Sri G. Ramakrishna

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate

Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Sri G. Ramakrishna, Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 868 court orders on record since 2012. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, A cases.

868

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/75/2014

kukkala Venkata Ramana vs Pulidindi Tatayya

08 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B. PADMA, PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

O.S. No. 75 OF 2014

Between: Kukkala Venkata Ramana . . . Plaintiff

And

1. Pulidindi Tatayya

2. Pulidindi Appayamma . . . Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 06.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.K.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri N.Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for the defendant and having been stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.74,733/- being the amount of

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 17.03.2012 and

subsequent interest and for costs.

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

On 17.03.2012 the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to repay the same, but the defendant procrastinated the same by one pretext or other besides the 1st defendant filed O.S.152/13 against the plaintiff on the file of this court for injunction stating that the plaintiff is interfering with his possession in order to avoid in the debt and also in order restrict him to proceed against the property in future, if the suit is decreed. The defendants are not entitled to the benefits of debt relief laws as they are not an agriculturist. Though the agreed interest at 24% p.a. compound interest plaintiff is claiming 24% simple interest only. Hence the suit.

3. The 1st defendant filed his written statement and 2nd defendant filed adoption memo by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that they never borrowed any amount nor executed suit promissory note and the scribe and attesters of the suit pronote are henchmen of the plaintiff and the defendant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed in the suit and the main intention of the plaintiff is to wreck vengeance against the 1st defendant as he filed a suit against the plaintiff for permanent injunction and there is no creditor and debtor relationship in between them and there is no cause of action. Hence the defendants prays the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, and binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

5. To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1. The plaintiff further examined the 1st attester of

Ex.A1 as PW.2 and 2nd attester of Ex.A1 as PW.3. On the other hand the 1st defendant is examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendants.

Ex.A1 is the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.17.03.2012.

6. Both the counsel reported that arguments may be treated as heard.

7. Issue No. 1 & 2 :

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

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

To prove his case Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. PW1 in his chief affidavit almost reiterated the contents of the plaint. As seen from the Ex.A1 it appears that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 17.03.2012 for his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest.

PW.1 to support of his contention further examined 1st attester of Ex.A1 as PW.2 and 2nd attester of Ex.A1 as PW.3. PW.2 and PW.3 in their chief affidavits, almost corroborated the version of the PW.1 about the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration in their presence.

8.The counsel for the defendant suggested to the PW.1 that the defendants never borrowed any amount from him and he filed the present suit in order to grab the property of the defendants and also he filed the present suit against the defendants since the 1st defendant filed injunction suit against him. But nothing positive is elicited in his favour. Furthermore though he suggested that PW.1 filed a false case against the defendants in order to grab the property and also in view of the suit filed by the defendants. But there is no any wishper how the promissory note containing the thumb impressions of the defendants is in the hands of plaintiff. Moreover the 1st defendant as

DW.1 during the cross examination stated that he has paid the entire amount to the plaintiff but failed to take back the documents as such the plaintiff filed present suit. He further stated that he can recognize his thumb impression and he has placed thumb impression on a pronote executed in faovur of the PW.1. But the said statements are not found place in his written statement. Therefore the evidence without pleading is no way helpful.

9.Moreover the P.W.2 and PW.3 supported the execution of Ex.A1 in their presence and passing of consideration. Though the counsel for the defendants suggested to PW.1 that themselves have created Ex.A1 and filed a false suit against the defendants in order to grab the defendants house. But nothing positive elicited. Further PW.2 stated that the plaintiff lended amount on 17.03.2012 and both defendants have put their thumb impression on Ex.A1 and the 1st defendant has firstly put his thumb impression on Ex.A1. In this regard also nothing contra is also elicited from P.W.1 and P.W2.

10.The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and also examining the PW.2 and by producing Ex.A1 has discharged the initial burden of execution of Ex.A1. As such presumptions with regard to the negotiable instruments as stated under Section 118 are also in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant is not able to prove the contrary version with regard to consideration and in the said circumstances, the presumption has got to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, on that score also the defendant has failed. In the said circumstances, I hold that the Ex.A1 is true, valid supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly issues No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. ISSUE No.3:- To what reliefs?

In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 this suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.74,733/- (Rupees Seventy Four thousand Seven hundred and Thirty Three only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced by me in this the 8th day of May, 2015

Sd/- B.Padma

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Kukkala Venkata Ramana P.W.2 : Marri Satyanarayana P.W.3 : Nela Surya Rao

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1/ dt.17.03.2012 :Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

Sd/- B.Padma

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Plaint presented on 10.04.2014 Filed on 16.04.2014

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B. PADMA, PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday this 8th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 75 OF 2014

Between: Kukkala Venkata Ramana, S/o.Bhoolokam, Aged 43 years, Hindu, Agriculture, Arikarevula, Biccavole mandal. . . . Plaintiff

And

1. Pulidindi Tatayya, S/o.Dhanayya, Age 55 years, Hindu, 5th ward, D.No.23-8-144, Y.S.R.Nagar, Ramachandrapuram.

2. Pulidindi Appayamma, W/o.Tatayya, Age 50 years, Hindu, 5th ward, D.No.23-8-144, Y.S.R.Nagar, Ramachandrapuram. . . . Defendants

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.74,733 /- being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.17.03.2012 together with subsequent interest and for costs.

Value of the suit:- Rs.74,733/-

A court fee of Rs.2,946/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.1, Art.1 b&c of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 17.03.2012 when the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and jointly executed the suit demand promissory note as aforesaid and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendants orally and at Y.S.R.Nagar of Ramachandrapuram where the defendants reside, are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.K.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri N.Veerabhadra Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.74,733/- (Rupees Seventy Four thousand Seven hundred and Thirty

Three only) together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) from the date of suit till date of realization;

2) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.6,929/- (Six thousand Nine hundred and Twenty Nine only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 8th day of

May, 2015.

Sd/- B.Padma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Memo of costs

For plaintiff:- For defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat.. Rs. 2-00 --Nil-

Do on plaint Rs. 2,946-00

Process.. Rs. 40-00

Advocate fee Rs. 3,941-00 ========

Costs allowed : Rs. 6,929-00 ========

Sd/- B.Padma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

OS/275/2014

yalla rambabu vs Vsgubbala prasad

08 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B. PADMA, PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2015

O.S. No.275 OF 2014

Between: Yalla Rambabu . . . Plaintiff

And

Gubbala Prasad . . . Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 07.05.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ch.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for the defendant and having been stood over till this day for consideration this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.51,520/- being the amount of

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 22.12.2011 and

subsequent interest and for costs.

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

On 22.12.2011 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest.

Subsequently in spite of repeated demands the defendant failed to repay the same, but the defendant procrastinated the same by one pretext or other and the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of debt relief laws as he is not an agriculturist. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed his written statement by denying all the allegations made in the plaint and contended that he borrowed an amount of Rs.5,000/- from one Yalla Raghu and later he discharged the said amount. By the time of lending money they said Raghu obtained the signature and thumb impression of the defendant on empty pronote and after discharge the defendant asked for return of the said empty poronote containing his signature and thumb impression, but the said Raghu did not return the said pronote on the other hand he has been procrastinating the return of the said empty pronote and at that time alleged attesters and scribe of the alleged pronote alleged to be executed by the defendant were not there. It is further submitted that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor executed any promissory note and received any consideration from the plaintiff and attesters and scribe of the pronote are not known to him. Taking advantage of empty pronote containing the signature and thumb impression said Raghu might have been filed the suit in the name of plaintiff and his name is Gubbala Veera

Venkata Siva Naga Durga Prasad but not Gubbala Prasad and there is no creditor and debtor relationship between them and there is no cause of action. Hence the defendant prays the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were settled for trial:

1)Whether the suit pronote is true, valid, binding on the defendant?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3)To what relief?

5. To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1. The plaintiff further examined the 1st attester of

Ex.A1 as PW.2. None were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

Ex.A1 is the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.22.12.2011.

6. Counsel for the plaintiff reported that arguments may be treated as heard. Since there is no representation from the defendant his arguments are also treated as heard.

7. Issue No. 1 & 2 :

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

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

To prove his case Plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. PW1 in his chief affidavit almost reiterated the contents of the plaint. As seen from the Ex.A1 it appears that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 22.12.2011 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest.

PW.1 to support of his contention further examined 1st attester of Ex.A1 as PW.2. PW.2 in his chief affidavit, almost corroborated the version of the PW.1 about the execution of Ex.A1 and passing of consideration in his presence.

8.In spite of granting several adjournments the defendant did not turn up before this court to cross examine PW.1 and PW.2 and his counsel also reported that he did not turn up. Even he did not appear

before this court to state the contents of written statement on both

and failed to face the cross examination by the plaintiff. Moreover the defendant in his written statement stated that his name is Gubbala

Veera Venkata Siva Naga Durga Prasad but not Gubbala Prasad. He further stated that the suit pronote might have created by obtaining blank promissory note containing his signature. But as seen from the

Ex.A1 he was signed on the same as Gubbala Prasad. Hence the defence of the defendant is not tenable.

9.The plaintiff by examining himself as PW.1 and also examining the PW.2 and by producing Ex.A1 has discharged the initial burden of execution of Ex.A1. As such presumptions with regard to the negotiable instruments as stated under Section 118 are also in favour of the plaintiff as the defendant is not able to prove the contrary version with regard to consideration and in the said circumstances, the presumption has got to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, on that score also the defendant has failed. In the said circumstances, I hold that the Ex.A1 is true, valid supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly issues No.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

12. ISSUE No.3:- To what reliefs?

In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 this suit is deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.51,520/- (Rupees Fifty One thousand Five hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

from the date of suit till realization on the principal amount of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced by me in this the 8th day of May, 2015

Sd/- B.Padma

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1 : Yalla Rambabu P.W.2 : M.V.Chalapathi

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1/ dt.22.12.2011 :Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

FOR DEFENDANT : - Nil -

Sd/- B.Padma

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Plaint presented on 20.12.2014 Filed on 22.12.2014

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. B. PADMA, PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday this 8th day of May, 2015.

O.S.No. 275 OF 2014

Between: Yalla Rambabu, S/o.Manikyam, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.32-2-31, Chappidivari savaram, Ramachandrapuram town and mandal . . . Plaintiff

And

Gubbala Prasad, S/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 36 years, Contract Employee, Electrical, Ramachandrapuram Municipal Office, Ramachandrapuram town and mandal. . . . Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.51,520 /- being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dt.22.12.2011 together with subsequent interest and for costs.

Value of the suit:- Rs.51,520/-

A court fee of Rs.2,466/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.1, Art.1 b&c of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 22.12.2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- and executed the promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Ramachandrapuram where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

This suit coming before me in the presence of Sri.Ch.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.51,520/- (Rupees Fifty One thousand Five hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) from the date of suit till date of realization;

2) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.6,358/- (Rupees Six thousand Three hundred and Fifty

Eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 8th day of

May, 2015.

Sd/- B.Padma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Memo of costs

For plaintiff:- For defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat.. Rs. 2-00 --Nil-

Do on plaint Rs. 2,466-00

Process.. Rs. 45-00

Advocate fee Rs. 3,845-00 ========

Costs allowed : Rs. 6,358-00 ========

Sd/- B.Padma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

OS/127/2016

Koppisetti Yedukondalu vs Palla Kunda Raju

28 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Wednesday, the 28th day of September, 2016

O.S.127/2016

Between:

Koppisetti Yedukondalu ... Plaintiff

And

Palla Kunda Raju ... Defendant

This suit coming on 09.09.2016 before me, for plaintiff’s evidence in the presence of Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court has delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, privies and employees etc., from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

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

(i) Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property who succeeded the same after the death of his father and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last 20 years. The wife of the brother of the plaintiff got some property on some of the 1st item of the plaint schedule property and she alienated the same under a registered sale deed dt. 09.06.2014 to one Appadi Aseervadam and in that sale deed the northern boundary of the property sold to

Aseervadam was described as the property of the defendant and one

Koppisetty Ramanna, who is the father of the plaintiff. As the property is ancestral property, the plaintiff has no documents. Though the plaintiff tried to trace out the documents, failed to do so.

(ii) That being so, the defendant who got some property in the schedule property is trying to grab the property of the plaintiff taking 2 advantage of the fact that the plaintiff has no documents and proclaiming in the village that he is going to occupy the schedule property and raise the crop and if the defendant is allowed to do so, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the suit.

3.Though the summons to the defendant through court served personally, he did not appear before this court. Hence, he was set exparte.

4.The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 is the registration extract of the sale deed dt.09.06.2014 and Ex.A.2 is the certificate issued by V.R.O., dt.13.07.2016.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.Point:

This is a suit for injunction simplicitor hence, the plaintiff has to prove his possession over the suit schedule property and the defendant’s interference into his possession. The contention of the plaintiff is that he succeeded the plaint schedule property from his father which is an ancestral property. However in the suit for injunction the possession plays vital role. Though Ex.A.1 is not relating to the possession of the plaintiff, Ex.A.2 which is the certificate issued by V.R.O, Venkatayapalem

Ramachandrapuram mandal shows that the plaintiff has been paying taxes regularly for the schedule property and prima facie proved the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. This document remained unchallenged and the evidence of the plaintiff coupled with Ex.A.2 shows the possession of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. It is further contention of the plaintiff that the 3 defendant who got some property in the schedule property is trying to grab the property of the plaintiff taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff has no documents and proclaiming in the village that he is going to occupy the schedule property and raise the crop. This fact is also remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. Hence, the plaintiff by filing Ex.A.2 and by his chief examination proved his claim.

Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, privies and employees etc., from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. However in the circumstances of the case no costs are awarded.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, correct and

pronounced by me in open court on the 28th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff: For defendant:

P.W.1: Koppisetti Yedukondalu None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1: Registration extract of the sale deed dt. 9.6.14 executed in favour of Appadi Aseervadam. Ex.A.2: Certificate issued by V.R.O., Dt.13.7.16.

For Defendant: -- NIL –

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Plaint is presented on 08.07.2016 Filed on 13.07.2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Wednesday, this 28th day of September, 2016.

O.S.N O .127 OF 2016

BETWEEN: Koppisetti Yedukondalu, S/o.Ramanna, Age 46 years, Cultivation, R/o.D.No.3-36, Kundalemma Cheruvu, H/o.Venkatayapalem Village,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuram PJCJC. ... Plaintiff

And

Palla Kunda Raju, S/o.Venkata Raju, Age 60 years, D.No.3-40, Kundalamma Cheruvu, H/o.Venkatayapalem Village,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ramachandrapuran PJCJC. ... Defendant

The cause of action for the suit arose long back when ancestors of the plaintiff purchased the property and in the year of 1996 when the plaintiff became the owner and about 5 to 6 months back when the defendant began to proclaim in the village that he would occupy the land and at Kundalamma Cheruvu, H/o.Venkatayapalem Village which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.

Value of the suit:-

This being a suit for permanent injunction valued at Rs.50,000/-

A Court fee of Rs.2,386/- is paid u/Sec.24 (c), Sch.I, Art.1 of APCF and SV Act.

1)that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed by granting permanent injunction and the defendant, his men, agents, privies and employees etc., are hereby restrained from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

2)that each party do bear their respective costs.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached hereto.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 28th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

(FAC) of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

OS/367/2015

Ijjada Siva Prasad vs Marrapu Venkata Ramana Murthy

27 Sep 2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Tuesday, this 27th day of September, 2016.

O.S.No.367 OF 2015

Between: Ijjada Siva Prasad …. Plaintiff

And

1. Marrapu Venkata Ramana Murthy

2. Rikka Venkata Suryanarayana …. Defendant

This suit is coming on 16.09.16 before me in the presence of Sri P.M.M.V.Ramana, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,13,400/- being an amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 02.03.2014 repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.03.2014 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts on executing demand promissory notes on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum. Thereafter in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff, as the defendants did not pay the amount, the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the 1st & 2nd defendants on 02.11.2015. The 1st defendant received the same on 05.11.15 and the 2nd defendant received the same on 04.11.15. But they did not give reply and did not pay the amount. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the suit. The defendants are not agriculturists. Hence, they are not entitled to the benefits under debt relief laws.

3. Though summons through this court were served personally on 1st defendant and since the 2nd defendant refused to received the summons and they did not choose to appear before this court, they were set exparte.

4. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. Plaintiff’s counsel reported no further evidence.

5. Heard plaintiff’s counsel. Perused the plaint and material part on record.

6. The plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination admitted the contents of the same on oath. Hence, the same is taken as the chief examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his chief affidavit almost reiterated the contents of plaint and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. As seen from Ex.A.1, it shows that the defendants jointly borrowed amount of Rs.1,50,000 on 02.03.2014 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts on executing 2 demand promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum under Ex.A.1 promissory note. Though summons through this court were served personally on 1st defendant and since the 2nd defendant refused to received the summons and they did not choose to appear before this court, they were set exparte. It appears that they have no objection to pass a decree against them for the suit amount. Hence, the testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 remained unchallenged and the claim of plaintiff is proved.

7. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,13,400/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirteen thousand and four hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousands only). Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF: P.W.1: Ijjada Siva Prasad (By way of affidavit).

FOR DEFENDANTS:NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt.02.03.2014 executed by the defendants. Ex.A.2: Registered legal notice dt.02.11.2015 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment card of the 1st defendant.

FOR DEFENDANTS:- Nil -

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Plaint is presented on 08.12.2015 Filed on 12.12.2015

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Tuesday, this 27th day of September, 2016.

O.S.No.367 OF 2015

Between: Ijjada Siva Prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana, Business, Hindu, Age 35 years, R/o.D.No.9-3-2/3, Ramachandrapuram Town & Mandal, E.G.District, Ramachandrapuram PJCJC. …. Plaintiff

And

1. Marrapu Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o.Guru Murthy, Age 45 years, Panchayat Secretary, Ravivalasa Village, Gurugumilli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Rikka Venkata Suryanarayana, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Age 58 years, T.M.Telephone Exchange Office (Sub) Babametta, Nellirarla Road, Vizianagaram Town & Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …. Defendant

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,13,400/- being an amount of

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 02.03.2014

repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 02.03.2014 the date of execution of promissory note by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff and thereafter inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff and the legal notice dt.02.11.15 got issued by the plaintiff when the defendant did not pay the amount and at Ramachandrapuram where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount Rs.1,50,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a.,

From 02.03.14 to 07.12.15 Rs. 63,400-00 ------------------- Rs.2,13,400-00 ------------------- A court fee of Rs.4,626/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.1, Art.1 (b) &

1.that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,13,400/- (Rupees Two lakhs thirteen thousand and four hundred only) together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh Fifty thousands only) from the date of suit till realization.

2. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,999/- towards costs of the suit bearing their own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 27th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Particulars of costs

For plaintiff:- For defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 NIL Court fee Rs. 4,626-00 Stamp on process Rs. 120-00 No costs memo is filed. Advocate fee Rs. 4,051-00 Typing charges Rs. 200-00 ---------------- Total: Rs.8,999-00 ----------------

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

OS/124/2016

Nunna Ganesh vs Bagada Shanmukha Rao

28 Sep 2016

Plaint is presented on 01.07.2016 Filed on 08.07.2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri.G.Rama Krishna, Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Wednesday, this 28th day of September, 2016.

O.S.No.124 OF 2016

Between: Nunna Ganesh, S/o.Abbulu, Age 36 years, Hindu, Business, R/o.D.No.19-14-18/2, Vidyuth Nagar, Ramachandrapuram Town & Mandal, E.G.District, Ramachandrapuram PJCJC. …. Plaintiff

And

Bagada Shanmukha Rao, S/o.Ramayya, Age 35 years, Hindu, Teacher, Mandal Parishad Primary School, Barthupuram, Nandigama mandal, Srikakulam Distirct, Nandigama PJCJC. …. Defendant

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,95,920/- being an amount of

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20.10.2013

repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 20.10.13 the date of execution of promissory note by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff and thereafter inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff and the legal notice dt. 20.06.16 got issued by the plaintiff when the defendant did not pay the amount and at Ramachandrapuram where the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount Rs.1,80,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a.,

From 20.10.13 to 26.06.16 Rs.1,15,920-00 ------------------- Rs.2,95,920-00 ------------------- A court fee of Rs.5,426/- is paid under Sec.20, Sch.1, Art.1 (b) &

This suit is coming on 16.9.16 before me for plaintiff’s evidence in the presence of Sri S.Hari Krishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,95,920/- (Rupees Two lakhs Ninety Five thousand Nine hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at 6% p.a., on the principal sum of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh Eighty thousands only) from the date of suit till realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,776/- towards costs of the suit bearing his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 28th day of September, 2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Particulars of costs

For plaintiff:- For defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 NIL Court fee Rs. 5,426-00 Stamp on process Rs. 60-00 No costs memo is filed. Advocate fee Rs. 5,288-00 ---------------- Total: Rs.10,776 -00 ----------------

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE::RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Sri G.Rama Krishna, Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, FAC of PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Wednesday, this 28th day of September, 2016.

O.S.No.124 OF 2016

Between: Nunna Ganesh …. Plaintiff

And

Bagada Shanmukha Rao …. Defendant

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,95,920/- being an amount of

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 20.10.2013

repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.10.2013 for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts by executing demand promissory note on even date agreeing to repay the same with interest of 24% per annum. Thereafter inspite of several demands made by the plaintiff, as the defendant did not pay the amount, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.20.06.2016 to the plaintiff. But the defendant did not pay the amount. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit. Since the defendant is not an agriculturist, he is not entitled to any of the benefits of the debt relief laws. Hence, the suit.

3. Though the summons through court were served to the defendant, he did not appear before this court. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

4. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1.

Plaintiff’s counsel reported no further evidence.

5. Heard plaintiff’s counsel. Perused the plaint and material part on record.

Ex.A.1, it shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of 4

Rs.1,80,000/- on 20.10.2013 for the purpose of family expenses and to discharge sundry debts by agreeing to repay the same with 24% interest.

Though summons were served, the defendant did not choose to appear

before this court. Hence, he was set exparte. It appears that he has no

objection to pass a decree against him for the suit amount. Hence, the testimony of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 remained unchallenged and the claim of plaintiff is proved.

7. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,95,920/- (Rupees Two lakhs Ninety Five thousand

Nine hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh Eighty thousands only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of September,

2016.

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Nunna Ganesh (By way of affidavit.

FOR DEFENDANT:NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A.1: Promissory note dt. 20.10.2013 executed by the defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT :- Nil -

Sd/-G.Ramakrishna

A.J.F.C.MAGISTRATE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

FAC of PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Order Record 863 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/63/2016	Nunna Ganesh vs Polipilli Rajakumar,	13 Oct 2016	Order	—
OS/89/2015	Surampudi Ganesh vs Tadela Narayana Rao	08 Oct 2016	Order	—
OS/140/2016	Gunnam Mangayya Chowdary vs Kandregula Krishna	08 Oct 2016	Order	—
OS/173/2016	Chakka Venkata Ratnam vs Ganta Venkateswara Rao,	08 Oct 2016	Order	—
OS/276/2015	Kondepudi Rajesh vs Parvathini Sri Satya Sai Venkata Ramana	08 Oct 2016	Order	—
OS/348/2015	Nunna Venkateswara Rao vs Anusuri Satyanarayana	08 Oct 2016	Order	—
EP/69/2016	Chinta Venkata ramana vs Kambidi Nageswara Rao,	30 Sep 2016	Order	—
OS/91/2015	Nallamilli Eswsara Reddy vs Bevara Venkata Babu	30 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/120/2015	K.Venkakta Reddy vs A.Suribabu	30 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/137/2015	Koppisetty Srinivasu vs Koppisetty Venkata Rao	30 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/226/2015	Surampudi Subba Rao vs Pali Anji Babu	30 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/234/2015	Karri Gopala Krishna Reddy vs Kovvuru Venkata Sita Maha Lakshmi	30 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
A.T.C./2/2016	Dadala Rambabu vs K.Bhagyalakshmi	28 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/41/2016	Shaik Akbar Ali vs Penkey Veerraghavulu	28 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/62/2016	Pulagam Satyanarayana Reddy vs Burre Viswaswara Rao,	28 Sep 2016	Order	—
OS/124/2016	Nunna Ganesh vs Bagada Shanmukha Rao	28 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/125/2016	Manda Venkata Rama Reddy vs Dharmavarapu Rama Rao	28 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/127/2016	Koppisetti Yedukondalu vs Palla Kunda Raju	28 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/261/2015	Gubbala Murali Krishna vs Sambana Padma	28 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/355/2015	Pulagam Satyanarayana Reddy vs Puppala Vijaya Kumar	28 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/228/2011	Dudala Bhima Raju vs Masabathula Satyanarayana	27 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/367/2015	Ijjada Siva Prasad vs Marrapu Venkata Ramana Murthy	27 Sep 2016	judgment	—
EP/37/2016	Gamidi Nageswara Rao vs Kasarapu Yella Rao	23 Sep 2016	Order	—
OS/258/2014	Kurupudi Ganesh vs Sunkara Trimurthulu	23 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
A.T.C./3/2016	Vora Nageswara Rao vs Palla Srinivasa Rao,	21 Sep 2016	Order	—
OS/96/2016	Kurupudi Raju vs Andru Madhu Babu	21 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/188/2015	Ankam Venkata Ramana vs Samineni Kamalakishore	21 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/48/2016	Gubbala Muralikrishna vs Bellamkonda Venkata Rangaiah	16 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/122/2015	Eedala China Subba Rao vs Nalamati Bhadrinarayana	16 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/176/2015	Karri Veerreddy vs Mummidi Veera Prakash Rao	16 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/176/2015	Karri Veerreddy vs Mummidi Veera Prakash Rao	16 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/6/2016	Kodavati Prakasha Rayudu vs Godavarthi Anantha Lakshmi Narasamma	16 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/46/2016	Mallela Srinivasa Rao alias Srinu vs Koppisetti Narayana Rao	14 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/107/2016	kurupudi Raju vs Kannepamula Jonson	14 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/216/2014	MOGULURI RAVIKUMAR vs SINGIREDDY NAGESWARA RAO	14 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/366/2015	Gubbala Murali Krishna vs Siriki Satya Venu Ramakrishna Naidu	14 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/136/2009	Alla Ali Venkata Manikyamba vs Kola Appa Rao	12 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
A.T.C./8/2015	Bandaru Narasayya vs Palla Srinivasa Rao	09 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/38/2016	Nallamilli Adi Reddy vs Perikala Ravamma	09 Sep 2016	Order	—
OS/103/2016	Chitturi Bhadram vs Chitturi Bapineedu	07 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/111/2015	Manda Venkata Rama Reddy vs Namburi Jhansiraju	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/171/2015	Naram Srinivasa Sanyasi Rao alias Sanyasi Rao vs Kanaparthi Nirmala	07 Sep 2016	judgment	—
OS/338/2015	Gubbala Murali Krishna vs Cherukuri Srinivas Babu	07 Sep 2016	judgment	—
A.T.C./3/2015	Matti Ramakrishna vs M.Srinivasa Seshagiri Srirama Prasad	02 Sep 2016	judgment	—
EP/20/2016	Gubbala Muralikrishna vs Vodamudra Satyam	02 Sep 2016	Order	—
EP/16/2016	Karri Venkata Reddy vs Geddam Sarojini	31 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/59/2016	Tetala China Veerraghava Reddy vs Pavuluri Gan eswara Rao,	31 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/2/2016	Gurrala Mariyamma vs Abdul Kareem	31 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/97/2014	saladi arjuna rao vs Tadala Subrahmanyam	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/104/2015	Nallamilli Srinivasa Reddy vs Parupaudi Subrahmanyam	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/223/2014	Anasuri Rambabu vs Batchu Subrahmanya Gupta	31 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/14/2016	Nandula Veerababu vs Pilaka Venkata Satyanarayana	26 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/104/2015	Nallamilli Eswara Reddy vs Doddi Nirmal Kumar	26 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/122/2011	Thota Peda Satyanarayana vs Thota Arjamma	26 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/175/2015	Nandula Veerababu vs Dasari Gurrayya	26 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/199/2015	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy vs Adapaka Srinu	26 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/8/2016	Boorlu Srihari vs Pilla Venkata Ramana	26 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/33/2016	Pilli Satyanarayana vs Manupudi Yedukondalu	26 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/82/2016	Pothamsetti Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy vs Badana Visalkshmi	26 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/115/2015	Manda Venkata Rama Reddy vs Badana Prakashrao	26 Aug 2016	judgment	—
EP/146/2015	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy vs Simhabhatla Venkata Ramana Murthy	24 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/146/2015	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy vs Simhabhatla Venkata Ramana Murthy	24 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/97/2016	Palevela Ramakrishna vs Mohammad Abdul Ariff	24 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/101/2016	Kovvuri Bulli reddy vs Matangi Suvarnakumari	24 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/284/2015	Surampudi Ganesh vs Addala Srinivasa Rao	24 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/289/2015	Nallamilli Eswara Reddy vs Kumarunnisha Begum	24 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/141/2016	Gunnam Mangayya Chowdary vs Bonthu Srinivasu,	20 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/258/2015	Mulakala Dasaratharamarao Chowdary vs Surampudi Veera Ganikamma	20 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/5/2016	Pasupulate Chandra Rao vs Baragati Srinu	19 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/32/2016	Kosuri Trimurthulu vs Dangeti Suryanarayana	19 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/76/2016	Pothamsetti Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, vs Miriyala Pardha Saradhi	19 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/372/2015	Chinta Srinivasa Divya Bhaskara Somayaji vs Maddirala Subba Rao	19 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/51/2016	Chundru Rajendra Prasad vs Kurupudi Nageswara Rao	13 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/10/2016	Surampudi Ganesh vs Allika Nagamani	12 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/31/2016	Nallamilli Adhi Reddy vs Shaik Ajeej	12 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/198/2015	Nallamilli Eswara Reddy vs Rokham Makhardar Hanibab	12 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/90/2016	Mahipaoa Chandra Sekhar vs Gagapatla Brahmayya	12 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/111/0	XXXXX vs XXXXX	12 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/111/2016	Gubbala Murali Krishna vs Aaluri Lalitha Kumari	12 Aug 2016	judgment	—
A.T.C./6/2015	Dangeti Satyanarayana vs Chigurupati Venkata Pratap	10 Aug 2016	Order	—
EP/8/2016	Kona Chandra Sekhar vs Gurrala Janson Kanthi Rani	10 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/81/2016	Pothamsetti Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy vs Tippana Saradha	10 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/373/2004	Kukkala Govinda Raju vs Medisetti Papayya	10 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/233/2015	Chintapalli Bullemmayi vs Vadisetti Suribabu	08 Aug 2016	judgment	—
EP/182/2015	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy vs Kotani Pydiraju	05 Aug 2016	Order	—
OS/83/2016	Nunna Ganesh vs Kumpatla Hari Babu	05 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/314/2015	Ijjada Siva Prasad vs Kokkiri Susheela	05 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/53/2010	Makineedi Seshagiri Rao vs Makineedi Satyanarayana	03 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/67/2016	Karri Venkata Reddy vs Neeladri Ramana	03 Aug 2016	judgment	—
OS/254/2014	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy vs Killaka Muralli Mohan	03 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/170/2015	Raja Kakarlapudi Ravi Kumar vs Ballipati Sathiraju	29 Jul 2016	Order	—
OS/38/2015	K.Srinivasa Reddy vs M.Tirupathi Rao	29 Jul 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/75/2016	Mahipala Chandra Sekhar vs Kaluva Sridhar	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
OS/77/2016	Mahipala Chandra Sekhar vs Dodla Vijyalakshmi,	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
OS/79/2016	Pothamsetti Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy, vs Vemu Prasad,	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
OS/84/2016	Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy, vs Kumpatla Hari Babu,	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
OS/107/2015	Manda Venkata Rama Reddy vs Peddagopu Rameshbabu	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
OS/354/2015	Pilli Narayudu vs Guthula Satyanarayana	29 Jul 2016	judgment	—
A.T.C./2/2015	K.V.V.Nagarjuna vs Anusuri Nagababu	27 Jul 2016	Order	—
OS/12/2016	Palla Suresh vs Kudupudi Srinivas	27 Jul 2016	judgment	—

Showing 100 of 863 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2016		6
Sep 2016		39
Aug 2016		45
Jul 2016		40
Jun 2016		22
May 2016		12
Apr 2016		36
Mar 2016		30
Feb 2016		48
Jan 2016		20
Dec 2015		19
Nov 2015		55

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri G. Ramakrishna handled?

Sri G. Ramakrishna has handled 868 court orders since 2012 at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The average disposal rate is 18 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri G. Ramakrishna hear?

Based on available records, Sri G. Ramakrishna primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (SCC) at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Where is Sri G. Ramakrishna currently posted?

Sri G. Ramakrishna is posted as Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri G. Ramakrishna available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri G. Ramakrishna are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri G. Ramakrishna dispose cases?

Sri G. Ramakrishna disposes approximately 18 cases per month, based on 868 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram.

Since when is Sri G. Ramakrishna serving?

Sri G. Ramakrishna has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram since 2012.

Case Types

OS 69%

EP 30%

A 1%

RCC 0%

SCC 0%

Posting History

Jun 2015 — Oct 2016

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate · 574 orders
Oct 2012 — May 2015

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Magistrate · 294 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt Nizam Sarada

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial First class Ma...

1,713 orders

Sri V.Nageswara Rao Naik

Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Additional J...

4,750 orders

Mutta Venkateswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge Court

3 orders

B.H.V.Lakshmi Kumari

Additional District Judge Ramachandrapuram

20 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram