Smt.G.Swarnalatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Smt.G.Swarnalatha,B.A.,LL.B.,

X Addl. District Judge,

FAC/ I Addl. District Judge

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2015

C.M.A.NO. 25 OF 2014

Between:-

Jogi Venu Gopala Rao, S/o late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Bandar PJCJ. …Appellant.

And

Sunkara Raja Sekhar, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/o Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Bandar PJCJ. … Respondent.

On appeal against the order and decretal order in I.A.678/2014 in O.S.No.253/2013, dated 06.11.2014 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam.

Between:-

Jogi Venu Gopala Rao. … Petitioner/Defendant.

And

Sunkara Raja Sekhar. … Respondent/Plaintiff.

This C.M.A., is presented on 14.11.2014 and filed on 14.11.2014 by the Appellant/petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(d) and

Sec.151 CPC praying to set aside the order and decretal order in

I.A.678/2014 in O.S.No.253/2013, dated 06.11.2014 on the file of the

Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam and for costs.

This C.M.A., coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srimannarayana Murthy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Suresh Babu.Perni, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

This miscellaneous appeal is preferred under Order 41,

Rule 3 (d) and sec. 151 of CPC against the order and decretal order in

I.A.678/2014 in O.S.No.253/2013, dated 06.11.2014 on the file of Prl.

2 Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam, that order of the lower Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, ought to have imposed slight conditions to co-operate with the trial, in fact he is not aware of the exparte order, but knowledge only when bailiff came to his house to deliver the petition schedule property in

E.P.105/2014, dt.11.7.2014, immediately he approached the Court but

the lower Court committed grave error in dismissing the petition, hence to set aside the order and decretal order.

2)The appellant herein filed an I.A.678/2014 under Order 9,

Rule 13 CPC r/w 151 CPC to set aside the exparte decree dt.24.2.2014 to prosecute the matter, averred in the affidavit the respondent filed a suit against him for eviction, that he has sold away the schedule property and delivered possession but in fact he borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- about three years back and he was called to the Sub-

Registrar Office to execute a registered document mortgage deed, obtained signatures on the blank papers but surprisingly he has received Court summons, that the suit filed for eviction posted to 31.12.2013 for his appearance and intend to engage advocate, but his maternal uncle got heart attack admitted in Hospital at Vijayawada, thereby he was held up for 45 days and also held up at his maternal uncle's place for 139 days and later he came to know on 11.7.2014 about the proceedings, hence he constrained to file the petition to set aside the exparte order.

3)The counter filed by the respondent/plaintiff denied the entire averments of the petition and according to his further contentions he purchased the schedule property on 21.3.2012 from the petitioner under registered sale deed, mutated his name in the municipal records, paid taxes and the petitioner approached him in the last week of May, 2012 requested to let out the premises and agreed for Rs.1,900/- as the tenant from 1.6.2012 under oral agreement, when 3 he committed default of payment of rent he constrained to file the suit and the petitioner held up in the hospital at Vijayawada, prayed for dismissal.

4)On considering the arguments of both sides the learned

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam has dismissed the application.

5)Aggrieved by the said order and decretal order the present appeal is filed.

6)Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that lower

Court finding that the petitioner has not filed delay condone petition for 130 days thereby petition is barred by limitation is incorrect and the further finding that not produced any evidence is also incorrect, prayed for setting aside the order and decretal order.

7)On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the petitioner has well aware of the proceedings, intentionally not prosecuted the matter and the finding of the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge in dismissing the appeal requires no interference, prayed for dismissal.

7)On considering the submissions made by both the counsel the points that arises for consideration are:-

1) Whether the petitioner/appellant has substantiated any grounds to set aside the order and decretal order passed by the trial Court?

2) Whether the finding of the trial Court in dismissing

I.A.678/2014 in O.S.No.253/2013, dt.6.11.2014 requires any interference?

3)To what relief?

8)Parties to the appeal are referred to as arrayed in the petition before the trial Court.

POINT NO.1:-

9)The main suit is filed for eviction of the respondent from the plaint schedule property that he purchased the schedule property 4 from the respondent under registered sale deed and at the request of the respondent he let out the premises on a monthly rental of

Rs.1,900/- under oral agreement, subsequently the respondent committed default, then he constrained to file the suit and the respondent not appeared before the Court, he remained exparte and the Court has passed exparte order on 24.2.2014.

10)As per the contention of the respondent he could not appear before the Court as his maternal uncle was admitted in the hospital at Vijayawada, he was held up for 45 days at Vijayawada and also at the village of his uncle and later came to know only on receiving notices that he was dispossessed from the property that an exparte decree was passed.

11)It could be seen from the order of the learned Prl. Junior

Civil Judge the respondent refused to receive the suit summons in the

main suit and that the summons were affixed on the door and the main suit was posted to 31.12.2013. Therefore, as there was a refusal an exparte decree was passed on 24.2.2014 and the respondent having remained exparte did not choose to file petition within the stipulated time of 30 days to set aside the exparte order, but filed I.A.678/2014 after delay of 4 months 20 days. By the time I.A.678/2014 is filed no suit proceeding is pending on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court.

The respondent ought to have come with an application U/s 5 of

Limitation Act to condone delay of 3 months 20 days. The reasons assigned by him are not convincing. It is not that the respondent had no knowledge but he refused to take summons and summons have been affixed on the door shows his intention to avoid the proceedings and he did not choose to file any documentary proof that he was held up at Vijayawada where his uncle was admitted in the hospital or at the village of his uncle taking care of his uncle and had come up without any genuine reasons when the respondent/plaintiff filed 5 execution petition for eviction from the schedule property with the present I.A., as if he was held up at different places is nothing but to protract the litigation for which the Court does not find any substantial grounds as agitated in the grounds of appeal to set aside the exparte decree.

Accordingly, I answered the point against the petitioner.

POINT NO.2:-

12)In pursuance of answering Point No.1 against the appellant/petitioner the Court does not find any warranting circumstances to interfere with the finding of the learned Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Machilipatnam and it deserves for dismissal.

POINT NO.3:-

13)In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the order and decretal order passed in I.A.678/2014 in

O.S.No.253/2013, dt.6.11.2014 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's

Court, Machilipatnam, accordingly the stay granted in I.A.858/2014, dt.31.12.2014 is hereby vacated.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of Marc, 2015.

Sd/- G.Swarnalatha,

X Addl. District Judge, FAC/ I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil- on both sides

Sd/- G.Swarnlatha,

X-ADJ.,

FAC/ I ADJ.,

To

The Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Smt.G.Swarnalatha,B.A.,LL.B.,

X Addl. District Judge,

FAC/ I Addl. District Judge

Tuesday, this the 24th day of March, 2015

C.M.A.NO. 25 OF 2014

Between:-

Jogi Venu Gopala Rao, S/o late Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, Machavaram, Machilipatnam, Bandar PJCJ. …Appellant.

And

Sunkara Raja Sekhar, S/o Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 48 years, Business, R/o Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Bandar PJCJ. … Respondent.

On appeal against the order and decretal order in I.A.678/2014 in O.S.No.253/2013, dated 06.11.2014 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam.

Between:-

Jogi Venu Gopala Rao. … Petitioner/Defendant.

And

Sunkara Raja Sekhar. … Respondent/Plaintiff.

This C.M.A., is presented on 14.11.2014 and filed on 14.11.2014 by the Appellant/petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1(d) and Sec.151 CPC praying to set aside the order and decretal order in I.A.678/2014 in

O.S.No.253/2013, dated 06.11.2014 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam and for costs.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid under Art.3 (I) Sch.(II) of

A.P.C.F. And S.V. Act.

This C.M.A., coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srimannarayana Murthy, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Suresh Babu.Perni, Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other connected material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

i) that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the order and decretal order passed in I.A.No.678/2013, dt.06.11.2014 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Machilipatnam; ii) that the stay granted in I.A.No.858/2014 in

CMA.25/2014, dt.31.12.2014 is hereby vacated;

iii) that there be no order as to the costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 24th day of March, 2015.

X-Addl. District Judge, FAC/ I Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

MEMROANDUM OF COSTS

No bill of costs filed by either side.

X-ADJ., FAC/ I ADJ.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Smt. G.Swarnalatha, B.A.,LL.B.,

X-Addl. District Judge,

FAC/ I Addl. District Judge

Thursday, this the 19 th day of March, 2015

M.V.O.P. No. 12/2014

Between:-

1. Dasari Veeramma.

2. Dasari Kutumba Rao.

3. Aakunuri Chinnari.

4. Dasari Santamma.

5. Dasari Prasad. ...Petitioners.

A N D

Jaluri Nagababu @ Nagarjuna. ...Respondent.

This petition coming on 11-3-2015 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramana, Advocate for Petitioners and the respondent called absent and remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:-

ORDER

The petition is filed under Sections 140 and 166 of M.V. Act r/w

Rule 455 of M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- being the legal representatives of Dasari Peddi Raju who died on 13.10.2013 in the motor accident, on that day he was returning from the fields, crossed Rangabomma statue near the shop of Ch.Nageswara Rao in Lakshmipuram Harijanawada, Kruthivennu

Mandal on left side of the road, the respondent being the driver-cum-owner of motor bike AP 16AU 8929 driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against

Peddi Raju, caused injuries, immediately he was shifted to Bheemavaram Hospital where he was declared dead, a case was registered by Kruthivennu police and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet, the petitioners demanded the respondent to pay the compensation but did not respond, hence the petition.

2)The respondent though received summons remained exparte.

3)The issues arises for determination are:- 2

1) Whether the petitioners have established rash ad negligent driving of the respondent resulting in death of Peddi Raju?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, to what extent?

3)To what relief?

ISSUE NO.1:-

4)The 1st petitioner filed her proof affidavit reiterating the petition contents with regard to factum of the accident, resulting death of her husband, her husband was earning Rs.450-/- p.d., age of 50 years and at the time of his death, negligence on the part of the respondent rider-cum-owner of the motor bike, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, through her Exs.A1 to A6 marked.

5)It has been established by Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR given by

Prasad, son of deceased Peddi Raju about the negligent driving of the respondent resulting death of his father and basing on it a case was registered by Kruthivennu

P.S., in Cr.No.63/2013 for the offence U/s 304-A IPC and further established by

Ex.A4 rough sketch scene of offence is on the left side of the road and M.V.I., opined that accident not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle evident as per Ex.A5 and the police on thorough investigation filed charge sheet against the respondent is evident from Ex.A6.

6)Therefore, the petitioners have proved that the deceased Peddi Raju died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent.

7)Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE NO.2:-

8)It is evident from Ex.A2 inquest report and ex.A3 post mortem report the deceased was aged 50 years at the time of the accident. Though the petitioners stated that the deceased was earning Rs.450/- per day but absolutely no material evidence is placed before the Court about his earnings, in the absence of any evidence the Court would like to fix the earnings of the deceased at Rs.150/- 3 per day Rs.4,500/- p.m., As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma and others Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and another

reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 “though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deductions.

Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased should be one-third (1/3 rd ) where the number of dependent family members-2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, one-fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.” Coming to the facts on hand the petitioners are five (5) in numbers and the deduction must be 1/4th towards personal and family expenses, when we deduct 1/4th from the annual income of deceased Rs.54,000/- the amount would be Rs.40,500/-. As per the second schedule of M.V. Act the multiplier applicable to the age group of 50 to 55 years is ‘11’. When we calculate the said amount with the multiplier the amount would be

Rs.4,45,500/-. In addition to the above a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses.

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of

Rs.4,70,500/- with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realization.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

8)In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs and interest;

a) directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,500/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand and five hundred only) as compensation to the petitioners and future interest is granted at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till payment;

(b) Two months time is granted to the respondent to deposit compensation amount into court; 4

(c) Compensation amount is apportioned among the petitioners allotting

Rs.2,50,000/- to the 1st petitioner, Rs.50,000/- to the 3rd petitioner,

Rs.1,00,000/-, to the 4th petitioner, and Rs.35,250/- each to the petitioners 2 and 5;

(d) On such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/-, with accrued interest and costs, petitioners 2, 3 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their entire share amount with accrued interest, and the remaining balance of compensation of 1st petitioner shall be kept in FDR in Vijaya Bank, Machilipatnam branch for a period of three years, the entire share of 4th petitioner with accrued interest shall be kept in FDR with the said bank till her marriage and she is permitted to withdraw the same at the time of her marriage on filing proof; and

(e) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal -cum-X Addl. District Judge, FAC/ I Addl.

District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Petitioners: For Respondent:

P.W.1: Dasari Veeramma. None.

Documents marked for Petitioners

Ex.A113-10-2013Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.63/2013 of Kruthivennu P.S.,

Ex.A213-10-2013Attested copy of inquest report.

Ex.A314-10-2013Attested copy of Post mortem certificate.

Ex.A419-10-2013Attested copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report.

Ex.A5---Attested copy of ccharge sheet.

Ex.X28.9.2014Extract of driving licence of R.1.

Chairman, MACT: cum:X-ADJ., FAC/ I ADJ., 5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ; KRISHNA :AT:

MACHILIPATNAM.

Present:- Sri G.Swarnalatha,

X Addl. Sessions Judge,

FAC/ I Addl. Sessions Judge

Thursday, this the 12 th day of March, 2015

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 66/2014

Between:-

Ekula Sri Ramulu, S/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 37 years, Coolie, R/o Ontillu, H/o Seethanapalli, Kruthivennu Mandal, within the limits of Kruthivennu P.S.,

...Revision Petitioner.

And

1. N.Ram Kumar, S/o late Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, Business, R/o Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, within the limits of Chilakalapudi P.S.,

2. S.H.O., rep. By Public Prosecutor, Krishna, Machilipatnam. … Respondents.

Revision Petition filed on 19.12.2014 by the Revision petitioner under Sections 397, 399 and 401 Cr P.C., against the orders dt.01.12.2014 passed in

Crl.M.P.No.403/2014 in S.C.No.157/2012 on the file of Prl. Asst. Sessions

Judge, Machilipatnam prays to st aside the orders of trial Court by allowing the

revision.

This petition coming on 12.02.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri P.Suri Babu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/R2, Advocate for 2nd respondent and upon perusing the petition and other connected material papers on record, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

The revision petition is preferred against the orders passed in

Crl.M.P.403/2014 in S.C.157/2012, dt.01.12.2014 by the Prl. Asst. Sessions

Judge, Machilipatnam, that the trial Court order is contrary to law, weight of

evidence and probabilities of the case, erred in dismissing the petition and committed an error the accused entered into compromise even though there is no recital in the petition, caused miscarriage of justice in dismissing the recall petition, hence the petition to set aside the dismissal order.

2

2)As seen from the material on record the revision petitioner herein has filed Crl.M.P.403/2014 U/s 311 Cr.P.C., that his previous counsel not cross- examined P.W.1 in all aspects that was not stated by P.W.1 in Ex.P1 and in 161

Cr.P.C., statement, that should be confronted is essential for just decision of the real justice, hence the petition.

3)Counter filed by the learned Addl. P.P., that the reasons mentioned in the petition not tenable, the chief-examination of P.W.1 was completed, the cross examination was done by the advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is filed to confront some statements which is not maintainable at the stage of trial, entire prosecution evidence is over, case is posted for Sec.313

Cr.P.C., examination and the present petition is filed to drag on the proceedings, hence the petition.

4)On considering the arguments of both sides, the learned Prl. Asst.

Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam has dismissed the said petition in order

dt.01.12.2014.

5)Aggrieved by the said order the present revision petition is filed.

6)The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the counsel appeared earlier not cross-examined P.W.1 in some aspects and it is to be elicited some aspects and Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., examination is not completed, the lower Court erred in giving finding that accused entered into compromise which is not mentioned in the petition prayed for setting aside the order.

7) The learned Addl.P.P., has submitted that the trial Court on considering the material record rightly dismissed the petition, requires no interference.

8)On considering the arguments of both sides the point arises for determination is:- “Whether any tenable rounds to set aside the dismissal order in

Crl.M.P.No.403/2014 in S.C.157/2012, dt.01.12.2014 on the file

3 of Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Machilipatnam ?”

POINT:-

9)It is undisputed fact the revision petitioner is an accused in

S.C.157/2012 on the file of Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge's Court, Machilipatnam, filed petition U/s 311 Cr.P.C., to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the advocate who appeared earlier not elicited some facts in the cross-examination of P.W.1. Irrespective of the fact whether the complainant entered into compromise with accused or not, an opportunity ought to have given to the present counsel for accused who has not appeared earlier. Whether P.W.1 resiles her version if any elicited in the cross- examination is a matter of fact to be decided by the trial Court. Therefore, without going into the merits and observations given by the learned Prl. Asst.

Sessions Judge in order dt.1.12.2014, on considering the contentions agitated by

the learned petitioner's counsel the Court finds in the interests of justice, an opportunity is to be given for the revision petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 with a direction to cross-examine P.W.1 on the date of her appearance without taking any adjournment.

10)In the result, revision petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam in CMP.403/2014 in

S.C.No.157/2012, dt.01.12.2014, with a direction to the revision petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 on the date of her appearance without seeking any time.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2015.

Sd/- G.Swarnalatha,

X Addl. Sessions Judge, FAC/ I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Copy to:- The Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

4 //True Copy//

Superintendent, I Addl. Sessions Judge's Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:

F.T.C.,KRISHNA: AT: MACHILIPATNAM

PRESENT: Smt. G.SWARNALATHA, B.A., LL.,B.,

X Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

FAC: IX-ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

FRIDAY, this the 27th day of NOVEMBER, 2015.

M.V.O.P.No.164/2012

BETWEEN

Gorantala Amarnatha Lingam, S/o Adaiah, Hindu, aged about 48 years, employee, Fort Road, Machilipatnam.

..Petitioner

AND

1. Chanti Srinu, S/o Balaraj, Hindu, a/a 30 years, Ravis Canal bund, Ramaravappadu, Vijayawada. Driver of Auto AP X 8111.

2. A.Nagamni, W/o Suresh Babu, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Business, r/o D.No.31-24-16A, Veeraiah street, Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada, owner of auto AP 16X 8111.

3. Bajaj Allianz Genera Insurance Company Limited, D.No.40-1-10, Upstair of Kusalava Hundai Showroom, 2nd floor, MG Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada.. Insurance is valid from 14.06.2010 to 13.06.2011 policy No 0G-11-1802-1803-00000860.

Respondents

This suit is coming on 27.11.2015 before me on this day for settlement of issues in the presence of Sri S.Nagadhar Nath, Sri T.Hari Babu Advocates for Petitioner and of Sri M.P.N.Satish, Advocate for 3rd respondent and 1st & 2nd respondents are having set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, to this day, this Court settled the following:

O R D E R

PW.1 absent, no representation, inspite of directions failed to appear. Hence, petition is dismissed with costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 27th day of November, 2015.

X-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC: IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (FTC), Krishna, Machilipatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Smt. G.Swarna Latha, X-ADDL. DISTRICT & SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE:

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM

Tuesday, this the 18th day of October, 2016

AS.No.25/2011

Between:

Sri Lakshmi Rama Krishna Trading Company, Kuchipudi, Represented by its Managing Partner, Sri Cheekatimarla Satish, Kuchipudi, S/o.Venkatarao, Hindu, Aged about 49 years, Business, R/o.Pedapudi, Movva Mandal.

.... Appellant/Plaintiff

AND

Sri Pothula Satyanarayana, S/o.Brahmaiah, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Properties, R/o.China Muthevi, Movva Mandal.

… Respondent/Defendant

This Appeal Suit is coming up before me on this day for hearing and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

Matter is kept a side till 5 PM. No representation inspite of direction failed to submit the arguments. Hence Appeal is dismissed without costs.

Dated this the 18th day of October, 2016.

Sd/- Smt. G.Swarna Latha,

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.