1
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA
(Wednesday, this the 2nd day of November , 2016)
Present: Smt I.Sailaja Devi, Secretary, DLSA, Nalgonda. FAC: Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.
O.S.No. 107 of 2016
1. Between:-
Jillala Krishna Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, age: 45 years, Occu: Business, R/o Chityal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
... Plaintiff
2. A N D
1.Salveru Sathyanarayana, S/o Narsimha, age: 37 years, Occu: Business, R/o Chityal village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
2.Salveru Laxmi Prasanna, W/o Sathyanarayana, age: 32 years , Occu: House hold, R/o Chityal village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
…Defendants. This petition coming on before me this day for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Y.Srishylam, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of the defendants set ex parte, having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following.
J U D G M E N T
1. Plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,10,000/- from the defendants.
2. The averment, in brief, has been as follows.
3. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are acquainted with each other. Basing on the said acquaintance the defendant no.1 approached the plaintiff on 12.02.2015 and requested him to arrange an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his business and family necessities, after receiving the above amount the defendant No.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day in the presence of witnesses, agreeing to pay the said amount to the plaintiff or his ordered on demand with interest @ Rs 2/- per month and per hundred. Defendant No.2 is the wife of the defendant no.1 and she stood as guarantor for the due discharge of the liability of the defendant no.1 and she has signed on the above said 2 promissory note as surety. Thus both the defendants have jointly and severally liable to pay the due amount with interest to the plaintiff.
4. But the defendants did not repay the said amount covered by the suit promissory note or any part of it in spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff several times personally approached the defendant no.1 and requested him to pay the due amount with interest, but the defendant no.1 did not pay the due amount and dodging the matter from time to time. Finally on 10.02.2016 the plaintiff personally approached the defendants and demanded for the payment on one reason or the other.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire amount due under the suit promissory note executed by the defendants 1 and 2. Thus both the defendants are liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff.
5. Despite service of summons, the defendants have never turned up and, hence were set ex parte to the suit.
6. During trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1, has filed Ex-A1.
7. PW1 the plaintiff, in his chief examination affidavit, has deposed to the above said averment in the plaint.
8. On a consideration, I find the evidence of PW1 to have remained unchallenged, inasmuch as the defendants have failed to turn up to the court in response to the summons served on them. The said evidence of
PW1, supported by Ex.A1, would prove the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is, accordingly, entitled to have the suit decreed in his favour.
8. In the result, the suit is decreed, against the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs, in a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakhs ten Thousand Only) with pendentelite interest @ 12% per annum, and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realization.
3 Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of November , 2016.
FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NALGONDA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW-1.Jillala Krishna Reddy … PLAINTIFF.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:-NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
Ex.A1. Original Promissory note dt 12.02.2015.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: -NIL-
FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NALGONDA.