Smt G.Archana

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SMT. G. ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF APRIL,2013

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 561/2012

BETWEEN:

M/s.Kapil Chit funds private Ltd., a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act with its registered office situated at 3-1-631, Vijaya Raghunandana Nagar, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, having branches in all over state of A.P. And one of such branch situated at 46-22-20, Railway station Road, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Recovery Officer & Authorised Signatory Sri D.Sanjay Kumar, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 25 years, R/o. Visakhapatnam. …. Plaintiff

AND:

1. Thirumani Ramakoti, S/o. T.V.Venkayya, Hindu, aged 49 years, Qtr.NO.Type-II/82/735, Port Quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Suvvari Jagannadham, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 46 years, D.No.27-3-87, Official Colony, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam-26.

3. Kanni Appala Raju, S/o. Somulu, Hindu, aged 44 years, D.No.17-49-7, Peda Pallipalem, Gangavaram, Visakhapatnam-44.

4. Pothabathula Hari Babu, S/o.Bhyragi Varma, Hindu, aged 54 years, Qtr.No.326/A, Sector-II, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

5. Buduri Anjaiah S/o. Anakamma, Hindu, aged 54 years, Qtr.No.436, Type-2, Block No.32, Port quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2

6. Matsa Venkata Syamala Devi, w/o. Ramakoti, Hindu, aged 46 years, Qtr.No.Type-II/82/735, Port Quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam. …. Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 18-04-2012 in the presence of Sri Adapa Venkateswara rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.N.Murthy, Advocates for the defendants No.1, 5 and 6, and the defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 are remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.22,835/- with subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2).The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the

Indian companies Act with its registration, which has been carrying chit fund business through its branches.

ii).It is further submitted that 1st defendant joined as a member of the Chit fund scheme of the plaintiff company, as per its rules & regulations which were furnished to the 1st defendant, and was allotted

Ticket No. DVTO4J-46, and the total value of the chit being Rs.5,00,000/- to be subscribed at the rate of

Rs.10,000/- per month for 50 months and signed an agreement Chit with the company on 25.04.2009. In 3 the auction conducted as per the Rules of the Company in respect of the above Chit on 26.05.2009 the 1st defendant has participated and became a successful bidder having agreed to forego Rs.1,61,000/- out of

Rs.5,00,000/- which was duly confirmed by the company. After deducting company’s commission from the forgone amount, the balance was distributed among all the members in the aforementioned series.

As per the Rules of the Company in order to draw that amount, the successful bidder had to furnish independent guarantors to the satisfaction of the company who can stand surety for the due payment of entire future monthly instalmentss of the successful bidder.

iii).1st defendant paid Rs.1,90,000/- including dividends till the date of payment of prize amount and future liability being for Rs.3,10,000/-. First defendant furnished guarantors 2 to 6 who executed an agreement of guarantee dt..06.10.2009 jointly in favour of plaintiff company agreeing to guarantee the due payment of the amount due to the company by 1st defendant. Thus, the defendants 2 to 6 executed an

Agreement of Guarantee, liable jointly and severally 4 along with 1st defendant for Rs.3,10,000/- being the entire amount of future instalments with interest 12% per anum in case of default made by 1st defendant in payment of monthly instalments defendants also executed a promissory note dated 06.10.2009. 1st defendant was paid the prize amount on 06.10.2009 after adjusted the dues by way of cheque and the same was acknowledged by the 1st defendant and issued payment voucher in favour of plaintiff company.

iv).1stdefendant paid 47 installments thereafter he committed default from October,2010 in paying the remaining installments. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff company, the defendants failed to pay dues. Finally, the plaintiff company got issued a Registered legal notice to all the defendants, demanding to pay the due amount.

However, they did not respond. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

3. The defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 remained exparte.

1st defendant filed his written statement and the same is adopted by 5th and 6th defendants.The brief averments of the written statement are as follows:

5

They denied all the material allegations made in the plaint are not true, valid, correct and tenable. 1st defendant admitted his subscription in the chit series bearing No. DVTO4J46 introduced by plaintiff company participation in auction and future liability for

Rs.3,10,000/- when he took the chit amount. It is further submitted that 1st defendant paid an amount of

Rs.10,000/- on 06.09.2011, Rs.50,000/- on 30.11.2011 and Rs.32,000/- on 01.12.2011, for which the plaintiff company issued receipts. As per the account of the plaintiff, 1st defendant paid the entire installments i.e.

50th installments by 01.12.2011 and as such, there is no default on his part. He filed the above payment receipts in order to prove the payment of chit installments. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the account calculation shown by the plaintiff is absolutely incorrect. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

4).Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the defendant has discharged the entire amount to plaintiff?

2.Whether the plaintiff company is entitled to recovery the suit from the defendants 1 to 6 jointly and severally, as prayed for for ?

3. To what relief ?

6 5).During the course of trial, plaintiff examined its

Recovery Officer as PW1 and got marked documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 to A.16. Whereas, defendants examined Dw1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

6).Heard both sides.

7).Issues No.1 &2:

In the present case, defendant has taken a plea that he has discharged the entire debt and he need not to pay suit amount to the plaintiff. As such, the burden of proof as per Issue No.1 is lies on the defendants.

Thus, in proof of the case of the defendants, 1st defendant was examined as Dw1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating all the contents of his written statement.

8).Here a specific allegation raised by 1st defendant is that he paid entire installment amount to the plaintiff company. In support of his case, he filed documentary evidence of Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the Receipt issued by the plaintiff company for Rs.10,000/- on 06.09.2011.

Ex.B2 is the Receipt issued by the plaintiff company for

Rs.50,000/- on 30.11.2011. Ex.B3 is the Receipt issued by plaintiff company for Rs.32,000/- on 01.12.2011.

7 Ex.B4 is the letter issued by the plaintiff company, dated.28.11.2011.

9). Though 1st defendant stated that he had paid all the fifty installments to plaintiff company and obtained receipts for the same, at the same time, the defendant admitted during his cross-examination that all the three receipts i.e. Exs.B1 to B3 are reflecting in the accounts statement filed by the plaintiff, and that those amounts are received towards installment and penalty.

Immediately, thereafter, Dw1 categorically admitted that “ It is true that I am liable to pay suit amount with interest and costs of the suit”. Thus, in that circumstances, I found no necessity to discuss in further on this aspect.

10). Whereas, in contrary to the case of the defendant, plaintiff company examined its Recovery officer by name D.Sanjay Kumar as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. i.e.Ex.A1 is the attested copy of authorisation letter dated.30.11.2010. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of certificate of incorporation, dt. 06.05.1981. Ex.A.3 is the

True copy of Form-II. Ex.A.4 is the True copy of Form-III.

Ex.A.5 is the Agreement of chit executed by D1 in favour of the plaintiff, dt.25.04.2009. Ex.A6 is the 8 Agreement of Guarantee executed by defendants No.2 to 6 in favour of the plaintiff company, dt. 06.10.2009

Ex.A.7 is the Promissory note executed by all defendants,dt.06.10.2009. Ex.A.8 is the Payment

Voucher,dt 06.10.2009. Ex.A.9 is the Registered lawyer notice issued to all the defendants by plaintiff, dt.28.06.2012. Ex.A.10 and 15 are the postal Receipts of D1 to D6, Ex. A.16 is the computerised Statement of account of 1st defendant.

11).Though Dw1 categorically admitted his liability towards the suit amount, the defence counsel has conducted cross-examination to Pw1, regarding the penalty aspect, suggesting that Pw1 is deposing false evidence as the penalty amount is not reflecting in the ledger account. relating to Ex.B1 Receipt. On that Pw1, categorically deposed evidence that an amount of

Rs.32,000 is reflecting in ledger account with date 10.12.2011, and out of the said amount, by mistake, the penalty amount was not deducted, but subsequently, after realizing their mistake committed by their Accounts officer, the penalty amount was deducted by making entry dated. 7.3.2012 with Serial number SJV869/2011 for an amount of Rs.7680/-. As 9 such, the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount.

12).The defence counsel has also argued that since the defendant paid all the installments, defendants are not liable to discharge the suit amount and not even liable for payment of any penalty. Here, on perusal of all the documents filed by the plaintiff, specially, the guarantee agreement marked as Ex.A6, is clear that the defendants are liable to pay the penalty at the rate of 0.03 paisa per Rupee, in case of committed default in payment of instalment. In the present case, all the documents filed by the plaintiff are not denied by the defendants. Thus, as per Ex.A6 agreement, the deduction of penalty amount by the plaintiff, is found correct. In that circumstances and as admitted by Dw1, the defendants are found liable to discharge the suit amount, as claimed by the plaintiff company.

13)In the light of my above said discussion, I hold a view that the plaintiff company is found entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 to 6 jointly and severally, as prayed for. Accordingly, the above issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

10

14)Issue No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendants No. 1 to 6 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.22,835/- with subsequent interest on Rs.20,848/- at the rate of 12%p.a.

from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%p.a. till realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 25th April,2013.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIIVL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: D.Sanjay Kumar

DEFENDANT :

Dw1: T.Ramakoti

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1/Attested copy of authorisation letter dated.30.11.2010.

Ex.A.2/Certified copy of certificate of incorporation,

dt. 06.05.1981.

Ex.A.3/True copy of Form-II.

Ex.A.4/True copy of Form-III.

11 Ex.A.7/Promissory note executed by all defendants,dt.06.10.2009.

Ex.A.8/ Payment Voucher,dt 06.10.2009.

Ex.A.9/Registered lawyer notice issued to all the defendants by plaintiff, dt.28.06.2012.

Ex.A.10 & 15/Postal Receipts of D1 to D6.

Ex. A.16/Computerised Statement of account of 1st defendant.

DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1/Receipt issued by the plaintiff compan for Rs.10,000/- on 06.09.2011.

Ex.B2/Receipt issued by the plaintiff company for Rs.50,000/- on 30.11.2011.

Ex.B3/Receipt issued by plaintiff company for Rs.32,000/- on 01.12.2011 . Ex.B4/Letter issued by the plaintiff company, dated.28.11.2011.

II AJCJ:VSP 12 Date of Presentation: 04.07.2012 Date of filing :12.07.2012

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT : SMT. G. ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF APRIL,2013

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 561/2012

BETWEEN:

M/s.Kapil Chit funds private Ltd., a company incorporated under Indian Companies Act with its registered office situated at 3-1-631, Vijaya Raghunandana Nagar, Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, having branches in all over state of A.P. And one of such branch situated at 46-22-20, Railway station Road, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Recovery Officer & Authorised Signatory Sri D.Sanjay Kumar, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged 25 years, R/o. Visakhapatnam. …. Plaintiff AND:

1. Thirumani Ramakoti, S/o. T.V.Venkayya, Hindu, aged 49 years, Qtr.NO.Type-II/82/735, Port Quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. Suvvari Jagannadham, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 46 years, D.No.27-3-87, Official Colony, Srinagar, Visakhapatnam-26.

3. Kanni Appala Raju, S/o. Somulu, Hindu, aged 44 years, D.No.17-49-7, Peda Pallipalem, Gangavaram, Visakhapatnam-44.

4. Pothabathula Hari Babu, S/o.Bhyragi Varma, Hindu, aged 54 years, Qtr.No.326/A, Sector-II, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.

5. Buduri Anjaiah S/o. Anakamma, Hindu, aged 54 years, Qtr.No.436, Type-2, Block No.32, Port quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam.

13

6. Matsa Venkata Syamala Devi, w/o. Ramakoti, Hindu, aged 46 years, Qtr.No.Type-II/82/735, Port Quarters, Saligramapuram, Visakhapatnam. …. Defendants

Suit to recover a sum of Rs.22,835/- from the defendants 1 to 6 jointly and severally as per the statement of account filed by the plaintiff being the balance of principal and interest due under a chit No.

DVTO45/46 for Rs.5,00,000/- and the auction of the same was conducted on 26.05.2009 wherein the 1st defendant became the highest bidder of the chit and received the consideration for which the defendants

No.2 to 6 stood as guarantors and all the defendants executed a chit pronote dt.06.10.2009,for Rs.3,10,000/- repayable with interest at 12%p.a. and for recovery of subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.22,835/-. and C.F. of Rs.1,506/- paid under section 20 Article Sch. I (b&c) of A.P.C.F. Act and

S.V. Act.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 18-04-2012 in the presence of Sri Adapa Venkateswara rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D.N.Murthy,

Advocates for the defendants No.1, 5 and 6, and the defendant Nos.2,3 and 4 are remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court

DOTH order and 14

D E C R E E

i.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; that the defendants No.1 to 6 jointly and ii. severally do pay to the plaintiff company a sum Rs.22,835/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand eight hundred and thirty five only) with subsequent interest on the balance amount of Rs.20,848/- at the rate of 12%p.a. from the date of suit i.e. 04.07.2012 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%p.a. till realization; and that defendantsNo.1 to 6 jointly and ii. severally do pay to the plaintiff company a sum Rs.3,666/- towards Institutional costs of the suit. .

Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the 25th April,2013.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

No costs memo is filed

Stamp on vakalat : 2.00 Stamp on plaint : 1506.00 Stamp on document: 6.00 Process fee : 210.00 Typing charges : 100.00 Advocate fee 1842.00 ------------- Institutional costs : 3666.00 ------------- II AJCJ:VSP 15

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Smt. G. Archana, LL.B., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 29th day of April,2013

OS. 814/2012

Between:

Md.Gul Khan, s/o. Shajahan, Muslim, aged about 48 years, Business, door no.44-34-2, Nandagiri nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-16. …. Plaintiff And:

Jaggumantri Chandrasekhar, s/o. Venkata rao, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Employee no. 103818, Sr. Charge man, wire road mill(wrm), visakhapatnam steel plant, Visakhapatnam. R/o. Gurucharan apartment,flatno.14/a,ASRnagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

… defendant

This suit is coming before me on 23.04.2013 for final hearing in the presence of sri smt. B.Kavitha vani, advocate for the plaintiff and of smt. K.v.narayana murthy, advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments, and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed for recovery of an amount of rs.67,066/- with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a, and the costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:.

2 The plaintiff submit that the defendant borrowed a sum of rs.50,000/- on 07-05-2011 for the purpose of family expenses and executed a demand promissory note at the house of defendant, in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., To the plaintiff or his order on demand, etc. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay any amount, hence, the plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer's notice on 05.09.2012 and the same was returned with an endorsement that “intimation served on 07.09.2012 and 08.09.2012, not claimed”. Hence, the suit.

ii)defendant is not an agriculturists, hence he is not entitled for any benefits under debt relief act.

3).The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendant, are as follows:

He denied all the material allegations made in the plaint as not true, correct and binding on them. It is further submit that the alleged suit promissory note is a rank forgery and created for the purpose of filing this suit.

There is no necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff much less the alleged suit 3 amount. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4).Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

i.Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant? ii.Whether the plantiff is entitled for recovery of the suit claim as prayed for? Iii.To what relief ?

5).During the course of trial, plaintiff examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 . Whereas, defendant examined Dw.1, no documentary evidence is adduced on on their behalf.

6).Heard both sides.

7).Issues no. 1 &2:

In proof of the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as pw1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating all the contents of the plaint. He also got examined the attestors of suit promissory note as pws.2 and 3. Pw2 deposed that the defendant requested him to stood as attestors for the transaction in which defendant is going to borrow amount from plaintiff on 7.5.2011. Pw2 went along with defendant and one Abdul Sattar, Ex- employer, East coast railway to the house of plaintiff.

Defendant after receiving consideration of Rs.50,000/-, 4 scribed suit promissory note. Abdul sattar and Pw2 signed as attestors. Pw3 deposed that he knows the defendant since last 6 years, at the request of defendant, he along with defendant went to the house of plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to arrange money. Plaintiff agreed to arrange money on 7.5.2011. On 7.5.23011, Pws.2 and 3 along with defendant went to the house of plaintiff, the defendant after receiving cash consideration of Rs.50,000/- executed suit promissory note, it was self-scribed by defendant. Pws.2 an d 3 attested the same.

8)Plaintiff also got marked documentary evidence of

Exs.A.1 to A3. Ex.a1 is the promissory note dated.07.05.2011 executed for an amount of rs.50,000/-.

Ex.a2 is the legal notice, dated. 05.09.2012. Ex.a3 is the returned cover.

9). I found no major discrepancy in the evidence of pws.1 to 3. The evidence of pw.1 is found corroborating with the oral evidence of pws.2 and 3, coupled with documentary evidence of exs.a1 to a3 on all material aspects..

10).Where as in contrary to the case of the plaintiff, the defendant examined as Dw.1. He filed evidence affidavit stating that he never executed any suit 5 promissory note. He further submitted that plaintiff and

Pw3 colluded and fabricated his signatures. So, in fact, the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, so, he need not liable to pay the suit debt. On one occasion, he went to

Bank i.e. on 6.5.2011 for the purpose of taking demand draft, he fill the form of demand draft, but he could not take the demand draft due to the amounts are not sufficient to the same to take demand draft, he forget the form of the DD in bank. The same is taken by Pw3 and colluded with Pw1 filed the rank forged of Ex.A1. He has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff.

11). Here, the the contents of evidence affidavit of Dw1 were introduced for the first time by the defendant, there is no pleading to that effect, no cogent evidence is placed by him to support his contention. On the other hand, during cross-examination also, Dw1 could not stand on his contents of evidence affidavit, he totally failed to speak about the incident dated. 6.5.2011.

12) Moreover, the evidence placed by Dw1, without pleading can not be considered at this stage. It is also highly improbable to think that any prudent man will go to

Bank, to obtain demand draft without having knowledge of his bank balance. Secondly, no prudent man will left the 6 filled demand draft form in bank, in the circumstances, as pleaded by the defendant in his evidence affidavit.

Besides the above circumstances, plaintiff's counsel has elicited out the facts during his cross-examination to show the very avoiding conduct of the defendant to pay the suit amount.

13)Here, during the cross-examination, Dw1 not only denied his signatures available on the suit promissory note, but also his own written statement, counter filed by him in IA.527/2012. The version of Dw1, during his cross- examination, makes his evidence not reliable.

14)Moreover, the defence counsel has argued that the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is not corroborating, regarding the acquaintance among them. He further argued that as per

Pw1, Pws.2 and 3 are having acquaintance with the defendant, because, Pw2 deposed in his evidence affidavit that he know defendant since long time. Whereas, in cross- examination, he stated that he got acquaintance with defendant through Pw3. According to Pw3, he knows defendant since last 6 years. Whereas, in cross- examination, Pw3 deposed that he had seen the defendant for the first time on 6.5.2011, near bank.

7 15). No doubt, there are some minor discrepancies found in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, but those can not be given much weight, specially in circumstances, where all the three witnesses i.e. Pws.1 to 3, deposed evidence that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.50,000/- under suit promissory note and the same was self-scribed by the defendant. On the other hand, even if, for a moment, this

Court will disbelieve the version of Pws.2 and 3, even then, the fact remain is that the suit promissory note is not a compulsorily attestiable document. Thus, in that circumstances, much weight can not be given to the minor discrepancies found in the evidence of Pws.2 and 3.

16).Thus, in the light of positive evidence placed by the plaintiff in proof of the very execution of the promissory note and considering the very conduct of the defendant by denying his admitted signatures available on written statement and his counter and in further, placing oral evidence without pleadings, I hold a view that the plaintiff is very much entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. The above issues are answered accordingly.

8

17.Issue no. 3: to what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.67,066/- with subsequent interest on the principal amount of rs.50,000/- at the rate of 12% p.a. From the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%p.a., till realization.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of

march,2013. . II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff:Defendant :

P.w.1: Md. Gul Khan Dw1: J.Chandrasekhar

P.w.2: V.Srinivasa rao

Pw3: Abdul Sattar

Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/Promissory note dated.07.05.2011 executed for an amount of Rs.50,000/-.

Ex.A2/ Legal notice, dated. 05.09.2012 . Ex.3/Returned cover.

Defendant

Nil II AJCJ:VSP 9 Date of presentation:10.10.2012 Date of filing : 10.10.2012

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Smt. G. Archana, LL.B., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Monday, the 29th day of April,2013

OS. 814/2012

Between: Md.Gul Khan, s/o. Shajahan, Muslim, aged about 48 years, Business, door no.44-34-2, Nandagiri nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-16. …. Plaintiff And: Jaggumantri Chandrasekhar, s/o. Venkata rao, aged about 50 years, Hindu, Employee no. 103818, Sr. Charge man, wire road mill(wrm), visakhapatnam steel plant, Visakhapatnam. R/o. Gurucharan apartment,flatno.14/a,ASRnagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. … defendant

This is the suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.67,066/- being the principal and interest due under the promissory note executed on 07.05.2011 by defendant in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a. and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.67,066/- and C.F. Of Rs.2786/- paid under section 20 article sch. I (b&c) of a.p.c.f. Act and S.V. Act.

This suit is coming before me on 23.04.2013 for final hearing in the presence of sri smt. B.Kavitha vani, advocate for the plaintiff and of smt. K.v.narayana murthy, advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments, 10 and the same having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and

D E C R E E

i. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed; ii. that tha defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.67,066/- (Sixty seven thousand and sixty six only)with subsequent interest on the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

Fifty thousand only) at the rate of 12% p.a..

from the date of suit i.e. on 10.10.2012 , till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6%p.a., till realization; and iii. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.8,196/- towards costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 29th April, 2013

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Memorandum of costs

For plaintiff: for defendant:

Stamp on vakalat : 2.00No costs memo filed. Stamp on plaint : 2,946.00 Process fee : 197.00 Stamp on petition : 2.00 Advocate fee : 3712.00 Jr. Fees : 1237.00 Typing charges : 100.00 --------------- Costs allowed : 8,196.00 ---------------

II AJCJ:VSP 11

1II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt.G.Archana II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

Friday,the 23rd day of July, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO. 3593/2020

(Crime Number 216/2020 of Gopalapatnam Police Station)

BETWEEN:

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Gopalapatnam Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. …Complainant AND

Panjam Krishna Reddy, S/o Jagannadha Reddy, 54 years, Caste by Reddy, R/o MIG.31, Samatha Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam city. N/o Thalasi Guda, Bolaram, Sangareddy District, Secunderabad. …Accused

This case has come up on 19.07.2021 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Avataram, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State-

Complainant and of Sri V.Suresh Kumar, Legal Aid Counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This charge sheet is fled by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gopalapatnam Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, in a case in Crime

Number 216/2020 for the ofence punishable Under Section 457, 380 or 411

Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief averments of case of the prosecution are that :

The defacto complainant is residing at D.No.8-272-6/1, Flat No. 86, Vuda

Colony, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam city along with her family members. On 26.03.2020 at 09.00 a.m., she went to her mother’s house at Kancharapalem due to Corona pandemic. On 09.05.2020 at 09.00 p.m., she came back home and noticed the lock of her house was broke open and some unknown culprit 2II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

committed theft of Sony TV, HP Gas Cylinder. She lodged a report to police, same was registered as a case in Crime Number 216/2020 under Section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code.

During investigation, police visited the scene of ofence, prepared rough sketch, examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 30.09.2020 police arrested the accused in Cr. No. 334/2019 of II Town Police

Station. On interrogation he confessed the commission of ofence in this case in the presence of mediators and stated that he sold the Sony TV at Gajuwaka bus stop to some unknown person for Rs. 2000/- and the amount was spent to vices.

Basing on his confession statement police recovered HP Gas cylinder from his possession. On 30.09.2020 he was sent to Judicial custody and after completion of investigation fled chargesheet.

3. After fling of the charge sheet, the case was taken on fle for the ofence Under Section 457, 380 Indian Penal Code. Summons was issued to accused. On his appearance, copies of documents was supplied to him as per

Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code. Upon considering the material on record, he was examined Under Section 239 Criminal Procedure Code, charges Under

Section 457, 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code are framed. He denied the charges, and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1.

5.After completion of the evidence of prosecution, accused is examined U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in Telugu. He denied the said incriminating evidence appearing against him.

6.Heard both sides.

3II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

7.Now, the points for determination are:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT :

The learned APP has argued that the prosecution has examined

PWs. 1 to 4 and got marked documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1.

All the prosecution witnesses have categorically speak about the ofence committed by accused. As such they are liable for punishment for the above ofence.

9.The defense counsel has argued that though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses and got marked number of documents, but there is a lack of corroboration in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 are not in support of the case of prosecution. As such accused may be acquitted for the above ofence.

10. To prove the above charged ofence, prosecution has examined PW1 to

PW4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and MO.1 i.e., Ex.P1 is report given by PW1 on

dated 10.05.2020, Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediator report, Ex.P3 is attested

copy of mediator report, Ex.P4 is Original FIR, and Ex.P5 is Rough Sketch of scene of ofence. MO.1 is HP Gas Cylinder.

11.The defacto complainant is examined as PW1. She stated about the complaint lodged by her in respect of theft of Sony TV and HP Gas cylinder committed in her house by unknown person, which was noticed by her on 09.05.2020. Later she was informed by the police about recovery of MO.1 Gas

Cylinder.

4II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

12.PW2 is one of the mediator called by police, he was present at the time of arrest of accused and seizure of property from his possession. He stated that on 30.09.2020 he along with the police notic ed a person coming on Honda

Activa with a gas cylinder and on seeing the police people he take U-turn, on suspecition police caught hold him and on question the said person reveaed that the vehicle is not belongs to him and it is of Kakinada and in further confessed about the theft of gas cylinder at Ramnagar and committing theft of Sony TV and

Gas cylinder within the limits of Gopalapatnam Police station. In pursuance of the confession statement of accused, they all went to Pedagantyada to the house of accused, there police seized two gas cylinders under the cover of mediator report.

13.PW3 and PW4 are the Investigation Ofcers. PW4 stated that on 09.05.2020 at 09.00 p.m., while he was present in the police station, PW1 came to the police and reported Ex.P1 report, basing on which registered the case as a case in Cr. No. 216/2020 U/Sec. 457 and 380 IPC and submitted the original FIR to court and copies to the concerned, visited the scene of ofence, prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch and thereafter examined some of the witnesses and recorded their statements. The further investigation is taken over by the PW3, during his investigation he came to know through Sub Inspector of Police of III Town Crime

Police Station about the involvement of present accused in the Cr. No. 334/2019

U/Sec. 454, 380 IPC. On 03.10.2020 he received documents from him, basing on those documents he produced the accused before this court on PT warrant and after completion of investigation fled charge sheet.

14.In this case the prosecution examined above witnesses in which the

PW1 evidence is to say that some unknown person committed theft in her house by break open the doors and she lodged a report to that efect. As such she did 5II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

not witness any person or the present accused committing theft in her house.

Thus her evidence cannot be relied upon to say that the accused has committed the allged theft. However, the prosecution has placed the evidence of independent witness i.e., mediator, wh hadwitnessed the arrest of accused and recovery of MO.1- Gas cylinder from his possession. He had also identifed the accused before Court. However, the evidence of PW2-mediator is based on confessional statement of accused. The police ofcer, who had arrested the accused and to whom PW2 accompanied at that time is not examined before

Court. No best reason are assigned by the prosecution by not examining the investigation ofcer of III Town Police Station to corroborate the evidence of

PW2. Even the evidence of PW3 and 4 is not found in support of the case of prosecution to say that the accused is the person, who had committed theft in the house of PW1. Thus the sole testimony of PW2 is not found reliable to convict the accused. Specially when his evidence is based on the confession statement of accused, which cannot be considered as evidence by virtue of

Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

15. Regarding the recovery of MO.1 Gas cylinder PW2 had stated that it was recovered in his presence but the evidence of PW2 is not found reliable to that efect, because initially he stated that they noticed the accused coming on

Activa Motor cycle with gas cylinder and accused confessed about the theft of gas cylinder. But he did not speak about the seizure of said gas cylinder but he directly stated that the police seized two gas cylinders at the house of accused situated at Peda gantyada. Then what happened the initial gas cylinder which was in possession of accused at the time of arrest is remain silent. Even the test identifcation parade of the cylinder or the company name of the cylinder is not stated by PW3. In that case, the sole testimony of PW3 is not found safe to rely upon.

6II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

16.Thus, in view of the above discussed circumstances, it shows that the prosecution had failed to place sufcient evidence to say that theft is committed by the accused as alleged. As such the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, since the MO.1 is claimed by PW1 and received it under interim custody, said interim custody made absolute.

17. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the ofence Under

Section 457, 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted Under

Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.

The bail bonds of accused if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period.

The MO.1 given to PW1 for interim custody as per order in

Crl.M.P.63/2021 dated 03.02.2021, shall made absolute after expiry of appeal

period.

The Superintendent, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is directed to release the accused forthwith, if his presence is not required in any other case.

Type to dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in Virtual Open Court through Blue Jeans App on the 23 rd day of July, 2021.

II ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW.1 : B.Naga Mani -NONE- PW.2 : P.Kanaka Raju PW.3 : A.Manmadha Rao PW.4 : P.V.Satya Narayana 7II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is report given by PW1 on dated 10.05.2020 Ex.P2 is attested copy of mediator report Ex.P3 is attested copy of mediator report Ex.P4 is Original FIR Ex.P5 is Rough Sketch of scene of ofence.

For Defense: -NIL-

Material Objects:

MO.1 is HP Gas Cylinder.

II ACMM/VSP.

8II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

9II ACMM COURT, VSP

CC No.3593/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT; SMT.G.ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013.

O.S. No.189/2013

Between;

Akbar Sha, s/o late Juma@ Meera Khan, Mohammedan, aged 63 years, Residing at China Waltair, Flat No.505, M.V.V.Esteem, Visakhapatnam. Plaintiff

And

B.V.P.Ch.S.Nanaji, s/o B.V.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 53 years, RecordAssistant,InorganicAnalyticalChemistry Department,Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, R/at D.No.9-2-9, Pithapuram Colony, A.U.Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

Defendant

This suit coming on this day hearing before me in the presence of Smt S.Usha Rani, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant having been called absent, no representation and set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

Suit to recover sum of Rs. 86,080/- being the balance of

Principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the

defendant on 10-04-2011 for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaintiff submit that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-04-2011 for the purpose of his necessities and having received the consideration, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Visakhapatnam, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

ii) Subsequent to the execution of the said promissory note the defendant paid Rs. 1800/- on 10-08-2011 to the plaintiff towards interest and endorsed the same on the reverse side of the promissory note and thereafter he did not choose to repay any amount either principal or interest, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and the defendant has been postponing the payment on one pretext or the other. .

iii) Defendant is not an agriculturist hence, he is not entitled for any of the debt relief Act –IV of 1938 or Act VII of 1997 of debt relief Act.

3. Summons to defendant served personally but he did not appear

before court, defendant remained absent and set exparte. Matter was

posted for plaintiff evidence.

4. Plaintiff file his oral evidence as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 and

A2. No further evidence is reported. Plaintiff evidence closed.

5 Heard plaintiff.

6 Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for?

7. In proof of case of plaintiff, Plaintiff examined as PW-1, he filed evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. He also got marked Exs. A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note, dated 10-04-2011, Ex.A2 is the repayment Endorsement for an amount of

Rs.1800/-on the back side of the pronote, dt. 10-08-2011. His evidence remained un-challenged. Service of suit summons itself shows that defendant is having knowledge about this case. Having knowledge about the suit proceedings defendant remained exparte and not submitted any explanation regarding Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff has sufficiently proved the very execution of Exs.A1 and A2 by defendant. As such, the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs. A1 and A2 can be accepted in toto and basing on the same the suit can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.86080/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.63,000/-from the date of the suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 29th day of April, 2013.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For plaintiff :

P.W.-1/dt.18-4-2013 : Akbar Sha, S/o Juma @ Meera Khan

For defendant:

NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note, dated 10-04-2011.

Ex.A2 : Repayment Endorsement for an amount of Rs.1800/-on the back side of the pronote, dt. 10-08-2011

Defendant NIL

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Dt.of presentation: 20-03-2013 Dt.of filing:21-03-2013

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT; SMT.G.ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Monday, this the 29 th day of April, 2013.

O.S. No.189/2013

Between;

Akbar Sha, s/o late Juma@ Meera Khan, Mohammedan, aged 63 years, Residing at China Waltair, Flat No.505, M.V.V.Esteem, Visakhapatnam. Plaintiff

And

B.V.P.Ch.S.Nanaji, s/o B.V.Babu Rao, Hindu, aged 53 years, RecordAssistant,InorganicAnalyticalChemistry Department,Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, R/at D.No.9-2-9, Pithapuram Colony, A.U.Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

Defendant

Suit to recover sum of Rs. 86,080/- being the balance of

Principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the

defendant on 10-04-2011 for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.86, 080/- and C.F of Rs.3186/- is paid under section 20 Article R/w

Article-I (b) and (c) of Schedule-I of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day hearing before me in the presence of Smt S.Usha Rani, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant having been called absent, no representation and set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed

2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.86,080/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.63,000/-from the date of the suit i.e.,25-04-2013 till the date of decree 29-04-2013 and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization; and 3.that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.6121-00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 29th day of April, 2013.

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamps on vakalat 2-00 No costs memo is filed. Stamps on plaint 3186-00 Stamps on process 78-00 Advocate fees 2141-00 Jr. Advocate fees 714-00 _________ Costs allowed 6121-00 ________

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT; SMT.G.ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Wednesday, this the 1 st day of May, 2013.

O.S. No.131/2013

Between;

Maddi Shankara Rao, s/o Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, age 40 years, Residing at D.No.36-25-1/1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam Plaintiff

And

Gadi Chitibabu, s/o Kannarao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/at BNTN Colony, Working as Technician-1, PF No.07303040, SSE, OEC, C&W Department, E.Co.Railway, Visakhapatnam. Defendant

This suit coming on this day hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Joga Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant having been called absent, no representation and set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

Suit to recover sum of Rs. 74,500/- being the balance of

Principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the

defendant on 10-02-2011 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaintiff submit that the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 10-02-2011 for the purpose of his family expenses and clearing sundry debts and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

ii) The plaintiff further submits that the defendant after receipt of the above said amount did not repaid any single piece to the plaintiff, neither interest nor principal. In spite of repeated demands, made to him, he has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence, this suit.

iii) Defendant is not an agriculturist hence, he is not entitled for any of the debt relief Act –IV of 1938 or Act VII of 1997 of debt relief Act.

3. On suit summons defendant present before court in-person.

Defendant did not choose to file Written statement and remained absent. Defendant was set exparte. Matter was posted for plaintiff evidence.

4. Plaintiff file his oral evidence as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

Plaintiff evidence closed.

5 Heard plaintiff.

6 Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for?

7. In proof of the case of the plaintiff, Plaintiff examined himself as

PW-1. He filed his evidence affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint. He also got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note, dated 10-02-2011. His evidence remained un-challenged. Though the defendant appeared before court in-person and having knowledge about the suit proceedings defendant remained exparte and did not submitted any explanation regarding Exs.A1. The plaintiff has sufficiently proved the very execution of Ex.A1. by defendant. As such, the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex. A1 can be accepted in toto and basing on the same the suit can be decreed in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs.74,500/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.50,000/-from the date of the suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of the decree till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 1st day of May, 2013.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For plaintiff :

P.W.-1/dt.29-4-2013 : Maddi Shankara Rao, s/o Sanyasi Rao.

For defendant:

NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note, dated 10-02-2011.

Defendant NIL

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Dt.of presentation: 26-2-2012 Dt.of filing:26-2-2012

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT; SMT.G.ARCHANA, LL.B.,

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

Wednesday, this the 1 st day of May, 2013.

O.S. No.131/2013

Between;

Maddi Shankara Rao, s/o Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, age 40 years, Residing at D.No.36-25-1/1, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam Plaintiff

And

Gadi Chitibabu, s/o Kannarao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, R/at BNTN Colony, Working as Technician-1, PF No.07303040, SSE, OEC, C&W Department, E.Co.Railway, Visakhapatnam. Defendant

Suit to recover sum of Rs. 74,500/- being the balance of

Principal and interest due on promissory note executed by the

defendant on 10-02-2011 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs74,500/- and C.F of Rs.2, 946/- is paid under section 20 Article R/w

Article-I (b) and (c) of Schedule-I of APCF & SV Act.

This suit coming on this day hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Joga Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant having been called absent, no representation and set exparte and having stood over for consideration, the court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed

2. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.74,500/- together with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.50,000/-from the date of the suit i.e.,26-02-2012 till the date of decree 01-05-2013 and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization; and 3.that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5652-00 towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 1st day of May, 2013.

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Stamps on vakalat 2-00 No costs memo is filed. Stamps on plaint 2946-00 Stamps on process 80-00 Advocate fees 1968-00 Jr.Advocate fees 656-00 _________ Costs allowed 5652-00 ________

II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.