Smt. G Nishka Patrudu

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: MADHIRA

Dated this 18 th day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt.Nishka Patrudu Gummalla,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madhira.

CC. NO. 175 of 2023

Between: State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wyra. … Complainant.

AND

A1: Karisha Rama Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 25 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Kondakodima village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. A2: Karisha Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Ramulu, Age: 50 years, Occ: Junior Assistant, Mahatma Gandhi Jyothi Rao pule, Junior College, Kistaram village,R/o. Kondakodima village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District. A3: Karisha Roshamma, W/o Nageswara Rao, Age: 45 years, Occ: Anganvadi Helper, R/o. Kondakodima village of Wyra Mandal, Khammam District.

... Accused persons.

This case is coming on 14.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and in the presence of Sri M.Sateesh , learned Advocatefor the A1 to A3, and having stood over for consideration, till, this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Wyra police station laid a charge sheet against A1 to

A3 for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P.Act alleging as follows:

Thatpriorto01.04.2023atKondakodimavillage,defacto complainant/LW.1/Karisha Vani lodged a report stating that in the year 2018, she was wedded to A1, blessed with two children and lived happily, after few years A1 being the husband of LW.1/Karisha Vani, A2 and A3 of being the family members of A1, with the support of A1, started harassing her physically and mentally to bring additional dowry, so the matter was placed before the village elders but A1 to A3 did not change their character, that A1 came to her in drunken condition and abused her in filthy language. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.49/2023 was registered on a report given by LW.1/Karisha

Vani who is defacto complainant. During the course of investigation, Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., notices were issued and served on A1 to A3 on 03.04.2023. Thus, A1 to A3 are liable for punishment offences under the above provisions of law.

2. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of

IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 to A3.

3.On appearance of A1 to A3, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated

U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4.A1 to A3 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 498-

A IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act against A1 to A3 were framed, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. They denied the commission offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

P.W.1/Karisha Vani is de-facto complainant. P.W.2/Katukuri Jyothi is mother of LW.1.

PW.3/Katukuri Venkataiah is father of LW.1. PW.4/Jerripothula Hyma Rao is village elder and circumstantial witness. PW.5/K.Ravi is mediator for CDF. PW.6/SD.Jaleel is the first investigation officer. Ex.P1 is PW1’s signature on complaint. Ex.P2 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 is sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6 is signature of mediator on CDF. Ex.P7 is F.I.R. Ex.P8 is Crime details form (CDF).

6.The learned A.P.P given up the remaining listed witnesses in the charge sheet as

PW.1 to PW.5 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They described the evidence of the prosecution as false. They did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. The case of the prosecution briefly is that A1 to A3 harassed the complainant mentally and physically to get dowry from her parents and also that due to unbearable harassment complainant left the house and went to her parents house at Kondakodima village. Further that A1 quarreled with complainant for dowry and that A2 and A3 encouraged A1 and all of them together harassed de-facto complainant/LW.1 for dowry thereby they committed offence under section 498-A IPC and Sec 4 of DP Act.

11.In order to establish the above case of prosecution LW.1/ Karisha Vani was firstly examined as PW.1. During her chief examination she deposed that herself and her husband are living together happily and that she do not know the facts of the case and the contents of complaint. At this stage PW.1 was declared hostile and inspite of her cross examination by learned APPO nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution case.

12.PW.2 and PW.3 who are parents of PW.1 deposed that they do not know the facts of the case and that police did not examined them and did not recorded their statements. At this stage PW.2 and PW.3 were declared hostile and inspite of their cross examination by learned APPO nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution case .

13.Further PW.4 the village elder and circumstantial witness deposed that he do not know the facts of the case and that police did not examined and did not recorded his statement. At this stage PW.2 and 3 was declared hostile and inspite of their cross examination by learned APPO nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution case.

14.Coming to PW.5 the panch witness and mediator for conducting scene of offence panchanama drafted in CDF, he simply deposed that he do not know the facts of the case and that police did not examine and did not record his statement. At this stage

PW.5 was declared hostile and inspite of his cross examination by learned APPO nothing was elicited in favor of the prosecution case.

15.Lastly, investigation officer PW.6 deposed that previously he worked as Head

Constable, HC-1781 of police of P.S. Wyra from March 2023 to till now. On 01.04.2023 at 11:30 hours he, received Ex.P1/report from PW.1, basing on that he registered a case in

Cr.No.49/2023, U/sec.498(A) of IPC, section 4 of DP Act and issued Ex.P7/FIR. PW.5 further deposed that he recorded statement of PW.1. Later, he rushed to scene of offence situated at Kondakodima village, secured PW.2 to PW.4 and LW.5/Dontheboina

Srinivasa Rao and recorded their statements. In the presence of panch witnesses PW.5 and LW.7/Kota Venkateswara Rao, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch duly drafted in CDF. Ex.P8 is crime details form. After completion of investigation, he handed over the case file to LW.9/S.Veera Prasad, SI of police for further investigation. He filed charge sheet after issuing notice to the against A1 to A3.

During his cross examination he simply denied the suggestions put by learned counsel

for the accused regarding delay, examination of independent witnesses, visiting the

scene of offence and preparing CDF. He admitted that PW.1 did not mention in her complaint the names of elders and the evidence of PW.6 must be scrutinized carefully.

16. considering the evidence of PW1 to PW5 it is clear that they displayed hostility and did not depose in support of the case of prosecution. Now, there remains the evidence of PW.6 who is investigating officer. The evidence of PW.6 is formal in nature and spoken only about the lines of investigation conducted by PW6. As already noticed, PW.1 to

PW.5 did not state anything against A1 to A3. The evidence of PW.6 is also no-way improvises the prosecution case and not useful to the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused A1 to A3.

17.From the discussion made above, as there is no evidence on record to show that

A1 to A3 being the husband and in laws of PW1, started harassing her physically and mentally to bring additional dowry. Since there is no iota of evidence to show that A1 to

A3 committed offence U/sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act as alleged by the prosecution. Hence the prosecution utterly failed in bringing home the guilt of accused for the offences alleged against them beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered. In these circumstances, this court has no option but to acquit the accused persons A1 to A3.

18. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty and are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the charges to the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The said bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence P.W.1: K.Vani. -None- P.W.2: K.Jyothi. PW.3: K.Venkataiah. PW.4: J.Hyma Rao. PW.5: K.Ravi. PW.6: Sd.Jaleel.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1 : Signature on complaint of P.W.1. -Nil- Ex.P2 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 : Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6: Signature on CDF. Ex.P7 : F.I.R. Ex.P8 : Crime details form.

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT MADHIRA

CC No. 175 of 2023

1Name of Complainant:: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wyra.

2Names of Accused:: A1: Karisha Rama Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao. A2: Karisha Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Ramulu. A3: Karisha Roshamma, W/o Nageswara Rao. 3Nature of Offence:: U/sec 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of DP Act. 4Finding:: Found not guilty 5Sentence :: In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty and are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the charges to the offences under Sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The said bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked non valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. 6Date of offence :: Prior to 01.04.2023. 7Date of Complaint:: 01.04.2023. 8Date of Apprehension/Surrender :: -- of the accused 9Date of Commencement of trail:: 08.05.2026. 10Date of Closure of trial:: 13.05.2026. 11Date of Sentence or Order:: 18.05.2026. 12Explanation of delay:: ---

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madhira.

To: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 11th day of May, 2026

Present: Smt Nishka Patrudu Gummalla,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

OS.No. 88 OF 2025

Between: Union Bank of India, Rep. By it’s Sr. Branch Manager at Thallada Branch, Vemireddy Rajashekar Reddy, S/o Saidireddy, age: 38 years, R/o Khammam Town and District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Thota Mounika, W/o. Nageswara Rao, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-57/2, Nuthankal village, Thallada Mandal,

Khammam District. ......Defendant.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 04.05.2026 in the presence of Sri K.Panduranga Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for recovery of amount of Rs.1,32,050/- from the defendant and for costs.

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

That on 12.05.2023 the defendant approached the plaintiff bank sanctioned business loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for Kirana Shop Business under

Mudra Scheme to the defendant at her request. The defendant availed and utilized the amount sanctioned. On the said 12.05.2023 the defendant executed a demand pronote, composite agreement etc., (for business) in favor of plaintiff-bank for the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and repay the loan amount stipulated EMI’s i.e. 60 equal monthly instalments. As per the sanction letter, the defendant got the loan as per the terms and conditions with interest @ 2 10.80% per annum subject to change in guidelines from the Reserve Bank of

India/Bank/Government Rules in force is filed. The plaintiff-bank opened and maintained in their books of account in the name of defendant vide

A/c.No.109816440000075 and a true copy thereof certified under the bankers books Evidence Act. An amount of Rs.1,32,050/- interest applied up to 28-09-2024, is due in the suit loan account for recovery of which with further interest thereon, costs etc. The defendant committed default in paying the regular instalments and therefore the plaintiff demanded him orally and through letters and remainders made by the plaintiff, the defendant have not chosen to keep the loan account regular and they have been evading paying the same on one pretext or the other. On several demands, the defendant paid an amount of

Rs.3,000/- on 29-08-2024 as last payment, finally the plaintiff bank issued a legal notice to the defendant on 30-11-2024 but there is no response from the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons to the defendant served on her grandmother and the same is held to be sufficient. Defendant called absent and no representation was made on her behalf and hence the defendant was set ex-parte.

4.The Senior Branch Manager of the plaintiff Bank by name Vemireddy

Rajashekhar Reddy was examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 documents were marked on behalf of plaintiff.

Ex.A1 is application for loan, Ex.A2 is sanction letter. Ex.A3 is letter of undertaking. Ex.A4 is demand pronote. Ex.A5 is letter of continuity. Ex.A6 is term loan agreement. Ex.A7 is simple agreement. Ex.A8 is letter of undertaking (AD-12), dated 03.07.2023. Ex.A9 is legal notice, dated 30.11.2024. Ex.A10 is permission letter for filing of suit. Ex.A11 is statement of loan account.

3

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6.The point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

POINT:

7.I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,32,050/- basing on Ex.A2/sanction letter. In order to prove the suit claim, the Senior Branch Manager of plaintiff bank examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. PW.1 filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and re-iterated the contents of plaint averments.

8.According to PW.1, the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for sanction of business loan for kirana shop business by submitting application under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan facility up to limit of

Rs.1,50,000/-. It is further evidence of PW.1 that the defendant has availed business loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for interest at the rate of 10.80% per annum with monthly rests and executed personal loan agreement which is Ex.A2. It is the further evidence of PW.1 that the defendant failed to repay the loan amount despite repeated demands and issuance of legal notice and the defendant is due of an amount of Rs1,50,000/- as on 30.11.2024. Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 clinchingly goes to show that the defendant has applied to plaintiff bank for business loan and availed loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff bank at the interest of 10.80% per annum with monthly rests. Ex.A9 goes toshow that the plaintiff bank sent legal notice to the defendant on 30.11.2024.

9.The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 in support of the suit claim and there is no material before the Court to disbelieve the 4 evidence of PW.1. As already noticed, the defendant remained ex-parte and did not choose to contest the matter and thus, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documents exhibited establishes the suit claim and that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of suit claim. The point is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of

Rs.1,32,050/- in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant, with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

-Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1: Vemireddy Rajashekar Reddy -Nil-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: is application for loan. Ex.A2 is sanction letter. Ex.A3 is letter of undertaking. Ex.A4 is demand pronote. Ex.A5 is letter of continuity. Ex.A6 is term loan agreement. Ex.A7 is simple agreement. Ex.A8 is letter of undertaking (AD-12), dated 03.07.2023. Ex.A9 is legal notice, dated 30.11.2024. Ex.A10 is permission letter for filing of suit. Ex.A11 is statement of loan account. For Defendant: -Nil-Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 13th day of May, 2026

Present: Smt Nishka Patrudu Gummalla,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

OS.No. 26 OF 2025

Between:

1. Avula Bachaiah, S/o late Pentaiah, age: 80 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Avula @ Rella Ramanamma, D/o Avula Bachaiah, W/o. R.Venkanna, age: 54 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.3-97, Proddutur village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Avula @ Javvaji Satyavathi, D/o Avula Bachaiah, W/o. Krishna, age: 52 years, Occ: Coolie,

4. Avula Bhadraiah, S/o Avula Bachaiah, age: 50 years, Occ: Coolie,

5. Avula Rama Rao, S/o Avula Bachaiah, age: 48 years, Occ: Coolie,

6. Avula Venkateswara Rao, S/o Avula Bachaiah, age: 46 years, Occ: Coolie,

7. Avula Saideswara Rao, S/o Avula Bachaiah, age: 42 years, Occ: Coolie, (That, except plaintiff No.2 all are R/o Thatipudi village, Wyra Mandal, Khammam District). ...…Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Tahsildar, Wyra Town and Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Whom so ever it may concern … Defendant Nos.1 and 2.

This case coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Ravindar,learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendants remained ex-parte and having been heard and stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to declare them as the Class-I legal heir of deceased Avula Muthamma, who died intestate on 03.03.2018 and for costs.

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

The plaintiff No.1 is the husband, Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are married daughters, plaintiffs No.4 to 7 are the sons of late Avula Muthamma. On 03.03.2018 the said Avula

Muthamma died intestate leaving behind her the plaintiffs as her legal heir and successors. That the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar, Wyra Mandal who refused to issue legal heir certificate. That except these plaintiffs none others are successors of late

Avula Muthamma. It is submitted that they said late Avula Muthamma, W/o Avula

Buchaiah, naturally died on 03.03.2018 due to old age ailments. That during the life time of

Avula Muthamma she worked as household lady, supported for the welfare and development of plaintiffs. After the death of deceased the plaintiffs approached the

Tahsildar, Wyra and submitted concerned documents to issue legal heir certificate but the

Tahsildar refused to issue legal heir certificate to the plaintiffs. That the Tahsildar informed to the plaintiffs that issuance of the legal heir certificate is not under his authority. As such, the Tahsildar refused to issue legal heir certificate to the plaintiffs and the Tahsildar further advised to the plaintiffs to approach the competent civil court. As such, the plaintiffs constrained to file the present suit praying the Hon'ble Court to declare them as Class- I legal heir of Avula Muthamma. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons served on defendant No.1. Paper publication filed for Defendant No.2.

Defendant no.1 called present. No one appeared for D2. Hence defendant No.2 set ex- parte. No written statement filed for defendant no.1.

4.To establish their case, the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as P.W.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A1 is Death certificate of Avula Muthamma, dated 16.05.2018. Ex.A2 is family member certificate, dated 29.10.2022.

5.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiffs.

6. Now the point for consideration is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ?

POINT:

7. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are seeking for relief of declaration that they are the class-I legal heir of Avula

Muthamma as the defendant No.1 failed to give legal heir certificate and also advised them to approach the Court. To establish their case, the plaintiff No.1 examined himself as

PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The plaintiff No.1 filed his evidence in the form of chief-examination affidavit and in which he reiterated the plaint averments. In support of their case, plaintiffs filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the said Avula Muthamma died on 03.03.2018. Ex.A2 shows that plaintiff No.1 is husband, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are married daughters and Plaintiffs No.4 to 7 are the sons of late

Avula Muthamma. The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that the plaintiffs are the class-I legal heir of Avula Muthamma. According to plaintiffs, after death of Avula Muthamma, they approached the defendant No.1 for legal heir certificate, but the defendant No.1 did not issue legal heir certificate to the plaintiffs. As already noticed, the defendant No.1 did not choose to file any written statement. Further, no one appeared before this Court objecting the claim of the plaintiffs and to contest the suit. Thus, the sole testimony of

PW.1 and PW.2 are unchallenged and un-rebutted. As there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 clinchingly goes to show that the plaintiffs are the class-I legal heir of late Avula

Muthamma. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiffs as class-I legal heir of

Late. Avula Muthamma who died on 03.03.2018. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW.1: Avula Batchaiah Ex-parte. PW.2: Avula Saideswara Rao

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Death certificate of Avula Muthamma, dt 16.05.2018. Ex.A2: Family member certificate, dt 29.10.2022.

For Defendants: -NIL-

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 12th day of May, 2026

Present: Smt Nishka Patrudu Gummalla,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

OS.No. 184 OF 2025

Between: Nagandla Venkata Prasad Rao, S/o.Veeranjaneyulu, Age: 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Madhira Town and Mandal, Khammam District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Chigurupalli Samuel, S/o. Anthony, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Venkata Krishnapuram Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District.

......Defendant.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 07.05.2026 in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained set exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of sum of Rs.

2,31,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Only) from the defendant, basing upon the suit promissory note, Dt: 30.05.2023.

2.The gist of the contents of plaint are as follows:

That the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.05.2023 at Madhira Town and Mandal, Khammam district and promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand either of the plaintiff or to his order and defendant has executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff.

Subsequently the plaintiff has demanded the defendant many a time for the repayment of the suit pronote due amount with the said rate of interest, but the defendant is procrastinating the days. The plaintiff got issued registered demand notice to the defendant on 02.07.2025 and demanding the defendant to repay the pronotes amount with the interest. But the defendant did not made any payment even after receipt of the notice.

As such, there is no hope for recovery of pronote amount without intervention of the

Hon’ble Court, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit

for recovery of money.

3.Summons were served on defendant. Though ample opportunity was given to defendant, he failed to appear before the court to file written statement. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

4.To prove the claim of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and the following exhibits were marked. Ex.A1 is the promissory note dated 26.07.2024. Ex.A2 is office copy of demand notice, dated 02.07.2025. Ex.A3 is postal receipt with track.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6. The point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

POINT:

7.I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,31,000/- basing on

Ex.A1/promissory note, dated 26.07.2024. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and re-iterated the plaint averments in verbatim.

8.P.W.1 filed chief-examination affidavit wherein he stated in support of all contents of the plaint. He stated about borrowing of money of Rs.1,50,000/- by defendant from him on 30.05.2023, on execution of promissory note to repay the same with agreed rate of interest on demand either of him or to his order. He demanded defendant many a time for the repayment but defendant is procrastinating days. The plaintiff got issued registered demand notice addressed to the defendant on 02.07.2025 and demanding the defendant to repay the pro-note amount along with interest. But the defendant did not make any payment even after receipt of the notice.

9. Perused the material on record consisting of contents of plaint, chief examination affidavit, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. After going through the entire material on record, sufficient merits are found in the suit claim. Moreover the defendants failed to contest the suit and remained exparte. Hence this court is inclined to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff as prayed for. Accordingly the point is answered.

10.In the result, the suit is DECREED WITH COSTS for an amount of Rs. 2,31,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Only) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation on Computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

-Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1: N.Venkata Prasad -Exparte-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: is the promissory note dated 26.07.2024. Ex.A2: is office copy of the demand notice, dated 02.07.2025. Ex.A3: is postal receipt with track.

For Defendant: -Exparte-

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 11th day of May, 2026

Present: Smt Nishka Patrudu Gummalla,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge- Cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Madhira.

OS.No. 230 OF 2025

Between: Chebrolu Rajesh, S/o.Ravi, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Ravinuthala village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Chinthalacheruvu Srinu, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Pedda Beeravalli Village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District.

......Defendant.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 05.05.2026 in the presence of Sri C.Gopal, Advocatefor the Plaintiff and defendant remained set exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.4,44,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Only) from the defendant, basing upon the suit promissory note, Dt: 05.12.2023.

2.The gist of the contents of the plaint are as follows:

That the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.12.2023 at Ravinuthala village, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam district and promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand either of the plaintiff or to his order and defendant has executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff has demanded the defendant many a time for the repayment of the suit pronote due amount with the said rate of interest, but the defendant is procrastinating the days with one pretext or the other. As such, there is no hope for recovery of pronote amount without intervention of the Hon’ble Court, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit. As such, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money.

3.Summons of defendant affixed on door and the same is held to be sufficient.

Defendant was called absent and remained exparte.

4.To prove the claim of plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and the following exhibits were marked. Ex.A1: is the promissory note dated 05.12.2023.

5. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6. The point for consideration is, whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

POINT:

7.I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,44,000/- basing on Ex.A1/promissory note, dated 05.12.2023. In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. The plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit and re-iterated the plaint averments in verbatim.

8.P.W1 filed chief-examination affidavit wherein he stated in support of all contents of the plaint. He stated about borrowing of money of Rs.3,00,000/- by defendant from him on 05.12.2023, on execution of promissory note to repay the same with agreed rate of interest on demand either to plaintiff or to his order. He demanded defendant many a time for the repayment but defendant is procrastinating days on one pretext or the other. Hence he prayed the court to decree the suit.

9. Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record consisting of contents of plaint, chief examination affidavit and Ex.A1 the suit promissory note. The exhibited pronote reveals that the suit is well within limitation. Though there is no demand notice placed before this court, the suit is uncontested by the defendant who remained exparte.

Hence, after going through the entire material on record, I found sufficient merits in the suit claim. Therefore this court is inclined to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.In the result, the suit is DECREED WITH COSTS for an amount of Rs.4,44,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Only) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter with further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation on Computer by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.

-Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1: Chebrolu Rajesh-Exparte- Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: is the promissory note dated 05.12.2023

For Defendant: -Exparte- Sd/-

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ,

MADHIRA.