Ms. G. Vani

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Ms. G. Vani, PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,155 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, OP, AS cases.

1,155

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/191/2018

Union Bank of India, Rep. its. BM, Karlapalem, Bapatla vs Vootla Srinivasa Rao

20 Nov 2023

Fair1O.S.191/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE(FTC), BAPATLA

PRESENT: Kum G.Vani, M.A., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

Monday, the 20thday of November, 2023

O.S.No.191/2018

Between : Union Ban of India, Govt. of India Undertaking incorporated under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act 4 to 8 carrying on Banking Business all over India, having its Central Office at Mumbai and having its Branch Office at Karlapalem, represented by its Branch Manager, Karlapalem, Bapatla. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. Vootla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sajjanna Rao, aged about 60 years, Agriculture and business, R/o Do.No.13-2-8, Srirama Nilayam beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Ari Hari Prasad Babu, S/o Somaiah, aged about 65 years, R/o C/o Bavana Residency, Beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 17.11.2023 and was posted for orders in the presence of Sri B. Leela Krishna, Learned counsel for the plaintif and Sri N. Narasimha Rao, Advocate for 1st and 2nd defendants and having upon for hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif-bank filed the suit for recovery of the amount of

Rs.5,46,013.61/-, basing on the loan obtained by the 1st defendant from the Plaintif

Bank.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are follows:

a)The defendants 1 and 2 approached and obtained loan under

Agricultural term loan on 12.10.2006. On the same day, the plaintif-bank has sanctioned loan to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant agreed for terms and conditions of the plaintif-bank and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the 1st defendant. The 1st and 2nd defendants borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintif-

Fair2O.S.191/2018 bank on 12.10.2006 under Agricultural term Loan Account No.353006040011572 and agreed to repay the debt with interest @ 11% per annum half yearly rests plus 0.5% per annum. Both are executed the required document in favour of the plaintif-bank and also defendants 1 and 2 executed the delivery letter in favour of the plaintif-bank and also executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintif-bank and mortgaged and deposit the title deeds in favour of the plaintif-bank by way of

Mortgage Deed. So that the defendants 1 and 2 created the charge against the schedule property in favour of the plaintif-bank.

b)The 1st defendant ofered their schedule property as security to the said loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. So that the 1st defendant deposited his Title deed of schedule property and also created a memorandum of deposit of title deed in favour of the plaintif-bank on 12.10.2006. Subsequently, the defendant was made some payments towards the suit debt on 23.01.2008 and 08.02.2008, 18.03.2009, 29.06.2010 and 29.12.2012 respectively. Subsequently there was not paid to the amount though the plaintif-bank was issued legal notice to the defendants. But they are not choose to pay the amount. Hence the plaintif-bank constrained the suit.

3.On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed a written statement and 2nd defendants filed adoption memo of 1st defendant written statement denied all averments made in the suit except thus:

a)The 1st defendant admitted about obtaining the loan but the plaintif- bank committed the fraud and also cheating against him with respect of non- depositing of subsidy to the 1st defendant of some of Rs.62,388/-. The said amount is not credited the account of 1st defendant and only deposited/ credited a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 18.3.2009 and till today. The balance of subsidy amount of Rs.42,388/- is not given or credited to the account of this defendant.

b)The 1st defendant approached the plaintif-bank several times and requested to deposit the remaining subsidy amount so that he will pay any

Fair3O.S.191/2018 amount if remains under the said amount after deducting the entire subsidy amount.

c)The 1st defendant also deposited a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- on 29.12.2012 towards the loan amount on the promise made by the plaintif-bank that thebalance of subsidy amount will be deposited in the account of the 1st defendant.

d)The plaintif-bank also informed to the 1st defendant that it will inform to its higher authorities and they have not taken any steps for settlement of the same issue through the Regional Office. The 1st defendant is ready and willing to pay the remaining balance amount due under the said loan amount after deducting the said deposited and paid amounts with interest to the plaintif-bank.

e)The 2nd defendant is also not responsible or liable to pay the said loan amount as it wasl also discharged by the 1st defendant. The said facts suppressed and filed the suit. Hence suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.On the strength of the pleadings, the court framed the following issues on 18th July, 2023.

I)Whether the plaintif-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt from the defendants?

2)To what relief?

5.During the course of the trial, the plaintif-bank himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A15 are marked. No oral as well as the documentary evidence let by the defendants.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1:

“Whether the plaintiff-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt

from the defendants?”

Fair4O.S.191/2018

On perusal of the entire records available in this bundle, the initial burden lies on the plaintif. The admitted fact in this suit that, the 1st defendant approached the plaintif-bank and obtained the loan under loan Account

No.353006040011572 and executed the Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A5. And further admitted that the 2nd defendant is the guarantor for the 1st defendant under

Exhibit A1 loan application of the 1st defendant is clearly shows that he obtained the loan under loan Account No.353006040011572 of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.10.2006.

8.Thereafter, the plaintif-bank was sanctioned loan under Exhibit A2. The 1st and 2nd defendant also executed the hypothication agreement of loan under

Exhibit A4 and Exhibit A6. The further admitted that the 1st defendant deposited his title deed under Exhibit A5 in the bank. So entire documents filed by the defendants, there is no denial by the plaintif-bank as well as the defendants.

The further admitted fact that Exhibit A7 to Exhibit A12 i.e., the loan agreement executed by 1st defendant and deposited the pattadar pass books and title deeds and original sale deed under the Exhibit A7 to Exhibit A12.

9.The further admitted that the plaintif-bank sent legal notice under Exhibit

A13. The same was received and send the reply notice under Exhibit A14 and later given by the 1st defendant under Exhibit A15. So what are the documents filed by the Plaintif-Bankare clearly shows that the 1st defendant was obtained the loan and 2nd defendant is the guarantor of the 1st defendant. So, the

Plaintif-bank clearly established their contention by way of adduced the documentary as well as occural evidence. Hence burden shifted to defendants.

10.The contention of the defendants that there is no limitation. Hence suit is barred by limitation. In this regard on careful perusal of the entire records, it is

Fair5O.S.191/2018 a very important and crucial documents i.e., Exhibit A15. Exhibit A15 is letter given by the 1st defendant dated 20.2.2018. So the said Exhibit A15 is the undertaking letter given by the 1st defendant in the year 2018. The limitation has started on 20.02.2018. So that the present suit filed by the plaintif-bank on 13.11.2018. Hence theplaintif-bank filed suit within the limitation. So there is not hit to the limitation in this suit.

11.The further contention of the defendants that the plaintif-bank was manipulated the court and defendants with regarding to he was not reduced the deduction amount paid by the 1st defendantby way of deposit and subsidy. In this regard, the plaintif-bank Manager examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 categorically deposed that what was subsidy given by the Government, the same deducted to the loan amount from his account. And more over, the defendants did not choose to file any documentary evidence with regarding to he paid Rs.1,42,000 + Rs.20,000/-towards the loan amount and subsidy and defendants not came to the court and not adduced any rebuttal evidence against the plaintif-bank. More over, the plaintif-bank is public sector. So there is no possible for cheat anybody because it is a public sector. So it is clearly presumed that the plaintif-bank never cheated the defendants and more over, the defendant not adduced any cogent evidence. And they are not file any single piece of document about they paid some of amount and also not filed any calculation memo. So it is presumed defendants 1 & 2 are not proved their contention and also not adduced any rebuttal evidence against the version of the plaintif-bank. So that the plaintif bank is entitled to recovery of the amount.

Fair6O.S.191/2018

12.Issue No.2

Therefore above foregoing discussions made supra, the plaintif-bank was clearly established their contention with regarding to the defendants was defaulters for discharging of loan amount. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to the decree.

In the result, the suit is Preliminarily decreed with costs. The defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount of Rs. 5,46,013.61/- together with subsequent interest @ 11% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum on the Principal Amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of the decree till the date of realization time for redemption within 3 months from the date of Judgment, failing which the plaintifs are at liberty to proceed against the defendants 1 and 2 as per law.

Dictated to Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1 : Shailesh Pramod Bhagat None

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF :

Exhibit A1 : Loan application of the defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A2 : Loan sanctioning advise, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A3 : Proprietorship executed by defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A4 : Hypothecation Agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A5 : Memorandum of deposit title deed executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A6 : Deed of agreement executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Fair7O.S.191/2018

Exhibit A7 : M.P.L.E. loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A8 : Declaration issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank,

dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A9 : Affidavit issued by the 1st defendant, dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A10: Pattadar pass book (Patta No.973) stands in the name of the 1st defendant.

Exhibit A11:Original Sale deeds 2762/1984 stand in thename of the 1st defendant and others, dated 15.10.1924.

Exhibit A12: Another register sale deed 890/1999 stand in the name of the 1st defendant, dated 21.5.1999.

Exhibit A13: Office copy of the legal notice, dated 25.04.2015 along with postal receipts.

Exhibit A14: Reply Notice, datedd 30.04.2015.

Exhibit A15: Letter given by 1st defendant, datedd 20.02.2018.

DEFENDANTS :

NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl.S.C.J (FTC), BPT // TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

OS/85/2013

Ponugupati Srinivasarao vs Potharlanka Venkata Ratnakumari

14 Nov 2023

Fair1O.S.191/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE(FTC), BAPATLA

PRESENT: Kum G.Vani, M.A., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

Monday, the 20thday of November, 2023

O.S.No.191/2018

Vs.

1. Vootla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sajjanna Rao, aged about 60 years, Agriculture and business, R/o Do.No.13-2-8, Srirama Nilayam beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Ari Hari Prasad Babu, S/o Somaiah, aged about 65 years, R/o C/o Bavana Residency, Beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.… Defendants

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif-bank filed the suit for recovery of the amount of

Rs.5,46,013.61/-, basing on the loan obtained by the 1st defendant from the Plaintif

Bank.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are follows:

a)The defendants 1 and 2 approached and obtained loan under

Mortgage Deed. So that the defendants 1 and 2 created the charge against the schedule property in favour of the plaintif-bank.

3.On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed a written statement and 2nd defendants filed adoption memo of 1st defendant written statement denied all averments made in the suit except thus:

b)The 1st defendant approached the plaintif-bank several times and requested to deposit the remaining subsidy amount so that he will pay any

Fair3O.S.191/2018 amount if remains under the said amount after deducting the entire subsidy amount.

4.On the strength of the pleadings, the court framed the following issues on 18th July, 2023.

I)Whether the plaintif-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt from the defendants?

2)To what relief?

5.During the course of the trial, the plaintif-bank himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A15 are marked. No oral as well as the documentary evidence let by the defendants.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1:

“Whether the plaintiff-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt

from the defendants?”

Fair4O.S.191/2018

No.353006040011572 and executed the Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A5. And further admitted that the 2nd defendant is the guarantor for the 1st defendant under

Exhibit A1 loan application of the 1st defendant is clearly shows that he obtained the loan under loan Account No.353006040011572 of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.10.2006.

8.Thereafter, the plaintif-bank was sanctioned loan under Exhibit A2. The 1st and 2nd defendant also executed the hypothication agreement of loan under

9.The further admitted that the plaintif-bank sent legal notice under Exhibit

Plaintif-bank clearly established their contention by way of adduced the documentary as well as occural evidence. Hence burden shifted to defendants.

10.The contention of the defendants that there is no limitation. Hence suit is barred by limitation. In this regard on careful perusal of the entire records, it is

Fair6O.S.191/2018

12.Issue No.2

Dictated to Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1 : Shailesh Pramod Bhagat None

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF :

Exhibit A1 : Loan application of the defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A2 : Loan sanctioning advise, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A3 : Proprietorship executed by defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A4 : Hypothecation Agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A5 : Memorandum of deposit title deed executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A6 : Deed of agreement executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Fair7O.S.191/2018

Exhibit A7 : M.P.L.E. loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A8 : Declaration issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank,

dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A9 : Affidavit issued by the 1st defendant, dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A10: Pattadar pass book (Patta No.973) stands in the name of the 1st defendant.

Exhibit A11:Original Sale deeds 2762/1984 stand in thename of the 1st defendant and others, dated 15.10.1924.

Exhibit A12: Another register sale deed 890/1999 stand in the name of the 1st defendant, dated 21.5.1999.

Exhibit A13: Office copy of the legal notice, dated 25.04.2015 along with postal receipts.

Exhibit A14: Reply Notice, datedd 30.04.2015.

Exhibit A15: Letter given by 1st defendant, datedd 20.02.2018.

DEFENDANTS :

NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl.S.C.J (FTC), BPT // TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

OS/85/2013

Ponugupati Srinivasarao vs Potharlanka Venkata Ratnakumari

14 Nov 2023

Fair1O.S.191/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE(FTC), BAPATLA

PRESENT: Kum G.Vani, M.A., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), Bapatla.

Monday, the 20thday of November, 2023

O.S.No.191/2018

Vs.

1. Vootla Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sajjanna Rao, aged about 60 years, Agriculture and business, R/o Do.No.13-2-8, Srirama Nilayam beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Ari Hari Prasad Babu, S/o Somaiah, aged about 65 years, R/o C/o Bavana Residency, Beside Bhavannarayana Swamy Temple, Bapatla, Guntur District.… Defendants

J U D G M E N T

The plaintif-bank filed the suit for recovery of the amount of

Rs.5,46,013.61/-, basing on the loan obtained by the 1st defendant from the Plaintif

Bank.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are follows:

a)The defendants 1 and 2 approached and obtained loan under

Mortgage Deed. So that the defendants 1 and 2 created the charge against the schedule property in favour of the plaintif-bank.

3.On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed a written statement and 2nd defendants filed adoption memo of 1st defendant written statement denied all averments made in the suit except thus:

b)The 1st defendant approached the plaintif-bank several times and requested to deposit the remaining subsidy amount so that he will pay any

Fair3O.S.191/2018 amount if remains under the said amount after deducting the entire subsidy amount.

4.On the strength of the pleadings, the court framed the following issues on 18th July, 2023.

I)Whether the plaintif-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt from the defendants?

2)To what relief?

5.During the course of the trial, the plaintif-bank himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A15 are marked. No oral as well as the documentary evidence let by the defendants.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Issue No.1:

“Whether the plaintiff-bank are entitled for recovery of suit debt

from the defendants?”

Fair4O.S.191/2018

No.353006040011572 and executed the Exhibit A1 to Exhibit A5. And further admitted that the 2nd defendant is the guarantor for the 1st defendant under

Exhibit A1 loan application of the 1st defendant is clearly shows that he obtained the loan under loan Account No.353006040011572 of Rs.3,00,000/- on 12.10.2006.

8.Thereafter, the plaintif-bank was sanctioned loan under Exhibit A2. The 1st and 2nd defendant also executed the hypothication agreement of loan under

9.The further admitted that the plaintif-bank sent legal notice under Exhibit

Plaintif-bank clearly established their contention by way of adduced the documentary as well as occural evidence. Hence burden shifted to defendants.

10.The contention of the defendants that there is no limitation. Hence suit is barred by limitation. In this regard on careful perusal of the entire records, it is

Fair6O.S.191/2018

12.Issue No.2

Dictated to Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 20th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1 : Shailesh Pramod Bhagat None

Exhibits marked for

PLAINTIFF :

Exhibit A1 : Loan application of the defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A2 : Loan sanctioning advise, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A3 : Proprietorship executed by defendant, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A4 : Hypothecation Agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A5 : Memorandum of deposit title deed executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif-bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A6 : Deed of agreement executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Fair7O.S.191/2018

Exhibit A7 : M.P.L.E. loan agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintif- bank, dated 12.10.2006.

Exhibit A8 : Declaration issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintif-bank,

dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A9 : Affidavit issued by the 1st defendant, dated 10.10.2006.

Exhibit A10: Pattadar pass book (Patta No.973) stands in the name of the 1st defendant.

Exhibit A11:Original Sale deeds 2762/1984 stand in thename of the 1st defendant and others, dated 15.10.1924.

Exhibit A12: Another register sale deed 890/1999 stand in the name of the 1st defendant, dated 21.5.1999.

Exhibit A13: Office copy of the legal notice, dated 25.04.2015 along with postal receipts.

Exhibit A14: Reply Notice, datedd 30.04.2015.

Exhibit A15: Letter given by 1st defendant, datedd 20.02.2018.

DEFENDANTS :

NIL

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl.S.C.J (FTC), BPT // TRUE COPY //

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C) Bapatla.

OP/123/2022 Compromised

Varre Venkata Raghu vs Varre Madhavi @ Ikkurthi Madhavi

14 Nov 2023

Fair1 H.M.O.P.No.123/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE(FTC):: BAPATLA

Present: Ms.G. Vani, M.A., L.L.B.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

Tuesday, this the 14th day of November, 2023.

H.M.O.P.No.123/2022

Between: Varre Venkata Raghu, S/o Rangarao, aged about 44 years, Hindu, Constable, R/o Khajipalem Village, P.V. Palem Mandal,

Guntur District....Petitioner

Versus

Varre Madhavi @ Ikkurthi Madhavi, W/o Varre Venkata Raghu, D/o Ikkurthi Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 38 years, R/o Yazali Village, Karlapalem Mandal, Guntur District. …Respondent

This Petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Leela Krishna, Learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri K. Avinash, Learned counsel for the respondent and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

O R D E R

This petition filed by the Petitioner/Husband against the Respondent/Wife seeking decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955.

2.The averments of the petition in brief are that:

a)The respondent is legally wedded wife, both petitioner and respondent marriage was performed by Hindu rites and customs at Sri Narasimha Swamy

Temple, Khajipalem on 11.05.2007. There were no gifts and ornaments were exchanged during the period of wedlock. Soon after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner at Khajipalem Village and lead the married life for a period of 5 years. During the period of their wedlock, the respondent gave birth a male child by name Venkatesh.

Fair2 H.M.O.P.No.123/2022

b)After birth of male child, the respondent exhibited her adamant nature

before the petitioner by not showing willingness to co-operate with the petitioner in

conjugal life.

c)The respondent was in habit of visiting of her parents house without consent and willingness of the petitioner and uses to return back for more than one month stay at her parents house, after mediation done by Madasani Sudarsan,

Devarakonda Sambasivarao, Immadabathini Narasimharao and Kunchala Srinivasa

Reddy. The respondent used to stay at Khajipalem along with the petitioner and thereafter used to left her marital life.

d)On 15.10.2012 in the absence of the petitioner in his residential house at Khajipalem Village, the respondent left the matrimonial home even without informing to the petitioner and stayed at her parents house at Yazali. So that the petitioner once again sent the above mediators, but the respondent not react the said mediation. The respondent also went to extent of filing a case in

M.C.No.19/2019 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla against the

petitioner seeking the maintenance.

e)The petitioner whenever try to bring the respondent in to his conjugal fold. But all efforts of petitioner brings back the respondent in to his conjugal fold were become futile on 15.10.2012, the respondent left the house has been living on her own accord without consent of the petitioner and have been treating the petitioner for filing false cases against the petitioner, if he continues his attempts for bringing her back into his conjugal fold. The respondent also openly declared before the petitioner within the hearing of mediators, elders and parents that respondent have no interest to lead married life. So that there is no other way except filing the present petition.

3.On other hand, the respondent filed a detailed counter and denied the all material aspects except thus:

a)The respondent came to know that the petitioner married another girl by name Swarna Latha and sent her parents to the house of petitioner and questioned

Fair3 H.M.O.P.No.123/2022 about the 2nd marriage, due to which the petitioner bore grudge against the respondent and on 11.06.2018 at early hours the the petitioner and his family members came to the house of the respondent’s parents and beat her indiscriminately and threatened with dire consequences and threatened the respondent for want of divorce from her. Otherwise they kill her and harass her both physically and mentally. So that the respondent also filed M.C.No.19/2019 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Bapatla.

b)The petitioners harassed her with additional dowry and at the time of their marriage her parents were presented Rs.2,00,000/- cash as dowry, Rs.50,000/- cash for house hold articles, 24 grams Gold Chain, 8 Grams Ring and 30 grams Gold

Bracelet to the petitioner. But some was not satisfied by the petitioner his parents they are harassed the respondent and the petitioner suppressed the facts and filed the present petition. Hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and

Exhibit P1 is marked. Exhibit P1 is the Wedding card. The respondent did not adduced either ocular as well as the documentary evidence.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to seeking the dissolution

of the marriage dated 11.05.2007 in between himself and

respondent?”

7.In order to prove the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and Exhibit P1 is marked. There is no dispute about the relationship in between the petitioner and respondent. The petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent by Hindu rites and customs at Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Khajipalem. The same was reflected on the Exhibit P1.

Fair4 H.M.O.P.No.123/2022

8.But now the point is whether the petitioner is entitled to divorce by way of dissolution of the marriage due to the ground of cruelty of the respondent or not?

9.In this regard, upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of the petition averments except evidence of P.W.1. There is no any other documents.

More over, during the course of the cross-examination, the respondent also willing to separate to lead the marital life with the petitioner. So both parties are compromised and settled the matter before the elders and they are willing to take the divorce by way of dissolution of the marriage dated 11.05.2007. The same was admitted by the P.W.1 as well as the respondent in his cross-examination. So whenever they are decided to lead the marital life separately, so that they are entitled to dissolution of the marriage.

10.Therefore above forgoing discussions, the petitioner and respondent are willing to dissolve their marriage and also matter is settled out of court and enter into there compromise and both are residing separately. In these circumstances, petition is allowed.

11.IN THE RESULT, petition is allowed without costs by declaring to dissolve the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent dated 11.05.2007 by way of divorce.

Dictated to the Gr.III Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this

the 14th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- G. VANI

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC),

Bapatla

//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//

//WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner:For Respondent: None

P.W.1: V. Venkata Raghu //DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Wedding card.

For Respondent : NIL

Fair5 H.M.O.P.No.123/2022

Sd/- G. VANI

Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla // TRUE COPY //

Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Bapatla.

OP/86/2025

Bhimavarapu Sai Nandini vs Kattula Venkatesh

02 Apr 2026

Fair 1 HMOP 86 of 2025

APGU050001942025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(SENIOR DIVISION) :: BAPATLA Present: Kum. G. VANI., M.A., LL.B.,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

H.M.O.P.No.86 of 2025

Between: Bhimavarapu Sai Nandini, W/o.Kattula Venkatesh, D/o.Chadalavada Padmanjali, 26 years, Hindu, Private School Teacher, Opposite Saibaba Temple, Chilu Road Centre, Bapatla Post, Mandal and District.… Petitioner.

And

Kattula Venkatesh, S/o.Kattula Ramakrishna, 28 years, Hindu, Car Driver, Back side of Turupu Satram of Bapatla Town, Bapatla Mandal and District. … Respondent.

This original petition came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri A. Nageswara Rao., Learned counsel for petitioner, Respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the Petitioner/Wife against the

Respondent/Husband seeking decree of divorce for dissolution of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent dated 02.01.2020 on the ground of desertion under Section 13 (1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

2.The averments o the petition in brief are that:

a)The petitioner herein is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 02.01.2020 at Nagarapamma Temple at

Vetapalem village and Mandal of Prakasam District as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. After completion of the marriage, the petitioner immediately joined with respondent and their marriage was consummated, and they lead a happy marital life only two months. Out of their weld lock, they have no children.

Fair 2 HMOP 86 of 2025

b)After that, the petitioner came to know that the respondent have all bad vices such as drinking, gambling and debauchery. When the petitioner questioned the character of the respondent, he beat the petitioner indiscriminately. The respondent always in drunken state and he is not doing any work for their livelihood.

c)The Petitioner joined as a teacher in a private school and she got salary. The Respondent beat the petitioner to hander over her salary to him, when she received salary.

d)In the year 2021, March, the respondent committed theft in his in- laws house and he has taken away the gold ornaments of the petitioner's Mother worth more than 10 lakh rupees and he sold away the gold ornaments and the entire amount spent to his bad vices. Whenever, the petitioner questioned about the livelihood, he used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately with hands and legs.

e)On 31-01-2022, the respondent demanded the petitioner for amounts from her parent's house. This time, the petitioner opposed the respondent, so that, the respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately and necked out the petitioner from his house. As there is no other way, she went to her mother's house at Bapatla.

f)The the petitioner made several mediation though elders, but the respondent not cared the words of the elders and their mediation proved futile.

Under the above said circumstance, the petitioner finally concluded that there is no hope for her to live and continue her marital life with the respondent in future, and hence, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition for dissolution of marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce.

Fair 3 HMOP 86 of 2025

3.Notice issued to the respondent through Court. As the notice was not served since many days, substitute service of summons through paper publication in “Praja Sakthi” Telugu Daily Newspaper was ordered and same was filed. Notice treated as valid. Respondent was called absent, there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, the respondent was set exparte.

4.During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and grand father of the petitioner examined as P.W.2 and Exhibits P1 and Exhibit

P2 are marked.

5.Heard.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to seeking the dissolution

of the marriage, dated 02-01-2020 in between petitioner and

respondent by way of divorce”?

7.On perusal of the entire records available in this bundle, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner and respondent marriage was performed as per Hindu rites and customs at Nagarapamma Temple at Vetapalem village and Mandal of

Prakasam District on 02.01.2020. The same was reflected on Exhibit P1 and there is no denial of the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent as well as the Exhibit P2.

8.But, point is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seeking the dissolution of their

marriage by way of divorce on ground of desertion or not ?

9.In this regard, the petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 and her grand father himself examined as P.W.2. Upon the chief affidavit of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of the petition averments and Exhibits P1 and Exhibit P2 are marked.

Exhibit P1 is the Wedding card, Exhibit P2 is the marriage photos (2 in number) along with C.D..

Fair 4 HMOP 86 of 2025

As per the evidence of P.W.1, she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was held on 02.01.2020 at Nagarapamma Temple at

Vetapalem village and Mandal of Prakasam District as per Hindu Rites and

Customs. After the marriage, they lived happily only for two months. After that, the respondent addicted to bad vices and beat her indiscriminately and harassed her both physically and mentally for additional amounts from her parents to meet his bad vices, hence, the petitioner is unable to bear the harassment made by the respondent and she approached the court and filed this petition. This version was also supported by P.W.2.

10.In this regard, the respondent not came to the court and not challenged the evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 and not adduced the evidence. So, it amounts to that the respondent is also willing to lead the life separately from the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed without costs by declaring to dissolve the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent, dated 02.01.2020 by way of Divorce from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- G. Vani

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla //APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE// //WITNESSES EXAMINED //

For Petitioner:

P.W.1: Bhimavarapu Sai Nandini. P.W.2: Chadalavada Nageswara Rao.

For Respondent: Exparte

Fair 5 HMOP 86 of 2025 //DOCUMENTS MARKED//

For Petitioner:

Ex.P1: Wedding card. Ex.P2: Marriage photos (2 in number) along with C.D.

For Respondent: NIL

Sd/- G. Vani

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla

Order Record 1,100 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/13/2025	Mannam Hariprasanna Anjaneyulu vs Kesani Ramesh Babu	17 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/182/2015	Nizampatnam @ Kollimarla Siva Parvathi vs Nizampatnam alias Vellaturi Radha	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
IP/6/2024	Tadi Kalyan Chakravarthi vs Narra Gopi	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/8/2013	Alapati Venkata Changal Raja vs Manam Subba Rao	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/86/2025	Bhimavarapu Sai Nandini vs Kattula Venkatesh	02 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/2/2026	Pamidiboina Siva Gudarankaiah vs Manyam Ramya	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/69/2023	Dhulipalla @ Marripalepu Sandhya vs Dhulipalla Rojesh alias Rajeswara Rao	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
OP/100/2025	Tanniru Siva Kumar vs Tanniru Swapna Kumari alias Upputuri Swapna Kumari	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/78/2025	Angothu alias Akkala Jhansi vs Angothu Raju	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/99/2025	Kunchala Navya Sri alias Pasam Navya Sri vs Kunchala Naveen Kumar	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/130/2025	Vallu Balaram vs Vallu Vanaja	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/219/2017	Kantheti Bhaskar vs Yesupogu Ravi Kumar	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OP/113/2025	Guntupalli Sravan Chand vs Guntupalli Sravani alias Patibandla Sravani	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/79/2024	Poluru Rama Koteswara Rao vs Koduru Tulasi	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/96/2025	Kolagani Madhusudhana Rao vs None	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/6/2026	Atla Usha Rani vs Meruva Lakshmi Madhusudhana Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/148/2024	Jutu Gopaiah vs Jutu Durga Bhavani	17 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/17/2025	Kola Durgamma vs Dudigam Sriramachandra	11 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/70/2025	Kandukuri Priyanka vs Kandukuri Ramesh	11 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/69/2024	Khagga Srinivasa Rao vs Khagga Keerthana alias Ramya	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/84/2025	Mikkili Babu Rao vs None	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/16/2025	Gatta Krishna Mohan vs Kothamasu Nagendra Prasad	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
OP/146/2024	Kandukuri alias Vadranam Lakshmi Sravika vs Kandukuri Srikanth	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/1/2025	Guggilam Murali Babu vs Valiveti Lakshmi Narayana	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/3/2026	M. Tushara vs None	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/14/2025	Patan Mahabulla Khan vs Govada Vijaya Bhasker	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/31/2025	Syed Khaja vs Veernapu Rama Raja Prasad	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/111/2025	Shaik Jan Bee vs None	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/18/2022	Kalluri Subbarao @ Bosu vs Maddela Ravikumar	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/12/2025	Mandava Singaiah vs Nalluri Sumathi	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/14/2024	Chennupati Shaivi Chowdary (being minor rep. by natural guardian and mother Smt. Kari Sowjanya) vs K. Srinivasa Gupta	19 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OP/123/2025	Kukkala Kanaka Durga vs Kukkala Venkata Kalyan Reddy	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/8/2025	Anumala Mallikarjunarao vs M/s Aqua Wave Biotech Private Limited	17 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/17/2023	Arumalla Seshamma vs Vanga Padmaja	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OP/79/2025	Desu alias Maturi Sumalatha vs Desu Anil Kumar	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/92/2025	Tadisetty Srinivasa Rao vs Tadisetty alias Nakka Sandhya Rani	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/121/2025	Sagiri Bhargavi vs Sagiri Raja Kumar	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/125/2025	Sadaraboina Ashok vs Sadaraboina Pavani	16 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/189/2015	Shaik Abdul Salam vs Mahammad Muneerunnissa	11 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/54/2014	Gunji Srinivasa Rao vs Gunji Sreelatha alias Srinamma	10 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/103/2025	Munnam Rajeswari vs Munnam Siva Naga Subrahmanyam Reddy	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/120/2025	Naidu Pavani vs Naidu Bala Krishna	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/114/2025	Vallepu alias Vemula Nandini vs Vemula Venkateswarlu	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/117/2025	Chennupati Priyanka vs Ramadasu Naga Babu	05 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/341/2025	Sub-Inspector of Police Bapatla Rural Police Station vs Mediboina Swami Reddy	04 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/16/2023	Pothuboina Venkateswaramma vs Manimela Venkata Satyanarayana	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/136/2018	Kosaraju Rajya Lakshmi vs Mohammed Ali Ansari	03 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OP/59/2025	Chimata alias Naralasetty Lakshmi Prasanna vs Chimata Subbaiah	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/71/2024	Chunduri Pujitha vs Chunduri Nagarjuna	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
OP/87/2025	Pallampati Naga Raju vs Pallampati Lakshmi Siva Nandini	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/673/2025	Sub Inspector of Police Bapatla Town P.S vs Salagala Subhash alias Irmiya	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/11/2023	Thota Durgarao vs Maruprolu Venkateswarareddy	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/43/2025	Repalle Venkateswarlu vs Repalle Nageswara Rao	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
IP/18/2024	Tangellamudi Poornachandra Rao vs Vanukuri Varalakshmi	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/253/2014	Barlapudi Anjana Devi vs Perla Subba Rao	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/254/2014	Barlapudi Anjana Devi vs Velagala Suneetha	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/255/2014	Barlapudi Anjana Devi vs Yemineni Nageswara Rao	28 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OP/122/2024	Tadisetty Naga Raju vs Tadisetty Dhana Lakshmi	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/1/2024	Yenumula @ Nallapti Prasanna vs Yenumula Anka Babu	22 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/81/2024	Budda Dhanush vs The Head Post Master	21 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/58/2025	Arimanda Mohan Reddy vs Jitta Venkata Ramaiah	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OS/59/2025	Myneni Srinivasa Rao vs Jitta Venkata Ramaiah	19 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
SC/678/2025	Sub Inspector of Police Bapatla Town P.S vs Shaik Yusubu alias Yesobu alias Bhudigi	09 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
IP/4/2023	Dhulipalla Appaiah @ Apparao vs Gujjarlapudi Ramarao	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/177/2018	Nalluri Venkata Hemanth Chowdary being minor Rep. maternal uncle Unnam Kishore vs Ganta Sujatha	07 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
EP/9/2025	Mallipeddi Seetharamaiah (Died) vs Guduru Sarath Babu	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/80/2025	Ayana Bathina Nukaratnam vs Ayana Bathina Gopi Krishna	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/136/2024	Gogulapati Mohan Satyanand vs Korumalli Bindu Priya	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/63/2025	Komaragiri Lakshmi Santakumari vs None	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/36/2019	Vari Dhana Lakshmi vs Vaali Koteswara Reddy	05 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
OP/52/2025	Eega Siva Sankar vs None	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/85/2025	Vaka Peda Yesamma vs Vaka Gopi	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/71/2018	Devireddy Bhagya Raju vs Devireddy Vijaya lakshmi	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
OP/76/2025	Velpuri alias Juturi Srilakshmi vs Velupuri Siva Nageswara Rao	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/96/2024	Kandalam alias Burra Neelima Gayathri vs The Manager State Bank of India	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
IP/22/2023	Kosanam Siva Prasada Rao vs Kanumuri Samba Murthy Raju	22 Dec 2025	Order	—
IP/14/2021	Kotipalli Srinivasarao vs Pallimini Srinivasareddy	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/1/2015	Talluri Padmavathi vs Vskagithala venkateswarlu	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/5/2025	Saineedi Lakshmi Bhavani vs Akula Naga Raja Rao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/11/2024	Birudu Dinesh Kumar vs Sowpati Rebbamma	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/20/2022	Lella Nageswararao vs Pallimeni Prasadareddy	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/23/2025	Savaram Venkata Ratna Simha (Died) vs Seelam Gangadhara Reddy	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/29/2024	M/s. Sri Venkateswara Manure Depot vs Mahi Fertilizers	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/35/2019	Telaprolu Venkata Rao vs Mediboina Venkata Subba rao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/50/2009	Gurram Mala Konda Raidu vs Garlapati Parvathi	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/58/2017	SRI DATTATREYA SWAMY JAYANTHI ULSAVAMULA TRUST vs KANCHARLA SOBHAN RAJU	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/99/2015	Ainampudi Srinivasa Rao vs Reddiboina Srinivasa Rao	13 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/2/2024	Gelli Ravi Kumar vs Manthena Surya Satya Narayana Raju	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
OS/64/2025	Union Bank of India vs Varalakshmi Dwacra Group Rep. by its Organizer	13 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
EP/6/2025	Cherukumalli Yagna Narayana vs Kolla China Kanthamma	11 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/97/2025	Tumma Srinivasa Reddy vs None	11 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/98/2025	Angirekula Chinnikrishna vs Angirekula alias Dabbakuti Siva Naga Lakshmi	11 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/97/2023	Gannavarapu Chandra Sekhar vs Gannavarapu Prathyusha	10 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/36/2025	Chilamakuri Subbaravamma (died) vs Chilamakuri Venkateswaramma	09 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/15/2025	Tadiboina alias Usha Krishna Manasa vs Tadiboina Gangadhar Rao	08 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/167/2018	Marneni Joseph vs Rathamsetty Anil Kumar	05 Dec 2025	Judgement	—
EP/16/2025	Bolisetty Ramesh Babu vs Yadlapalli Vijaya Chamundeswari Devi	04 Dec 2025	Order	—
IP/19/2024	Kanamarlapudi Kanaka Durga vs Kurra Venkata Rao	04 Dec 2025	Order	—
OP/16/2025	Komarthi Baby alias Durga Bhavani vs Komarthi Varahalu	04 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/3/2024	Dontineni Satyanarayana vs Marneni Lakshminarayana	04 Dec 2025	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 1,100 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		7
Mar 2026		16
Feb 2026		28
Jan 2026		22
Dec 2025		31
Nov 2025		22
Oct 2025		13
Sep 2025		29
Aug 2025		38
Jul 2025		30
Jun 2025		18
May 2025		10

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. G. Vani handled?

Ms. G. Vani has handled 1155 court orders since 2022 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. G. Vani hear?

Based on available records, Ms. G. Vani primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Original Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka).

Where is Ms. G. Vani currently posted?

Ms. G. Vani is posted as PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms. G. Vani available online?

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

How fast does Ms. G. Vani dispose cases?

Ms. G. Vani disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 1155 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka).

Since when is Ms. G. Vani serving?

Ms. G. Vani has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka) since 2022.

Case Types

OS 28%

OP 27%

AS 19%

EP 11%

SC 7%

IP 6%

H 2%

S 1%

Posting History

Nov 2023 — May 2026

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA · 771 orders
Nov 2022 — Nov 2023

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA · 384 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

K Madhu Swamy

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA

0 orders

Sri M. Pavan Kumar

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

461 orders

S. M.kalyani

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

0 orders

Smt. G. Renuka Latha

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA

427 orders

Sri K.Shyam Babu

VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla

206 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka)