Sri. G. Uday Bhaskar Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad

O.S.38/2018

Thursday this the 11 th day, August , 2022

Between:-

Bagirta W/o Gajanand, D/o Ande Gangareddy, Age.42 years, Occ.Household, R/o Ande Narmada, H.No.1-5, Antargaon, Mandal, Bheempur, Dist Adilabad, (Telangana State) .…Plaintiff // AND //

1.Ande Gangareddy, S/o Gangaram, Age.70 years, Occ.Milk Vendor, R/o.H.No.4-1-172, Kumarpet, Adilabad.

2.Ande Santosh, S/o Ande Gangareddy, Age.38 years, Occ.Private Employee R/o H.No.4-1-172, Kumarpet, Adilabad.

3.Ande Satish S/o Ande Gangareddy Age.35 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.4-1-172, Kumarpet, Adilabad.

…Defendants

DOCKET ORDER

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Hence the suit of the plaintiff Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed for default.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 11 th day of August, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad

EA 2/2020

In

EP 6/2019

Friday that the 10 th day, January,2020

Between:-

M/s. Kapil Chit Funds Pvt Ltd.,Rep. by its Collection Manager B.Ashok, S/o. Devanna, Age: 27 years, Occ: Legal Officer, Zonal Legal Cell, Nirmal, R/o. Adilabad.

.…Decree Holder/Award Holder // AND //

1. Padmavath Shesh Rao, S/o. Bheema, Age: 44 years, Occ: Agro & Business & Polythin Cover Industries, R/o. H.No. 1-29, X road, Sevadasnagar, Post & Mdl: utnoor, District Adilabad. 2.Rathod Vinayak Rao, S/o. Utham Rao, Age: 38 years, Occ: Hindi Pandit, G.R.IIGAHS(B) Lakhampur (V), Mdl: Neradigonda, R/o. Near New Housing Board colony, Adilabad. 3.Chavan Devidas, S/o. Poma, Age: 42 years, Occ: Hindi Pandit, GR-II, ZPSS-Keslaguda (v), Mdl: Indravelly, R/o. H.No. 1-1-31, Ravindranagar, Post & Mdl: Adilabad, District Adilabad.

4. Thota Shankar, S/o. Bakkaiah, Age: 59 years, Occ: Sub.Asst., Project Officer, ITDA, Utnoor, R/o. 1-11, Vill: Tallagurijala, Mdl: Bellampally, District Adilabad.

5. Padmavath Prakash, S/o. Bapu Rao, Age: 41 years, Occ:Civil Police constable, Police station-Kerameri village, R/o. H.No. 1-29,’x’ Road, Sevadas nagar, Post & Mdl: Utnoor District Adilabad.

6. Pawar Ganapath Rao, S/o. Bhanu, Age: 54 years, Occ: Police Constable A.R., Adilabad, R/o. H.No. 23, Sanjay Nagar, Adilabad.

7. Guglawath Bapu Rao, S/o. shamlal, Age: 47 years, Occ: SGT-PS, Tippa Village, Mdl: Adilabad, R/o. H.No. 1-2-47/23/64-A4, sriram Colony, Adilabad.

8. Lavadiya Bapu Rao, S/o. Bheemla, Age: 50 years, Occ: AEE-Dy. Executive Engineer RUW Sub Division Lingapur, Mdl: Lingapur District Asifabad (KB), r/o. H.No. 8-9, Utnoor, Fakeergutta, District Adilabad.

9. Banothu Ravinder, S/o. Chandu, Age: 38 years, Occ: SGT-Mandal Educational Officer Mandal Parishad-Jannaram, Mdl: Jannaram, District Adilabad, R/o. H.No. S4-28, Hostel Thanda, Kavval, Mdl: Jannaram, District Adialbad.

( This E.A filed against JDR No.2.) …Judgment debtors

DOCKET ORDER 10.01.2020

For counter. Call on 22.01.2020.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

OS 237/2012

Between:-

Shaheesta Praveen, W/o. Shaik Afsar, Aged 35 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No. 4-9-475/A Rickshaw colony, Adilabad.

.…Plaintiff // AND //

Syed Mujahid, S/o. Mahamood, Age: 30 years, Occ: Mechanic, C/o. Ashok (Ex-Councilor) R/o. Putli Bowli, Beside Shadikhana, Adilabad.

…Defendant

DOCKET ORDER 23.11.2016

Plaintiff called absent, no representation. Cost also not paid. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

For Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

71/2014OS

Between:-

Anumula Ramulamma, W/o. Late Gangadhar, Age: 54 years, Occ: Public Health Nurse R/o. Vidyanagar, Adilabad.

.…Petitioner/Plaintiff // AND //

Kadasu Laxmi, W/o. K.Rajanna, Age: 34 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 7-221, Ramnagar, Dasnapur village, Mandal & District Adilabad.

…Defendant/ Respondents

DOCKET ORDER 14.09.2019

In Lok Adalath both plaintiff and defendant counsels present. Plaintiff counsel filed memo not pressing the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed. In view of compromise.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

OS 239/2012

Between:-

Nazeer Ahmad Khan Address - Age 55 yars, Occ Agriculture, Ro. 1-6-2701, Shantinagar, Adilabad.

.…Petitioner/Plaintiff // AND //

1) Chandra Prakash Goud and five others Address - Age 60 years, Occ Agriculture, Ro. back side of Marula Provisions SBH Road, Adilabad town and District.

2) Shyam Sundar Goud Age 65 years, Occ Agriculture, Ro. back side of Marula Provisions, SBH Road, Adialbad

3) Kuninty Manjula Age 37 years, Occ Agriculture, ro. Dokwal complex, Opp Ganesh Theatre, Cinema Road.

4) Kuninty Giridhar Reddy Age42 years, Occ Business, Ro. Dokwal Complex.

5) Smt. Kuninty vinaya Age 45 years, Ro. Sainagar, Adilabad

6) Kuninty Praneeth Reddy Age Major, Occ Student, ro. Sainagar, Adialbad …Defendant/ Respondents

DOCKET ORDER 10-09-2018

Process against D7 & D8 not deposited. Therefore the suit against D7 and D8 is dismissed for default. For consideration U/sec. 89 CPC. Call on 17.9.2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

for Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

OS 4/2014

Between:-

Sanjay Kkommawar Address - So Late waman Rao , age 43 yrs, Occ Business, R/o Ramreddy complex kumarpet, old Bus stand, Adilabad Mdl and Dist Adilabad .…Petitioner/Plaintiff // AND //

1) Kommawar Ratnamalabai Address - So Late Waman Rao, age 62 yrs, Occ House hold, Ro Teachers colony Adilabad, Co Suryakanth ,Andhra Bank Employee ,Adilabad

2) Kommawar Santosh S/o Late waman rao, Age 36 yrs, Occ Business, Ro Co shop No. 36 , Vinayaka bakery and confectionery, Muncipal complex Adilabad

3) Uttarwar Jyothi Wo Shivadas Uttarwar Age 42 yrs, Occ House hold, Ro Pimpadgaon, taluqa Ase gaon Dist Wasim

4) Vidya Argulawar Wo Babarao,Age 40 yrs, Occ House hold, Ro H.NO. 2050331 Tirpelly Adilabad.

5) Talpelliwar Varsha Wo Manoj,Age 38 yrs, Occ House hold Ro Arni .v. Co Manoj Kirana Merchant Opposite M.S.R.T.C. Bus station Arni Talluqa and Dist Yeothamal .M.S.

6) A Surekha Wo Late B. Bhasker Rao Age 54 yrs, Occ Govt servant ro H.No. 14064. Plot NO. 7) Kailasnagar, Dasnapur, G.P. Mavala,Adilabad …Defendant/ Respondents

DOCKET ORDER 18.7.2017

Plaintiff called absent. No representation for plaintiff for call work. Hence suit is dismissed for default.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

OS 33/2013

Between:-

Khamarunnisam Begum, W/o. Mohd. Arifuddin Aged about 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 4-3-316, Dwarkanagar, Adilabad.

.…Petitioner/Plaintiff // AND //

The Municipality, Adilabad Represented by the commissioner, Municipality, Adilabad. …Defendant/ Respondents

DOCKET ORDER 17.7.2019

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff not ready even posted on condition. Hence the suit of plaintiff is dismissed for default.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabads

OS 32/2013

Between:-

Mohd. Raziuddin, S/o. M.A. Raheem, Age about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 4-3-316, Dwarkanagar, Adilabad.

.…Petitioner // AND //

The Municipality, Adilabad Represented by the commissioner, Municipality, Adilabad. …Defendant

DOCKET ORDER 17.7.2019

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Plaintiff not ready even posted on condition. Hence the suit of plaintiff is dismissed for default.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

ADILABAD.

Friday, this the 11th day of August, 2017

EP.No.117/2014 in ARB.No.158/2013

Between:- M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., having its branch at Adilabad, Represented by its Branch Manager M.Sagar S/o. M.Venkataiah, Aged 40 years, R/o.Adilabad.

…Petitioner/DHR // AND //

1.Jadhav Mohan S/o. J.Baddu, Age 48 years, Occ. SGT, TWPS, Hanmanguda, Mdl. Jainoor, Dist. Adilabad R/o. H.No.1-87, near IB, Mdl. Utnoor, Dist. Adilabad.

2.Kumra Sukhdev S/o. K.Bapurao, Age 48 years, Occ.SGT, TWPS, Somjiguda, S/C.Govt. AHS (G), Jainoor, Mdl.Jainoor, District Adilabad R/o.H.No.8-72/1, Venunagar, Post and Mdl. Utnoor, District Adilabad.

3.Rupavath Bhikku S/o. R.Narayan, Age 52 years, cc. SGT, Govt, AUPS(G), Patnapur, Mdl. Jainoor, District Adilabad, R/o.H.No.1-79, Near IB PO and Mdl.Utnoor, District Adilabad.

4.Jadhav Shivaji S/o.J.Roopchand, Age 47 years, Occ.SGT, TWUPS, Rajannaguda, S/C.Govt. AHS (G) Narsapur (B), Mdl. Utnoor, Dist. Adilabad R/o.H.No.4-45, Boyawada, Shanthinagar, PO and Mdl. Utnoor, District Adilabad.

5.Kursenga Yeshwanth Rao, S/o. K.Mahadu, Age 48 years, Occ.SGT, TWPS Anduguda (Patnapur), S/C. govt, AHS (G), Jainoor, Mdl. Jainoor, District Adilabad.

…Respondents/JDRs

DOCKET ORDER

As per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states of Telangana and Andhara Pradesh in the case of Punyamuthula Venkatavishwa Sundar Rao Vs. Margadashi Chits Pvt. Limited and others in CRP.NO.s 5236, 5741 and 5753 of 2016, the course that has to be followed by the decree holder is to make an application to the Registrar for execution, to be forwarded to the proper authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registrar shall himself issue the certificate and forward the said application to the court or revenue authority, as chosen by the decree holder.

In the light of the above decision this EP is returned with observation that the EP has to be filed through proper channel as per the above decision.

Typed by the Typist to my dictation, after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 11th day of August, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

ADILABAD.

Friday, this the 11th day of August, 2017

EP.No.76/2014 in ARB.No.249/2012

Between:- M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd., Branch Adilabad.

…Petitioner/DHR // AND //

1.Gangaram Durna S/o. Jalapathi, Aged 46 years, Occ.S.G.Teacher, Tribal Welfare primary school, Yanda colony, Govt. AUPS, Hasnapur, Utnoor Mandal, Adilabad district.

2.Uyika Shankar S/o. Ramjee, Aged 44 years, Occ.S.G.Teacher R/o.TWPS Pangidi, Vill.Sirpur (V), Jainoor Mdl. Adilabad District R/o. H.No.2/4/8,, Post:Lokkaram village, Utnoor Mdl. Adilabad District.

3.Mandadi Maruthi Rao S/o. Isru, Aged 46 years, Occ.S.G.Teacher, O/o.TWPS, Amruth Rao guda vill, Jainoor Mdl., Adilabad District.

4.Mersaram Balawanth Rao S/o. Mahadev, Aged 45 years, Occ.S.G.Teacher, Primary School, Poliguda, SC Hasnapur vill., Utnoor Mdl., Adilabad district.

…Respondents/JDR

DOCKET ORDER

As per the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states of Telangana and Andhara Pradesh in the case of Punyamuthula Venkatavishwa Sundar Rao Vs. Margadashi Chits Pvt. Limited and others in CRP.NO.s 5236, 5741 and 5753 of 2016, the course that has to be followed by the decree holder is to make an application to the Registrar for execution, to be forwarded to the proper authority at the option of the decree holder and the Registrar shall himself issue the certificate and forward the said application to the court or revenue authority, as chosen by the decree holder.

In the light of the above decision this EP is returned with observation that the EP has to be filed through proper channel as per the above decision.

Typed by the Typist to my dictation, after correction pronounced by me in open Court this the 11th day of August, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar, Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Friday, this the 7th day of July, 2017

Crl.M.P.13/2017

Between:- Having its registered office address at Solitaire Corporate Park, Building No.2- Unit No.201-202 A & 202-202B, Ground floor, Andheri Ghatkopar Link Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 093 and branch office address at #5-8-351-355/807, Raghava Ratna Towers, ABIDS, Hyderabad – 500001, Represented by its Authorized officer Mr.Satyanarayana Vemuri, acting in its capacity as trustee of ASREC PS 11/2015-16 Trust. . …Petitioner. // AND //

1.M/s.Jagadamba Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd., Sy.No.26/A, Rampur road, Adilabad.

2.Rajkumar Agarwal S/o. Banarasi Lal Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

3.Suman Bai Agarwal W/o. Rajkumar Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

4.Krishna Kumar Agarwal S/o. Rajkumar Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

5.Banasarilal Agarwal S/o.Nagarmal Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

6.Sulochana Bai W/o.Banarasi Lal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

7.Suresh Agarwal S/o.Banarasilal Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad.

8.Deepak Kumar Agarwal S/o. Banarasilal Agarwal, H.No.4-2-124/1, Ranisathiji colony, Adilabad. …Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER

Heard. Petition is closed as warrant is executed.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of July, 2017.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar, Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of March, 2017

Crl.M.P.14/2017

Between:- Karur Vysya Bank, Branch Adilabad, Station Road, Adilabad-504 001 represented by its Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act/Chief Manager. . …Petitioner. // AND //

1.M/s.Shri Menaakhsi Agro Industries, S.No.38, Sarvargaon Road, Light Industrial Area, Adilabad – 504 001 (Firm).

2.Kamal Kishore Agarwal, M/s. Shri Meenakhsi Agro Industries, Sy.No.38, Savargaon Road, Light Industrial Area, Adilabad – 504 001, R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Partner & Guarantor).

3.Sunil Kumar Agarwal Sy.No.38, Savargaon Road, Light Industrial Area, Adilabad – 504 001, R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Partner & Guarantor).

4.Sangeetha Devi Agarwal Sy.No.38, Savargaon Road, Light Industrial Area, Adilabad – 504 001, R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Partner & Guarantor).

5.Shwetha Makariya Sy.No.38, Savargaon Road, Light Industrial Area, Adilabad – 504 001, R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Partner & Guarantor).

6.Chetan Agarwal, R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Guarantor).

7.Rajesh Agarwal R/o. H.No.4-2-164/3, Sri Ranisatiji Colony, Adilabad – 504 001 (Guarantor). …Respondents.

DOCKET ORDER

The commissioner filed his report stating properties under warrant are delivered to the petitioner. The counsel for petitioner also represented that the petitioner took the possession of the properties of the properties mentioned in the commissioner report. Respondents called absent. No representation for respondents. Since the possession is delivered. The petition is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court this the 15th day of March, 2017.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,

ADILABAD.

Friday, this the 21st day of July, 2017

IA.No.274/2015 in OS.No.16/2015

Between:-

1.G.Kavitha W/o.Suresh, Age 36 years, Occ. Household R/o. Mahalaxmiwada, Adilabad.

2.S.Krishnaveni W/o. Brahmam, Age 33 years, Occ.Household, R/o. Mahalaxmiwada, Adilabad.

3.G.Triveni W/o. Krishna, Age 26 years, Occ.Household, R/o. Brahmanwadi, Adilabad.

…Petitioners/Plaintiffs. // AND //

1.S.Suresh S/o. Late Gajanan, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Jama Masjid Road, Adilabad.

2.K.Rukma Bai W/o. Subhash, Age 48 years, Occ.Household R/o. Ghatanji, District Yavathmal (M.S.).

3.R.Gangu Bai W/o. Kishan, Age 46 years, Occ. Household R/o. Kummariwada, Adilabad.

4.R.Lalitha W/o Sudershan, Age 44 years, Occ.Household R/o. Kummariwada, Adilabad.

5.S.Varalaxmi W/o.Late Gajanan, Age 55 years, Occ. Household R/o.Mahalaxmiwada, Adilabad.

…Respondents/Defendants.

This Interlocutory application is coming before me on 21.07.2017 in the presence of Narendra R Choudary, Advocate for petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri.N.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for respondents/defendants and this Court made the following:

DOCKET ORDER

Orders pronounced in open court. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for? It is the contention of the petitioners that they are plaintiffs in the main suit. They are filing rejoinder to the written statement filed by the defendants. The defendants who are respondents in this case did not file any counter as such it appears that they have no objection for allowing the petition. Trial has not been commenced. Therefore, petition is allowed. In the result, petition is allowed, rejoinder is taken on file. For

additional written statement, if any, call on 28.07.2017.

Typed by stenographer to my dictation, after correction

pronounced by me in open Court this the 21st day of July, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: Sri B.Madhusudan,

Senior Civil Judge,

ADILABAD.

Friday, this the 12th day of December 2011.

O.P.No.06/2010.

Between:-

Kothapalli Satish S/o Sitaram, Age: 32 yrs., Occ: Carpenter, R/o H.No.2-127, Mavala (v) District: Adilabad.

…Petitioner. // AND //

Smt.Kothapalli Ramakka @ Kavitha, W/o Kothapalli Satish, Age: 27 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/o Landasangvi village, Mandal & Dist: Adilabad.

…Respondent.

Claim for:- This petition is filed for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent.

DOCKET ORDER Dt.16.12.2011.

Petitioner and his counsel called absent. No representation even at 1.00 p.m. Costs not paid. The petitioner is not evincing any interest in the case. The respondent is present. Hence the petition is dismissed with costs.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court this the 16th day of December, 2011.

-

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

Present: Sri J.Jeevan Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, ADILABAD.

Monday, this the 3rd day of April,2017.

O.S.No.16/2016.

Between:-

Kilare Pandurang S/o Chandya, Age: 64 yrs., R/o Jamdi village, Post: Gerjam,Mandal: Echoda, Dist: Adilabad. …Plaintiff.

// AND //

1) Kilare Shivaji S/o Bapu Rao, Age: 45 yrs., Occ: Agrl., R/o Mavala village, Mandal & Dist: Adilabad.

2) Kilare Baliram S/o Bapu Rao, Age:42 yrs., Occ: Agrl., R/o Gerjam village, Mandal: Echoda, Dist: Adilabad.

3) Kilare Ram Kishan S/o Bapu Rao, Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Agrl., R/o Gerjam village, Mandal: Echoda, Dist: Adilabad …Defendants.

Claim for:- This suit is filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 3, their men, agents, servants, friends, relatives, legal heirs etc., from entering and interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.45___ admeasuring Ac.8-58 gts., situated at Jamidi village, Mandal: Echoda, Dist: Adilabad.

DOCKET ORDER Dt.03.04.2017.

Plaintiff called absent. No representation for plaintiff. Steps not taken. Hence suit is dismissed as abated.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court this the 03rd day of April, 2017.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Monday, the 23rd day of November, 2009.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

IA.No.656/2010

In

O.S.No.152/2010

Between:-

Kotha Vijayalaxmi @ Chandrakala,W/o Sathaiah, Age: 35 Years,Occ: Business,R/o Flot No.113, 1 Floor,Block No.11,Asian Towers,High Tech City Mancherial,District Adilabad.

Petitioneer/Defendant // AND //

Dyavarashetti Srikanth,S/o Kishan,Age:35 Years, Occ: Business,R/o Jannaram village and Mandal Adilabad District. Respondent/Plaintiff.

Claim for: Petition filed to set a side the ex-party order dated 24.09.2010 against the petitioner/Defendant.

This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri G.KotaaMallaiah and Sri.Kotta Sathaiah, Advocates for the Petitioner/Defendant and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao, counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, and this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.23.11.2009.

Mr.K.Rajamouli a colleague of Mr.G.Kotamallaiah submits that

Mr.G.Kotamallaiah Advocate is not available and he is not posted with any facts. Order dated 25.10.2010 is not complied with. No explanation is forth coming justifying the reasons for such non compliance. In these circumstances I find no option but to infer want of bona fidies on the part of the petitioner and dismiss the petition with costs. Cost of petition Rs.100/-.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 23rd day of November, 2009.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Tuesday, the 1st day of December, 2009.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

C.M.A.16/2009. Between:-

Ramrathan Gilda, S/o Berambaksh, Age: 60 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Chennur.

…Appellant..

// AND // Kommera Hanmanth Rao, S/o Ramchander Rao, Age: 65 yrs., Occ: Rtd., Medical Officer, R/o Chennur. …Respondent.

Claim for:- This appeal is filed for setting aside the order and decree passed by the JCJ, Chennur in I.A.15/06 in O.S.6/2006, dt.21.6.2006.

This civil miscellaneous appeal is coming before me in the presence of Sri.M.Suresh, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri T.Suresh, Advocate for the respondent, having stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R

Appellant is not pressing the matter. Recording the same appeal is dismissed as infructious. No Costs.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 1st day of December, 2009.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Monday, the 12th day of April, 2010.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

O.S.No.278/2009.

Between:-

1) Nalla Shankar, s/o Laxmaiah, Age: 34 yrs., Occ: business, r/o Mancherial.

2) Lingala Mallaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Mancherial.

3) Gajula Satyanarayana, S/o Bala Lingaiah, Age: 48 yrs., Occ:Agrl., R/o Laxmikanthapur, Jannaram Mandal.

4) Lekkala Venkateshwarlu, S/o Kotaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ: Singareni employee, R/o Mancherial.

5) Chitla Satyanarayana, S/o Kanthaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ:business, r/o Mancherial.

6) Nalumasu Jeevan Kumar, S/o Kishan, Age: 31 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Mancherial.

7) Cheerla Rajeshwar Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Age: 40 yrs., R/o Mancherial.

…Plaintiff.

// AND //

1) Bolishetti Lingaiah, S/o Venkatramaiah, Age: 55 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Old Mancherial, R/m Mancherial.

2) Thoutam Thara Bai W/o Jaggaiah, Age: 58 yrs., Occ: house wife, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

3) Erra Lingaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

4) Kande Rajalingu, S/o Rajam, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

5) Kandi Shiva Shankar, S/o Rajamallaiah, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

…Defendants.

Claim for:- This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land bearing Sy.No.344 measuring Ac6-39 gts., situated at Mancherial.

This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.T.Suresh, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao, Advocate for defendants, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.12.04.2010.

Perused the record. Counter claim was preferred way back on 27.2.2007 and it is borne on record that the matter has been coming for the rejoinder of the plaintiff. It seems that so far no rejoinder is filed. More than three years elapsed. Perhaps the plaintiff has no rejoinder. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed as not pressed and since there is no rejoinder to the counter claim, it has become imperative for this Court to hear the defendants in view of the pecuniarity of the circumstance that the claimants No.2 to 7 are not prosecuting the matter before this Court since Mr.S.J.C.R reports no instruction for them; and two of the claimants are not the defendants in the original suit and the status of claimants No.2 to 7 is not known as on the date. Mr.S.J.C.R is not present. Counter claim is dismissed for default.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 12th day of April, 2010.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2010.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

I.A.No.252/2010 In

O.S.No.111/2010

Between:- Durge Haridas, S/o Laxman, Age: 41 yrs., Occ :Teacher, R/o Mancherial, Dist: Adilabad. …Petitioner/Plaintiff. // AND //

1) Merugu Venkatesh, S/o Banaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Thiryani, R/m Thiryani, Adilabad.

2) Merugu Thirupathi, S/o Banaiah, Age: 30 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/o Devapur, R/m Kasipet, Adilabad.

3) Merugu Durgaiah, S/o Banaiah, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/oThiryani, R/m Thiryani, Adilabad.

4) Merugu Lingaiah, S/o Banaiah, Age: 55 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

5) Merugu Mallaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 65 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Srirampur, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

6) Merugu Banaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 64 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/o Yellaram village, Mandal: Luxettipet, Adilabad.

7) Merugu Chinnaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 50 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Yellaram village, Mandal: Luxettipet, Adilabad.

8) Kandula Chandraiah, S/o Lingaiah, Age:44 yrs., Occ: Employee in Singereni Collieries Co.Ltd., R/o Gudipeta, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

9) Mailarapu Narsaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ Employee in Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., R/o H.No.72/1867, 7th Incl., colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar. …Respondents/Defendants.

Claim for:- This petition is filed to pass an exparty order restraining the defendants etc., from interfering in the possession of suit schedule plot bearing Sy.No.227/___ measuring to an extent of 244 Sq.yards situated at Gouthaminagar, Mancherial. This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.Shambhoo Amte, Advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri S.Jayachander Rao, Advocate

for respondents/defendants, having heard and stood over for consideration

this Court made the following:

O R D E R, dt.30.04.2010.

A joint memo is filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 undertaking to maintain statusquo in respect of schedule properties until further orders. Same is recorded. Issue notice to other defendant through Court and Registered Post returnable by 22.6.2010.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 30th day of April, 2010.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Tuesday, the 30th day of April, 2010.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

I.A.No.254/10 In

O.S.No.112/2010

Between:- Gadheveni Meena Kumari, W/o Mallesh, Age: 39 yrs., Occ: House hold, R/o Asifabad, R/m Asifabad, Adilabad. …Petitioner/Plaintiff. // AND //

1) Merugu Venkatesh, S/o Banaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Thiryani, R/m Thiryani, Adilabad.

2) Merugu Thirupathi, S/o Banaiah, Age: 30 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/o Devapur, R/m Kasipet, Adilabad.

3) Merugu Durgaiah, S/o Banaiah, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/oThiryani, R/m Thiryani, Adilabad.

4) Merugu Lingaiah, S/o Banaiah, Age: 55 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

5) Merugu Mallaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 65 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Srirampur, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

6) Merugu Banaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 64 yrs., Occ: Labour, R/o Yellaram village, Mandal: Luxettipet, Adilabad.

7) Merugu Chinnaiah, S/o Rajam, Age: 50 yrs., Occ :Labour, R/o Yellaram village, Mandal: Luxettipet, Adilabad.

8) Kandula Chandraiah, S/o Lingaiah, Age:44 yrs., Occ: Employee in Singereni Collieries Co.Ltd., R/o Gudipeta, R/m Mancherial, Adilabad.

9) Mailarapu Narsaiah, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ Employee in Singareni Collieries Co., Ltd., R/o H.No.72/1867, 7th Incl., colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar. …Respondents/Defendants.

Claim for:- This petition is filed to pass an exparty order restraining the defendants etc., from interfering in the possession of suit schedule plot bearing Sy.No.227/___ measuring to an extent of 244 Sq.yards situated at Gouthaminagar, Mancherial. This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.Shambhoo Amte, Advocate for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri S.Jayachander Rao, Advocate

for respondents/defendants, having heard and stood over for consideration

this Court made the following:

O R D E R, dt.30.04.2010.

A joint memo is filed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 undertaking to maintain statusquo in respect of schedule properties until further orders. Same is recorded. Issue notice to other defendant through Court and Registered Post returnable by 22.6.2010.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 30th day of April, 2010.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Thursday, the 4th day of March, 2010.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

O.S.No.181/2009.

Between:-

M/s Sriram Chits Pvt., Ltd.,

Branch: Mancherial, Rep. by its Senior Manager. …Plaintiff. // AND //

1) Pasupunuti Raja Sulochana, W/o Venkati, Age: 25 yrs., Occ: Pvt. School teacher, R/o H.No.28-75, Opp: A Cabin, Gopalawada, Mancherial.

2) Ootla Jeevan Rathnam, S/o Raja Rathnam, Age: 40 yrs., Occ :Coal filler, Goleti I Incl., R/o H.No.9-5-48, Shamsha nagar, Bellampalli.

3) Sirikonda Kanakaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Age: 38 yrs., Occ: Shot firer Goleti I Incl., R/o H.No.9-5-50, Shamshanagar, Bellampalli.

4) Nakka Rayamallu, S/o Rajam, Age: 48 yrs., Occ: Trammer Goleti-I Incl., R/o H.No.8-1-79, Contractor basthi, Bellampalli.

5) Sannepalli Dayakar, S/o Jaggaiah, Age: 48 yrs., Occ: Trammer KK-1 Incl., R/o Qr.No.40, Subash nagar, Bellampalli.

6) Pasupunuti Venkaty, S/o Nambaiah, Occ :Rtd., Railway employee, R/o H.No.28-75/1, Opp: A Cabin, Gopalwada, Mancherial. … /Defendants.

CLAIM FOR:-This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,82,740/- from the defendants with future interest and costs @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till realization and costs.

This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.N.Raj Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Bhujang Rao, Advocate for defendants, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

O R D E R, dt.4.03.2010.

Plaintiff is called absent. No representation. Suit is dismissed for default.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 4th day of March, 2010.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Tuesday, the 06th day of October, 2009.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

I.A.No.633/2009 In

O.S.No.101/2009.

Between:- Chilukuri Satyanarayana, S/o Bhoomaiah, Age: 40 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial, R/m Mancherial.

…Petitioner/Plaintiff. // AND //

1) Chandulala Bang, S/o Kshiram Bang, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Near Laxminarayana temple, Mancherial.

2) Punnamchand Bang, S/o Laxminarayana Bang, Age: 60 yrs., Occ: business, R/o Near Laxminarayana temple, Mancherial. 3) …Respondents/Defendants.

Claim for:- This petition is filed under section 151 CPC to extend the ad-interim exparte order.

This case is coming before me in the presence of Sri.Jella Shankaraiah, Sri D.Thirupathi, Advocates for the Petitioner/Plaintiff and of Sri M.Suresh, Advocate for respondents/defendants, having heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

O R D E R, dt.06.10.2009.

Heard. As could be seen from the proceedings in the suit

Mr.M.Suresh filed Vakalathnama for both the defendants at Asifabad

Court on 15.11.2007 but since no statement was filed within (90) days the defendants were set exparte and the matter is coming up at this stage for consideration. So also I.A.No.134/2009 is also coming up for counter.

In these circumstances the exparte Ad-interim injunction order, dt.1.11.2007 shall stand extended until further orders with reference to the facts obtained as on today.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 6th day of October, 2009.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Thursday, the 22nd day of June, 2010.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

O.S.No.174/2009.

Between:-

1) Jilakara Mallaiah, S/o Late Lachaiah, Age: 65 yrs., Occ: Rtd., SCC employee, R/o RK-6 colony, Srirampur.

2) Jilakara Sailu, S/o Late Lachaiah, Age: 60 yrs., Occ: Rtd., SCC employee, R/o Amaravadi village, R/m Mandamarry.

3) Jilakara Sailu, S/o Late Lachaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: SCC employee, R/o Amaravadi village, R/m Mandamarry.

4) Jilakara Lingaiah, S/o Late Lachaiah, Age: 45 yrs., Occ: SCC employee, R/o Amaravadi village, R/m Mandamarry. Represented by their GPA Holders.

i)Jilakara Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Late Lachaiah, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: Govt. teacher, R/o Amaravadi village, R/m Mandamarry. ii)Jilakara Ram Mohan, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 30 yrs., Occ: business, R/o RK-6 colony, Srirampur, R/m Mancherial.

…Plaintiffs.

// AND //

1) Sambari Srinivas, S/o Rajesham, Age: 35 yrs., Occ: employee, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

2) Sambari Rajesham, S/o Gouraiah, Age: 55 yrs., Occ: Rtd., SCC employee, R/o Hamaliwada, Mancherial.

3) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial.

4) The State of A.P Represented by District Collector, Adilabad.

…Defendants.

Claim for:- Suit is filed to issue temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants No.3 and 4 from paying the compensation amount for the suit land.

This case is coming before me in the presence of Smt.K.N.V.Veni Kumari, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri G.Rajesh Goud for D.1 and D.2, A.G.P for D.3 and D.4,havig heard and stood over for consideration this Court made the following:

ORDER.

Exparte order against the Defendant No.3 and 4, written statement of Defendant No.3 and 4 are filed. The plea again by the

Government is that on the representation of the plaintiff steps are being taken to refer the matter to Civil Court under 31 Land Acquisition

Act and for that purpose necessary compensation has not been paid to any one. In the circumstances I deem it just and necessary to try the

Issue No.1 as preliminary issue.

2.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs herein prefer a representation to the Land Acquisition Officer setting forth their claim for the share in the compensation basing on title dispute and pending consideration of such representation, this suit is filed. All the defendants are contending that since the reference under section 31 is in process, this Court has not jurisdiction to try this suit. Now that the

Government also committed in writing that reference under section 31 of Land Acquisition Act is in offing.

3.In this set of circumstances, it goes without saying that under section 9 of CPC jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred, and there is little scope for consideration of any oral or document evidence or to drive to parties to trial.

4.I, therefore, hold preliminary issue against the plaintiff to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Suit. Suit is accordingly dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, and after corrections pronounced by me in open Court this the 22nd day of June, 2010.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2009.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

A.S.No.20/2008.

Between:-

1) Bojja Lingaiah.

2) Smt.Bade Laxmi.

3) Bojja Laxmi.

4) Pelupula Lingaiah.

Appellants/defendants.

// AND //

Smt.Somishetty Umarani. Respondent/Plaintiff.

Claim for: This appeal suit is filed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, in

O.S.869/2005(old O.S.No.359/2001)dt.18.07.2006.

This appeal suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri Karre Lachanna, Advocate for the Appellants/defendants and of Sri M.Ravinder Rao, counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, and this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.22.04.2009

Appellants are called absent. Appellants 1 to 3 are served and appellant No.4, according to the process server report is not be found in the registered address. Pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2009 the appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 22nd day of April, 2009.

//Sd//-

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Monday, the 27th day of June, 2011.

Present: Sri K.Sudarshan, B.A., B.L.,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

O.S.No.48/2011.

Between:-

Chippakurthi Venkati, S/o Mallaiah, Age:49 yrs., Occ: Singareni employee, R/o Indaram village, R/m Jaipur,Dist: Adilabad. …Plaintiff.

// AND //

Birdula Laxmi Rajam @ Laxmi Rajaiah, S/o Lingaiah, Age: 50 yrs., Occ: Singareni employee, R/o H.No.11-7-29, Santhoshnagar, 8 Incline colony, Godavarikhani.

Defendant.

Claim for: This suit is filed for specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 5.01.2007 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri E.Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri P.Lalithaa Prasaad, Advocate for defendant, and this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.27.06.2011.

Defendant called absent despite service and set exparte. For plaintiff evidence call on 14.7.2011.

Written and pronounced by me in open Court this the 27th day of June, 2011.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MANCHERIAL.

Present: Ms.C.Pavani,B.Com., LL.M., Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial.

Saturday, this the 26th day of February, 2011.

Between:-

1) S.Surinder Kaur Chahel, W/o S.Dharmendra Singh Chahel, Age: 21 yrs., Occ: House wife, R/o Mancherial.

2) S.Kaval Preeth Kaur, D/o Dharamendra Singh Chahel, Age: 2 ½ years, Minor rep.by her natural mother and guardian Petitioner No.1. Petitioners/Aggrieved.

// AND //

1)S.Dharmendra Singh, S/o Late Sohan Singh Chahel, R/o Bhukthapur back side of Nalanda college, Adiabad.

2)S.Ravinder Singh Chahel, S/o Late Soham Singh Chahel, R/o Bhukthapur back side of Nalanda college, Adilabad.

3)S.Satnam Kaur Chahel, W/o Ravinder Singh Chahel, R/o Bhukthapur, Adilbad.

4)S.Kamal Kaur Chahel, W/o Late Sohan Singh Chahel, R/o Bhukthapur, Adilabad.

Respondents.

Claim for: Petition filed under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

This DVC is coming before me in the presence of Sri J.Shankaraiah, D.Thirupahti, Advocates for the Petitioners/aggrieved and of Sri P.Lalithaa Prasaad, counsel for the Respondents, and this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.26.02.2011.

Both parties absent. No representation. Both the parties are absent since last five occasions. In the circumstances DVC is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 26th day of February, 2011.

//Sd//- Prl. J.F.C.M, Mancherial. // Attested //

Prl.J.F.C.M, Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2009.

Present: Sri K.Narasimha Chary,

Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

A.S.No.35/2008.

Between:- Akula Shankaraiah.

Appellant. // AND //

Embadi Chandraiah. Respondent.

Claim for: This appeal suit is filed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Luxettipet, in

O.S.244/2003, dt.10.09.2007.

This appeal suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri Budde Sathaiah, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Suresh, counsel for the Respondent, having heard and stood over for cosinderation this Court made the following:

DOCKET O R D E R Dt.27.04.2009

Appellant is called absent. No representation. Inspite of the order

dated 09.02.2009 and 31.03.2009 the appellant does not evince any

interest in this matter. I find no option but to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the order dated 09.02.2009 and 31.03.2009. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court this the 27th day of April, 2009.

Senior Civil Judge,

Mancherial.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ADILABAD.

.

O.P.No.06/2010.

Between:-

Kothapalli Satish S/o Sitaram, Age: 32 yrs., Occ: Carpenter, R/o H.No.2-127, Mavala (v) District: Adilabad.

…Petitioner. // AND //

Smt.Kothapalli Ramakka @ Kavitha, W/o Kothapalli Satish, Age: 27 yrs., Occ: Housewife, R/o Landasangvi village, Mandal & Dist: Adilabad.

…Respondent.

DOCKET ORDER Dt.16.12.2011.

Petitioner and his counsel called absent. No representation even at 1.00 p.m. Costs not paid. The petitioner is not evincing any interest in the case. The respondent is present. Hence the petition is dismissed with costs.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad.

1 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ADILABAD::

Present: - Sri G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

Wednesday, the 10th day of August, 2022

O.S. No. 13 of 2013

Between:- Bathula Vandana @ Pochu, D/o. Late B. Gangaram, W/o. Gopewar Ravi, Age: 29 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Takli (vg) of Jhari Taluka, Dist: Yeothmal (M.S), Dist: Adilabad … Plaintiff // a n d //

1.Bathula Venkati, S/o. Late B. Gangaram (Died) as per LRs i.e., Defendant Ns. 7 and 8

2.Bathula Sudershan, S/o. Late B. Gangaram, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Masala (vg), R/M. Bela, Dist: Adilabad

3.Rambai, D/o. Late B. Gangaram, W/o. Ramulu, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Masala (vg), R/M. Bela, Dist: Adilabad

4.Pushpa, D/o. Late B. Gangaram, W/o. Rajesh, Age: 33 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Mahalaxmiwada, Presently R/o. Muktapur (vg) Jainath Mandal, Dist: Adilabad

5.Bathula Dattu, S/o. Late B. Venkati, Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Masala (vg), R/M. Bela, Dist: Adilabad

6.Bathula Laxmi, W/o. B. Sudershan, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Masala (vg), R/M. Bela, Dist: Adilabad

7.Smt. Bathula Kusum, W/o. Late B. Venkati, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Masala (vg), R/M. Bela, Dist: Adilabad

8.Bathula Chenna, D/o. Late B. Venkati (W/o. Naresh), Occ: Household, R/o. Sunna (vg), Tq. Korpana, Dist: Yavathmal …Defendants This suit is coming before me for hearing on 04.08.2022 in the presence of Sri G. Vasanth and Sri Md. Abdullah Khan, Advocates for Plaintiff, Sri N. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate for Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 while Defendant No.8 set exparte and the case against Defendant No.1 is abated and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

SCJ, ADB

2 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the agricultural land.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff and D4 are the daughters of late Bathula

Gangaram through his second wife/Smt. Late B. Gangubai and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are sons and daughter of Late Bathula Gangaram through his first wife/Chandrabai. Defendant No.5 is the son of the defendant No.1 (Died), defendant No. 6 is the wife of defendant No.2. The plaintiff further contended that the Gangaram died intestate leaving behind the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff also contended that the plaintiff’s mother died at her teenage, she was brought up by her maternal grand father and her marriage was performed by her maternal grandfather and uncles. The plaintiff further contended that the suit lands were illegally mutated in the names of defendants. Hence, prays to decree the suit for partition.

3.The brief averments of the Written Statement are that:

The defendants denied the pleadings of the plaint. They admitted the relationship. The defendants contention is that the mother of the plaintiff and D4 died when the plaintiff was six months old and she was brought up by D1 to D3. The defendant also contended that they performed marriage of plaintiff and also gave Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold towards her share which is equal to the value of 1/5th share of the plaintiff. The defendant furhter contended that the plaintiffs relinquished

SCJ, ADB

3 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013 her right to partition over the suit property in the year 2000. The defendant also contended that Laxmi purchased the land in Sy.No. 9/3/1 measuring Ac.4-20 gts by her Sreedhana amount from Defendant No.2, likewise, Dattu also acquired property in Sy.No. 9/2 measuring Ac.5-00gts through Defendant No.1 through the Sreedhana amount of his mother by name Kusuma. The defendants further contended that plaintiff is not entitield for any share and also contended that the suit comes to the agency tract and this Court has no jurisdiction. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Basing on the contentions of both parties, the following issues were framed:

I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and

separate possession of the suit schedule property?

II. To what relief?

6. ISSUE NO.I: -

The is a suit for partition where the plaintiff has to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties which were owned by

Late Gangaram and he died intestate leaving behind the suit schedule properties. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, she examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs. A1 to A7. On the other hand, D4 is examined as

DW1. D2 to D4 was examined in support to the case of the defendant. As it being a suit for partition, the plaintiff’s are burdened to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties standing in the name of

Late Gangaram. Exs. A1 to A7 relied by the plaintiff to prove the same.

Exs. A1 to A6 are the Mee seva pahanies for the fasli year 1422. The

SCJ, ADB

4 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013 plaintiff claim is for partition of land in Sy.Nos. 9/1, 9/1/1, 9/2, 9/2a, 9/3, 9/3/1 admesuring 19-23 gts situated at Masala village of Bela Mandal. The

Ex.A1 stands in the name of Bathula Venkati in Sy.No. 9/1, Ac.3-31 gts,

Ex.A2 stands in the name of Bathula Sudershan in Sy.No. 9/1/1, Ac.3-32 gts, Ex.A3 stands in the name of Bathula Venkati in Sy.No. 9/2, Ac.1-00 gts,

Ex.A4 stands in the name of Bathula Dattu in Sy.No. 9/2a, Ac.5-00 gts,

Ex.A5 stands in the name of Bathula Sudershan in Sy.No. 9/3, Ac.1-20 gts,

Ex.A6 stands in the name of Bathula Laxmi in Sy.No. 9/3/1, Ac.4-20 gts. All these pahanies of fasli year 1422 i.e., year 2012 stands in the name of these defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule properties were owned by Late Gangaram. The plaintiff did place any documentary evience to prove the suit schedule properties stands in the name of her father Late B. Gangaram. Without there being any documentary evidence to prove that the suit schedule properties were owned by Late Gangaram that is to say that these properties are inherited from Late Gangram by these defendants.

7.It is admitted by the parties to the suit in the oral evidence, that these suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. DW1 who is none other than the own sister of the plaintiff who were blessed through the second wife of Late Gangaram, she deposed in her cross examination that there was oral partition in between D1 and D2. D1 and D2 got 9 acres and odd guntas each. DW2 also deposed in his cross examination that partition took place during the life time of their father and his father did not execute written partition deed. DW2 further deposed that his share land was entered in the name of his wife/D6 after issuing mutation proceedings

SCJ, ADB

5 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013 during the life time of this father. The land Ac.5-12 gts was mutated in his name during the life time of his father. He denied the suggestion that he did not give Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold to plaintiff towards her share after her marriage in the presence of D4. Even the parties claiming the partition during the life time of their father. DW1 is also supporting the claim of the defendant against her own sister/plaintiff. There is no pleadings in the Written Statement that there was oral partition as deposed by the defendant herein. The evidence behind the pleadings cannot be considerable.

8.As per the oral evidence, the properties were mutated in the name of D1 and D2 during his life time of their father and it was then mutated in the name of other defendants. The plaintiff cannot rely on oral evidence of the defendants. Basing on the oral evidence of the defendant, the claim of the plaintiff cannot said to be proved that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. It is for the plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties only by filing documentary evidence showing the suit properties in the name of Late Gangaram. The plaintiff did not file any single document to prove the same.

9. It is settled that the property inherited by Male Hindu through his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father is an ancestral property.

The essential features of ancestral property according to Mitakshara Law, is that the sons, grandsons and great grandsons of the person who inherits acquired an interest in it by birth. Their rights attach to it by their birth.

SCJ, ADB

6 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013

10.Here, in this case, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the plaintiff and the defendants herein has inherited the suit schedule properties from

Late Gangaram when that is so the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties.

11.The defendant claim is that the plaintiff was married and she was given Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold towards her share and she relinquished the same, on this point, the defendants tried to prove the same through

D4, who was examined as DW1 in this case. The D1 and D2 also deposed the same of giving cash and gold to the plaintiff after her marriage. DW1 in her cross examination, she also deposed that plaintiff marriage was performed in Maharashtra State of Yeowathmal district. She denied the suggestion that the plaintiff’s marriage was performed by her maternal grandfather. Witness adds that her marriage was performed by her maternal uncle. The defendants has pleaded that the cash and gold was given towards the share of the plaintiff in the year 2000 on her demand.

PW1 also denied the suggestion that she was given cash and gold towards her share. PW1 in her further cross deposed that she does not know D3 and D4 were also given net cash of Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold along with her as their share in joint family propeties. This point was not pleaded in the written statement. DW1 in her chief stated that the cash and gold was presented to plaintiff in her presence and she is an eye witnes for the same. The same fact was not pleaded in the written statement. As per the evidence of DW2, the oral partition took place during the lifetime of their father. Whereas in the written statement, it was mentioned that on the

SCJ, ADB

7 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013 demand of the plaintiff in the year 2000, the cash of Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold was presented. Whereas, Late Gangaram was expired in theyear 1997. If the version of DW2 was right, then certainly, the plaintiff, D3 and

D4 were not allotted share in the oral partition. There is also no evidence that the share was given to D3 and D4 and even there is no pleadings with regard to that. D3 did not come before this Court for deposing. Therefore, the version of the defendants that they gave Rs.75,000/- and 2 tulas gold to the plaintiff cannot be considered as share alloted to the plaintiff as pleaded.

12.The defendants contention is that D5 purchased land from D2 in Sy.

No. 9/3/1, Ac.4-20 gts from her Sreedhana property, Dattu purchased land in Sy.No. 9/2 Ac.5-00 gts from D1 through his mothers Sreedhana amount.

In this regard, there is no documentary evidence and also no oral evidence let in by the defendants.

13.As discussed above, the plaintiff herein has failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. The plaintiff has did not place any documents to prove that the suit schedule properties stands in the name of his father and the documents relied by her also does not prove that these properties are ancestral properties. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiff.

14. ISSUE NO.II :

As Issue No. I is decided against the plaintiff. Hence, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.

SCJ, ADB

8 of 810.08.2022OS No.13 of 2013

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, after corrections,

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: Bathula Vandana DW1: Bathula Pushpa @ Gopathi Pushpa PW2: Burrewar NarayanaDW2: Bathula Sudershan DW3: Bathula Ram Bai DW4: Pulmare Hussain

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A2Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A3Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A4Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A5Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A6Certified copy of Mee Seva pahani for the fasli year 1422 Ex.A7Office copy of legal notice dt. 20.07.2012

For Defendants:

Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

SCJ, ADB

1 Of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::ADILABAD::

Present: - Sri G.Uday Bhaskar Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

Wednesday, the 10th day of August, 2022

O.S. No. 06 of 2016

Between:-

1.Takkur Ramesh, S/o. Late Takkur Narayan, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pendalwada village of Jainath Mandal

2.Takkur Suresh, S/o. Takkur Narayan, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pendalwada village of Jainath Mandal

3.Dushetty Pushpala, W/o. Deva Reddy, Age: 65 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Savapur village, Mdl: Jainath

4.Dyavarthi Anitha, W/o. Satish, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Adilabad

5.Sayari Srijaya @ Surekha, W/o. Asha Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Ghotkuri village of Mandal Tamsi

6.Bolli Suvarna, W/o. Asha Reddy, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Hivri, Tq. Kelapur, Dist: Chandrapur (M.S). … Plaintiffs // a n d //

1.The District Collector, Nirmal

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 21.07.2022 in the presence of Sri N. Pratap Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs while Sri K. Eashwar Reddy, Government Pleader for Defendants and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying to decree the suit directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.14,39,437/- along with 15% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

SCJ, ADB

2 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

2. The brief averments of the plaint is that:

The plaintiffs contention is that they are the legal heirs of Takkur (Takkari) Narayan. The late Takkari Narayan was having landed property bearing Sy.No. 59/2 having extent of Ac.9-14 gts situated at Pendalwada village of Jainath Mandal. The plaintiffs further contended that the government acquired land to an extent of Ac.5-25 gts from this land for formation of the tank. They also stated that they received compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- per acre from defendant No.2. The plaintiffs further contended that in the said acquired land there are (27) Teak trees, (01) Mango tree, (01)

Lemon tree, (01) Tamarind Tree, a well, a cattle shed, fencing round the acquired land constructed with cement poles. The plaintiffs contention is that the defendant No.2 has not assessed the compensation for these trees, the well, cattle shed and fencing while granting compensation to the plaintiff's father. Hence, prays to grant compensation to an amount of Rs. 6.75 lakhs along with 30 % solatium on the properties, 12% addl. Market value and 15% interest from 22.03.2010 to 22.12.2015. The plaintiffs are hereby praying to decree the suit for an amount of Rs. 14,39,437/- along with interest 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to date of realization.

3.On the other hand, the defendants remained exparte.

SCJ, ADB

3 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

4.Heard both sides.

5.Basing on the contentions, the issue for consideration is:

I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed

for?

II. To what relief?

6. ISSUE NO.I:-

The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming damages. Plaintiffs contending that the defendants did not assessed the trees, well, cattle shed and fencing while granting compensation to their father.

The plaintiffs examined himself as PW1 and got marked the award proceedings No.B/1542/07 issued by respondent No.2 in March, 2010 vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 proves the claim of the plaintiff that the land in Sy.No. 15/2 was acquired for formation of tank. It is also admitted fact that these plaintiffs father received compensation.

The Ex.A2 is the legal notice dt. 14.05.2015 issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant herein. Ex.A3 was addressed by the Collector,

Adilabad to RDO, Adilabad on the application of these plaintiffs for compensation of trees, well and cattle shed with a direction to conduct enquiry into the matter which were existed in the said land.

Collector addressed a letter to RDO to conduct enquiry into the matter and take necessary action and report of the same.Ex.A4 is the letter addressed by RDO, Adilabad to DFO, Adilabad to see whether the pattedars of the acquired land have been granted permission to tank or teak trees. The Ex.A5 are the photographs of

SCJ, ADB

4 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016 trees, well and shed. Ex.A6 is the dependant certificate which proves that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Takkari Narayan.

7.The Ex.A1 proves that the plaintiffs land was acquired for the formation of tank and compensation was paid, it is also proves that the compensation was not paid for the teak trees, well and cattle shed. As seen from A3 letter addressed by District Collector to RDO,

Adilabad which was addressed after issuing proceedings Ex.A1.

8.The plaintiffs also got appointed Advocate commissioner where he submitted in his report, that he found Neem trees (10),

Teak trees (20), Tamarind Tree (01) and also one electrical pole, he further found one cattle shed and also cement fencing poles were present in the said land. The plaintiff counsel also submitted that the same was mentioned in Ex.A1 Award proceedings in page No.5, it is mentioned that Teak trees (37), non teak trees (105), Neem trees (3), Tamarind trees (2), Mango tree (1) are in the lands proposed for acquisition in the said proceedings, but it is not mentioned that these trees are in the land of this Takkari Narayan, whereas the legal notice vide Ex.A2 which was issued on 14.05.2015 to District Collector, Adilabad in that legal notice it was mentioned of Teak trees, a well, cattle shed and cement poles so the Ex.A2 and photographs and commissioner report also proves the claim of the plaintiff.

SCJ, ADB

5 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

9.As per the commissioner report on physical verifications there are 10 Neem trees, 20 teak trees, 1 tamarind tree, electrical pole, cattle shed with Banglore tiles and cement poles and the fencing wire were seen on the spot. The plaintiff examined PW2, PW2 is a

Mandal licenced engineer, in his evidence he deposed that he estimated the value as per the commissioner report. The total estimated value is of Rs.3,70,129/-. Here, in this case the defendant remained exparte.

10.The land of the plaintiffs father was acquired by the defendants herein for the formation of tank and compensation was also paid to that effect. Now, it has to be seen that the suit is maintainable before this Court. A person whose land is acqired, who has grievance regarding the compensation awarded to him or a person who disputes the apportionment cannot approach the Civil

Court. Cognizance of Civil suit of Civil Court under Sec. 9 of CPC, 1908 is clearly barred.

11.(a) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Subramanya

Shetty Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

wherein it is laid as under:

“ In view of the settled legal position that the notification had become final and the proceedings had attained finality, the civil suit was not maintainable. This Court has repeatedly held that a civil suit relating to acquisition proceedings is not maintainable and by implication, cognizance under Section 9, CPC, is barred”.

SCJ, ADB

6 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

(b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 637 in the case between State of Haryana Vs. Gurucharansingh wherein their lordship is held that as under:

“ It is settled law that the Collector or the court who determines the compensation for the land as well as fruit bearing trees cannot determine them separately”.

(c) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996 SCC (7) 218 in the case between Laxmi Chand & Others Vs. Gram Panchayat,

Kararia & Others wherein their lordship is held that as under:

“ It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the case arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The civil court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrctions on their exercise of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the civil court”.

(d) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996 SCC (7) 218 in the case between Laxmi Chand & Others Vs. Gram Panchayat,

Kararia & Others wherein their lordship is held that as under:

“ It would thus be clear that the scheme of the Act is complete in itself and thereby the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of the case arising under the Act, by necessary implication, stood barred. The civil court thereby is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration on the invalidity of the procedure contemplated under the Act. The only right an aggrieved person has is to approach the constitutional courts, viz., the High Court and the Supreme Court under their plenary power under Articles 226 and 136 respectively with self-imposed restrctions on their exercise

SCJ, ADB

7 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016 of extraordinary power. Barring thereof, there is no power to the civil court. ”.

In view of the above decisions, this Court has no jurisdiction as being a Civil Court. This suit is filed before Senior Civil Judge’s

Court, which is a civil court and this suit was not referred as in land acquisition cases. Hence, this issue is decided against the plaintiffs.

12. ISSUE NO.II :

As Issue No. I is decided against plaintiffs. Hence, this issue is also decided against plaintiffs.

13.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, after corrections,

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of August, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1: Takkur Suresh None PW2: Adapa Yogeshwar

Exhibits Marked For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1Award proceedings No. B/1542/07 by respondent No.2 in March, 2010

SCJ, ADB

8 of 810.08.2022OS No. 06 of 2016

Ex.A2Legal Notice dt. 14.05.2015 Ex.A3Letter acknowledgment the receipt of legal notice, dt. 18.06.2015 Ex.A4Letter from defendant No.2 to DFO, Adilabad, dt. 23.06.2015 Ex.A5Three photos of well, shed , fencing and trees Ex.A6Dependant certificate issued by Tahsildar, Jainath

For Defendants:

Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ADILABAD

SCJ, ADB

1 Of 322.08.2022HMOP No. 11 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ADILABAD

Present:- Sri G.UDAY BHASKAR RAO,

Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad

Monday, this the 22nd day of August, 2022

H.M.O.P. No. 11 of 2022

Between:-

1.Mamidi Nikitha @ Sanjana, W/o. Mamidi Prakash, AG: 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No. 4-42, Village: Sangvi-K, Mandal: Bela, Dist: Adilabad

2.Mamidi Prakash, S/o. Mamidi Ganga Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Private Employee,R/o.H.No.45-52, Bahadurpur, Mandal: Jainath, Dist: Adilabad

...Petitioners

This petition is coming before me on 18.08.2022 in the presence of Sri C. Rajitha Reddy, Counsel for Petitioners and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 13 (B) of the Hindu Marriage Act praying the Court to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners.

2. The brief averments of the petition is that:

The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner

No.2 and their marriage was performed on 11.04.2018 at Tanisha

Garden, Dasnapur, Adilabad as per the caste customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner

SCJ, ADB

2 of 322.08.2022HMOP No. 11 of 2022

No.1 gave dowry of Rs.4,50,000/-, ½ tula gold ring and house hold articles worth of one lakh rupees. After marriage, both the petitioners lived happily for a period of one year. Thereafter, due to consequences severe differences arose between them, ultimately they started residing separately since May 2019. Further, it is averred in the petition that on the advice of the elders, the petitioner amicably settled their disutes and finally the petitioner No.2 agreed to pay Rs.4,50,000/- to petitioner No.1, inturn the petitioner No.1 agreed that she will not claim any maintenance from the petitioner No.2 in future nor she will file any civil or criminal cases against him or his parents. Hence, both the petitioners prays to pass a decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the marriage of petitioners.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of

decree of divorce by mutual consent dissolving their

marriage performed on 11.04.2018 as prayed for?”?

5.P O I N T:

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving their marriage performed on 11.04.2018. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked

Exs. A1 and A2 while petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW2. Ex.A1,

Marriage card goes to show that their marriage was performed on 11.04.2018 as per the caste, customs prevailing in their community.

The parties together contended that there are no chances of their re-

SCJ, ADB

3 of 322.08.2022HMOP No. 11 of 2022 union and in that account, this Court has given time for re-union, despite of 6 months observation period, both the parties did not heed to reside together. Accordingly, after considering that all the efforts made by the elders failed and there is no chance of reconciliation and further waiting period will only prolong their agony. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion to grant divorce and to dissolve the marriage performed in between both the parties. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

6.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce by mutual consent, dissolving the marriage of the petitioners performed on 11.04.2018 from the date of this order. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22 nd day of August, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner Nos.1 and 2

PW1: Mamidi Nikitha @ Sanjana PW2: Mamidi Prakash

Exhibits Marked

Ex.A1: Marriage card Ex.A2: Marriage photo

Senior Civil Judge,

Adilabad

SCJ, ADB

IN THE COURT OF THE Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad:

ADILABAD

Present: Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad,

ADILABAD .

10-08-2022

EP/26/2020

Between:-

M/s. Margadarshi Chit funds Litmited Branch Adilabad

Address: Adilabad.

… Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Gaddam Gangamma Address: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 6-193, Ramnagar, Post and District Adilabad.

2:Navanandula Srihari Age: 44 Occupation : Occ S.G. Teacher Primary school Mamidiguda Mdl and District Adilabad. Devapur Kasipet Adilabad.

3:Pujari Rajeshwar Age: 49 Occupation : Occ Head master Govt Primary school Jamaldhari Mdl and District Adilabad. R/o. H.No. 4-5-568 Mochigally Adilabad.

4:Naitham Maruthi Rao Age: 46 Occupation : S.G.Teacher Govt. Primary school Saliguda Mdl and District Adilabad R/o. H.No. 1-6-357 Shantinagar Adilabad.

5:Sedmaki Rama Rao Age: 46 Occupation :

S.G.Teacher Govt.t.W.P.S. gundamlodhi Mdl and District Adilabad … Defendent/Respondent

ORDER

Process not deposited against JDR No. 3 and 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default.

This Order Generated in Case Information System (CIS) on 10-08-2022

Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad

ADILABAD