Smt.G.Sindhu AJCJ,ATP

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt. Sindhu Gurram,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, the 29 th day of December, 2020

(29.12.2020)

Calendar Case No.522 of 2020

(Crime No.87 of 2020 of 2020 of Anantapuramu II Town Police Station)

Between:-

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station. …Complainant.

AND

S.K. Chand Basha, aged 42 years S/o S.K. Saleem @ Karimulla, Ganuga Palyam Street, Ongole Town, now R/o Nalluru Village, Roddam Mandal, Anantapuramu District. …Accused. * * * * * *

This case came on 28.12.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and of

Sri A. Chennappa, Legal Aid counsel for the accused, upon hearing both sides and having perused the material on record, this court delivers the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.87 of 2020 of Anantapuramu II

Town Police Station alleging that on 11.01.2020 in between 11.30am and 12.00 noon at Nandini Hotel, Subash Road, Anantapuramu, accused committed theft of TVS XL-100 motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP-02-BK- 7141 worth Rs.25,000/- belonged to the defacto-complainant / PW1-I.

Damodar(LW1), which was parked by him at Municipal Complex,

Anantapuramu.

Basing upon the complaint of defacto-complainant / PW1-I.

2 Damodar(LW1), on 28.02.2020 at 11.00am, PW4-M. Srinivasulu, the then Sub

Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station registered the case in Crime No.87 of 2020 of Anantapuramu II Town Police Station for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

During the course of investigation, on 13.10.2020 at 4.15pm, PW5-V.

Ramprasad(LW7), Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police

Station, arrested the accused infront of Nama Towers, Anantapuramu and seized the TVS XL-100 moped from the possession of accused under the cover of Mahazar in the presence of mediators and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2. On 17.11.2020, this court took cognizance of case for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of IPC, against the accused.

3. On 23.11.2020, the accused was produced before the Court from

District jail, Anantapuramu. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4.On 25.11.2020, the accused was produced from District Jail,

Anantapuramu and examined under section 239 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for which he denied. After hearing both sides and on considering the entire record, the charge for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed against the accused. The said charge was read-over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, the case was posted for trial.

5.In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined LW1 and LWs4 to 7 as PWs1 to 5 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to 6 besides

MO1. Among them, Ex.P1 is the Complaint, dt.06.03.2020 of PW1. Ex.P2 is 3 the Signature of PW2 on confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020. Ex.P3 is the Signature of PW3 on confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020. Ex.P4 is the original First Information

Report. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of the scene and Ex.P6 is the confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020 at 3.30pm MO1 is TVS XL motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP-02-BK-7141 of PW1. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses i.e.,

LW2-D. Siva Reddy, LW3-B. Narayanappa, LW4-T. Dadapeer, LW5-S. Bayapa

Reddy, LW7-j. Savitri, LW8-B. Bheemaraju, LW10-N. Prasantha Rao, LW11-

Mustaffa, LW12-P. Mallikarjuna.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in Telugu, for which he denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.The stand of accused is of total denial.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PWs1,2 and 5 corroborates with each other and it is sufficient to hold guilt of the accused. Thereby, it is argued that the prosecution has proved guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under section 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

9.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the main mediators to arrest, confession and seizure Mahazar have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thus the confession of accused in presence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and seizure of M.O.1 is not proved by the prosecution. Hence, the learned defence counsel argued that the guilt of accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution either for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal 4 Code, 1860 and hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

10.Now the points that arise for determination are as follows :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused

committed theft of MO1 from the possession of PW1 and thereby

accused committed an offence punishable under section 379 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond the reasonable doubt?

Or

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused had

dishonestly received or retained the said stolen property, i.e., MO1

by knowing or having reason to believe that the said property is

stolen property and thereby accused committed an offence

punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond

the reasonable doubt?

11.In view of these rival contentions, the entire evidence is perused.

12.POINT No.1 :

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 5 out of 7 listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P6 besides MO1. PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged the report. PW2 and PW3 are the mediators who accompanied the police at the time of arrest of accused and seizure first plaintiff MO1. PW4 is the Sub Inspector of Police,

Ananthapuramu II Town Police station, who registered the case and PW5 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu II Town Police station who arrested the accused and seized the property i.e., MO1 and also filed charge sheet.

In order to prove the guilt of accused under section 379 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 11.01.2020 the accused had dishonestly moved M.O.1 from the possession of 5 PW1.

13. PW1 deposed that on 11.01.2020 at about 11.00am, he went to to

Sapthagiri circle, Anantapuramu on his TVS XL motor cycle bearing

Registration No.AP-02-DK-7141 to purchase clothes for Sanktanthi festival and parked it near Nandini Hotel and after half an hour, he went to the parking place and found his motor cycle was missing and he searched for the same near the surroundings but in vain. On 28.02.2020, he preferred written complaint(Ex.P1) in Anantapuramu II Town Police Station regarding his motor cycle.

14. P.W.4 – the then Sub Inspector of Police of Anantapuramu II Town Police

Station deposed that on 29.05.2020 at 11.00am, basing on the report (Ex.P1) of PW1, he registered the case in Crime No.87 of 2020 of Anantapuramu II

Town Police Station for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and submitted First Information Report (Ex.P4) and its copies to the concerned officials. On the same day, he along with PW1 visited the scene of offence situated infront of Nandini Hotel, Anantapuramu examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and he prepared rough sketch of the scene (Ex.P5).

15. From the evidence of PW1, PW4, it is clear that there is no direct evidence adduced by prosecution to prove that accused is the person who had dishonestly moved M.O.1 from the possession of P.W.1 by moving it from the place parked by P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P1 shows that some unknown offenders committed theft of M.O.1. Therefore, prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence committed under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6 POINT No.2:

To prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it must be shown that MO1 was the stolen property and retained by the accused with a reason to believe that MO1 was stolen property belonging to PW1. The case of prosecution is that MO1 was seized from the possession of accused in the presence of PW2 and PW3 who acted as mediators to the mediator report, dt.13.10.2020 at 3.30pm (Ex.P6) during the course of investigation by PW5.

16. PW5 – Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station deposed that on 13.10.2020, he took up further investigation in this case and he verified the investigation done by PW4 and found it to be on correct lines. On 13.10.2020 at 3.00pm, on credible information about the offenders in this case, he secured two mediators i.e., PW2 and PW3 and proceeded to Nama Towers, Subash Road,

Anantapuramu at around 3.30pm accompanied with his staff, conducted vehicle checking at that place, after sometime, accused came on TVS XL Green colour motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP-02-BK-7141 (MO1). On seeing them, accused tried to turn the vehicle and leave that place, on suspicion, they apprehended accused and questioned him in the presence of mediators and accused revealed identity particulars and confessed that he had committed theft of

MO1 in January infront of Nandini Hotel, Anantapuramu. Basing on the confession of accused P.W.5 identified motor cycle found in the possession of accused as stolen property in this case. Later, P.W.5. arrested accused and recorded the confession and seized MO1 from the possession of accused under the cover of confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020 at 3.30pm (Ex.P6) in the presence of mediators P.W.2, P.W.3. After following due formalities, he produced the accused

before the Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed

charge sheet.

17. Thus to prove that accused had dishonestly retained M.O.1 knowing it to be stolen property accused alleged confession before P.W.5 in presence of 7 P.W.2, P.W.3 is significant. The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 is crucial to the case of prosecution to prove the guilt of offence of accused under section 411 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860. But much fatal to the case of prosecution PW2 and

PW3 did not support the prosecution version in material aspects, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has declared them as hostile and cross examined them with the permission of the Court. Nothing was elicited from their evidence which helps the prosecution to prove the material allegations leveled against the accused. The seizure of M.O.1 from the possession of accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts by prosecution.

Therefore, the guilt of accused is not proved beyond all reasonable doubts by the prosecution for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860. Accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The Superintendent, District Jail,

Anantapuramu is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

As per orders of this Court in Crl.MP.No.710/2020 in Crime No.87 of 2020, MO1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1. Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and becomes absolute and MO1 is ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29 th day of December, 2020).

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution

PW1:I. Damodar.

8 PW2:A. Subhahan, mediator. PW3:D. Anand Kumar, mediator. PW4:M. Srinivasulu, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station. PW5:V. Ram Prasad, Sub Inspector of Police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station.

Defence

NIL

Exhibits marked for the Prosecution

Ex.P1:Complaint, dt.06.03.2020 of PW1. Ex.P2:Signature of PW2 on confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020. Ex.P3:Signature of PW3 on confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020. Ex.P4:Original First Information Report. Ex.P5:Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P6:Confession, arrest and seizure Mahazar, dt.13.10.2020 at 3.30pm.

Exhibits marked for the Defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of

ProsecutionDefence NIL MO1:TVS XL motor cycle bearing Registration No.AP-02-BK-7141 of PW1.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu

True copy

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Anantapuramu

9

CALENDAR CASES TRIED

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ANANTAPURAMU

Calendar Case No.522 of 2020

Complainant : Sub Inspector of police, Anantapuramu II Town Police Station

Crime No.87 of 2020 of 2020 of Anantapuramu II Town Police Station

S.K. Chand Basha, aged 42 years S/o S.K. Saleem @ Karimulla, Ganuga Palyam Street, Ongole Town, now R/o Nalluru Village, Roddam Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

Date of Report or Appearanc Released Commenc Close of Sentence

Offence Complaint e/ on bail ement of trial Order

Apprehensi trial

on of accused 11.01.2020 28.02.2020 23.11.2020---01.12.202029.12.2020

Offence :-offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order:-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 379 or 411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the said offences and he is set at liberty. The Superintendent, District Jail, Anantapuramu is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases.

As per orders of this Court in Crl.MP.No.710/2020 in Crime No.87 of 2020, MO1 was already given to the interim custody of PW1. Hence, the said interim custody of case property shall holds good and becomes absolute and MO1 is ordered to be retained by PW1, after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Sindhu Gurram

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapuramu

Copy Submitted :-

1. The Hon’ble First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuramu.

True copy

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Anantapuramu

DIS.No.955, Dt.29.12.2020.

10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt Sindhu Gurram I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Wednesday, this the 16th day of December, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.377 of 2019

Y.S. Sekhar Reddy S/o Late Y. Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years, R/o D.No.7/265, Court Road, Anantapuramu. … Plaintif

Vs.

K. Sakthidhar S/o K. Satish Kumar, Hindu, aged about 21 years R/o D.No.6/2/495-1, Kovur Nagar, Anantapuramu. … Defendant

* * * * *

This suit came on 08-12-2020for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Jagadeesh, Advocate for Plaintifand defendant having remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The suit is filed by the plaintif for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29.07.2018 by directing the defendant to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit schedule property by receiving balance sale of consideration and for other reliefs.

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

(a) The suit schedule property is land in an extent of Ac.4.50 cents to an extent of Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.185-2 of Kakkalapalli Village, Rudrampeta panchayat, Anantapuramu Rural bounded by East : Plot No.79, West : Plot

N.77, North : Road and South : others land in same survey number.

2

(b) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

Originally, the suit schedule property belonged to the defendant and he intended to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintif for sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five thousand only) per cent, as such the plaintif has paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand only) as advance on 29.07.2018 and after receipt of said amount as advance, the defendant executed an agreement of sale on the same day i.e., on 29.07.2018 in favour of the plaintif agreeing to get register the sale deed in favour of the plaintif within three months i.e., on or before 28.10.2018 by receiving the balance sale consideration. The plaintif is ready and willing to perform his part of contract by way of paying balance of sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- to get the registered sale deed in his favour and to bear the registration costs. But, for the best reasons known to the defendant, number of mediations held in the presence of elders, the defendant failed to get the register of agreement of sale, dt.29.07.2018. Further, the plaintif also got issued legal notice, dt.29.01.2019, requesting the defendant to be present at

Sub Registrar’s office, Anantapuramu Rural on 20.02.2019 at 10.00 am to perform his part of contract by receiving balance of sale consideration. The plaintif waited at Sub-registrar’s office, Anantapuramu Rural on that date till 5.00pm and to prove his presence, the plaintif has purchased two non judicial stamp papers worth Rs.50/- each, dt.20.02.2019. But, the defendant did not turn up to perform his part of contract of agreement of sale i.e., to get register the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif constrained to file the suit against the defendant before the Hon'ble

Court for specific performance of agreement of sale.

3.Despite service of summons and also by way of publication, the defendant did not appear before the Court, on 19.11.2019, and he was set exparte to the suit proceedings on 19.11.2019.

3

4.To prove his claim, the plaintif got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif through virtual mode and perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of specific

performance in respect of suit schedule property against the

defendant, as prayed for?

7. POINT: -

Since the suit is filed for specific performance, the plaintif has to establish that he has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract i.e., to pay the balance sale consideration of the suit schedule property, as agreed in the unregistered agreement of sale on the date of the suit and that the defendant is evading to perform his part of contract.

8.In order to prove these aspects, the plaintif got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is an un-registered agreement of sale, dated 29.07.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif which is executed on stamp paper worth of Rs.100/-. It discloses that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of

Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eight five thousand only) per cent and received a sum of

Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One lakh forty thousand Only) and towards advance.

It further discloses that both the plaintif and defendant agreed that the balance consideration shall be paid within Three months i.e., on or before 28.10.2018 and then the defendant has to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintif or on his behalf. It also discloses a specific term that by 4 the said date or prior to that date if the plaintif approaches the defendant to pay the balance of consideration and if the defendant fails to register the sale deed, the plaintif can get execute the same through Court and the defendant shall bear the costs of the said suit. The said agreement was executed by the defendant.

9.Ex.As is office copy of legal notice, dated 29.01.2019 got issued by the plaintif to the defendant by expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration and calling upon the defendant to receive the balance amount and to execute registered sale deed on 20.02.2019 in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit agreement of sale. Ex.A3 is two non-judicial stamps, dated 20.02.2019 for Rs.50/- each.

10.On coming to the oral evidence of PW1, it goes to show that the defendant claimed that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and agreed to sell the same to him for Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand Only) per cent and also received an advance of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh forty thousand Only) and also executed Ex.A1 unregistered agreement of sale and inspite of expressing his readiness and willingness to pay the balance of consideration by paying the requisite challan for registration and waited at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Ananthapuramu

Rural on 20.02.2019, the defendant did not turn-up His evidence further shows that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract i.e., to pay balance consideration, but the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract and comply the demand under legal notice(Ex.A2), as per the terms of the suit agreement of sale.

11.Since, the evidence of PW1 as well as documentary evidence i.e.,

Exs.A1 to A3 remain unchallenged by the defendant, the Court finds no 5 reason to disbelieve the same and to deny the contentions of the plaintif.

Such, silence of the defendant inclined the Court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant that he has been intentionally evading to perform his part of contract, but, the defendant did not turn up.

12.In such facts and circumstances, the Court holds that the plaintif has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale. But, the defendant refused to perform his part of contract under the suit agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the relief of specific performance of suit agreement of sale by the defendant as per the terms and conditions of the suit agreement of sale. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif.

13. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing

the plaintif to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.30,000/-

(Rupees Thirty thousand Only) in the Court within 15 days from the

date of Decree and Judgment to enable the defendant to receive the

same and that the defendant is directed to execute the register sale

deed in favour of the plaintif in respect of the suit schedule

property in pursuance of the suit agreement of sale within two

months of this Decree and Judgment, at the expenses of the

plaintif, failing which the plaintif is at liberty to get the same

under the due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me through Video Conference in Blue Jeans application on this the 16 th day of December, 2020.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintif:

PW1: Y.S. Sekhar Reddy.

For defendant: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintif:

Ex.A1: Un-registered agreement of sale, dt.29.07.2018 executed by K. Eswar Shaktidar. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.29.01.2019. Ex.A3: Two non judicial stamp papers worth Rs.50/- each, dt.20.02.2019.

For defendant:

NIL.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt Sindhu Gurram I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

Monday, this the 28th day of December, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.418 of 2019

C. Chandra Sekhar S/o Ramakrishnaiah, aged about 40 years, Hindu, Agriculture and business, R/o Maruru Village and post, Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Plaintif

Vs.

U. Sreenivas Rao, P.C.No.742, U. Subba Rao, aged 36 years, working as police constable, 14th Battalion, APSP police Training College, Anantapuramu, Andhra Pradesh. Now working at Sri Mahesh Chandra laddu Garu, IPS, C.OP., Chapper stop, Opp : Building, NI office, near Begampeta, Hyderabad, Telangana state, … Defendant

* * * * *

This suit came on 23-12-2020for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for Plaintifand defendant having remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.2,31,000/- (Rupees Two lakh thirty one thousand only) being the principal amount and interest due on the promissory note dated 11.12.2016 said to be executed by the defendant, in favour of plaintif for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees

One lakh fifty thousand only) with interest agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

2

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) from the plaintif on 11.12.2016 for his personal and family necessities and executed a promissory note at Maruru Village,

Rapthadu Mandal, Anantapuramu District, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand.

Inspite of repeated demands of the plaintif, the defendant did not repay the debt amount due under promissory note. The plaintif also got issued legal notice, dt.07.02.2019 demanding the defendant to repay the same but in vain. Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount with subsequent interest and costs. The defendant is not entitled for any benefit under Debt Relief Laws and thus, the interest is claimed at 24% per annum.

3.Despite receipt of summons, the defendant did not appear before the

Court and remained ex parte to the proceedings on 24.02.2020.

4.The plaintif in support of his contentions got examined himself as

PW1. He also got exhibited Ex.A1 - Original promissory note dt.11.12.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/-. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.07.02.2019.

Ex.A3 is the postal receipt and Ex.A4 is the unserved legal notice cover.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintif. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the suit

amount from defendant, as prayed for ?

3

7. Point:

It is the contention of the plaintif that the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.1,50,000/- under suit promissory note, dt.11.12.2016 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 11.12.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintif (PW1) for his personal and family necessities and on the same day, he executed a promissory note for the said amount i.e., Ex.A1 in favour of plaintif (PW1) at Maruru Village, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand. But, inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not repay the debt amount. The plaintif also got issued legal notice dt.07.02.2019 (Ex.A2), demanding the defendant to repay the same. Since the evidence of

PW1 as well as the contents of Exs.A1 to Ex.A4 remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintif with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Moreover, the suit is filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the Court holds that the plaintif is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif in the following manner:

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif

and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of

Rs.2,31,000/- (Rupees Two lakh thirty one thousand only) to plaintif

with subsequent interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from

the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate

of 6 percent per annum till the date of realization on principal

4

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only)

under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me through Video Conference in Blue Jeans application on this the 28 th day of December, 2020.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintif:

PW1: C. Chandra Sekhar.

For defendant: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintif:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note dt.11.12.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/-. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.07.02.2019. Ex.A3: Postal receipt Ex.A4: Unserved legal notice cover.

For defendant:

NIL.

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANANTAPURAMU.

Present : G. Sindhu.,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

Monday the 14th day of December, 2020

Original Suit No. 1611/2019

Between:- Mellamputi Polanaidu …… Plaintiff

And

Mutthuneni Sathyanarayana ……. Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs.10,98,000/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dt. 14-02-2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.6,50,000/- and for costs of the suit.

The suit coming before me in the presence of Sri P. Sarath Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff, Sri S. Saifuddin, S. Baba Fakruddin, Advocates for the defendant, this court made the following :-

O R D E R

Suit called through Blue Jeans Application. Plaintiff called present and identified by his counsel and stated that suit is settled out of court. Not press memo filed by both parties is recorded. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me through Blue Jeans Application, this the 14th day of December,

2020.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- Nil -

I AJCJ

In the Court of :I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Case No. :CC/0000519/2020 SHO ATMAKUR POLICE STATION Vs Kuruba Mahendra

Date : 12-12-2020

Business: Case is settled before Virtual Lok Adalath Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 12-12-2020 I Addl.Junior Civil Judge Cum I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class