Smt J Hema Sravanthi

Fair 1C.C.No. 09/2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : Vizianagaram

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Judicial First Class Magistrate , Bobbili,

Date of

Apprehen- ReleaseCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment on bailment of trialtrial accused 41(A) of Does not 24.11.2025 24.11.2025 Cr.P’C06.04.202604.05.202605.05.2026 arise notice

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 09 of 2026 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Bobbili.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balijipeta P.S., Cr.No.61/2025

Name of the accused with AgeCallingResident father’s name

Pusarla Nageswara rao S/oReisdent of Arasada village of 65 - Late GangarajuBalijipeta mandal. years Offence: U/s. 34(a) of AP Excise Act

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under Section 271 (1) of BNSS., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 and 2 i.e., sample bottle of Bangalore whiskey and Royal Lancer whiskey shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Remarks : NIL

Date: 2026.05.05 11:50:24 +0530

Explanation for the delay : NilLocation: Bobbili

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bobbili. Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Dis No.

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 2C.C.No. 09/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BOBBILI

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili

Tuesday, this the 5th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.09/2026

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Balijipeta P.S.

...Complainant

And

Pursarla Nageswara rao, S/o Late Gangaraju, aged 65 years, Resident of Arasada village of Balijipeta mandal. …Accused

This case came before me on 04.05.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri M. Simhachalam, Advocate for Accused upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub - Inspector of Police, Balijipeta P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise

Act.

2. The brief allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:-

On 24.11.2025 at about 10.30 hours., L.W.2 – Y. Simhachalam, S.I of

Police, Balijipeta P.S., along with his staff member i.e., L.W. 1 – L. Suryanarayana, found the accused at the Vengapuram village and he is in possession of illicit liquor bottles i.e., Bangalore whiskey – 8 bottles, 2. Royal Lancer whiskey – 3 bottles. On enquiry, the accused got perturbed and admitted the possession of liquor bottles without license. L.W.2 has pick up one bottle as sample from the property, arrested

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 3C.C.No. 09/2026 the accused and seized the crime property. It is further alleged that LW-2 brought the accused to Police Station and registered a case in crime No.61/2025 under

Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act. The sample was also sent to analyst for examination. LW2 served section 41(A) CrPC notice to accused. The analysts issued a report opining that the samples are Indian made liquor. After completion of investigation LW-2 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3. This case was taken on file under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to her as required under Section 231 of BNSS.

5. Accused was examined under Section 269 of BNSS., and the charge under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3, M.O.1 and 2.

 Ex.P1 – Occurrence report.

 Ex.P2 - First Information Report.

 Ex.P3 - Analysis Report.

 M.O.1 - Sample bottle of Bangalore whiskey  M.O.2 - Sample bottle of Royal Lancer whiskey

7. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 351 of BNSS., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in oral and documentary evidence, he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard the arguments of both sides.

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 4C.C.No. 09/2026

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

To bring home the guilt of accused for the offence under section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2.

11. P.W.1 – L. Suryanarayana, Constable, Balijipeta P.S., deposed that on 24.11.2025 at about 05.00 hours he along with P.W.2 reached Vengapuram village, there they found the accused in possession of Bangalore whiskey – 8 bottles, 2.

Royal Lancer whiskey – 3 bottles in a white plastic bag suspiciously. On suspicion they caught hold of him and on enquiry accused revealed his identity and confessed that he is possession of without any valid license, P.W.2 has drawn one sample from variety for analysis under cover of Ex.P1 – occurrence report. Later,

P.W.2 seized the property and arrested the accused.

12. PW-2 – Y. Simhachalam, Sub Inspector of Police, Balijipeta P.S has deposed that on 24.11.2025 at about 05.00 hours., he along with P.W.1 reached

Vengapuram village, there they found the accused in possession of a plastic bag suspiciously and they caught hold of him. On enquiry accused revealed his identity and confessed that he is in possession of Bangalore whiskey – 8 bottles, 2. Royal

Lancer whiskey – 3 bottles. P.W.2 has drawn one sample from variety for analysis under cover of Ex.P1 – Occurrence report. Later he took the accused along with crime property to police station and registered Ex.P.2 FIR basing on Ex.P1 occurrence report as a case in crime No.61/2025 under Section 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act. PW-2 further testified that he has sent the sample for Analysis and received report that it is Indian made Liquor Ex.P3 Analysis report. Later, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 5C.C.No. 09/2026

13.Section 34 of Act connotes:

“Penalties for illegal import, etc.:- Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.-- Section 34 (a) speaks for speaks for imports, exports, transports, manufacturers, collects or possesses or sells any intoxicant.

(i) removes any intoxicant from any distillery, brewery or ware house licensed, established or continued under this Act…

14. In order to bring the case within the ambit of section 34 (a) of A.P

Excise Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that accused was in possession of crime property without any permit. It is also the duty of prosecution to probe by sending the seized sample to chemical analysis to find out as to whether the bottles contain Indian made liquor.

15. The evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 who are Police officials is that on 24.11.2025 at about 05.00 hours, they reached the scene of offence which is situated at Vengapuram, there they noticed accused with liquor, they seized the crime property and got prepared Ex.P1 occurrence report.

16. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is manifest that the place of offence is situated in busy area. But P.Ws-1 and 2 did not make any efforts to secure independent persons to act as mediators. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 that they did not try to secure the presence of local inhabitants of scene of offence locality. On perusal of Ex.P1-occurrence report, it does not reveal about the venture of PWs in securing the mediators .

17. In S. Babu Saheb @ Babu Vs. The state of A.P., reported in 2009 (4) A.P.L.J., 57 (HC), it was held that :

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 6C.C.No. 09/2026 “ The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediator in this case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the Court below did not consider the importance of taking local respectable independent mediators, hence their judgments resulted in miscarriage of justice and liable to be set a side.”

18. No receipt was issued to the accused to show that EX.P1 –

Occurrence report was prepared at the place of arrest and the property was seized in his presence. As Ex.P1 is silent about efforts of investigating agency to secure independent witnesses, it gives raise to a doubt about the very presence of accused at the place of arrest and the seizure of property from the accused.

19. Further P.Ws-1 and 2 who are the Police personals deposed with regard to procedural aspects only and the prosecution has failed to examine any of the local inhabitants in support of its case. Except the oral evidence of official witnesses, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of A.P Excise Act. The learned defence counsel also argued that there is no corroboration.

20. In Karolla Chinnaiah and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2014(2) ALD (Crl.) 641, it was held that :

“When the evidence of PW2 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of PW2, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned Trial Judge referring to Section 134 of Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But here this PW2 being the complainant and Investigating Officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness.”

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

Fair 7C.C.No. 09/2026

21. Hence, in view of the above decisions, the prosecution has failed to establish its case against accused, beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act and thereby, he is acquitted under

Section 271 (1) of BNSS., of the said offence. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 and 2 i.e., sample bottle of Bangalore whiskey and Royal Lancer whiskey shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr. III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.05 11:51:07 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bobbili.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

P.W.1: L. Suryanarayana, Constable, Balijipeta P.S. -None- P.W.2: Y. Simhachalam, Sub Inspector of Police, Balijipeta P.S.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Occurrence report Ex.P.2: First Information Report Ex.P.3: Analysis Report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 - Sample bottle of Bangalore whiskey

M.O.2 - Sample bottle of Royal Lancer whiskey Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.05 11:50:44 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bobbili.

Dt.05.05.2026 JFCM, Bobbili.

1 (C.C.381/2020)

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, BOBBILI

Present: Smt Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

C.C.No.381/2020

Between: State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Therlam P.S.

...Complainant

And

Konchada Dharmarao, S/o Ramulu, aged 38 years, Resident of Mirthivalasa village, Santhakaviti mandal, Srikakulam district. …Accused

This case came before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri A. V. Someswara rao, Advocate for Accused upon hearing on both sides, having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub - Inspector of Police, Therlam Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, here -in- after referred as IPC)

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that :-

LW1 / de facto complainant – Konchada Tulasi is wife of accused –

Konchada Dharmarao. About seven years ago, LW1 used to play the role of Ganga in Siva Bhagavatham in village functions and the accused used to play musical

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

2 (C.C.381/2020) instrument called Dholuk. Both of them participated in Vanjarapupeta village program and got acquaintance with each other. Later, both of them fell in love as the accused stated that his mother and relatives demanded dowry for their marriage and hence, the parents of LW1 has presented Rs.20,000/- to the accused and their marriage was performed at about 6 years ago as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of LW1 gave Rs.10,000/- worth household articles. The accused works as mason. LW1 joined the marital fold of accused and lived happily for one year. Later, the accused addicted to bad vices like drinking, gambling etc and did not go to work. The complainant requested the accused to go to his parent’s house at Mirthrivalasa village, but the accused did not agree. Ultimately, both of them came to the parent’s house of LW1 at M.R.

Agraharam. The accused started harassing LW1 physically and mentally. After 3 ½ years, LW1 gave birth to a baby girl. The accused did not change his attitude and he used to beat complainant demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,000/- as the parents of LW1 has expressed their inability, the accused bore grudge and bet LW1 indiscriminately. Though, the matter is placed before elders I.e LW2 and 3, the accused did not mend his attitude. The accused stated that he would marry another girl if LW1 fails to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,000/-. In the said circumstances,

LW1 filed complaint before Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Bobbili and the same was forwarded to Bobbili PS. Basing on the complaint of LW1, LW6-

Ch. Naveen padal, the then SI of police, therlam PS registered a case in crime no.

128/2019 under section 498 A of IPC. During the course of his investigation, he

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

3 (C.C.381/2020) examined LW1 to 5 and recorded their statements under section 161 CrPC. He issued 41 A CrPC notice to the accused. After completion of investigation L.W.6 filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.This case was taken on file under Section 498-A IPC against accused.

4.When the accused appeared before the Court, copies of case documents were furnished to him under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charge under sections 498-A of IPC is framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

•Ex.P1 - Complaint •EX.P2 – Relevant portion from line no.6 to bottom of statement of PW1 under section 161 CrPC.

•Ex.P3 – Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161 CrPC •Ex.P4 - Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161 CrPC

6.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of

L.Ws. 4 to 6 as P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are material witnesses has turned hostile.

7.As no incriminating material is found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused, the examination of the accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.13 16:42:11 +0530

8.Heard both sides. Location: Bobbili

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

4 (C.C.381/2020)

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

POINT:-

10.In order to establish the accusation against the accused, the prosecution examined the defacto- complainant K. Tulasi (P.W.1). At first, P.W.1 deposed before the court that her marriage with accused was performed about 15 years ago and she gave birth to a baby girl. After one and half years, disputes arose between herself and accused, due to which the accused has beat her in drunken state and abandoned her, which made her lodge Ex.P1. Except, the above contents she did not speak anything material in her chief examination incriminating the accused for allegedly subjecting her to cruelty and harassment with an unlawful demand or even willful misconduct driving her to commit suicide as provided under section 498 A of IPC, due to which learned APP got permission of this court and cross examined PW1, wherein relevant portion from line no.6 to bottom of statement of PW1 is marked as Ex.P3. In fact, in the cross examination, PW1 testified that there is no proof to show that the accused is father of her daughter and categorically testified that she do not know the contents of her statement under section 161 CrPC. While the evidence of PW1 is as above not disclosing any ingredients under section 498 A IPC, the prosecution got examined PW2 and 3

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

5 (C.C.381/2020) stating that they are elders of the panchayat held between PW1 and accused.

Unfortunately, PWs2 and 3 did not speak anything incriminating against the accused and they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Though, the prosecution got marked their statements under section 161 CrPC as Ex.P3 and P4, the contents of the same cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless corroborated with their oral testimonies. By virtue of oral evidence of PWs1 to 3 coupled with contents of Ex.P1 to P4, it is found that there is no iota of evidence on record to say that the accused has subject PW1 to cruelty and harassment for unlawful demand driving her to commit suicide. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

11.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

BOBBILI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : K. Thulasi --NONE--

PW2 : Dali Gopi

PW3 : Dali Ramakrishna

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

6 (C.C.381/2020)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

•Ex.P1 - Complaint •EX.P2 – Relevant portion from line no.6 to bottom of statement of PW1 under section 161 CrPC.

•Ex.P3 – Statement of PW2 recorded under section 161 CrPC •Ex.P4 - Statement of PW3 recorded under section 161 CrPC

FOR DEFENCE:: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : Nil

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.13 11:19:50 +0530

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

Location: Bobbili

BOBBILI.

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

7 (C.C.381/2020)

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District : Vizianagaram

Calendar and Judgment tried by Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram Judicial First Class Magistrate , Bobbili,

Date of

Apprehen- ReleaseCommence-Close of OffenceReportsion ofJudgment on bailment of trialtrial accused 41(A) of Prior toDoes not 10.08.2019Cr.P’C07.01.202612.05.2026 13.05.2026 10.08.2019arise notice

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 381 of 2020 on the file of the Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Bobbili.

Complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Therlam P.S., Cr.No.128/2019

Name of the accused with AgeCallingResident father’s name

Konchada Dharmarao, S/oReisdent of Mirthivalasa village, 38 Ramulu-Santhakavitimandal, years Srikakulam district. Offence: U/s. 498 A of IPC

Finding : Accused is found not guilty.

Sentence : Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable Under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Remarks : NILJ HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.13 11:19:23 +0530

Explanation for the delay : Nil Location: Bobbili

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bobbili. Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Dis No.

dt. 13.05.2026JFCM/BBL

Fair 1 Draft (O.S.11/2023)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bobbili.

Tuesday, the 5 th day of May, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 11 /2023 .

Between:

Karri Bhagyavathi, W/o late Appa Reddy, aged 60 years, residing at D. No. 7-21, Raja street, Artamur village and mandal, East Godavari District.

… Plaintiff. - And -

1. Chirla Varalakshmi W/o late Chirla Sambasiva Reddy, aged about 43 years, residing at Gowda veedhi, Bobbili Town and mandal, vizianagaram district.

2. Chirla Vinitha Reddy D/o late Chirla Sambasiva Reddy, aged about 43 years, residing at Gowda veedhi, Bobbili Town and mandal, vizianagaram district.

3. Chirla Neelima D/o late Chirla Sambasiva Reddy, aged about 43 years, residing at Gowda veedhi, Bobbili Town and mandal, vizianagaram district.

4. Chirla Adilakshmi W/o Satyanarayana Reddy, aged 68 years, residing at Gowda veedhi, Bobbili Town and mandal, vizianagaram district.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30.04.2026 in the presence of Sri K. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants were set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.2,80,000/- based on Two suit promissory notes which comes to a tune of Rs.3,34,600/- with interest and costs.

Dt.05.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 2 Draft (O.S.11/2023)

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2.On 22.09.2021, one Chirla Sambasiva Reddy S/o

Satyanarayana Reddy has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed the suit promissory note, promising to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Again, on the same day evening, the said Chirla Sambasiva Reddy borrowed Rs.1,30,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed the suit promissory note, promising to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally, the said Chirla Sambasiva Reddy failed to discharge the debt. Later, the said Sambasiva Reddy died on 27.09.2022 leaving the defendant nos.1 to 4 as his Legal heirs.

Though, the plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the principal amounts along with interests under said four promissory notes, the defendants did not choose to make any repayment and dodged the matter on one or other pretext. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3. Defendants were set exparte.

4.In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

Ex.A1 – Suit promissory note dated 22.09.2021 for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A2 – Suit promissory note dated 22.09.2021 for Rs.1,30,000/-

Dt.05.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 3 Draft (O.S.11/2023)

5.Perused the pleadings and exhibit available.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

POINT:

7.The Plaintiff filed her chief examination affidavit as

P.W.1, confirmed the contents of the same. She testified in chief that the deceased original borrower, for his family expenses, has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000 on 22.09.2021 from him and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Subsequently, the said original borrower died leaving the defendant nos.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. Later, the plaintiff demanded the defendants, but they failed to repay the debt amount. As the defendants were set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged and uncontroverted as not cross examined by the defendant. In the light of evidence of P.W.1 and contents of documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff is proved.

Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.4:

To what relief ?

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.3,34,600/- (Rupees Three Lakhs

Dt.05.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 4 Draft (O.S.11/2023)

Thirty four thousand and six hundred only) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on four principal amounts adjudged to Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs eight thousand only) from the estate of deceased Chirla Sambasivarao.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.05 13:38:43 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bobbili

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1: Karri BhagyavathiNIL

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 – Suit promissory note dated 22.09.2021 for Rs.1,50,000/-

Ex.A2 – Suit promissory note dated 22.09.2021 for Rs.1,30,000/-

For Defendant :- - Nil - Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.05 13:39:08 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bobbili

Dt.05.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), BOBBILI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram,

Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Bobbili.

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of May, 2026

O.S. No. 73/ 2024

Between:

Potnuru Sai, S/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 27 years, resident of Bobbili Town, Vizianagaram District, … Plaintiff. - And -

Gembali Chaitanya, S/o Rama Rao, aged 28 years, resident of Devangula veedhi, Chinabazar, Pakodi shop, Bobbilit Town, Vizianagaram District … Defendant

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 13.05.2026 in the presence of Sri M. Ramana rao and Sri G. Krishna, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri. G. Gopal Krishna Sharma, Advocate for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- based on suit promissory note which comes to a tune of Rs.1,45,200/- with interest and costs.

2. The facts of the plaintiff’s case in brief is that:

On 22.04.2022, the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and has executed the suit promissory note, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. On 05.03.2024,

Dt.13.05.2026PJCJ Court, BBL 2 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant demanding repayment but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

Written statement contentions:

3.The defendant filed his written statement denying all the plaint averments and contended that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document by taking advantage of his signatures in blank promissory note and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court:

1 ) Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and

binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

3) To what relief ?

5.The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3, which are promissory note, legal notice and postal acknowledgment. When the matter is coming up for further evidence of plaintiff, on request of learned counsels for both the parties, the matter was referred to Mediation centre, vizianagaram.

6.On 07.05.2026, this court received mediation report from Mediation

Centre, Vizianagaram, wherein Sri G. Swaminaidu, Trained Mediator is appointed to mediate the issue between the parties. The learned Mediator has submitted report to the mediation centre containing terms of compromise and conditions between the parties i.e. plaintiff and defendant.

Dt.13.05.2026PJCJ Court, BBL 3

7.Terms of Compromise mentioned in Mediation Report :

i. Both the parties are settled amicably before the mediator.

ii. The defendant agreed to pay Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) to the plaintiff towards the suit amount of

Rs.1,45,200/- (Rupees One lakh forty five thousand and two hundred only) towards full and final settlement of the suit claim and the same is agreed by the plaintiff.

iii. Today, the defendant paid Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) from the agreed amount and agreed to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) in three equal instalments i.e, on 04.06.2026, 04.07.2026 and 04.08.2026 and the same is agreed by the plaintiff.

8.Accordingly, the terms and conditions in the mediation report is read over to the parties in telugu and admitted by them to be true and correct and the parties admitted their signatures in the report as if signed voluntarily. The terms of the medaition report are found lawful. The parties were apprised that they shall abide by the terms and conditions in the report and that if any party fails to comply, the aggreived party is at liberty to proceed as per Law. Accordingly, Mediation report is recorded. The suit is disposed by way of mediating the issue between the parties. Accordingly, decree is passed as per agreed terms between the parties in the mediation report.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.13 16:42:11 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division)

Bobbili

Dt.13.05.2026PJCJ Court, BBL 4

Enclosure

Mediation report along with photos and ID of parties.

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.13 16:41:40 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division)

Bobbili

Dt.13.05.2026PJCJ Court, BBL

Fair 1 Draft (O.S.03/2026)

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

BOBBILI.

Present: Smt. Hema Sravanthi Janakiram

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bobbili.

Monday, the 4 th day of May, 2026

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 03/2026

Between:

Gujjala Kurmayya, S/o Appalaswamy, aged 39 years, door no.3-24, Locharla Village, therlam mandal, vizianagaram district.

… Plaintiff - And -

Mendi Appalanaidu, S/o late Appala Swamy, aged 48 years, door no. 2- 18, Rangappavalasa village, therlam mandal, vizianagaram district.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 30.04.2026 the presence of Sri K. Simhachalam, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- based on suit promissory note which comes to a tune of

Rs.1,19,600/- with interest and costs.

Dt. 04.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 2 Draft (O.S.03/2026)

The facts of the plaintiff's case, in brief, is that :-

2.On 10.03.2025, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the promissory note, promising to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. to him or to his order on demand. Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant, but he did not choose to discharge the debt even after repeated demands by plaintiff. At last, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 06.12.2025 but in vain. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of suit amount.

3. Defendant was set exparte.

4.In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

Ex.A1 - Promissory note dated 10.03.2025.

Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice

5.Perused the pleadings and exhibit available.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?”

POINT:

7.The Plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit as

P.W.1, confirmed the contents of the same. He testified in chief that the defendant for his family expenses, has borrowed an amount of

Dt. 04.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 3 Draft (O.S.03/2026)

Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.03.2025 from him and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the debt amount.

As the defendant was set exparte, the evidence of P.W.1 stood unchallenged and uncontroverted as not cross examined by the defendant. In the light of evidence of P.W.1 and contents of documentary evidence, the case of the plaintiff is proved. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,600/- (Rupees One lakh nineteen thousand and six hundred Only) with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and further interest at 6% pa, from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.04 12:40:23 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division),

Bobbili.

Dt. 04.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.

Fair 4 Draft (O.S.03/2026)

APPENDIX OF EVIDEN CE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :-For Defendant :-

P.W.1:G. Kurmayya NIL

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 - Promissory note dated 10.03.2025.

Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice.

For Defendant :- - Nil -

Digitally Signed by

J HEMASRAVANTHI

J HEMASRAVANTHI

Date: 2026.05.04 12:40:04 +0530

Location: Bobbili

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division),

Bobbili.

Dt. 04.05.2026 P.J.C.J., BBL.