Sri G.Durgaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE 

Present:­Sri G.Durgaiah, I­Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 03rd day of July, 2019.

Original Suit No.105/2018

Between:­ 

Dhanenkula Kotaiah, son of Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years, Business, Resident of Pamur village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiff 

AND 

Shaik Abdul Shukur, son of Mohammad Hussain, Muslim, aged 56 years, Business, C/o.Suresh (Cycle Shop), Kanigiri Road, Pamur village & Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­ Defendant

This suit is coming on 02­07­2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Virigineni Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex­ parte, on hearing the counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:­

// JUDGMENT //

1.The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.16,30,500/­ being the principal amount and interest due on a promissory note, dated 10.06.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/­, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs. 

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:­

(a) The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 10.06.2015 for his business purpose and executed suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the same together with compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum, to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Later, in spite of repeated demands made by the

Plaintiff, the defendant got issued a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/­ towards part payment of promissory note debt, drawn on State Bank of India, Pamur Branch on 20.02.2018, but when the plaintiff presented the said cheque in his bank account, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient, on that the plaintiff approached the defendant and informed about the same, but he did not respond properly. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 21.06.2018, even then the defendant did not repay the 2 debt. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit amount together with interest and costs.

3.The defendant remained ex­parte.

4.The plaintiff chose to examine himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1­ Suit 

Promissory note.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for consideration is :­

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount together with

interest as prayed for?

7. POINT:­In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 and relied on Ex.A.1­ Promissory Note. As seen from the evidence of

P.W.1, his evidence goes to substantiate the case of the plaintiff in all aspects. Ex.A.1 is the

Suit Promissory Note dated 10.06.2015, also substantiate the version of P.W.1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with compound interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Thus, the undisputed portion of evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 coupled together goes to substantiate the case of the plaintiff. In the light of evidence of P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff established that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant. The defendant failed to discharge the suit debt, as such the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim. 

8.In the result, the suit is decreed against the defendant with costs for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,30,500/­ from the defendant with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realising the decreetal amount, on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/­.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 03 rd Day of July, 2019.

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif:-For Defendant:- PW.1 : Dhanenkula Kotaiah- Ex parte -

Documents Marked

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A1:Promissory note, dated 10.06.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff.

3

For Defendant:- NIL

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS:: PRAKASAM DIVISION:ONGOLE

(Before I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole)

Present: Sri G.Durgaiah

Special Judge for trial of ofeeces ueder Protectioe

of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct -cum-I- ddl. Sessioes Judge, Oegole.

Monday, this the 08 th day of July, 2019.

Crl.M.P.No.625 of 2019

(Ie Cr.No.103/2019 of Kaeigiri Police Statioe) Between Patae Mahaboob Basha, soe of Ghouse Khae, aged 35 years, resideet of NGO Coloey, Kaeigiri Towe, Prakasam District. …Petitioner/Accused

And

State: State House Officer, Kaeigiri P.S.,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Oegole. ...Respondent

This petitioe is comieg oe 05.07.2019 for hearieg before me ie the preseece of Sri I.Veekateswarlu, dvocate for the Petitioeer/accused aed of the leareed dditioeal Public Prosecutor for the State/Respoedeet aed upoe hearieg the leareed couesel oe both sides, aed upoe perusal of the material oe record aed havieg stood over for coesideratioe till this day, this Court made the followieg:

O R D E R // //

1.This is the secoed bail applicatioe fled by the petitioeer/accused ueder sectioe 439 of Crimieal Procedure Code, requestieg to graet bail ie crime No.103/2019 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 376 aed 506 of Iediae Peeal Code; aed ueder sectioe 6 of Protectioe of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct, 2012, of Kaeigiri Police Statioe.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecutioe are, that LW.1/Shaik bdul zeez aed LW.2/Shaik Nazeer Begum are wife aed husbaed aed they are blessed with two daughters aed oee soe. LW.1/Shaik bdul zeez is a motor mechaeic aed ekieg out his livelihood through the said professioe by rueeieg a motor mechaeic shop. The victim girl is the 2ed daughter of LW.1/Shaik bdul zeez aed LW.2/Shaik Nazeer Begum. The petitioeer/accused is a married persoe aed joieed ie the shop of LW.1/Shaik bdul zeez as worker aed as they are beloeg to same commueity withie short spae of time, the petitioeer/accused got close acquaietaece with the family members of LW.1/Shaik bdul zeez aed ie that coetext he developed acquaietaece with the victim girl, cohabited with her by participatieg ie sex with her agaiest her will by threateeieg that he will die if she reveals the issue ie the house. Oe 12.05.2019 eight the petitioeer/accused aed the victim girl met at RTC Bus Staed, Kaeigiri, where the petitioeer/accused took her to Hyderabad, took a room ie Badaepeta of Saroor Nagar area, where he participated ie sex with her from 13.05.2019 oewards ie maey times agaiest her will by sayieg deceitful words aed oe comieg to keow about the flieg of her missieg case, brought the victim girl to Bus Staed of Kaeigiri aed weet away.

2

3.Heard both sides.

4.Now, the poiet for determieatioe is :- Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to ask for bail?

5.Point:-

(a) The leareed couesel for the petitioeer submitted that the petitioeer is ieeoceet, he was falsely implicated ie this case, the victim girl left her home whee the pareets of the victim girl tried to perform her marriage agaiest her for which the petitioeer was implicated ie this case oely oe suspicioe, the petitioeer is sole bread wieeer of his family, most of the ievestigatioe is completed, the petitioeer is havieg fxed place of abode aed ready to produce sufficieet solveet sureties for his due appearaece before this Court, heece requested to graet bail.

(b)Oe the other haed, the leareed dditioeal Public Prosecutor opposed to graet bail, statieg that the ievestigatioe is eot yet completed aed if the petitioeer/accused is eelarged oe bail he may threatee the witeesses aed tamper the evideece, heece requested to dismiss this petitioe.

(c) s seee from the record, previously the petitioeer fled bail applicatioe ie

Crl.M.P.No.548/2019 for graetieg bail aed the same was dismissed for the

reasoes assigeed thereie. Now, agaie the petitioeer came forward with this petitioe without assigeieg aey chaeged circumstaeces. Therefore I see eo groueds to graet bail to the petitioeer/accused, at this stage.

6.Ie the result, the petitioe is dismissed.

Typed to my dictatioe by the Steeographer, corrected aed proeoueced by me ie Opee Court, this the 08 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- G.Durgaiah.

Special Judge for trial of ofeeces ueder

Protectioe of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct -cum-I- ddl.Sessioes Judge, Oegole.

Copy to The Statioe House Officer, Kaeigiri Police Statioe

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS:: PRAKASAM DIVISION:ONGOLE

(Before I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole)

Present: Sri G.Durgaiah

Special Judge for trial of ofeeces ueder Protectioe

of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct -cum-I- ddl. Sessioes Judge, Oegole.

Monday, this the 08 th day of July, 2019.

Crl.M.P.No.622 of 2019

(Ie Cr.No.132/2019 of Vetapalem Police Statioe) Between Chowturi Bala Kotaiah @ Kotaiah @ Bala Koedaiah, soe of Krishea, aged 22 years, ST Yaeadi by caste, resideet of Gaddalagueta, Vetapalem village aed Maedal. …Petitioner/Accused

And

State: State House Officer, Vetapalem P.S.,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor, Oegole. ...Respondent

This petitioe is comieg oe 05.07.2019 for hearieg before me ie the preseece of Sri Y.Sueil Kumar, dvocate for the Petitioeer/accused aed of the leareed dditioeal Public Prosecutor for the State/Respoedeet aed upoe hearieg the leareed couesel oe both sides, aed upoe perusal of the material oe record aed havieg stood over for coesideratioe till this day, this Court made the followieg:

O R D E R // //

1.This is the secoed bail applicatioe fled by the petitioeer/accused ueder sectioe 439 of Crimieal Procedure Code, requestieg to graet bail ie crime No.132/2019 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder sectioes 366- , 376, 506 of Iediae Peeal Code; aed ueder sectioe 6 of Protectioe of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct, 2012, of Vetapalem Police Statioe.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecutioe are, that the petitioeer/accused used to follow the victim girl oe the pretext of love aed ieduced the victim girl that he will marry her aed oe 10.03.2019 at about 09.00 hours, the petitioeer came to the house of the victim girl ie the temporary abseece of the iemates of the house of the victim girl, took her to Kaeaka Durga Temple at Vijayawada, where the petitioeer threateeed the victim girl that he would commit suicide if she does eot agree for marryieg him aed with that compulsioe married her aed oe 11.03.2019 the petitioeer aed the victim girl weet to the outskirts of Nueea village, Vijayawada Rural Maedal,where the elder sister aed brother-ie-law of the accused are workieg as watchmae to maego gardee, revealed them about the facts thee they reprimaeded the accused aed the petitioeer took the victim girl to S Peta, giripalli Maedal, joieed as a watchmae ie a maego gardee, there the accused committed peeetrative sexual assault oe the victim girl repeatedly durieg eights, subjected the victim girl to torture by beatieg her without providieg food to her as aed whee she refused to participated ie sexual ietercourse with him. Oe 18.05.2019 the petitioeer took the victim girl to Vijayawada Railway Statioe aed weet away from there leavieg her to her fate.

2

3.Heard both sides.

4.Now, the poiet for determieatioe is :- Whether the petitioner/accused is entitled to ask for bail?

5.Point:-

(a) The leareed couesel for the petitioeer submitted that after eeormous delay of three moeths the report was lodged with the police with false allegatioes due to family disputes, the petitioeer did eot commit aey ofeece, he was falsely implicated ie this case, heece requested to graet bail.

(b)Oe the other haed, the leareed dditioeal Public Prosecutor opposed to graet bail, statieg that this is aggravated peeetrative sexual assault as agaiest victim mieor girl after committieg kideap, if the accused is released oe bail there is every possibility of threateeieg the witeesses aed tamperieg the evideece, heece requested to dismiss this petitioe.

(c) s seee from the record, previously the petitioeer fled bail applicatioe ie

Crl.M.P.No.572/2019 for graetieg bail aed the same was dismissed for the

reasoes assigeed thereie. Now, agaie the petitioeer came forward with this petitioe without assigeieg aey chaeged circumstaeces. Therefore I see eo groueds to graet bail to the petitioeer/accused, at this stage.

6.Ie the result, the petitioe is dismissed.

Typed to my dictatioe by the Steeographer, corrected aed proeoueced by me ie Opee Court, this the 08 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- G.Durgaiah.

Special Judge for trial of ofeeces ueder

Protectioe of Childree from Sexual Ofeeces ct -cum-I- ddl.Sessioes Judge, Oegole.

Copy to The Statioe House Officer, Vetapalem Police Statioe

IN THE COURT OF THE III­ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE 

Present:­Sri G.Durgaiah, I­Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 03rd day of July, 2019.

Original Suit No.105/2018

Between:­ 

Dhanenkula Kotaiah, son of Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged 36 years, Business, Resident of Pamur village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­Plaintiff 

AND 

Shaik Abdul Shukur, son of Mohammad Hussain, Muslim, aged 56 years, Business, C/o.Suresh (Cycle Shop), Kanigiri Road, Pamur village & Mandal, Prakasam District. ­­­ Defendant

The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.16,30,500/­ being the principal amount and interest due on a promissory note, dated 10.06.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/­, agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and for costs. 

Cause of action:­ Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 10.06.2015 for Rs.10,00,000/­ and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/­ towards part payment, but the said was dishonoured as ‘funds insufficient’, later the plaintiff got issued a lawyer notice to the defendant on 21.06.2018, even then the defendant did not come forward either to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note or to give any reply and when the suit transaction was taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Plaint presented on : 23­05­2018 before the Vacation Civil Court, Ongole and the same was numbered as O.S.No.20/2018 on : 25­06­2018, later it was made over to this Court and re­ numbered as O.S.No.105/2018.

Valuation and Court Fee:­ Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.16,30,500/­, being the principal and interest due on suit promissory note dated 10.06.2015, on which a court fee of Rs.18,826/­ is paid under section 20 of APCF and SV Act. 

Jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.16,30,500/­

This suit is coming on 02­07­2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Virigineni Narasimha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex­parte, on hearing the counsel for plaintiff, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:­

Contd...2..

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.16,30,500/­ with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit i.e., from 23.05.2018, till the date of decree; and at 6% per annum thereafter till realisation on principal amount of Rs.10,00,000/­.

2.that the defendant do also pay to the said plaintiff a sum of Rs.48,237/­ towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of Rs.Nil (No CM and FC filed). 

Costs of the plaintiff:­ Rs.48,237/­ (CM and FC filed) Costs of the defendant:­ Rs.Nil (No CM & FC filed) 

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 03 rd day of July, 2019.

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

Table of Costs

S.No.ParticularsFor PlaintiffFor Defendant

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Stamp on Plaint18826.00

3. Typing charges100.00

4.Stamp on petitions 2.00(exparte)

5.Advocate fee 25307.00

6.Jr. Advocate fee (claimed)4000.00 Total48237.00

I­Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: III­Addl. District Judge, Ongole.

Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have to be taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with anto be taken back by the petitioners concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by this Court.undertaking to produce the same as and when required by this Court.

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, :: (FTC), ONGOLE

Present : Sri G. DURGAIAH,

I-Addl.District Judge, Ongole FAC: III Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Ongole.

Tuesday, the 25 st day of June, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 87/2017

Between:-

Bommisetty Venkata Subba Rao S/o. Venkata Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 Years, R/o Flat # S2, Konijeti Guptas Paradise, Near Elephant Tree, Ongole Prakasam District..... Plaintif

AND

Muvvala Venkata Vimala Sujendra, W/o. Laxmi Narayana, aged 35 Yrs, Business, R/o. Flat # 504, Satyabhama Residency, South street, Near Elephant Tree, Ongole.Prakasam District. ..… Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff being transferee of Promissory notes dated 09.11.15, 14.11.15 and original lendor under promissory notes dated 01.12.2015 and 18.12.2015 filed for recovery of money Rs.26,18,434/- being the principal and interest due on four promossory notes for

Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- respectively for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

The suit is coming on today, i.e., 25.06.2019 before me in the presence of Sri Mudivarthi

Raghava Rao Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri B.Papa Rao, Advocate for defendant on hearing both the counsels, upon perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

As per orders in I.A.182/2019 matter is advanced from 13.07.2019 to today i.e., 25.06.2019.

The plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the suit as per orders in I.A. 183/2019. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of June, 2019.

I-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC: III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC), ONGOLE

: : 2 : :

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Plaintif:- For defendant :- P.W.1 Bommisetty Venkata Subba Rao -NIL-

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex A1 :Suit Promissory note dated 09.11.2015 for Rs. 3,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Bommisetty Ramadevi Ex A2:Part payment endorsement dated 05.02.2017 for Rs.5,000/- under suit promissory note dated 09.11.2015 Ex A3:Transfer endorsement dated 10.04.2017 in favour of plaintiff on suit promissory note dated 09.11.2015 Ex A4 :Suit Promissory note dated 14.11.2015 for Rs. 6,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Bommisetty Ramadevi Ex A5:Part payment endorsement dated 05.02.2017 for Rs.5,000/- under suit promissory note dated 14.11.2015 Ex A6:Transfer endorsement dated 10.04.2017 in favour of plaintiff on suit promissory note dated 14.11.2015 Ex A7 :Suit Promissory note dated 12.12.2015 for Rs. 4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex A8:Part payment endorsement dated 05.02.2017 for Rs.5,000/- under suit promissory note dated 12.12.2015 Ex A9 :Suit Promissory note dated 18.12.2015 for Rs. 6,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of Plaintiff Ex A10:Part payment endorsement dated 05.02.2017 for Rs.5,000/- under suit promissory note dated 18.12.2015 Ex A11:Office copy of legal notice dated 29.05.2017 Ex A12:Postal receipt

I-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC: III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC), ONGOLE