Smt Gavvala Radhika

1 of 5 Calendar Case No.122 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C. AT HUZURABAD

Present: Smt. Radhika Gavvala Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, FAC: I­Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. Tuesday, this the 19th day of January, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No. 122 of 2018

OLD CALENDAR CASE No.1968 of 2008

OLD CC 99 OF 2005

Between:­ The State through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Keshavapatnam, Police Station. …Complainant

And

Bolla Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, 25 yrs, Tenugu, 

Padmashali street, Jammikunta, Karimnagar....Accused No.1

(case against accused no.2 ended as admission in parent CC number I.e CC No.1968/2008 and this case is renumbered after split up against accused no.1 herein)

This case is coming before me for hearing in the presence of learned incharge APPO/Sri Ravi Kiran for the State and learned Legal Aid Counsel/K. Srinivas Reddy for the accused no.1, and having heard and having perused the record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:­ ********************

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Keshavapatnam filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 in Crime No.32/2004 for the offence punishable U/Sec.337, 338 and 304­A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC) and Sec.146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicle Act (for short M.V Act).

2.The facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 02­05­2004, accused no.1 drove ambassador car bearing no. MXV 2030 belonging to accused no.2 in rash and negligent manner and hit one auto on the outskirts of Molangur. As a result auto was damaged and the passengers in the auto sustained injuries and one person namely Kurre Sreenu succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. Basing on the complaint of LW.1, LW.20 registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2004. After investigation LW.21 filed charge sheet against accused no.1 for the offence punishable under section 337, 338 and 304­A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.134 (a)&(b)/187 and 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

2 of 5 Calendar Case No.122 of 2018

3.Originally this case is numbered as CC No. 99 of 2005 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad in the year 2005. Later it is transferred to this court in the year 2008 as such it is renumbered as CC No.1968 of 2008. After completion of trial accused no.1 failed to appear before the court and no representation on his behalf, hence Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against accused no.1. To avoid delay in this matter at the request of accused no.2, case is split up from parent Calender Case No.1968 of 2008 by giving new Calendar Case No.122/2018 against accused no.1. Hence this case is proceeded against accused no.1 alone.

4.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/sec. 337, 338 and 304­A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.134 (a)&(b)/187 and 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against accused no.1.

5. On appearance of the accused no.1, copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him, as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

6. The accused no.1 is examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/sec.337, 338 and 304­A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.134 (a)&(b)/187 and 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Explained substance of accusation in Telugu for which accused No.1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. To prove its case prosecution examined PW.1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P1 to P17. After completion of prosecution evidence accused no.1 alone was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining incriminatory evidence appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which accused no.1 denied the same and reported no defense evidence. Hence defense evidence is closed. Heard both side arguments and perused the record. Now point for consideration is; 

Whether accused no.1 has committed an offences punishable under

sec. 337, 338 and 304­A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.134 (a)&(b)/187

and 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 , beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The death of the deceased Kurre Srinu in the road traffic accident is not in dispute and the involvement of crime vehicle of accused no.2 in the accident also not in dispute. In order to prove the present case, the prosecution is required to prove that;­

a)Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle ambassador car bearing no. MXV 2030 belonging to accused no.2 at the time of the incident;

b)Accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto on 02­05­2004, at 1630 hours at Molanguru out skirts; 3 of 5 Calendar Case No.122 of 2018

c)Accused caused the death of deceased Kurre Srinu with his rash or negligent act which is not amounting to culpable homicide;

9.To prove the above facts, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12. PW.1/Gurram Rajamallu is the defacto complainant and one of the eyewitness to the incident. PW2 to 7 are the injured persons and also eye witnesses to the incident. PW8 is the father of the deceased, PW9 and 10 are the panch witnesses for inquest, PW11 is the 1st Investigating Officer and PW12 is the 2nd Investigating Officer.

10.PW1 to PW7who are crucial witness to the accident deposed in one voice that on the date of incident when the auto reached reached out skirts of Molangur village, the crime vehicle came in opposite in a rash and negligent manner and hit their auto due to which PW2 to 7 sustained injuries and one Kurre Srinu succumbed to injuries. Their evidence establishing that accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of crime vehicle. But their evidence does not disclose that accused no.1 drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident and caused accident. Though PW12 who is the second investigating officer arrested accused no.1 after incident, no steps were taken by him to identify the accused no.1 through eye witnesses. Prosecution even failed to elicit from eye witnesses whether they saw the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident and whether they can identify him, if shown to them.

11.Hence, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that accused no.1 drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident. There is no material before this Court to ascertain whether the accused no.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle or whether the driver of the crime vehicle is a different person. When there is no specific evidence against the accused in this regard, benefit of doubt shall goes to the accused. Though accused no.2 admitted that he is the owner of the crime vehicle and which was involved in the accident, he did not produce any document before this court to establish that accused no.1 drove the crime vehicle on the date of the incident.

12.In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that prosecution successfully established the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle, but it is utterly failed to establish that accused no.1 herein drove the crime vehicle on the date of the accident and is responsible for the death of deceased. In the absence of any evidence, there is no option left to this court 4 of 5 Calendar Case No.122 of 2018 except to acquit the accused. Therefore accused no.1 is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.Accused no.1 is produced from Sub­Jail, Huzurabad. In the result, accused no.1 found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 337, 338 and 304A of IPC and section 134(a), (b) r/w section 187 and section 146 read with 196 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C and his bail bonds if any shall stand cancel after appeal time. The superintendent, sub­jail, Huzurabad is directed to release the accused no.1 forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. He is set at liberty.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 19th day of

January, 2021.

I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For The Prosecution: For The Defence:­ Pw­1: Gurram Rajamallu. ­­None— PW­2: Gumpula Odelu PW­3: G.Kanaka Raju. PW­4: T.Ilumallaiah PW­5: T.Rajkumar. PW­6: Kurre Ailaiah @ Ashok. PW­7: M.Kumar. PW­8: K.Ilaiah. PW­9: T.Sadaiah. PW­10: Kurra Pochamallu. PW­11: Sk.Hyder. PW­12: B.Sridhar Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: ­ FOR THE DEFENCE: ­ Ex.P­1: Complaint. ­­Nil­­ Ex.P­2: 4 Photographs Ex.P­3: Signature on C.D.F. Ex.P­4: Inquest Panchanama. Ex.P­5: F.I.R. Ex.P­6: C.D.F.

5 of 5 Calendar Case No.122 of 2018

Ex.P­7: P.M.E. Ex.P­8: M.V.I. Report. Ex.P­9: M.C. of LW2 Ex.P­10: M.C. of LW3 Ex.P­11: M.C. of LW4 Ex.P­12: M.C. of LW5 Ex.P­13: M.C. of LW6 Ex.P­14: M.C. of LW7 Ex.P­15: Driving License of Accused. Ex.P­16: R.C.Book. Ex.P­17: Xerox copy of Form­54.

MO.s Marked. ­­Nil—

 I­Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First Class Huzurabad

1 of 5 Exparte Judgment in OS. 51 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT :

HUZURABAD

Present:Smt. Radhika Gavvala Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. Wednesday, this the 18th day of August, 2021.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 51 of 2020.

Between: M/s. ICICI Bank Limited, Huzurabad Branch, Represented by its Authorized signatory and Power of Attorney holder Sri. Siddhant Jain, S/o Rajeev Kumar Jain, age: 25 years, occ: Debt Manager, R/o. ICICI Bank Ltd., Mahabubnagar. … Plaintif.

AND

1. Chitla Ravi S/o Yellaiah, age: Major, occ: Agriculture,

2. Chitla Laxmi W/o Pedda Veeraiah, age: Major, occ: Agriculture, Both are R/o. H.No.2-110, near Grampanchayat Office, Chinnakomatipalli (V), Jammikunta (M), Karimnagar (D). ….Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R. Madhu Babu, Learned counsel for plaintiff and the defendants are set exparte and having been heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following: *****************

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money an amount of Rs.4,49,548/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty eight only) by sale of mortgaged property.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that theplaintiff

Bank is incorporated under provisions of Company Act and carrying the banking business under the Banking Regulation Act.

The defendants approached the plaintiff Bank and requested for sanction of loan for the purpose of cultivation, development of their agriculture land, then the Manager of plaintiff’s bank visited and inspected the agriculture lands of defendants and there after

2 of 5 Exparte Judgment in OS. 51 of 2020

the defendants made an application dated 12.05.2016 to sanction the agriculture term loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only), the plaintiff Bank sanctioned the term loan of Rs.4,09,200/- (Rupees four lakhs nine thousand two hundred only) for the first year limit and Rs.5,98,900/- (Rupees five lakhs ninety eight thousand nine hundred only) for the fifth year limit subject renewal of every year. The defendants availed the agricultural term loan by depositing the title deed and patta pass book by mortgaging the agriculture lands of defendant no.1 measuring Ac.1-35 guntas, the defendants received the loan amount and executed the documents in favour of the plaintiff bank, after executing the simple mortgage the defendants availed the loan facility on 25.05.2016 with interest. On arrangement of Agri Term loan credit facility, the defendant has agreed to the terms and conditions as laid down and acknowledged the debt. Thereafter the defendants have been committed default in repayment of the credit facility amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendants were trying to avoid all his liability and under those circumstances the plaintiff is constrained to issue loan recall notice on 10 demanding payment of outstanding due amount.

The defendants finally due a sum of Rs.4,49,548/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty eight only) towards the due amount as on date, the plaintiff bank is entitled to charge interest as per Section 21 (a) of Banking Companies

Act. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of due amount.

3 of 5 Exparte Judgment in OS. 51 of 2020

3.The defendants are set exparte. During the course of exparte evidence, the Debt Manager of the plaintiff's bank got examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintif Bank is entitled for the

recovery of the amount of Rs.4,49,548/- (Rupees four

lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty eight

only) from the defendants as prayed for?

4.The branch Debt Manager of the plaintiff bank got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief evidence affidavit. He got marked Exs.A1 to A10 to prove the suit claim, which are Ex.A1/True Copy of general Power of

Attorney, Ex.A2/Original Credit facility application form obtained from defendant, Ex.A3/Original Sanction intimation, dated 25.05.2016, Ex.A4/Hypothecation deed dated 21.06.2016,

Ex.A5/Signature certification by Bank, dated 12.05.2016,

Ex.A6/Direct Debit form dated 22.06.2016, Ex.A7/Simple

Mortgage deed without possession vide document no.2541/2016,

dated 22.06.2016, Ex.A8/Loan recall notice, Ex.A9/Postal Receipt

and Ex.A10/Statement of account along with Certificate under section 2A Bankers Book of Evidence Act.

5.There is no adverse evidence on record either to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW1 or documentary evidence marked Ex.A1 to A10 as the defendants remained exparte. The plaintiff by filing

4 of 5 Exparte Judgment in OS. 51 of 2020

the chief examination affidavit as PW1 and by Ex.A1 to A10 has proved that it has lent an amount of Rs.3,85,000/- by way of agricultural term loan to the defendants. On execution of mortgage deed dated 22.06.2016 vide document No.2541/2016 and hence this court hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of said amount along with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum and in total entitled to recovery an amount of

Rs.4,49,548/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty eight only) from the defendants as prayed for. The plaintiff bank has established that it is entitled for preliminary decree against the defendants for sale of mortgaged property in order to realize the decreetal amount.

6.In the result, the suit is decreed exparte for an amount of

Rs.4,49,548/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand five hundred and forty eight only) against the defendants No.1 and 2 with costs jointly and severally and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization. A preliminary decree for sale of mortgage property is also passed against the defendants no.1 and 2 in order to realize the suit amount and the time for redemption is 6 (six) months from the date of this Judgment.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open

court on this the 18th day of August, 2021.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

5 of 5 Exparte Judgment in OS. 51 of 2020

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW.1- Prabhakar Sharma Pisupati-Exparte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1True Copy of general Power of Attorney

Ex.A2Original Credit facility application form obtained from defendant

Ex.A3Original Sanction intimation, dated 25.05.2016

Ex.A4Hypothecation deed dated 21.06.2016

Ex.A5Signature certification by Bank, dated 12.05.2016

Ex.A6Direct Debit form dated 22.06.2016

Ex.A7Simple Mortgage deed without possession vide document no.2541/2016, dated 22.06.2016

Ex.A8Loan recall notice

Ex.A9Postal Receipt

Ex.A10Statement of account along with Certificate under section 2A Bankers Book of Evidence Act

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD.

Present: Smt. Radhika Gavvala I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad Tuesday, this the 31st day of December, 2019.

E.P No.15 of 2014

in (OS.No.8 of 2008)

Between:

1.Kalva Raji Reddy, S/o.Buchi Reddy, age: 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Thokalapally, H/o. Chelpur Village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar Dist (died)

2.Kalva Malla Reddy, S/o. Late Raji Reddy, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture

3.Kalva Sudershan Reddy, S/o. Late Raji Reddy, age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture Both are R/o. Thokalapally H/o. Chelpur Village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar.

(The LrR’s of deceased DHR brought on record vide orders in EA.No.25 of 2015 in EP.15 of 2014) ...Decree Holders

And

1.Lekkala Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, age: 60 yrs, Occ: Agriculture (Abated)

2.Lekkala Suguna, W/o. Janardhan Reddy, age: 55 yrs, Occ: Household

3.Lekkala Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture

4.Lekkala Padma, W/o. Srinivas Reddy, age: 45 yrs, Occ: Household

All are R/o. Thokalapally H/o. Chelpur Village of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar District.

...Judgment Debtor No.1 to 4.

This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the Decree Holders and Sri N. Bhoom Reddy, Counsel for the Judgment Debtor No.2 to 4, and having been heard and having stood for consideration, the Court made the following:

2 : : O R D E R : :

1.This petition is filed by the Decree holder U/O.21, R.12 of C.P.C praying the court that the Judgment Debtors No.1 to 4 had an opportunity of obeying the decree passed against them, but they willfully in utter disregard maliciously failed to obey the decree of the injunction passed by this Honourable Court against him in

OS.No.8 of 2008. The Judgment Debtors has also interfered with the peaceful

possession of the decree holder on 04.09.2013 and they willfully disobeyed the orders of the Hon’ble Court. Hence the Decree Holder prayed the court to detention the Judgment Debtors in the Civil Prison.

2.In counter the respondents/Judgment Debtors denied all the averments of petition stating that the petition itself is not maintainable either on factual aspects or on legal aspects. This petition is filed under Sec.151 of C.P.C which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The sec.151 of C.P.C is not applicable for the relief of stay of the proceedings. For staying of the proceedings of E.P the petitioner has to prefer for Revision before Hon’ble High Court. Instead of filing the

Revision before the Hon’ble High Court, the decree holder filed the petition before this court is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Finally they prayed the court to dismissed the EP.

3.During inquiry PW1 and PW2 are examined, no document is marked on behalf of DHR’s. However no witness examined and no document marked on behalf of JDRs. Heard both sides and perused the record. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Decree Holder is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

4. On perusal of record it is observed that pending Execution Petition, sole

DHR died as such his LR’s brought on record. Further it is observed that it is the case of DHR’s that on 04.09.2013 JDR’s willfully disobeyed the decree passed by this Court. Though PW1 and PW2 examined on behalf of DHR’s, no document is marked. However DHR’s filed two documents before this Court one is Certified copy of decree in OS No. 08 of 2008 which is basis to file the present Execution

Petition and another one is typed copy of complaint dated:04.09.2013 lodged by deceased DHR. Though these documents not marked, this court inclined to look into 3 the averments of the complaint dated:04.09.2013 because as per the version of DHrs the cause of action arose on 04.09.2013 to file the present Petition. But on perusal of this document it is observed that though this complaint is address to SHO

Huzurabad, it does not contain any endorsement, even seal of the Police Station,

Huzurabad. Hence it is clear that no complaint lodged by DHR regarding the incident occurred on 04.09.2013. Moreover as per the averments of the said complaint, dated:04.09.2013, on the date of alleged incident at 8.00 A.M, all the

JDR’s trespassed into his house premises, abused him and tried to beat him. But all these not mentioned in the present Execution Petition, even nothing is mentioned about the manner of incident in the chief evidence of affidavit of PW1 who is one of the legal heir of deceased DHR. Burden lies on the DHR’s to establish alleged interference by the JDR’s over E.P schedule property.

5.On perusal of evidence of PW1 it is observed that according to him the present petition is filed for way. But the O.S NO. 08 of 2008 is not pertaining to the way. On the other hand during cross examination of PW2 who is the only independent witness to the incident, examined on behalf of DHR’s reported that he is agnate of DHRs. Therefore it is not safe to rely on the oral allegations of one of the DHR and his relative to punish the JDR’s.

6.In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that DHR’s are failed to prove the alleged interference and disobedience of JDR’s to the decree passed by this court. Therefore this Execution Petition is liable for dismissal. In the result this Execution Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2019.

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad 4

Appendix Of Evidence Witnesses Examined

FOR THE DECREE HOLDER: PW1: Kalva Malla Reddy PW2: Kalva Kamalakar Reddy

FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS:- --Nil —

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE DECREE HOLDER: FOR THE JUDGMENT DEBTORS:- --Nil — --Nil —

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad FAC: Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: Smt. Radhika Gavvala, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, FA: Prl Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad Monday, this the 6th Day of January, 2020.

Original Suit No. 11 OF 2019.

Between:­

Churukanti Raji Reddy, S/o. Jalapathi Reddy, Age:38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Rampur (V) of Huzurabad mandal of Karimnagar district. …Plaintiff.

AND

 Oggoju Sadaiah, S/o. Laxmaiah,Age: 50 years, Occp: Linemen, R/o. Deshrajapally village of Kamalapur mandal of Warangal urban district.  …Defendant.

CLAIM:­ Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and

interest Rs.33,750/­ @ Rs.18% per annum from

24.10.2017 to 24.01.2019 from the defendant.

***

This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri. G. Sammi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and defendant is set­ex­parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:­

: : J U D G M E N T : :

1.The Plaintiff filed the suit on the basis of promissory note against the defendant for recovery of amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and interest Rs.33,750/­ @ Rs.18%­ per annum.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that defendant is know to him since long time and there an acquaintance between them. Therefore with such acquaintance and friendship defendant came to plaintiff repeatedly requested him to facilitate hand loan of Rs. 1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh 2

Fifty thousand only) for his family legal necessities on his repeated requests plaintiff lend an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ on 24.10.2017 on interest @ 1.50% per month. After received the said amount, defendant executed suit promissory not in favour of plaintiff for the said amount to repay with agreed interest as and when demanded by plaintiff before the witness namely Madugula Odelu and scribe by Sangem Bikshapathi. On

Thallapally Samelu was also accompanied with defendant and agreed to stood as surety to defendant accordingly he put his signature on the promissory note as Surety. The defendant also promised that the debt amount with agreed interest will be paid as early as possible whenever demanded by plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff several times orally demanded defendant to repay the debt amount of Rs. 1,50,000/­ with agreed interest on last week of November, 2018 but defendant requested time on one pretext or other for repayment, but not paid.

3 In the said circumstances , the plaintiff therefore, disgusted with defendant attitude as such as a final and last chance gave demand notice

dt: 10.12.2018 to defendant repay the debt amount of Rs.1,50,000/­

(principal amount) with agreed interest within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice. The said notice was received by the defendant and after receipt of the notice he neither paid the amount nor gave any replay.

Thus the defendant is trying to evade the payment of debt amount. The efforts made by the plaintiff were in vain. So that it is crystal clear that the defendant is trying to avoid his liability to repay the borrowed amount along with interest. Hence the suit.

3

4.The defendant is set exparte.

5.During the course of exparte evidence, the plaintiff got himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

6.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. 

7.Perused the record. 

8.Now the point for determination is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ and interest Rs.33,750/­ @ Rs.18%­ per annum from 24.10.2017 to 24.01.2019 prayed for?

Point:

9.The plaintiff filed chief evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination to prove the plaint pleadings. The plaintiff has filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, Exs.A1 is Original

Promissory note, dated:24.10.2017, Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice and Ex.A3

Original Postal acknowledgment of the defendant.

10.As could be seen from the evidence of Pw1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 24.10.2017 towards hand loan and, the defendant executed a promissory notes, Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to repay the said loan amount in spite of repeated requests of the plaintiff. The documents filed by the plaintiff amply prove the suit claim.

As the defendant remained exparte, the claim of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence, the suit claim is proved. Accordingly, the point is answered.

4

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ together with interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the suit till date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum from the date of decree till realization.

Dictated to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court

on this the 6th day of January, 2019.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW­1. Churukanti Raji Reddy­­None­­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is Original Promissory note, dated:24.10.2017. Ex.A2 Office copy of Legal Notice. Ex.A3 Original Postal acknowledgment of the defendant.

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ­Nil­ 

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C. AT HUZURABAD

Present: - Smt. Radhika Gavvala Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, I Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C, Huzurabad.

Wednesday, the 6th day of January, 2021

C C. No.463 OF 2016

Between: The State through SHO, P.S Huzurabad

...Complainant

// AND //

1) Neelam Sammaiah, R/o. Jupaka V/O Huzurabad Mandal

2) Neelam Raju, R/o. Jupaka V/O Huzurabad Mandal

...Accused.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION: U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC

This case is coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Learned APPO

for the complainant and the accused is in person, and having heard and having perused the

record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: - :: AWARD::

This case is suomoto advanced to this day, since police executed NBW against A1 and A2. The particulars of A1 and A2 are tallied with the particulars mentioned in the record. Hence A1 and A2 are remanded to Judl. Custody till 19/1/2021. At this junction Lw2 is present and he reported that himself and his son/Lw1 entered into compromise with accused and prayed the court to close the case in Lok-Adalat. Since Lw1 is lorry driver and is out of station. Lw1 is enquired virtually and found that both Lw1 and 2 voluntarily compromised with accused. In the circumstances this case is referred to LA Bench. Accused and Injured/Victim/Defacto complainant appeared before Lok Adalat bench and filed compromise petition reporting that they have compromised the offence(s) voluntarily and without any coescion. Examined the parties by the Lok Adalat Bench and found correct the offence is/are compoundable. Hence recorded the compromise and the accused acquitted U/Sec. 320(8) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of January, 2021.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, FAC:I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad.