Smt. Gorantla Swathi

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR

Present: Smt. G.Swathi,

II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur

Wednesday, the 24th day of April, 2024

Original Suit No.596 of 2022

Between: Siddela Yohan, S/o Venkaiah, Hindu, 55 years, R/o 6-266, near Church, Obulanaidupalem, Pathuru, Guntur. … Plaintiff And:

Gudavalli Pushpalatha, W/o Ballaiah, Hindu, 66 years, R/o D.No.18-24-22, Sera Sangam vari street, Ponnuru road, Anandapet, Guntur. … Defendant

This suit coming on 22.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence Sri K.Sriramulu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri T. William Vara Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,37,600/- being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note, dt.15.05.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and for subsequent interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are:

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 15.05.2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand, on the even date the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt and has been postponing the same either on one pretext or other. The plaintiff got issued registered legal notice, dt.09.03.2022 demanding the defendant to repay the amount due under the said promissory note and after receiving the said notice the defendant is kept silent and did not choose to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

2

3.On receipt of the summons the defendant made her appearance through her counsel and filed the written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that in the year 2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for her family and medical needs and she issued an empty signed promissory note to the plaintiff for security purpose and in the same year the defendant cleared entire debt amount with interest to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to return the empty signed promissory note given by her. But the plaintiff has postponed to return the empty signed promissory note of the defendant on one pretext or other and later by fabricating the said promissory note the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendant to gain unlawfully and no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.After filing written statement by the defendant, the matter was posted for compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of

Civil Procedure. But, the respective counsel reported there is no likelihood of compromise under any one of the modes mentioned under Section 89 of Code of

Civil Procedure. Hence, the matter was posted for settlement of issues.

6.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-

(i)Whether the suit promissory note dated 15.05.2019 is true, valid, and binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for ?

(iii)To what relief?

7.In substantiation of the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his chief examination affidavit and also examined the 2nd attestor of the suit promissory note Ex.A1 as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the Promissory Note, dt.15.05.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is office copy of registered legal notice, dt.09.03.2022 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 is the returned unserved cover with endorsement ‘intimation’. In support of her contention, the defendant is examined herself as D.W.1 by filing her chief examination affidavit and also examined DWs 2 and DW3 as other witnesses and no documents were marked on her behalf.

3

8. Heard the arguments of both the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant. .

9.The learned Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the oral evidence of P.W1 along with the evidence of PW 2 and the documentary evidence under Exs A1 to

A3, clinchingly establish that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff under Ex A1 promissory note and failed to repay the borrowed amount and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 is consistent and corroborating with each other and the plaintiff proved that the defendant borrowed amount from him under Ex A1 promissory note and failed to repay the amount to him and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

10.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the suit promissory note is the fabricated empty signed promissory note given by the defendant to the plaintiff towards security for the amount of Rs.50,000/- lent by the plaintiff to the defendant in the year 2016 and even after repayment of the entire due amount by the defendant, without returning the empty signed promissory note given by the defendant towards security, the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendant to gain unlawfully and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.Issue No.1 :-

(i) In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined himself as PW1 by filing his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contents of the plaint. He deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 15.05.2019 under Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and later failed to repay the same. The plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant demanding her to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 promissory note, but the defendant got returned the said notice vide Ex.A3 and kept silent without paying any amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit. PW 2 who is said to be the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 suit promissory note testified that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.05.2019 and after receiving the said amount from the plaintiff the defendant made her signatures in Ex.A1 promissory note in his presence and he stood as 2nd attestor to the said transaction. The evidence of PW 2 is corroborating with the evidence of PW1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under the same.

(ii) Whereas, the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document devoid of consideration and the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendant to gain unlawfully. Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments 4

Act lays down statutory presumption as to the Negotiable Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. Though P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 were cross examined at length by the counsel for the defendant in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement, no worthful elicitations were made out to make the case of the plaintiff from probable to improbable.

(iii)In support of her contention the defendant, filed her chief examination affidavit and examined herself as D.W.1 reiterating the contents of written statement that in the year 2016 she borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for her family and medical needs and she issued an empty signed promissory note to the plaintiff for security purpose and in the same year she cleared entire debt amount with interest to the plaintiff and requested the plaintiff to return the said empty signed promissory note given by her. But, without returning the said empty signed promissory note given by the defendant towards security, the plaintiff fabricated the said promissory note with the help of attestor and scribe and filed this false suit against her to gain unlawfully and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

(iv) The counsel for the plaintiff contended that the defendant created the concocted story of fabrication of empty signed promissory note by the plaintiff which was given by the defendant towards security in respect of previous money transaction in between them, is only to avoid the payment of the amount due under Ex.A1 suit promissory note to the plaintiff. As contended by the counsel for the plaintiff except contending that she gave her empty signed promissory note to the plaintiff towards security on his demand in respect of the money transaction of

Rs.50,000/- in between her and the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to furnish the particulars of the said transaction ie., time, place, date and other particulars of the said transaction. Further, in her cross examination the defendant as DW1 stated that she repaid the said amount of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by her from the 5 plaintiff in the year 2017. But, as per the averments of the written statement and chief examination affidavit of DW1 the defendant has cleared the debt in the same year ie., in the year 2016 itself. Further, DW1 stated that she cannot say the date, month and time of the said repayment of the amount by her to the plaintiff and no receipt or acknowledgment was obtained by her from the plaintiff as to the same. DW1 further stated that she did not give any police report against the plaintiff and also not issued any legal notice as to the fabrication of the suit promissory note by the plaintiff. She further stated that she did not issue any legal notice to the plaintiff demanding him to return the empty signed promissory note given by her towards security. Admittedly, as contended by the counsel for the plaintiff, no legal steps were taken by the defendant as to her unreturned empty signed promissory note which is allegedly in the possession of the plaintiff and the defendant has failed to furnish the particulars of the said transaction of

Rs.50,000/- borrowed by her from the plaintiff and so also she has failed to furnish the specific amount repaid by her to the plaintiff and the particulars of the said repayment. As mentioned above in her cross examination DW1 stated that she repaid the said amount of Rs.50,000/- borrowed from the plaintiff in the year 2016 itself, but in her cross examination she stated that she repaid the said amount in the year 2017. Hence, the above mentioned facts elicited from the cross examination of DW1 are in support of the contention of the counsel for the plaintiff and the evidence of DW1 finds no support to the contention of the defendant.

(v)DW2 who is the son of the defendant in his cross examination stated that the signatures on Ex.A1 suit promissory note were not made by his mother and also denied his signature in attestors column of Ex.A1 promissory note. As per the contention of the defendant taken in her written statement and the evidence of DW1 and chief examination affidavit of DW2, the defendant gave her empty signed promissory note to the plaintiff towards security purpose, but DW2 who is the son of the defendant made contradictory statement in his cross examination that the signatures on Ex.A1 promissory note are not belongs to his mother ie., the defendant. DW2 again stated that in the year 2016 her mother borrowed amount from the plaintiff in his presence and at that time she handed over one empty signed promissory note to the plaintiff and he made his signature in attestors column of the said promissory note. DW2 stated that they have not taken any steps to prove the genuineness of signatures of Ex.A1 promissory note. As could be seen from Ex.A1 promissory note, DW2 who is the son of 6 defendant has signed as 1st attestor to the said promissory note, but DW2 in his cross examination on one hand has denied his signature on Ex.A1 suit promissory note and on another hand he stated that he signed in attestor column of the empty signed promissory note given by her mother to the plaintiff. Hence, from the above mentioned elicitations made out from the cross examination of

DW2, it is found that the evidence of DW2 also finds no support to the contention of the defendant.

(vi)DW3 who is examined as other witness on behalf of the defendant testified that in the year 2016 or 2017 ie., year ending or starting the defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of plaintiff’s cousin and at that time the plaintiff informed them that the defendant cleared the entire promissory note debt with upto date interest and the plaintiff did not return the promissory note signed by the defendant due to the reason that the promissory note was misplaced in his house and promised to return the same shortly after searching his house. DW3 in his cross examination stated that he does not know the plaintiff, where as in his chief examination affidavit DW3 stated that the defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff in his presence and the plaintiff informed him that the defendant cleared all her debt. Further,

DW3 made another contradictory statement that the defendant informed him that she borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from one person who came along with

Siddela Pavan who is the friend of her son and he does not know the repayment of the amount by the defendant to the said person. Hence, from the evidence of

DW3 it is found that the facts elicited from the cross examination of DW3 are entirely contradictory to facts mentioned in his chief examination affidavit and hence the evidence of DW3 also finds no support to the contention of the defendant. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove her contention by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary.

(vii)The contention of the counsel for the defendant is that the amount allegedly lent by the plaintiff under suit promissory note Ex.A1 is not shown in his income tax returns and as such he is not entitled to claim the said amount and further contended that the plaintiff has failed to show his source of income to lend the amount to the defendant. In “2013 CRIJ (NOC) 572 Bombay” in between “Mr.

Krishna P. Morajkar vs. Mr. Joe Ferrao” it was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court that “The entire scheme of the Income Tax Act is for ensuring that all amounts are accounted for. If some amounts are not accounted for, the person would be visited with the penalty or at times even prosecution under the Income 7

Tax Act, but it does not mean that the borrower can refuse to pay the amount which he has borrowed simply, because there is some infraction of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Infraction of provisions of Income Tax Act would be a matter between the revenue and the defaulter and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the borrower”. Hence, as per the legal position, non-showing of the amount of promissory note in the income-tax return of the plaintiff or non-filing of personal income-tax return by the plaintiff, will not exonerate the defendant of her liability by saying that no loan was advanced to her by the plaintiff. Admittedly, no suggestion was made by the counsel for the defendant during the cross examination of PW1 as to the source of his income to lend the said amount to the defendant and as such the said contention of the defendant need not be considered.

(viii)The another contention of the counsel for the defendant is that PW1 in his cross examination stated that the transaction under Ex.A1 has taken place at his house in Obulanaidupalem, whereas, as per the pleadings of the plaint the said transaction took place at Guntur, which shows that the alleged transaction under

Ex.A1 has not taken place. Whereas, the counsel for the plaintiff contended that

Obulanaidupalem comes under Old Guntur Jurisdiction and there is no meaning in the said contention of the counsel for the defendant. As contended by the counsel for the defendant based on the said statement made by PW1 that the transaction under Ex.A1 has taken place at his house in Obulanaidupalem, it cannot be inferred that the said transaction under Ex.A1 has not taken place.

Further the another contention of the counsel for the defendant that without serving the legal notice to the defendant the plaintiff managed the postal authorities and obtained endorsement on Ex.A3 returned postal cover as intimation, is also not a valid contention as DW1 in her cross examination clearly admitted that she has been residing in the same address mentioned on Ex.A3 returned postal cover for the last 30 years.

(ix)Though the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is the outcome of previous money transaction of Rs.50,000/- borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff and the same is a fabricated one and not supported by consideration, she failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non-existence of the 8 consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist. Hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and is binding on the defendant.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

11. Issue No.2:-

(i)In view of the finding under Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of Rs.3,37,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred only) and the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) under promissory note.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of April, 2024.

II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Siddela Yohan.

P.W.2 : Siddela Pavan Kumar.

For Defendant:

D.W.1 : Gudavalli Pushpalatha.

D.W.2 : Kanaparthy Sunil Kumar.

D.W.3 : Mattikoyya Anil Kumar.

Documents Marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Promissory Note dt.15.05.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

9

Ex.A2 : Office copy of registered legal notice, dt.09.03.2022 issued to the defendant along with postal receipt. Ex.A3 : Returned unserved cover with endorsement as intimation, dt.09.03.2022.

For Defendant: Nil

II ACJ(JD)

GUNTUR.

1

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR

Present: Smt. G.Swathi, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, (FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 22nd day of April, 2022

Original Suit No.70 of 2017

Between:

Kommasani Phanidra Reddy, S/o. Sambi Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Business, R/o. Chirumamilla, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District. … Plaintiff

And

Vaddemgunta Chinna Srinivasa Rao, S/o. China Pulaiah, Hindu, Employee, R/o. Door No.26-32-1/C, 6th Line, A.T.Agraharam, Guntur City, Guntur District. … Defendant

This suit coming on 20-04-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence Sri S. S.Reddy Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri G.Seshagiri Rao Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day,this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is the suit instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) along with accured interest and costs there on under the strength of the promissory note dated 15.02.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Fifty Thousand only).

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) from the plaintiff on 15.02.2016 by executing a demand promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable either to the plaintiff or to his order or bearer of the promissory note on demand. Subsequently, despite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay a single pie either towards principal or towards interest and postponed the repayment on one pretext or other. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 18.11.2016 to the defendant demanding to pay the amount under the said promissory note. But, the defendant after receiving the said notice kept quiet without payment of amount to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

3.On receipt of the summons the defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed the written statement by denying the material averments of the plaint apart from raising several other contentions.

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and not executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

The signature of the alleged promissory note is rank forged and plaintiff filed the suit to 2

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

gain unlawfully from the defendant. The plaintiff has not issued any legal notice prior to the institution of the suit demanding the defendant to to pay the amount which clearly shows that the suit promissory note is a forged document. The plaintiff filed false suit against the defendant by fabricating the suit promissory note to gain unlawfully from the defendant. As such, the suit is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Based on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-

(i)Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration, true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for ?

(iii)To what relief?

6.In substantiation of the claim of the plaintiff, he is examined himself as P.W.1, got examined Vedullapalli Srinivasa Rao who is one of the attestors of the Ext.A.1 suit promissory note as P.W.2 and exhibited Ext.A.1 to Ext.A4. Ext.A.1 is the Original Suit

Promissory Note Dt. 15.02.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice along with two postal receipts

dated 17.11.2016. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgement of defendant addressed to his

employment address dated 18.11.2016. Ex.A4 is the postal acknowledgement of defendant addressed to his residential address. In substantiation of the contention of the defendant he is examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides. The counsel for the defendant filed written arguments apart from submitting oral arguments.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the plaintiff has proved the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 by examining himself as P.W.1 and examining one of the attestors to Ex.A1 as P.W.2, and the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act by adducing any valid evidence and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

9.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that one Kondamadugula Ratna

Reddy got filed this false suit against the defendant by fabricating suit promissory note through the plaintiff who is none other than his brother-in-law and the suit promissory note is devoid of consideration and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

10. Issues No.1:-

(i)In substantiation of the case of the plaintiff, he is examined himself as P.W.1 and deposed through his chief evidence affidavit. The gist is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him for his family necessities by executing Ex.A1 on 15.02.2016 in the presence of P.W.2 and another attestor by name K.Narasimha Rao and one Shankar Rao scribed Ex.A1. Subsequently, despite of repeated demands 3

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

made by the Plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay either interest or principal and postponed the repayment on one pretext or the other. He got issued legal notice Ex.A2, having received the same the defendant kept quiet without payment of amount to the plaintiff. P.W.2 who acted as one of the attestors to Ex.A1 testified that the defendant received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of another attestor K.Narasimha Rao and after receiving the said amount the defendant had made his signature on Ex.A1 and one Shankar Rao acted as scribe to

Ex.A1. P.W.2 who is said to be the attestor to Ex.A2 deposed on the same lines as deposed by P.W.1 as to the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1.

(ii)As the defendant took the contention of fabrication of suit promissory note, the initial burden lies on the defendant. Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act lays down statutory presumption as to the Negotiable Instruments. One of such presumption is that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Once, the defendant showed either by direct or circumstantial evidence or by way of other presumption of law or fact that promissory note was not supported by consideration in the manner stated therein, then, the evidentiary burden would shift to the plaintiff by reviving his legal burden to prove that the promissory note was supported by consideration, at that stage the presumption under section 118 of the Act would disappear. The Learned

Counsel for the defendant cross examined PWs.1 and PW.2 in such a way reflecting the averments of the written statement. But, nothing worthy could be elicited to make out the case of the plaintiff from probable to improbable.

(iii)As per the contention of the defendant the defendant did not sign on any promissory note or any other document in favour of the plaintiff and the suit promissory note was concocted and renk forgery and brought into force to grab the properties of the defendant. But, the defendant as D.W.1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that “the signatures on the suit promissory note are that of him”. When he himself admitted the signatures on Ex.A1 an adverses inference can be drawn against him that the suit promissory note is executed by the defendant.

(iv)At the time of cross examination of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 and while submitting arguments the counsel for the defendant took another contention that the plaintiff filed false suit as henchman of one Kondamadugula Ratna Reddy who is his brother-in-law.

But during the course of cross examination of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 no wothful elicitations were made out in support of the said contention of the counsel for the defendant. The counsel for the defendant further contended that the plaintiff has not issued any notice to the defendant prior to the institution of the suit. But, D.W.1 in his cross examination stated that the address mentioned on acknowledgement/Ex.A3 is his office address and the address mentioned on acknowledgement/Ex.A4 is his residential address. Hence, the said admissions made by the defendant as D.W.1 and Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 shows that 4

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant to both residential and office addresses. Hence, the said contention of the defendant found no basis and need not be looked into. The further contention of the defendant is that the actual amount due under the suit promissory note is Rs.3,06,500/- and hence, the suit is barred by pecuniary jurisidiction. But, as could be seen from the plaint, even though the due amount is

Rs.3,06,500/- the plaintiff filed the suit for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- only and hence, the suit is covered by limitation and within the pecuniary jurisidiction of the court.

(v)Though the defendant contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document, he failed to prove the same by adducing any valid evidence either orally or documentary. Mere making such vague statement and bare denial of passing of consideration is not at all sufficient to hold that the defendant discharged the initial onus of proof, by showing the non-existence of the consideration. On perusal of the evidence on record, the defendant has not brought on record, such evidence, to believe that the consideration did not exist or it's non existence was so probable that prudent man shall act upon the plea that it did not exist, hence, it can be held that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and supported by consideration as stated by the plaintiff.

These issues are answered accordingly.

11. Issue No.2:-

In view of the finding under Issue no.1, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered positively in favour of the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and the plaintiff is also entitled for the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit to till the date of decree, and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till realization on principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Fifty Thousand only).

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, prints are taken by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 22ndday of April, 2022.

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR,

(FAC) PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff: P.W.1/05.09.2018 : Kommasani Phanidra Reddy P.W.2/01.04.2022: Vedullapalli Srinivasa Rao For Defendant: D.W.1/26.09.2019: Vaddemgunta Chinna Srinivasa Rao 5

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

Documents Marked For plaintiff: Ext.A.1: is the Original Suit Promissory Note Dt. 15.02.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.2: is the office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant along with two postal receipts dated 17.11.2016.

Ex.A.3: is the postal acknowledgement of the defendant addressed to his employment address dated 18.11.2016.

Ex.A.4: is the postal acknowledgement of the defendant addressed to his residential address.

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR,

(FAC) PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTR.

//True copy//

PJCJ, GNT

6

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; GUNTUR.

PRESENT : Smt G. Swathi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Friday, the 22 nd day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 70/2017

Between

Kommasani Phanidra Reddy, S/o. Sambi reddy,

Hindu, aged about 30 years, R/o.Chirumamilla nadendla mandal,

Guntur district. ... Plaintiff

And

Vaddemgunta Chinna Srinivasa Rao, S/o. China Pulaiah,

Hindu, aged about not known, R/o. 26-32-1/C, 6th line, AT Agraharam,

Guntur City. .. Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-- being an amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dt. 15-02-2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 2,50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 25-1-2017 Plaint filed on : 27-01-2017

CAUSE OF ACTION :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15-02-2016 when the defendant approached the plaintiff at Guntur and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and he executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the with interest 24% p.a. and that on such dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant for payment of debt under the suit pronote and the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff and on 17-11-2016 when the plaintiff got issued legal notice demanding the defendant discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note and at Guntur where the transaction took place and as such the cause of action all are within the jurisdiction of this court.

PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM:

1] Principal amount Rs. 2,50,000-00

Interest @ 24% per annum 15-2-2016 to 24-01-2017Rs. 56,500-00 ------------------------ 7

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

Rs. 3,06,500-00 ------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.5,426/- is paid Under Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

VALUATION AND COURT FEE:

The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,00,000/-. On which a Court fee of Rs.5,426/- is paid herewith under Sec.20 A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri S.Subba Reddy learned counsel for plaintiff, and the defendant Sri D.Sesha Giri rao and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum on Rs. 2,50,000/-;

3.that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.16,268/- (Rupees sixteen thousand two hundred and sixty eight only) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil ( Cm & FC not filed ).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of Apirl, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl.No.For PlaintiffFor defendant 1Stamp on Vakalat 02-00 2Court Fee 5,426-00 3Stamp on Petition - 4Process fee 40-00 -Nil- 5Typing charges 50-00 CM & FC not filed 6Writing charges 50-00 7Senior Advocate fee10,700-00 8Junior Advocate fee-

Total16, 268-00 8

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge , Guntur

FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

9

OS.70 of 2017, Dated:22.04.2022

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: Smt G. SWATHI,

II A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR

FAC IV A DDL . J UNIOR C IVIL J UDGE , G UNTUR .

Monday, the 31st day of July, 2023.

CALEND CASE No.5750 of 2022. CALEND CASE No.5750 of 2022.

Between :

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S, Guntur Urban … Complainant ---And--

Shaik Kaleem S/o Chan Basha, 29 years, Muslilm, DS Nagar, 3rd lane, Chakaligunta Gandhi Nagar, Etukuru Road, Guntur town. … Accused.

This case is coming on 25-07-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Senior A.P.P., for the State and of Sri S. Rama Krishna, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the record and having stood for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur filed a case against the accused in Cr.No.314/2021 for the offence punishable u/Secs.420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell that:

The accused is inhabitant of DS Nagar, 3rd lane, Chakaligunta, Gandhi

Nagar, Etukuru Road, Guntur town and eaking out livelihood by plying auto.

He was addicted to bad vices, the earnings are not enough to his vices and family needs, he decided to collect PDS rice from poor people which is distributed by Government in cheap rate and sell the PDS rice on higher rate.

Since then the accused moved in door to door in the surrounding area of

Chakaligutna of Guntur town and collected PDS rice from poor people which is supplied by the Government at the rate of Rs.2/- per KG and dumped the same in his home and after collecting 20-30 quintals, he packed the PDS rice in sacks and disposed the same to poultry form owner at Prathipadu road on higher price and earns money illegally. As usually the accused moved door to door to Chakaligunta area of Guntur and collected PDS rice from poor people and purchased from them one Kg per 8/- rupees and kept the same in his house after collecting 20-30 quintals and packed in plastic bags. On 13.06.2021 the accused decided to dispose the PDS rice to poultry form owners at Prathipadu road and stood in front of his house.

2

On credible information, the Investigating Officer LW.5 / K. Nagendra, SI of Police along with Lws.1 / H.C.152 D. Srinivasa Rao and LW2 / PC.5098 Sk.

Nurulla and mediators reached 3rd lane, Chakaligutna at 8.00 p.m and caught hold of accused and arrested him in the presence of mediators and seized PDS rice bags weighing about 2250 kgs and drafted mediatornama and arrested the accused. L.W.5 brought the accused and seized MOs to Police Station and registered the meditornama as a case in Cr.No.314/2021 u/s.420 of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act of Lalapet Police Station on 13-06-2021 at 9.30 p.m. During the course of investigation, LW.5 had examined as many as witnesses and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, served

Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice on accused. LW.5 sent a requisition to the Manager,

APSCSCL Office, Opposite to Registrar Office, Guntur with a request to forward the MOs i.e., PDS rice for testing and opinion. The Manager, APSCSCL Office orally stated that as per the instructions of superior officers and as the equipment are not available, they are unable to give analysis report. LW.5 sent a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntru East with request to receive the seized PDS rice bags. Accordingly, as per the requisition of the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur East, in charge of MLS point received 56 sacks of PDS rice weighing about 22.50 quintals and gave acknowledgement to the rice bags. After completion of investigation, LW.5 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/secs.420 of IPC and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to them as required Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/Sec.239 of Cr.P.C by explaining the charge of accusation made agianst them for the offence punishable under Sec.420 of

Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act in telugu language, for which, he denied the offences and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P6.

7. After the closure of prosecution’s evidence, the accused was examined

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

3

8. Heard both sides. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses along with Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 categorically proved the case of the prosecution and hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that except the official witnesses, there are no independent witnesses to prove the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence and hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

9. Now the points for determination are :- i.Whether the accused was in possession of 56 bags of PDS rice weighing about 2250 kgs for the purpose of selling the same for higher price ?

ii.Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act beyound all reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:

(i)In order to constitute an offence punishable under section 420 of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities Act, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of 56 bags of PDS rice weighing about 2250 kgs by collecting the same for the poor people for the purpose of resale of the same for higher price.

(ii) In order to determine the culpability of the accused, the evidence available before this court is the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.4, Exts.P.1 to

Exts.P.6. P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 are the mediators in whose presence the accused was arrested and the PDS rice was seized from the possession of the accused and P.W.3 is the police constable who participated in the raids on the date of occurrence along with P.W.4 who arrested the accused and seized PDS rice from the possession of the accused and registered the case and filed charge sheet against the accused after the completion of the investigation.

(iii) P.W.4, who is the Investigating Officer cum defacto complainant in this case, testified that on 13-6-2021 at about 12.45 p.m on receiving credible information about illegal transportation of P.D.S rice, he secured the presence of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 as mediators and he along with P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 and other police constables proceeded towards 3rd Line Chakaligunta, and when they reached the house in Door No.19-12-52, the accused tried to skulk away. On that he caught hold of him with the help of his staff and on enquiry, he revealed his name and identity particulars and on further enquiry he confessed that there is a shed next to his house and P.D.S rice is stored in the 4 said shed. In the presence of mediators he verified the said shed and found 56 bags P.D.S rice in total weighing about 2250 Kgs. He arrested the accused and seized the 56 bags of P.D.S rice in the presence of mediators and prepared the mediatornama/Ex.P3. Then he shifted the accused and seized rice to the

Police Station. Basing on the Ex.P3, he registered as a case in Cr.No.314/2021

U/sec.420 IPC and Sec.7 of E.C Act and issued FIR/Ex.P4. Later he served

Sec.41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. He visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch and examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 14-6-2021 he made a requisition to the M.R.O and handed over the seized rice bags to M.L.S point and obtained acknowledgment/Ex.P6. P.W.3 who is said to be the police constable who was present along with P.W.4 at the time of arrest and seizure of the PDS rice from the possession of the accused deposed on the same lines as stated by P.W.4.

(iv) In order to establish the possession and recovery of 56 bags of PDS rice from the possession of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and

P.W.2 who are said to be the mediators who proceeded with P.Ws.3 and P.W.4 to the scene of offence and in whose presence the accused was apprehended and the PDS rice was seized from the possession of the accused. But, P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 who are the crucial witnesses in whose presence the accused is said to be arrested by P.W.4 and PDS rice was seized under the cover of mediatornama Ex.P3 were turned hostile and deposed that no person was apprehended in their presence by the police and no rice was seized in their presence. P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile and deposed contrary version from the case of the prosecution. Though the learned Assistant Public Prosecution cross examined them, no worthful elicitations were made out in support of the case of the prosecution. Hence, in view of the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and P.W.2,

Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 find no support to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence.

(v) Further, normally it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in market and it is not possible to differentiate PDS rice from same variety of rice available in open market, through naked eye.

Without verifying documents and registers, it is not possible to confirm that the seized rice, as that variety of PDS rice is available in open market. Except making allegation that accused procured PDS rice, the prosecution failed to place any material to show that alleged seized rice for beneficiaries (below poverty line families). Hence, in view of the above discussion, in the absence of independent evidence, it is not safe to base conviction, by holding that the seizure and possession of 56 rice bags was proved by prosecution by attaching weight to Ex.P6. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.

5

11. Point No. (ii):-

(i) In view of the discussion under Point No (i), it is held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.7 of Essential Commodities

Act. This point is answered accordingly.

(ii). In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the court on this the 31st day of July, 2023.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

FAC IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : --Nil-

Pw.1 : V. Krishna Pw.2 : K. Prasad Pw.3 : Sk. Nurullah Pw.4 : K. Nagendra

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : --Nil- Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the mediatornama dt. 13-06-2021. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW.2 on the mediatornama dt. 13-06-2021. Ex.P3 is the mediatornama, Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. Ex.P6 is the acknowledgment.

M.OS Marked: -NIL-

II AJCJ, GNT

FAC IV AJCJ, GNT.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUNTUR.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CC.No.5750 of 2022.

DATE OF :-

Offence: 13-06-2021 Filing: 13-06-2021 Apprehension of accused: 13-06-2021 Released on bail: 41A of Cr.P.C Commencement of trial: 13-06-2021 Close of trial: 04-07-2023 Sentence or order: 31-07-2023

Explanation for delay :- Due to non service of summons to the accused and witnesses by the police, the delay has occurred.

Between :

State: Sub Inspector of Police, Lalapet P.S, Guntur Urban … Complainant ---And--

Shaik Kaleem S/o Chan Basha, 29 years, Muslilm, DS Nagar, 3rd lane, Chakaligunta Gandhi Nagar, Etukuru Road, Guntur town. … Accused.

Nature of Offence :- U/Secs. 420 of IPC, Sec.7 of E C Act Plea of accused :- Not guilty Finding :- Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/sec.248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of 6 months as per Section 437A of Code of Criminal Procedure. No order needs to be passed as to the case property since no property is deposited before the Court in this case.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

FAC IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; GUNTUR.

PRESENT : Smt G. Swathi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Fac Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Friday, the 22 nd day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 982/2020

Between:

Degala Swarna Latha,W/o. Prasad, Hindu, aged about 28 years, R/o. Nagaralu, Amaravathi road, Guntur. ---- Plaintiff

And

Sunkara Haribabu , S/o. Sambasiva rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, woking as Typist in CID Regional office,

Kannavarithota, Guntur. .... Defendant

This suit coming on 19-4-2022 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri J. Nageswara Rao Advocate for Plaintiff and of the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the record this court made the following :

JUDGMENT

Thissuit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of sum of Rs 2,71,565/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 11-7-2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 1,48,500/- repayable with interest @ 24% p.a. and for costs.

2]The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

That the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- on 11-7-2017 from the plaintiff for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed a promissory note on the same day for the said sum in favour of plaintiff. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. As such the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice on 1-6-2019 demanding for repayment of debt due under pronote but invain. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

3]Summons ordered against the defendant through court were served on him. Sri G. Yohanu, Advocate filed vakalath for the defendant. Even though stipulated time is completed, defendant failed to file his written statement Defendant called absent. None represented on his behalf. Hence he was set exparte on 15-11-2021 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s evidence to 30-11-2021.

4]The plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex. A1 to

Ex. A3. ExA1 is Suit promissory note dated 11-7-2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex. A2 is Office copy of registered legal notice along with postal receipt

dated 1-6-2019 got issued by plaintiff to the defendant . Ex. A3/11-6-2019 : Postal

acknowledgment of defendant.

5]Heard the counsel for the plaintiff .

6]Now the point for determination is : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest as prayed for ?

7]POINT ; The plaintiff availed provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 [2] CPC, entered into witness box upon oath and examined herself as PW1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by PW 1 upon oath reiterates the averments made in her plaint as true and correct. PW1 in her sworn affidavit deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- on 11-7-2017 from her for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex. A1 promissory note on the same day for the said sum in her favour. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. As such she got issued Ex. A2 registered legal notice on 1-6-2019 demanding for repayment of debt due under pronote but invain.

8]A plain reading of sworn affidavit of PW1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by PW1, reveals that the defendant borrowed the amount from PW1 and to that effect, PW 1 demonstrated Ex. A1 suit promissory note which clearly shows all the ingredients as required under section 3 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Subsequently inspite of demands made by PW1, the defendant failed to repay the amount. Even though stipulated time is completed, defendant failed to file his written statement and failed to appear before the court and none represented on his behalf.

Hence he was set exparte. It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of PW1. The suit is filed within limitation. Therefore, this court opines that

PW1 is entitled to the suit amount with interest. Hence this point is answered.

9]IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for Rs.1,48,500/-[Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight Thousand

Five hundred only] with interest @ 24% from the date of promissory note till filing of the suit and with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e 17-9-2020 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,48,500/-[Rupees One Lakh Forty Eight

Thousand Five hundred only]

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

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II ADDL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE;

FAC PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GUNTUR.

For Plaintiff Appendix of Evidence For defendant

Witnesses examined

PW 1 /D. Swarnalatha - Exparte

For Plaintiff Documents marked

ExA1/11-7-2017 :Suit promissory note executed by defendant ,in favour of plaintiff.

Ex. A2/ 1-6-2019 : Office copy of registered legal notice got issued by plaintiff to the defendant

Ex.A3/ 11-6-2019 : Postal acknowledgment of the defendant.

For Defendant : NIL

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II AJCJ, GNT

//True copy//

PJCJ, GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; GUNTUR.

PRESENT : Smt G. Swathi

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Fac Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur

Friday, the 22 nd day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 982/2020

Between:

Degala Swarna Latha,W/o. Prasad, Hindu, aged about 28 years, R/o. Nagaralu, Amaravathi road, Guntur. ---- Plaintiff

And

Sunkara Haribabu , S/o. Sambasiva rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, woking as Typist in CID Regional office,

Kannavarithota, Guntur. .... Defendant

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,71,565/-- being an amount of principal and interest due on promissory note dt.11-7-2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 1,48,500/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on : 17-9-2020 Plaint filed on : 17-9-2020

CAUSE OF ACTION :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 11-07-2017 when the defendant borrowed the amount and executed a suit promissory note , on 01-06-2019 when the plaintiff has demanded the payment of amount through the legal notice at Guntur where the suit transaction took place and as such the cause of action all are within the jurisdiction of this court.

PARTICULARS OF SUIT CLAIM:

1] Principal amount dt 11-7-2017 Rs. 1,48,500-00 Interest @ 24% per annum 11-7-2017 to 10-7-2018Rs. 35,640-00 ------------------------ Rs. 1,84,140-00 Interest @ 24% per annum 11-7-2018 to 10-7-2019 on Rs. 1,84,140/- Rs. 44,194-00 ------------------------ Rs. 2,28,334/- Interest @ 24% per annum 11-7-2019 to 25-4-2020 on Rs. 2,28,334/- Rs. 43,231/- ----------------------- Rs. 2,71,565/- -----------------------

On which a court fee of Rs. 5,226/- is paid Under Sec. 20 of APCF and SV Act.

VALUATION AND COURT FEE:

The value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.2,71,565/-. On which a Court fee of Rs.5,226/- is paid herewith under Sec.20 A.P.C.F.

& S.V. Act.

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri J.

Nageswara rao learned counsel for plaintiff, and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:

1.that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs;

2. that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,48,500/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% per annum on Rs. 1, 48,500/-;

3.that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.5,228/- (Rupees five thousand two hundred and twenty six only) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil ( Cm & FC not filed ).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 22nd day of Apirl, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

TABLE OF COSTS

Sl.No.For PlaintiffFor defendant 1Stamp on Vakalat 02-00 2Court Fee 5,226-00 3Stamp on Petition - -Nil- 4Process fee- CM & FC not filed 5Typing charges- 6Writing charges - 7Senior Advocate fee- 8Junior Advocate fee- Total5,228-00

II Addl. Junior Civil, Guntur FAC Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

OS No.61/2023 1 PJCJC-GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt G. SWATHI

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, the 11 th day of July, 2023.

O.S NO. 61 OF 2023.

Between:

State Bank of India, SMEC, Guntur Represented by its Chief Manager, Tavva Guravaiah, S/o. Ramanadha, Hindu, aged 58 years, having its office at SBI, SMEC, Arundelpet, Guntur. … Plaintiff.

And

Bandugu Asirvadam, S/o. Nagulu, Hindu, aged 45 years, R/o. 21st Line Margin, Sarada Colony, Guntur. … Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 07.07.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.R.H Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is filed for passing of decree in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant for suit amount of Rs.1,53,776/- and to grant subsequent interest as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement executed by defendant from the date of suit till the date of realization and to awards costs of the suit.

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

The defendant approached the plaintiff bank for Cash Credit

Collateral Free Loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on 06.11.2017 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the credit facilities to the defendant on 04.10.2018 and the defendant undertook to repay the amount with interest @11.05%

OS No.61/2023 2 PJCJC-GNT

per annum calculated on daily balance of loan amount at monthly rests and also undertook to hypothecate the stock in business as security for due repayment of loan amount and the defendant signed on the sanction of credit facilities and in token of receipt of amount the defendant executed letter of arrangement and arrangement of loan cum hypothecation hypothecating the stock in trade as security for due repayment of loan amount and the defendant made part payments and the last payment was made on 30.09.2021 and an account number 37616565710 was opened in the name of defendant and all the transactions are entered into it and as per the said account, the defendant owe an amount of Rs.1,19,115/- on 02.12.2022. Due to Covid, at defendant’s application dt.19.06.2020 the plaintiff sanctioned an amount of Rs.40,000/- on 19.06.2020 for his business purpose as GECL loan and the defendant agreed to repay the amount in monthly installments with interest @9.25% per annum with monthly rests as per the terms and conditions of documents namely letter of arrangement and supplementary agreement of loan cum hypothecation executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and an account No.39422745094 is opened and defendant became due an amount of Rs.34,661/- as on 02.12.2022 and that the defendant failed to repay the amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff including through registered notice dt.08.12.2022. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount due to it. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons ordered against the defendant through Court were served on him. The defendant appeared before the Court and though several opportunities were given to him, he failed to file the written statement and hence after the expiry of statutory period of filing of

OS No.61/2023 3 PJCJC-GNT

written statement, this Court set him exparte on 23.06.2023 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s exparte evidence.

4.In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff bank examined its

Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is the original loan application dt.06.11.2017, Ex.A2 is the original letter of arrangement dt.04.10.2018, Ex.A3 is the original agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt.04.10.2018, Ex.A4 is the original letter of arrangement dt.19.06.2020, Ex.A5 is the original arrangement of loan cum hypothecation dt.19.06.2020, Ex.A6 is the office copy of registered notice issued to the defendant dt.08.12.2022, Ex.A7 is the original postal receipt, dt.08.12.2022, Ex.A8 is the account copy bearing account

No.37616565710 dt.02.12.2022, Ex.A8 is the account copy bearing account No.39422745094, dt.02.12.2022.

5. Heard arguments on behalf of plaintiff counsel.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit

claim from the defendant as prayed for?

7.POINT :

i)The Branch Manager of plaintiff bank examined as P.W.1 and in his chief affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim of plaintiff bank, he had produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is the loan application submitted by the defendant dt.06.11.2017 requesting the plaintiff bank for granting of loan and accordingly the bank authorities arranged the loan amount of Rs.1,89,000/- dt.04.10.2018 vide Ex.A2 and the defendant also executed Ex.A3 agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation dt.04.10.2018, wherein the defendant agreed the terms and conditions in it. Subsequently, on 19.06.2020 the letter of arrangement was made by the bank authorities

OS No.61/2023 4 PJCJC-GNT

at the request of the defendant and the defendant availed further loan amount of Rs.40,000/- and he agreed with rate of interest therein vide

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Subsequently the defendant failed to repay the amount and the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice Ex.A6 to him on 08.12.2022. As per Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 bank account statements, the defendant is due of Rs.1,08,380/- and Rs.32,182/- as on 12.10.2022.

ii) Upon perusal of the documents, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 establish that the defendant obtained loan from the plaintiff bank and subsequently he failed to repay the same as per the statement of accounts in Ex.A8 and

Ex.A9, stipulated in the agreements under Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 when the defendant failed to repay the installments due to the plaintiff bank the plaintiff got issued registered legal notice to the defendant in Ex.A6 and after receiving the notice also the defendant failed to repay the agreed loan amount and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit.

iii) A plain reading of sworn affidavit of P.W.1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by P.W.1, reveal that the defendant availed the loan from plaintiff bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly and though several opportunities have been given to him the defendant failed to file written statement since, statutory period of filing of written statement is lapsed he was set exparte by this

Hon’ble Court. It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the

evidence of P.W.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff Bank and against the defendant with costs for Rs.1,53,776/- [Rupees One Lakh

Fifty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six only], with

OS No.61/2023 5 PJCJC-GNT

subsequent interest @ 11.05% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs.1,53,776/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Three

Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Six only].

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 11thday of July, 2023.

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : P. Rajendra Prasad. - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Defendant : - Nil – Ex.A1 :- Original Loan application dt.06.11.2017. Ex.A2 :- Original Letter of arrangement dt.04.10.2018. Ex.A3 :- Original Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt.04.10.2018. Ex.A4 :- Original Letter of arrangement dt.19.06.2020. Ex.A5 :- Original Arrangement of loan cum hypothecation dt.19.06.2020. Ex.A6 :- Office copy of Registered notice issued to the defendant, dt.08.12.2022. Ex.A7 :- Original Postal receipt, dt.08.12.2022. Ex.A8 :- Original Account copy bearing account No.37616565710, dt.02.12.2022. Ex.A8:- Original Account copy bearing account No.39422745094, dt.02.12.2022.

Sd/- G. Swathi,

II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.