Sri J.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka) · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, Civil Judge (Senior Division), is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,780 court orders on record since 2019. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, H, EP cases.

1,780

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

H.M.O.P/20/2020 Compromised

Sri. Maddi Rama penteswara Rao alias Rambabu vs Maddi Nandini

20 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri J.Srinivasarao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P.No. 20/2020

Between:-

Maddi Rama Penteswara Reddy @ Rambabu, S/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy, aged 29 years, resident of D.No.30-1-8, Nani Apartments, Rangayyanaidu street, Kakinada.

.. PETITIONER

A n d :-

Maddi Nandini, W/o. Rama Penteswara Reddy @ Rambabu, aged 26 years, D/o. Pirentla Ramu, Velduru village, Pusapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram District.

.. RESPONDENT

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U. Ravisankar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri

P.Janardhanarao, Advocate for the respondent, after having stood over for consideration, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.Originally, the petitioner/husband filed this petition under

Sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to dissolve the marriage held on 7.8.2009 in between the petitioner and respondent by decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

(i) The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and their marriage took place on 7.8.2009 at the parents’ house of the respondent at Velduru village, according to Hindu rites and caste custom in vogue, in the presence of the family members relatives etc. After marriage the respondent joined the petitioner at Kakinada village and their marriage was also consummated, however, they have no children. Due to 2 much love and affection the parents of the petitioner gifted four tulas of gold ornaments to the respondent at the time of marriage.

(ii)Thereafter, the respondent started demanding the petitioner to start kapuram separately in another house I.e, far away to the petitioners’ parents, though the petitioner tried to convince the respondent, she did not convince, and she insisted for separate residence, however, the petitioner has not shown interest for such separate residence in view of his old aged parents and also due to heart ailment of his father, and as such, the respondent started threatening to the petitioner. In furtherance of her threats, the respondent herself tried to pour kerosene on the body in the room by locking the doors, and that the neighbouring flats residents admonished the respondent and stopped her from high handed attempts, and again once the respondent threatened the petitioner saying that she is going to jump from the terrace of the apartment and left away the room, and the petitioner having an intention to stop her, he reached the terrace, but he could not trace out, hence, the petitioner, his parents and other flats residents searched for her and finally, they found her in bathroom of the ground floor. Then, all of the residents of the said apartment admonished the respondent and so, she gave a false complaint against the petitioner and the police enquired the residents of the apartment and found that the said complaint is false one.

(iii)Whileso, the respondent used to quarrel with the petitioner and to give complaint against him and finally all the complaints were found false by the police. Finally, the respondent quarrelled with the petitioner on the reason for separate kapuram and left the conjugal home and joined her parents. Thereafter, the petitioner and his parents made their efforts to take back the respondent, but their efforts turned futile. In view of much love and affection towards the respondent, the petitioner tried to 3 commit suicide on 19.11.2016 as he was unable to tolerate her separation from his life, and the police also registered crime against him under Sec.309

IPC and the court imposed fine to the petitioner, and due to the attempt of suicide, the petitioner became weak and unable to carry weight and not in a position to do hard works.

(iv)The petitioner’s parents again tried to restore the conjugal life of the petitioner, but the respondent and her parents did not accept to join with the petitioner unless he started separate residence.

Thereafter, the petitioner got issued legal notice on 26.10.2017 to the respondent requesting her to restore the conjugal life with him, for which, the respondent got issued reply on 18.12.2017 with all false and baseless allegations, and in the said notice she imputed illicit intimacy to the petitioner with one Vijaya, and that on receipt of the said notice, the petitioner again got issued rejoinder notice on 24.2.2018 with correct state of things and further requesting the respondent to come and join him. But, the respondent did not choose to come and join the petitioner and thereby she deserted him without any reasonable and justifiable cause, and hence, the petitioner is compelled to file this petition for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Hence, the petition.

3.The respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition and further contended that she never asked the petitioner to start kapuram at separate house apart from his parents’ house; and that it is the petitioner and the said Vijaya tried to do away with the life of this respondent by pouring kerosene on her body and then the neighbours of the apartment came and admonished the petitioner when this respondent gave report to police, the petitioner and his parents came to the police station and required this respondent to withdraw the report by promising to lookafter the respondent well and the parents of the petitioner also assured that they 4 would see that the petitioner to leave the said Vijaya and lead happy marital life with this respondent and because of which, the respondent withdrawn the said complaint.

Further it is submitted that the petitioner always used to harass the respondent by abusing her that if she die, he would permanently keep his concubine Vijaya in his house and also threatened the respondent that she would be thrown out from the apartment and establish it as an accidental fall, but it is not the respondent who threatened that she is going to jump from the apartment, and then the respondent came to her parents’ house when the petitioner did not agree to leave the said Vijaya in the mediation held before the elders; and that in order to avoid criminal action, the petitioner started drama of attempting to commit suicide on 19.11.2016 and through police he compelled this respondent and her parents to attend

before police, and when the respondent and her parents went to police

station and revealed about the illicit intimacy of the petitioner with Vijaya, and that subsequently the petitioner requested the police to settle the matter amicably and he executed an assurance agreement before police on 12.3.2017 but subsequently he did not come for settlement.

Further it is submitted that this respondent and her parents raised several disputes before elders, but the petitioner did not change his attitude, and the petitioner got issued legal notice on 26.7.2017 with all false allegations, for which she got issued a befitting reply. The petitioner subjected her with cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically when she lived with the petitioner and he also failed to provide any food and clothing, and as the respondent is unable to live with the petitioner, and having no source income she filed MC 23/2018 before JFCM Spl. Mobile Court,

Vizianagaram, and the same is pending.

Further it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get divorce from this respondent and there are no grounds in favour of the petitioner to get divorce from this respondent, and that this respondent also submits that even now she is ready and willing to join the petitioner and lead marital life with him provided he agree to give up his illicit relationship with his concubine Vijaya and assure to lookafter her with love and affection, and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.The record shows that originally this HMOP is filed before III

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, at Kakinada and numbered as HMOP 132/2018.

Subsequently, as per the order in Tr.C.M.P.No.521/2018 dated 6.11.2019 of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Amaravathi, the said HMOP 132/2018 is withdrawn from III Addl. Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kakinada and transferred to this court, and accordingly the said record was received in this court and renumbered as HMOP 20/2020. Since the matter is at enquiry stage, this court issued notices to both petitioner and respondent directing them to get ready with enquiry. But, on 22.8.2022, since the petitioner is called absent and no representation, this court dismissed the petition for default of appearance of petitioner and also failure to prosecute the petition.

5.Whileso, on 20.4.2023, the petitions filed by the petitioner under sec.5 of the Limitation Act, and under Or.9 Rule 9 CPC viz.,

I.As.220/2023 and 219/2023 are allowed, and the HMOP 20/2020 restored to file, and both petitioner and respondent stated that they compromised the matter, and decided to take divorce under the provisions of Sec.13-B of

Hindu Marriage Act, by filing a petition under Or.23 Rule 3 CPC, seeking the court to permit the petitioner to compromise the matter with the respondent and to waive the cooling period of six months and to pass decree under

Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

6.Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed petition in

I.A.247/2023 under Or.23 Rule 3 CPC and requested the court permit him to compromise the matter with the respondent and to pass decree in accordance therewith. The respondent herein filed her affidavit in the said

I.A. conceding the request of the petitioner.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 7.8.2009 in view of the compromise under Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, or not?”

9.POINT :- The petitioner/husband herein originally filed the present HMOP under sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, vide HMOP 132/2018, and the respondent filed counter and contested the matter.

Subsequently, the said HMOP 132/2018 was withdrawn from the said court and transferred to this court as per order in Tr.CMP No.521/2018 dated 6.11.2019 and after receipt of the record the same is renumbered as HMOP 20/2020. However, as observed supra, since the petitioner failed to appear

before this court, this HMOP was dismissed for default. While the things thus,

on 20.4.2023 both the petitioner and respondent along with their respective counsel appeared before the court, and submitted that the matter is settled out of court, and the petitioner intend to file petition under Or.23 Rule 3 CPC.

Thereafter, this court allowed I.As 220/2023 and 219/2023 and got restored the HMOP to file. Later, the petitioner in this HMOP filed I.A.247/2023 while the respondent filed her affidavit conceding the request of the petitioner and both of them prayed to permit them to compromise the matter and to pass decree under Sec.13-B of H.M.Act.

10.Now it is to be seen whether this court has any jurisdiction to record the compromise of the petitioner and respondent, or not. It is profitable to extract the Rule 3 of Or.23 CPC, for better appreciation to see that whether this court has jurisdiction to record compromise in terms of different subject matter.

Order 23 Rule 3 CPC: compromise of suits

Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement, or compromise in writing and signed by parties, or, where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole, or any part of subject matter of the suit, the court shall order such agreement, compromise, or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith, so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject matter of agreement, compromise, satisfaction is the same as to the subject matter of the suit;

Provided that, where it is alleged by one party and denied by other that an adjustment, or satisfaction has been arrived at the court shall decide, the question; that no adjournment shall be granted for deciding such question, unless the court for the reasons to be recorded thinks fit to grant such adjournment.

Explanation:- An agreement or compromise which is void and voidable under Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule.

11.On plain reading of the Rule 3 of Or.23 CPC, it is clear that the parties to the suit (here to the petition) are at liberty to adjust the suit, wholly or in part by lawful agreement or compromise and such agreement or compromise though it is not the subject matter of the main suit or not, if it is not void or voidable and not denied by one party, or affirmed by another party, the court has jurisdiction to record such agreement, compromise, satisfaction and can pass a decree on such agreement, compromise, satisfaction. Hence, in the given circumstances and also in the light of the above provision, there is no impediment for this court to record the compromise under the terms and conditions as arrived at by both parties and to pass decree on such terms and conditions.

12.This court, after interacting with the petitioner and respondent, allowed the said I.A.No.247/2023 filed under Or.23 Rule 3 CPC and held that the petitioner and respondent were living separately since long time, and now they came before the court with a clear settlement i.e., the petitioner/husband has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/wife, towards her permanent alimony, and in turn the respondent/wife agreed to withdraw the MC 23/2018 on the file of JFCM, Spl. Mobile Court, Vizianagaram, and prayed to grant divorce by mutual consent, for which the respondent conceded, and further the respondent/wife stated that she received the said agreed amount, and hence, waived the cooling period of six months as prescribed under Sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, and accordingly, a decree is passed in this HMOP 20/2020 u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

Having regard to the above discussion and reasons, this court is inclined to allow the HMOP, in view of compromise entered into between the parties for taking divorce by mutual consent. The point is answered accordingly.

13.IN THE RESULT, the petition is ALLOWED without costs, dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 7.8.2009 granting decree of divorce under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

Typed to my dictation on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on either side.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM

Date of Presentation: 30.4.2018Date of filling: 30.4.2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri J.Srinivasarao,

Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P.No. 20/2020

Between:-

Maddi Rama Penteswara Reddy @ Rambabu, S/o. Venkata Ramana Reddy, aged 29 years, resident of D.No.30-1-8, Nani Apartments, Rangayyanaidu street, Kakinada.

.. PETITIONER

A n d :-

Maddi Nandini, W/o. Rama Penteswara Reddy @ Rambabu, aged 26 years, D/o. Pirentla Ramu, Velduru village, Pusapatirega mandal, Vizianagaram District.

.. RESPONDENT

Originally, the petitioner/husband filed this petition under Sec. 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, to dissolve the marriage held on 7.8.2009 in between the petitioner and respondent by decree of divorce.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II, Article I (vii) of

A.P.C.F and Suit Valuation Act. 1956.

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U. Ravisankar, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri

P.Janardhanarao, Advocate for the respondent, after having stood over for consideration, this Court doth order and;

DECRETEL ORDER

i)that the petition is ALLOWED dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent held on 7.8.2009 granting decree of divorce under Sec. 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act; and ii)that there be without costs;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

H.M.O.P/122/2022

Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu vs Nil

24 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri J.Srinivasarao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. NO. 122 of 2022

Between:-

1. Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu @ Ramakrishnamnaidu S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 37 years, R/o.Munsabuveedhi, Srungavarapumkota village and mandal Vizianagaram District.

2. Padam Ganga Jagan Yesoda Madhuri @ Maduri, W/o. Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu, D/o. Mopada Krishnamnaidu, Hindu, Aged about 27 years Resident of Munsabuveedhi, Srungarapukota village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

.. PETITIONERS

And :-

NIL

.. RESPONDENT

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of Sri P.Dhanunjayarao and R.Satyanarayana,

Advocates for the petitioners, after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This application is filed by the petitioners under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying the court to pass a decree for dissolution of their marriage, held on 11.2.2016, by mutual consent.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

(i) The petitioners 1 and 2 belong to Hindu Religion and their marriage was performed on 11.2.2016 at Yerukammaperantalu

Kalyanamandapam near RCM School, situated in Srungavarapukota village and mandal, Vizianagaram district. Immediately after the marriage, the 2nd 2 petitioner joined with the society of the 1st petitioner to lead conjugal society at his house, and both lived happily for a period of one year, however, they have no children.

(ii) After completion of one year of their marriage, 2nd petitioner left the house of the 1st petitioner without any justifiable or reasonable cause and stayed at her parents’ house at Srungavarapukota village. Later, in spite of several mediations before caste and village elders, the 2nd petitioner did not agree to join the conjugal society of the 1st petitioner and expressed her inability before elders that she is not willing to join and lead marital life with the 1st petitioner. Even thereafter also, the elders tried to reconcile the petitioners, but their efforts turned futile, since the 2nd petitioner refused to join the society of the 1st petitioner. Thus, there is irretrievable breakdown of their marriage and there is no chance of their reunion. Hence, both the petitioners arrived at an amicable settlement

before elders and decided to take mutual divorce through the court of law

with certain terms.

(iii)As per the settlement, the 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4,90,000/- to the 2nd petitioner in four instalments, for which the 2nd petitioner agreed. The 1st petitioner also returned all the sari samans to the 2nd petitioner in the presence of elders and the 2nd petitioner also received the same. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner also returned all the gold ornaments which were presented to her at the time of the marriage. There is no collusion in filing the petition. Hence, the petitioners prayed the court to dissolve their marriage, by mutual consent.

3.On registration of the petition, both the petitioners are directed to appear on 24.4.2023 i.e., after expiry of six months.

4.On 24.4.2023, both the petitioners present before the court. They were examined as P.Ws 1 and 2, and Exs.P.1 to P.4 got marked.

5.Heard the counsel for the petitioners.

6.Now the point for consideration is, “Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of decree of divorce dissolving their marriage, by mutual consent?”

7.POINT :- P.Ws 1 and 2 who are the petitioners 1 and 2 herein respectively filed their respective chief examination affidavits by reiterating the contents of the petition, and further stated that due to disputes between them they could not live under one roof, and since there is no chance of their reunion, they approached this court for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent u/sec.13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In support of their contention, the petitioners got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4. Exs.P.1 and

P.2 are wedding card and marriage photograph of the petitioners respectively, which prove the factum of marriage between them. The chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 shows that he paid Rs.4,90,000/- to P.W.2/2nd petitioner towards full and final settlement which includes permanent alimony, and P.W.2 also affirmed the said fact in her chief examination affidavit, and further stated that she has received the entire agreed amount from P.W.1, and stated to grant divorce. Further, both P.Ws 1 and 2 stated that they exchanged the sari samans and gold ornaments, and they further agreed not to file any claims on each other in future. Exs.P.3 and P.4 are photostat copies of aadhar cards of P.Ws 1 and 2 respectively. It is pertinent to note that even during the statutory period of six months also the petitioners did not show any interest for their reunion. Further, both the petitioners voluntarily and in one voice prayed this court for grant of divorce by mutual consent.

8.A perusal of the above averments and evidence would show that there is irretrievable breakdown of marriage between P.Ws 1 and 2 4 and there is no chance of their reunion. Hence, having regard to the above discussion and reasons, the request of the petitioners for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent, is liable to be accepted and the petition deserves to be allowed. The point is answered accordingly.

9. IN THE RESULT, the petition is ALLOWED granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioners held on 11.2.2016, by mutual consent.

Typed to my dictation on the computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For petitioners:-

P.W.1 :Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu @

Ramakrishnamnaidu (1st petitioner)

P.W.2 :Padam Ganga Jagan Yesoda Madhuri @ Madhuri (2nd petitioner)

Documents marked

For petitioners:-

Ex.P.1/:Wedding card dated 11.2.2016

Ex.P.2/:Marriage Photograph of the petitioners.

Ex.P.3/:Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.W.1

Ex.P.4/:Photostat copy of Aadhar card of P.W.2

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM.

Date of Presentation: 26.9.2022 Date of filling: 28.9.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri J.Srinivasarao,

Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. NO. 122 of 2022

Between:-

1. Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu @ Ramakrishnamnaidu S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged about 37 years, R/o.Munsabuveedhi, Srungavarapumkota village and mandal Vizianagaram District.

.. PETITIONERS

And :-

NIL

.. RESPONDENT

This application is filed by the petitioners under Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying the court to pass a decree for dissolution of their marriage, held on 11.2.2016, by mutual consent.

A fixed Court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under schedule II, Article I (vii) of A.P.C.F and Suit Valuation Act. 1956.

This petition coming on 30.03.2021 for final hearing and disposal

before me, in the presence of Sri B. Ravi, Advocate for the petitioners, after

having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and;

DECRETEL ORDER

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed by granting decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 held on 11.2.2016 on mutual consent; and ii)that there be no costs;

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

OS/37/2021 Compromised

mulagada paparao vs Mulagada ramalakshmi

24 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S. No. 37 OF 20 21

Between:-

Mulagada Paparao, S/o. Late Guruvulu, Hindu, Aged 54 years, Cultivation, Residing at Pedada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

... Plaintiff

A n d:-

1) Mulagada Ramalakshmi, W/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Housewife, Residing at pedada village , Denkada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Mulagada Ramji, S/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 21 years, Cultivation, R/a. Pedada village , Denkada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3) Mulagada Ramya, D/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 19 years, Rest -- do –.

4) Mulagada Anusha, D/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 19 years, Rest – do –.

5) Mendi Ramesh kumar, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Cultivation, Rest – do –.

6) Mendi Jagdeeshwararao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Cultivation, R/a. Pedada Village, Rest – do –.

7) G.V. R. Associates Represented by Ganapthiraju Murali Krishna S/o. Varahala Raju, Hindu, Aged about 35 years, Visakhapatnam Greater City Gajuwaka, Near Sloke School, Hari’s Victorie, Door NO.24-8-1/11, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants

The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares and for allotment of one such to the plaintiff’s exclusive possession and enjoyment; for mesne profits and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming on this day in the presence of Sri S. Hemalatha,

Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 set exparte, and of Sri T.V.

Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant No.5 and of Sri P. Deva Prakash,

Advocate for 6th defendant, and of Sri Ch. Srinivas, Advocate for defendant

No.7, and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed a memo stating that he and D.5 to D.7 compromised the matter out of Court and requested to dismiss the suit as not pressed.

Considering the above memo filed by the plaintiff, this suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

OS/37/2021 Compromised

mulagada paparao vs Mulagada ramalakshmi

24 Apr 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Sri J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge

Monday, this the 24th day of April, 2023

O.S. No. 37 OF 20 21

Between:-

Mulagada Paparao, S/o. Late Guruvulu, Hindu, Aged 54 years, Cultivation, Residing at Pedada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

... Plaintiff

A n d:-

1) Mulagada Ramalakshmi, W/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 40 years, Housewife, Residing at pedada village , Denkada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2) Mulagada Ramji, S/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 21 years, Cultivation, R/a. Pedada village , Denkada mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3) Mulagada Ramya, D/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 19 years, Rest -- do –.

4) Mulagada Anusha, D/o. Late Srinu, Hindu, Aged about 19 years, Rest – do –.

5) Mendi Ramesh kumar, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Cultivation, Rest – do –.

6) Mendi Jagdeeshwararao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, Aged about 52 years, Cultivation, R/a. Pedada Village, Rest – do –.

... Defendants

This suit is coming on this day in the presence of Sri S. Hemalatha,

Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 set exparte, and of Sri T.V.

Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant No.5 and of Sri P. Deva Prakash,

Advocate for 6th defendant, and of Sri Ch. Srinivas, Advocate for defendant

No.7, and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Plaintiff filed a memo stating that he and D.5 to D.7 compromised the matter out of Court and requested to dismiss the suit as not pressed.

Considering the above memo filed by the plaintiff, this suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2023

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- J. Srinivasa Rao

Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram.

EP/57/2022 Compromised

Nirugogi Gowri naidu vs Nanepalli Eswara Rao

20 Apr 2023

Order Record 1,775 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/37/2021	mulagada paparao vs Mulagada ramalakshmi	24 Apr 2023	Judgement	Compromised
H.M.O.P/122/2022	Padam Gowri Sankar Ramakrishnamnaidu vs Nil	24 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
EP/57/2022	Nirugogi Gowri naidu vs Nanepalli Eswara Rao	20 Apr 2023	ORDER	Compromised
H.M.O.P/20/2020	Sri. Maddi Rama penteswara Rao alias Rambabu vs Maddi Nandini	20 Apr 2023	ORDER	Compromised
H.M.O.P/85/2022	Gompa Gowri vs Gompa Bhavani	20 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/112/2022	Korada Govinda vs NIl	20 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
S.O.P/2/2023	Vulli Venkateswara Rao vs VULLI RAJESWARA rAO	19 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
OS/79/2022	Motupalli Srinivasa Rao vs Gorla Pydithalli	17 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
EP/96/2017	Kunukupudi Ramesh vs Bammidi Lakshmana rao	13 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/117/2022	Gompa Ramasatyam vs NIl	11 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/118/2022	Koripilli Krishna vs Nil	11 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
OS/514/2015	Bammidi Devi vs Bammidi Ramana alia Venkati	10 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/114/2022	Dibba Naresh vs NIL	10 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/115/2022	Pabbiti satyanarayana and another vs NIl	10 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
OS/209/2017	Pandranki Eswara rao and 1 other vs Pandranki Atchayyamma alias Dademmaand 1 other	06 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/241/2017	Tottadi Akku Naidu vs Bandaru Varalakshmi	06 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/290/2018	Tirumalaraju Suryanarayana Raju vs Saridi Satyam	06 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/43/2022	jami kavya vs Vsjami madhusudhanarao	06 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/113/2022	Thota Ravi vs NIL	06 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
OS/156/2017	Paluri Sanyasi Naidu vs Kandi Satya Narayana	04 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/227/2017	Singireddi Trinadh vs Marrapu Uma Maheswara Rao and 1 other	04 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/253/2015	Killampalli Uma Mahesh and 1 other vs Killampalli Ramakrishna and 2 others	04 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/53/2022	Pilla Seshu babu vs Pilla gowthami	04 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
EP/12/2023	Sarika Saritha @ Sanyasamma vs Sarika Satya Shiva Kumar	03 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
EP/128/2015	Kadimisetty Ashok vs Shaik Azeem and another	03 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
OS/39/2022	vennu varalakshmi vs Vsboddula satyanarayana	03 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/61/2022	Karri Gopala Reddy vs Potnuru Satyanarayana	03 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/101/2019	Yelamanchili Jagadeeswari vs Y.V.Ravi Sankar	03 Apr 2023	ORDER	—
SC/90/2016	S.H.O. Vizianagaram Rural Police Station vs Kathaplli Nookaraju	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/106/2022	Badanki Ramya vs Nil	29 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
EP/47/2016	Annam Venkateswara Rao vs S.V.Purrna Chandra Rao	28 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/63/2016	Kota Suryanarayana vs Siripurapu Simhadri Appalanaidu	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/332/2016	Mahanthi Appala Naidu vs Shek Faruk,	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/359/2017	Smt. allada Nagamani vs Gokavarapu China Brahmaji Rao	28 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/105/2022	Mudragada Monika vs Nil	28 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/107/2022	RAVADA VENKATA RAO vs NIL	27 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/108/2022	Vanthada Gurunaidu vs NIL	27 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
IP/1/2021	Xient brand Living vs Kusumanchi Subbarao and Bros. rep. by its Proprietor Prakash	24 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/162/2017	Divya Real Estates and consultants, Kamdula durga rao and 1 other vs Boddu Ramu	24 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/181/2013	Robbi Babji vs Sunkari Appayya Gupta	24 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/120/2022	MaJJI lAXMANA vs VsnIL	24 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
EP/73/2017	Narayanam Kameswara Rao vs Karri Devi	23 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/103/2022	Akiri Malathi and another vs Nil	23 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
F.D.I.A/733/2008	Reyyi Krishnaveni alias Ammajji vs Bonela Vijaya Kumar and 10 others	23 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/63/2022	Paritala sudhakar vs I S R infra project Pvt Ltd by managing director sri idupulapati srinivasarao	21 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/104/2022	Sriram Maheswara Rao vs Nil	21 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
SC/143/2016	S.H.O. Gajapathinagaram police station. vs Sunkari Peddinaidu	20 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/12/2023	Veturi Srinu vs Veturi Sarada	20 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/102/2022	Gumpa Pydiraju and another vs Vsnil	20 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/137/2022	Simma Ganga Raju vs Simma Nagamani	20 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/72/2021	Cheemala Murali vs Niddana Rama Rao	17 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/77/2021	Ijjada Rambabu vs Niddana Rama rao	17 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/228/2017	Singampalli Rama rao vs Bali Hari Chandra	17 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/328/2017	Yerraguntla Prabhakara rao vs Racharla Suresh	17 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/204/2018	Gollu Srinivasarao vs Kilari Srinivasarao	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/121/2022	Goddu @ goddi ravanamma @ enkata Ramanamma vs Nil	15 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/129/2016	Kundeti Ganesh vs Matha Suribabu and another	14 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/315/2014	Dandangi Swarna Kumari vs Yelamanchi Meeramma and two others	14 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/259/2015	Sureddi Yernaidu vs Kothali Yernaidu	13 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/60/2022	neelam nagaraju vs Vsnil	13 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
S.O.P/10/2022	Avala Pydithalli and another vs Nil	13 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
S.O.P/11/2022	Avala Pydithalli vs Nil	13 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/54/2017	Tamarapalli Ganesh vs Smt. Neyyigapula Atchiyyamma	10 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/368/2017	Mekala Kamala vs Mirthipati Vijaya Gowrin alias Gowri	10 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/58/2021	Nemani Ramanamma vs Nemani Narayanarao	10 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
EP/83/2019	Jammu Adinarayana vs Sunkari Pydinaidu	09 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
SC/133/2016	S.H.O.Gantyada Police Station. vs Kalidindi Varaha Venkata Narasimha Raju and 3 othe	07 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/100/2022	Enukoti Vinod Kumar vs Vsnil	07 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/33/2021	Gompa Papamma vs Gompa Yerakayya	06 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
OS/133/2017	Beesetti Vijaya Lakshmi vs Kolla Usha and 2 others	03 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/475/2012	PACHIGULLA KRISHNA vs PACHIGULLA SIMHACHALAM	03 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC/21/2018	SHO Pedamanapuram PS vs Tadeala Ramu and another	02 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
SC/45/2018	SHO Jami Police Station vs Ganivada Srinu	02 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/93/2022	Smt meesala anuradha and another vs Vsnil	01 Mar 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/95/2022	Tallapudi Gurunaidu and other vs Nil	28 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/487/2014	Smt. Bandi Baby Gurappa vs Jalagadugula Venkata Ramana Murthy and 1 other	23 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/490/2014	Smt. Tupakula Pydichitti vs Jalagadugula Venkata Ramana Murthy and 1 other	23 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC/92/2016	S.H.O. Bhogapuram Police Station vs Meda Yellaji and 2 others	23 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/97/2022	Vempadapu vasu vs Vsnil	23 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
EP/74/2015	A.P.G.B.Bank vs Bangari Asirayya and others	22 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/215/2017	Ampolu Durga Prasad Rao vs Mandala Simhadri Naidu	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/287/2018	Kadiri Rohini vs Chalumuri Sanyasinaidu	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/397/2016	Ganta Poli Naidu vs Badam Jagan Kumar	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/131/2022	Kantu Prasad vs Kantu(Uppada) Amani	22 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/14/2016	Karrothu Rajeswari vs Majji Ramarao	21 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/93/2015	Kalepu Surya Prakasha Rao @ Srinivasarao vs Kalepu Venkata Satya Basava Raju and others	21 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
EP/39/2022	Allu Dali Babu vs Dekka Venkata Rao	20 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/94/2022	Kella Pydi Raju and other vs Nil	20 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/351/2017	Smt. Chodi Satyavathi vs Kalisetti Venkata Ramana and 1 other	17 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
EP/27/2019	Amanana Venkata Ramana Gupta(died) vs Kancharala Rajeswararao	16 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/19/2016	Koribilli Swaminaidu vs Chavuduvada Bangarulakshmi	16 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/138/2016	Sankabattula Sarojini Devi vs Kata Chiranjeevi	15 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
EP/57/2021	jaaggini nageswararao vs Vskandi ganapathi	14 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
OS/72/2014	Ambati Narasamma vs Munagapaka Demudu nd 2 others	14 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/163/2018	Medapureddi Nagamani vs Medapureddi Krishnamma and another	14 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/298/2017	Gedala Surya Kiran vs Kandhi Satyanarayana	13 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/350/2017	Karrothu Suribabu vs Mahanti Sanyasinaidu	13 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
SC/28/2017	Sub Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station. vs Penta Eswara Rao	13 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/9/2021	Siripuram Adhilakshmi vs Siripuram vinayaka Rao	13 Feb 2023	ORDER	—
EP/190/2016	Bangaru Apparao vs Korai Srinivasa Rao and other	11 Feb 2023	ORDER	—

Showing 100 of 1,775 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		29
Mar 2023		46
Feb 2023		59
Jan 2023		40
Dec 2022		62
Nov 2022		76
Oct 2022		36
Sep 2022		66
Aug 2022		53
Jul 2022		61
Jun 2022		57
May 2022		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri J.Srinivasa Rao handled?

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao has handled 1780 court orders since 2019 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 77 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri J.Srinivasa Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri J.Srinivasa Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka).

Where is Sri J.Srinivasa Rao currently posted?

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao is posted as Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri J.Srinivasa Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri J.Srinivasa Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri J.Srinivasa Rao dispose cases?

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao disposes approximately 77 cases per month, based on 1780 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka).

Since when is Sri J.Srinivasa Rao serving?

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bobbili (Taluka) since 2019.

Case Types

OS 43%

H 26%

EP 14%

SC 8%

IP 3%

F 3%

S 2%

RCA 0%

Posting History

Sep 2021 — Oct 2021

Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Sep 2021 — Oct 2021

Civil Judge (Senior Division)
Nov 2019 — Apr 2023

Civil Judge(Senior Division) · 1,780 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 4

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A Radha Krishna Murthy

Civil Judge (Senior Division)

2 orders

Smt J Hema Sravanthi

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)

890 orders

Smt M.Rohini Rao

I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

3,376 orders

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

Sri J.Srinivasa Rao

.. PETITIONER

.. RESPONDENT

O R D E R

VIZIANAGARAM.

VIZIANAGARAM

.. PETITIONER

.. RESPONDENT

DECRETEL ORDER

.. PETITIONERS

.. RESPONDENT

O R D E R

VIZIANAGARAM.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Documents marked

VIZIANAGARAM.

.. PETITIONERS

.. RESPONDENT

DECRETEL ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

J U D G M E N T

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

J U D G M E N T

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Docket Order

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE