finance by giving a blank cheque and that the complainant/PW.1 has made use of the said blank cheque of the accused and filed this case. During cross examination of Pw.1, he admitted that he does not know the accused personally but knew only through his friend Srinivas/PW2 and that basing on the words of the said Srinivas/PW2, he gave amount to the accused. That he has no relation between one Manikanta Finance at Jagadgiri gutta. He denied to the suggestion that he is a partner in the said Manikanta finance and that he has used the blank cheque given by the accused to the finance and filed this case.
(ii) PW.2 Manda Srinivas filed his chief affidavit in support of PW.1 stating that he knows both the complainant and the accused and that he introduced the accused to the complainant; accused came and requested him to arrange some amount for his necessities; He took the accused to the house of the complainant in March 2015 where in the accused requested the complainant to arrange an amount of Rs.
1,70,000/ ; The complainant arranged accordingly and gave to the accused on 12 032015; The accused promised to return the same on or before 15052015 and also issued a post dated cheque Ex.P1 pertaining to Andhra Bank; Later when the complainant deposited the cheque Ex.P1, it was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds.
5 CC No.165 of 2015
During cross examination, PW.2 deposed that he suggested the name of accused to PW.1 to give loan as the accused belongs to his village and that he was present at the time when accused gave Ex. P1 cheque to PW.1; that the accused has written date and amount on Ex.P1 cheque before giving it to PW.1 and PW.1 gave amount of Rs. 1,70,000/ to the accused. That the transaction took place in the house of PW.1. He pleaded his ignorance in respect of the finance company transaction of accused.
(iii) Later accused was examined as DW.1 who deposed in his chief examination that, he does not know the PW.1 in this case, that in the year 20122013 he gave his cheque to the finance by name Mrs. Manikanta enterprises at Jagadgiri Gutta and took a loan of an amount of Rs. 30,000/ from the said finance. Thereafter he repaid the loan but did not get his cheque , promissory note and the white paper on which he put his sign from the said finance. When he went to get the same returned , he came to know that the said finance was closed. That he came to know that the present case was lodged on those documents and he got marked Ex. D1 to D11 on his behalf.
During cross examination, he stated that in the documents Ex. D1 to D9 filed him there is no recital that PW.1 is the partner of the firm or that he has taken loan from PW.1 in the said firm. Ex.D10 and D11 are the blank cheques which were taken by them. He denied to the suggestion that there is no relevancy between present case and Ex. R10 ,Ex R11.
ANSWER TO POINTS BASED ON EVIDENCE:
10. It is the case of the complainant that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.
1,70,000/ from him and has issued a post dated cheque ex.P1. But when he deposited Ex.P1 cheque in bank , the same was returned for the reason of insufficient funds vide cheque return memo (Ex.P4). The complainant in his evidence as PW.1 reiterated the case. PW.2 who is having acquaintance with PW.1 6 CC No.165 of 2015 stated that he introduced Pw.1 to the accused and on request of accused, PW.2 took the accused to the house of PW.1 where PW.1 gave him Rs. 1,70,000/ on 12 032015 and in return, the accused issued a post dated cheque Ex.P1 to PW.1 in his presence. The accused in his chiefexamination as DW1 has admitted that Ex.P1 cheque pertains to his bank account and the signature of the drawer appearing on said cheque belongs to him and that he obtained loans from one Manikanta finance at Jagadgiri gutta by executing promissory note and also issued cheques to the said finance. After repayment he could not take the return of the same. It is a well settled law that when once the drawer admitted his signature on cheque, the burden lies on him to prove that the cheque issued by him was not for discharge of legally enforceable debt.. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Videocon
International Ltd., Hyderabad v. Innovations, Chirala, A.P.2011 (2) ALD (Crl.)
847 (AP) held that it is not for the complainant initially to prove existence of any legally enforceable debt or other liability for cheque involved in the case and that the initial burden is on accused to prove that the dishonoured cheque was not supported by any legally enforceable debt or other liability. The accused has to prove in trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. In view of this legal position, since the accused is admitting that Ex.P1 pertains to his bank account and it bears his signature as drawer, the burden lies on him to explain and prove as to how Ex.P1 cheque went into the hands of the complainant.
11.The defense of the accused is that he gave cheque to the finance by name
Mrs.Manikanta Enterprises Jagadgiri gutta as he took loan of Rs. 30,000/ and later he repaid the same together with interest of Rs. 50,000/ but did not get his cheque, promissory note back from the said finance. That this case was lodged basing on the said documents belonging to him. He got marked Ex D1 to D11/R1 to
R11 on his behalf. Out of which, ex D1 to D3/ R1 to R3 does not reveal the name of DW.1 as borrower at all. DW.1 could not explain as to how Ex. D1 to D3/R1 to 7 CC No.165 of 2015
R3 are related to this case when those documents does not contain either the name of DW.1 or the cheque number pertaining to this case. When it is the contention of accused that PW.1 is the partner of the said Manikanta finance enterprises, no document was filed by DW.1/accused to prove the said fact. Atleast the amount pertaining to the Ex.P1 cheque was also not mentioned in any of the exhibits filed by DW.1. On contrary, Ex P1 Cheque is of the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/.
12.Though Ex D4 to D6 contain the name of one P.Kanakaiah in the borrower’s report, even if it is assumed that the said Kanakaiah is the complainant /PW1 in this case, those exhibits only go to show that the said P.Kanakaiah is one of the borrowers but not the partner as alleged by the accused/DW.1. Ex . R7 to R9 throw no light supporting the contention of DW.1 as they do not disclose the names of the parties in this case atleast. Further DW.1 got marked Ex. R11 and R12 blank cheques of State bank of India . On perusal of the same the name and signature of one ‘Seri Mahesh’ is visible . It goes to show that the said cheques belong to the said person who is not at all related to this case in any manner. This Court fails to understand as to why these Cheques Ex. R11, R12 are filed and how they are helpful to the case of the accused. The accused/DW.1 is to explain as to how the cheque leaf Ex P1 signed by him went into the hands of complainant. For which, the oral and documentary evidence of DW.1 in no way helped him muchless to prove the facts about the existence of the said M/s Manikanta Finance enterprises, the alleged previous transactions of the accused with the said Finance. As such the defense of the accused/DW.1 is unbelievable, inappropriate, irrelevant and cannot be considered to prove his case and thus is liable to be rejected in toto in this case.
On the other hand, it suggests that the accused consciously gave Ex.P1 cheque in favour of the complainant/PW.1 in discharge of his liability, but, he took such a defence only to evade his liability.
8 CC No.165 of 2015
13.In view of the above discussion it can be held that the accused gave cheque
Ex.P1 in discharge of legally enforceable liability. As such point No.1 is answered in favour of complainant. Coming to point No.2, the legal notice under Ex.P6 was returned”Unclaimed”. In this aspect it would be appropriate to extract the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Crl. Appeal No. 767 of 2007 C.C Alavi Haji Vs
Palapetti Mohammed and Anr. Where in it was held that once a notice is sent by
Registered Post with Acknowledgment due by mentioning correct address, unless the contrary is proved service of notice is deemed to have been effected. Here in the present case there is no dispute with regard to mentioning of address. As such mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Clause (b) of S.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act stands complied.
14.Form the foregoing discussion as points 1 and 2 are decided in favour of complainant it can be held that an offence U/Sec. 138 of N.I Act has been made out against the accused and thus accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec. 138 of the N.I Act and is liable to be convicted for the same U/Sec. 255(2) of Cr.P.C.
In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and is convicted for the same U/Sec.255(2)
Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th day of October, 2021.
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad.
Dt.05.10.2021:
15.When questioned about the quantum of sentence, accused reported that he is innocent and that he is falsely implicated in this case and that he is bread winner of 9 CC No.165 of 2015 his family and that if he is sentenced at once to any imprisonment, his entire family would suffer hardship. Hence prayed to take lenient view. But this being an economic offence, it is not a fit case to extend benefits of Sec. 360 Cr.P.C or any other beneficial provisions under Probation of Offenders Act.
16.The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,80,000/ [Rupees three lakh Eighty thousand only]. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of THREE months. The accused is not entitled for benefits of 428 Cr.P.C., since there is no remand period at all.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th day of October, 2021.
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 – P. Kanakaiah
PW2 Manda Srinivas
FOR THE DEFENCE
DW1 – Karnakanti Sambhaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
Ex.P1 Original cheque bearing No. 142685, for Rs. 1,70,000/
EX.P2Copy of deposited voucher, in the A/c of complainant.
10 CC No.165 of 2015
Ex.P3 Postal receipt addressed to the accused relates to legal notice.
Ex.P4 Cheque returned memo by the LW2, forwarded to the LW3. Ex.P5 “Unclaimed” returned postal cover addressed to the accused. EX.P6- Office copy of the legal notice.
FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
Ex.R1 – Original printed proforma A/c.No. 1090, ID. No.15. Ex.R2 – Original Printed proforma A/c.No.865, ID.No.22
Ex.R3 – Original printed proforma A/c. No. 1257, ID.No. 13 Ex.R4 – Original printed proforma A/c.No. 750, ID. 71
Ex.R5 – Original printed proforma A/c.No.1449,ID.No.13 Ex.R6 – Original proforma of application A/c. No.1367,ID.No.13
Ex.R7 – Original printed Proforma of application A/c.No. 1047,ID.No.70 Ex.R8 Original printed proforma of application vide A/c.No. 878, ID. No.13
Ex.R9Original printed proforma of application of cheque vide A/c.No. 1419,ID.No.12. Ex.R10 Original Cheque bearing No. 877919
Ex.R11Original Cheque bearing No. 877920.
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad.
11 CC No.165 of 2015 12 CC No.165 of 2015
1 CC No.94 of 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
: AT : HUSNABAD
Present:Smt. G.ANUSHA,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
H U S N A B A D.
THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
CALENDAR CASE No.94 of 2015
Between:
The State through SubInspector of Police, P.S. Husnabad (Cr. No.87 of 2015). …Complainant
A N D
Maturi Premchand @ Prem Kumar s/o. Balaraju, 24 years, Goud, r/o. Husnabad. … Accused
This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing on 25.11.2019 in the presence of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor Sri P.Ravi Kiran for the complainant and Sri. S.Ashok Kumar, Counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The SubInspector of Police, Husnabad filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.353 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as ‘IPC’).
2.The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 18.4.2015 at 12.15 am the complainant V.Sathyanarayana Reddy/PW1 came to the Police Station and lodged complaint stating that on 17.4.2015 at 10.30 pm while he was performing patrolling in Husnabad town, he received information from SI of Police Husnabad that an accident took place near SBI Bank, Siddipet Road, Husnabad. On receipt of such information PW1 along with PW2 went there and found one person with bleeding injuries and some passers by have gathered with their vehicles on road. In order to clear off the traffic, PW1 told to an auto driver to move his auto, then 2 CC No.94 of 2015 driver of auto said ‘who are you to ask me to move my auto from here’, saying so, came to PW1 and pushed PW1 away with hands. Then PW3 and others have stopped auto driver/accused. Later PW1 came to Police Station and lodged complaint against the accused.
3.Basing on the complaint given by Pw1, PW6 registered a case Cr. No.87 of 2015, for the offences U/Sec.353 of IPC and took up the investigation. During which PW6 examined and recorded statement of PW1 and visited scene of offence prepared Crime Detail Form PW5 and Bodiga Venkata Swamy and examined and recorded statements of Pws.2, 3 and 5. On 18.4.2015 at 10.00 am PW6 apprehended accused and on interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. After completion of investigation PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused.
4.The case was taken on file by my predecessor as CC No.94 of 2015 against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC.
5.On appearance of the accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C., and he was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., and accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC, were read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To prove its case, prosecution examined PW’s 1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to
P5.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined U/Sec.313 of
Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the evidence of prosecution, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence.
3 CC No.94 of 2015
8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for defense.
9.The point for determination is “whether the prosecution established the
guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC, beyond all
reasonable doubt.”
10.This is an offence U/Sec.353 IPC and the case of the prosecution is that on 17.4.2015 when the complainant along with PW2 were performing the patrolling duties at Husnabad, PW1 received information that accident took place at SBI Bank,
Husnabad on which Pws.1 and 2 went there. While they were making arrangements to shift the injured to Hospital, some persons gathered on the road and kept their vehicles on the road. In order to clear the traffic PW1 asked the accused to move the auto from there then the accused questioned him as to who is he to ask him to move his auto and came near PW1, pushed him with hands.
11.PW1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that on 17.4.2015 when he and PW2 went to the SBI Bank, Husnabad while they were dispersing people at that place where the accident took place there was an auto which was parked on the road. The auto has no registration number. When he asked the persons present there to find out whose auto it is, the accused came and pushed him aside stating that who is he to ask him, he got marked Ex.P1 – Complaint.
12.PW2 evidence discloses that he along with PW1 went on two wheeler to SBI
Bank, Husnabad to attend a person who met with an accident. By the time they reached there, a crowd of people gathered and many vehicles were jammed at that place. He stated that an auto was also present at that place, PW1 asked the public as to whom the auto belongs to in order to clear the traffic and to remove the auto.
He stated that the person to whom the auto belongs to has pushed the PW1 aside stating who is he to ask for removal of auto. About 100 people were present at that 4 CC No.94 of 2015 place. He stated that the person whom the auto belongs to has obstructed PW1 in performing his duties and he further recognized the said person and stated that he is present in the court.
13.PW3 who is stated to be the eye witness deposed during his chief examination that in the process of disperrsing the crowd an altercation took place on one day at around 10.00 to 10.30 pm and that he does not know between whom altercation took place. He further stated that police were present.
14.PW4 turned hostile stating that he put his signature on Crime Detail Form without knowing its contents. But during cross examination by learned APPO, he stated that police have read out contents of Crime Detail Form to him and then he put his sign. During cross examination by learned counsel for accused he stated that police did not read out contents to him but denied to the suggestion that he put his signature at police station and that he was not present at the scene of offence.
15.PW5 turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution.
16.PW6 is the investigating officer who received the complaint from PW1 and has deposed about the way in which he conducted investigation in the present case.
17.During cross examination of PW1 he stated that he has not stated the name of the person in complaint who informed him about the name of the accused and that he has not made any attempt to know the name of the person who told him the name of the accused. He further stated that he has not enquired the name of the owner of the auto and denied to the the suggestion that the accused has not pushed him aside and that the accused was not at all present at that place. He also denied that the accused has not obstructed his duties.
5 CC No.94 of 2015
18.It was argued by the learned counsel for prosecution that Pws.1 to 4 and 6 have supported the case of prosecution and prayed to convict the accused. On the other hand the learned counsel for accused stated that PW1 has not disclosed the name of the person who stated him the name of accused. None of the prosecution witnesses stated that accused was present at that place and they also even not stated about the name of the accused. It was argued that the enquiry as to whether the accused is auto driver or not was not done by the police and thus prayed to acquit the accused. Sec.353 of IPC is extracted below for the sake of convenience.
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty—Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
The evidence of Pws.1, 2 and 6 discloses that Pws.1 and 2 are discharging duties as
ASI, Constable as on date of incident. Though, it was admitted by PW1 that he has not filed any duty certificate along with complaint, the accused has not denied that Pws.1 and 2 are not on duty as on the date of incident and that they are not acting in discharge of their duties. Hence it has been proved that Pws.1 and 2 are public servants who are discharging their duties.
Secondly it has to be proved by the prosecution, that the accused assaulted PW1 with an intention of deterring such public servant from discharging his duty. In the instant case, it was not denied by the accused that Pws.1 and 2 went near SBI Bank, Husnabad to attend a person on receiving information that he met with an accident. It was the evidence that “huge crowd gathered at that place and there were many vehicles parked on the road.
Pws.1 and 2 clearly stated that in their attempt to move the auto that was parked, the offence was committed by the accused. In this connection I feel it appropriate to refer the 6 CC No.94 of 2015
Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2001) 1 SCC 652 State Government of NCT
Delhi Vs. Sunil - “We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approval procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.”
It is abundantly clear from the above said judgment that there is no rule of law which enjoins upon the Court not to rely upon the testimony of the police officials in the absence of any independent/public witness. The only concern is to be more cautious and circumspect before placing any reliance on their testimonies. In other words, their testimony is to be subjected to careful scrutinization and assessment as compared to the testimony of any other public person. On the touchstone of these principles, I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimonies of Pws.1 and 2. They have remained embedded in their testimony.”
19.In the present case the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is clear as to the identification of the accused that he is the person who committed assault on PW1.
Though it was argued by the learned counsel for defense that the name of the person who stated PW1 about the name of the accused was not disclosed by PW1 in his complaint, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and it is purely a part of 7 CC No.94 of 2015 investigation by the police. Further during cross examination of PW1 it was the only defence that was taken by the accused as to nonmentioning of the informant name that it was argued by the accused that the enquiry as to the name of the owner of the auto was not done by the police. It is not at all relevant in the present case as the case is with respect to the assault committed by the accused over PW1.
The details as to who is the owner and driver of the auto is not essential in the present case. No doubt, Pws.1 and 2 are the police officials but, the learned counsel for defense could not elicit any material discrediting their testimony as to why case is filed against the accused by them. Nothing was placed on record by the accused as to why he was falsely implicated by the police and the reasons for which police have implicated him falsely. Further during the examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. the accused stated that he was not present at that place at the time of offence. Even it was suggested to PW1 that the accused was not at all present at that place at the time of offence. In view of these material on record, the burden shifts on the accused to prove that he was not present at that place, which the accused could not discharge at all. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 are corroborating in respect of place, date, time of offence and also the manner in which the offence was committed by the accused. Though it was admitted by PW2 and PW1 that they do not know to whom the auto to be removed belongs to, it is not affecting the case of prosecution as the present incident is not with respect to the driver or owner of the auto it is in respect of person who assaulted PW1. The accused did not place any cogent information in the form of at least a suggestion as to why the PW1 has not necessity to lodge complaint against him.
20.In these circumstances this court is of opinion that the accused has failed to discharge the other defense taken by him that he was not present at that time and hence the prosecution was successfully established the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt of the accused, as such the accused is liable to be convicted.
8 CC No.94 of 2015
21.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/Sec.353 of IPC and accordingly, the accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC. No order as to property, as there is no property.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2019.
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad. Dt.28.11.2019:
22.Accused is present and he is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him for the offence punishable U/Sec.353 of IPC to which the accused stated that recently his wife gave birth to a female child, he has to look after their welfare and prayed to take lenient view.
23.Taking into consideration the submissions made by the accused, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act to the accused.
24.Considering the submissions of accused, this court is inclined to take a lenient view and accordingly Accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/ (Rupees Five thousand only),in default of payment of fine amount the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of SIX (06) MONTHS each for the offence U/Sec.353 of IPC. The accused is informed about their right to appeal on this judgment and be stated that they have got sufficient means to engage Advocate in appeal. The copy of this Judgment shall be supplied to the accused on free of cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2019.
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad.
9 CC No.94 of 2015
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:
PW1 – V.Satyanarayana Reddy Nil PW2 – Mudavath Samya Nayak PW3 – Vadluri Sunil PW4 – Ch.Bhaskar PW5 – A.Sathyanarayana Reddy PW6 – E.Kiran
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 – Complaint Ex.P2 – Signature of PW4 Crime Detail Form Ex.P3 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P5 – First Information Report
FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil
JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,
Husnabad.
Order Record 1,928 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRC/13/2021 | State of Telangana vs A1 Mohammed Mynoddin | 08 Oct 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/165/2015 | PACHIMATLA KANAKAIAH vs K.SAMBAIAH | 05 Oct 2021 | Judgement | Convicted |
| OS/73/2014 | YALLA BHARATHAVVA vs KUNTA CHINNA MALLAREDDY | 01 Oct 2021 | Order | Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 01-10-2021 Prl |
| OS/199/2021 | Booram Srikanth vs Chinthala Ramchandram | 30 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| PRC/20/2021 | State of Telangana vs Potharaveni Mahender | 30 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| OS/97/2017 | NIMMAKANTI MALLAIAH vs MATURRI SIDDAIAH | 29 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/724/2021 | State of Telangana vs Moutam Sampath | 29 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| MC/4/2020 | Taqoor KAMALA Khawar and others vs Jalam singh | 29 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/713/2021 | State of Telangana vs Chitumalla Thirupathi | 28 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/49/2021 | SHO PS.CHIGURUMAMDI vs Devusani Soumith | 28 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/50/2021 | SHO PS.CHIGURUMAMIDI vs Orsu Kishtaiah | 28 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| OS/115/2016 | CHITALAPANI SUDHER REDDY vs CHILPURI RAMASWAMY | 27 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| MC/9/2020 | Gadipe Thirupathi vs Gadipe Srikanth | 23 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/213/2016 | POODARI RAMESH vs B. Lachaiah | 22 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| EP/22/2019 | KAPIL CHIT funds m. Shiva Prasad vs Kemsaram Venkataiah | 20 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/48/2021 | SHO PS.HUSNABAD vs Kamsani Raju | 17 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/687/2021 | State of Telangana vs Pittala Ailaiah | 15 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/45/2021 | SHO PS.Husnabad vs Narsingoju Kanukaiah | 14 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/46/2021 | SHO PS.Husnabad vs Bommagani Mallaiah | 14 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/158/2015 | GAJULA SRINIVAS vs JAKKANI SAGAR | 13 Sep 2021 | Judgement | — |
| CC/159/2015 | GAJULA SRINIVAS vs JAKKANI SAGAR | 13 Sep 2021 | Judgement | — |
| PRC/1/2021 | State of Telangana vs Vsjeripothula bhixapathi | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/39/2021 | SHO PS Chigurumamidi vs N.Sampath | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/40/2021 | SHO PS.CHIGURUMAMIDI vs M.SWAMY | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/41/2021 | SHO PS CHIGURUMAMIDI vs G.PARSHAIAH | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/42/2021 | SHO PS CHIGURUMAMIDI vs GULLA ILAIAH | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/43/2021 | SHO PS CHIGURUMAMIDI vs D.RAMESH | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| STC/44/2021 | SHO PS CHIGURUMAMIDI vs S.RAMESH | 13 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/2/2016 | GOOLLA RAJITHA vs A1 GOOLLA VENKATESHAM | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/27/2021 | State of Telangana vs Ashok kolipaka | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/73/2021 | State of Telangana vs Ramesh yerabothu | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/141/2016 | PESARU YELLAVVA vs PESARU RAJAIAH | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/150/2018 | Lavudya Manja vs A1 Banothu Sajya | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/158/2018 | Annadi Ellareddy vs Shek Bhashit | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/158/2020 | Thada paramathma Reddy vs A1 Thada Bhagya @ Bhagyamma | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/160/2021 | State of Telangana vs Ganta Ankus | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/211/2017 | Buthukuri Venkati vs Marella Mohan | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/212/2017 | Marella Mohan vs Bathukuri Venkati | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/236/2018 | Guglothu Sammanna vs A1 Gugulothu Rajanna | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/252/2021 | State of Telangana vs Myadaraboyina Raju | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/255/2020 | Chirlavancha Radhika vs Chirlavancha Sathish | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/264/2018 | Kotturi Pochaiah vs Kotthuri Shekar | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/269/2018 | Gugulothu Shanthamma vs A1 Gugulothu Sammanna | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/307/2021 | State of Telangana vs A1. Bhuthagaddapu Ramesh | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/361/2021 | State of Telangana vs Edulapuram Ravi Chander | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/371/2017 | Ande Rajaiah vs A1 Ande Ellavva | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/550/2021 | State of Telangana vs Bommagani Narayana | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/579/2021 | State of Telangana vs Nehuru @ Nevuru Balaiah | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/586/2021 | State of Telangana vs Pudari Ramu | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/617/2021 | State of Telangana vs Vsvallapu sampath | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/639/2021 | State of Telangana vs Parnandula Murali | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/640/2021 | State of Telangana vs Thallapally Ravinder | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/650/2021 | State of Telangana vs Korimi Pithambar | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/652/2021 | SHO PS.Husnabad vs Bojja Harish | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/655/2021 | State of Telangana vs Kamsani Nagaraju | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/702/2019 | Komatireddy rajireddy vs Nadigottu Sai kiran | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/705/2020 | Bairi Kanukaiah vs Erri Manoj | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/780/2020 | Buram Srikanth vs Suddala Ashok | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/783/2019 | Dontharaveni yadagiri vs A1 Erravelli Srinivas | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/788/2019 | Thoutu narayana vs Thoutu Raju | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/830/2020 | Shankari Srinivas vs Illandula Brahmaiah | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/831/2020 | Allepu Balavva vs Orsu Sammaiah | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/887/2019 | Bommidi Pushpa vs Pinniti Gangareddy | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/924/2020 | Kashaboina Yadagiri vs Annarapu Srinivas Reddy | 11 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/35/2021 | State of Telangana vs Vsnakka lingaiah | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/61/2018 | Bhukya Narsimha vs A1 Bhakya Pirya | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/84/2018 | Ache Suresh vs Ache Bixapathi | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/108/2016 | BONKURI ODELU vs APPALA ILAIAH | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/143/2018 | Gugulothu Thuchhiya vs A1 Gugulothu Ramesh | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/189/2018 | Gugulothu Dhumma vs Banka Yadagiri | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/263/2017 | Kanakam Salomi vs Boddu Ilaiah | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/270/2018 | M.Surender SI of Police Chiguruamamidi vs Choppari Raghu | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/305/2017 | Goolla Ramesh vs A1 Gulla Ravi | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/305/2020 | B. Sampath, Head Constable, HC-1973, Husnabad PS vs Kodari Ailaiah | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/316/2021 | State of Telangana vs Raireddy Kanaka Reddy | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/321/2019 | Pakala Srinivas vs Burra Raju | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/373/2017 | Elaboina Rajamouli vs A1 Ellaboins Ashok | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/428/2021 | State of Telangana vs Vskoluguri Himachal Reddy | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/510/2020 | Kuncham Sampath vs Dunnapothula Anil | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/514/2020 | SI of police Akkannapet vs Diddigam Venkatesham | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/549/2020 | Ankathi laxmi vs Ankathi Malathi | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/556/2020 | MA, Bauqi, ASI-798 of Husnabad PS vs Bashabathini Prakash | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/588/2020 | M.A. Baqi, ASI- 798, of Husnabad PS vs Konkati Rajashekar | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/616/2020 | SI of police Husnabad vs Bootla Raghu | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/658/2020 | Bekkanti Raju vs A1. Madipelli Veeraswamy | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/730/2019 | Shivarathei Sumalatha vs Shanigaram hareen | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/822/2020 | Mallapuram Kavitha vs Bejjenki Kiran @ Karan | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/845/2019 | M.surender ,S.I of police chigurumamidi vs Palumaru santhosh | 09 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/18/2021 | State of Telangana vs Gulla Ravi | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/31/2021 | State of Telangana vs Gujjula Kishta Reddy | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/152/2021 | State of Telangana vs Vemula Srikanth | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/210/2017 | Barigela Yellaiah vs Barigela Singaraiah | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/257/2017 | Konda Chandramouli vs Konda kashivishwanatham | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/263/2018 | Anumandla Satyanarayana vs Pilli thirupathi reddy | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/288/2017 | Mahankali Rakesh vs A1 Boini Saravva | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/364/2021 | State of Telangana vs Dakuri Thirupathi Reddy | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/430/2021 | State of Telangana vs Jala Srinivas | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/518/2020 | Bhukya Ravi vs Bukya Jemla @Jambla | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/539/2020 | State police, Through Ch. Madhukar, SI of Police, Chigurumamidi vs Pilli Venu | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
| CC/565/2021 | State of Telangana vs Mohmad Khadir | 08 Sep 2021 | Order | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Oct 2021 | 3 | |
| Sep 2021 | 127 | |
| Aug 2021 | 13 | |
| Jul 2021 | 73 | |
| Jun 2021 | 4 | |
| Apr 2021 | 50 | |
| Mar 2021 | 47 | |
| Feb 2021 | 31 | |
| Jan 2021 | 2 | |
| Dec 2020 | 71 | |
| Nov 2020 | 25 | |
| Oct 2020 | 16 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Smt G.Anusha handled?
Smt G.Anusha has handled 2003 court orders since 2016 at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 33 orders per month.
What types of cases does Smt G.Anusha hear?
Based on available records, Smt G.Anusha primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex.
Where is Smt G.Anusha currently posted?
Smt G.Anusha is posted as Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex, Siddipet, Telangana.
Are judgments by Smt G.Anusha available online?
Yes. 26 judgments by Smt G.Anusha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Smt G.Anusha dispose cases?
Smt G.Anusha disposes approximately 33 cases per month, based on 2003 orders handled over their tenure at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex.
Since when is Smt G.Anusha serving?
Smt G.Anusha has been serving at Husnabad, JCJ Court Complex since 2016.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Mar 2020 — Oct 2021Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 576 orders
-
Dec 2019 — Dec 2019Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 39 orders
-
Dec 2019 — Dec 2019I Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 56 orders
-
Nov 2019 — Nov 2019I Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 12 orders
-
Jan 2019 — Nov 2019Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 515 orders
-
Oct 2016 — Oct 2018Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 805 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court