Sri J.Sujin Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.361 of 2022

Between:

Gajjala Bharath Kumar, S/o. G.Ganganna, Hindu, Aged 35 years, Cultivation, R/o. Bhagath Singh Nagar, Tadipatri Town and Mandal, Anantapuram District. 

 ...Plaintiff

A N D

Sake Nallappa S/o. S.Krishna died by L.Rs

1. Sake Narasamma, M/o. Late S.Nallappa, W/o. Late Krishna, Hindu, aged about 55 years, House wife, 

2. D.Fakrubi @ Pavani, W/o Late S.Nallappa, Hindu, Aged about 30 years, House wife, 

Both are residing in D.No.15/1308, Near BSNL Office, Sanjeeva Nagar, Tadipatri Town and Mandal, 

Anantapuram District. ...Defendants

This suit came on 24­02­2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Ramesh Natha Reddy and Sri K.Shankara Reddy, Advocates for

Plaintiff and defendants having been remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

 //  J U D G M E N T //

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of suit amount of Rs.85,100/­ (Rupees Eighty five thousand and one hundred only) basing on the promissory note executed by the Sake Nallappa in favour of the plaintiff.

2

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

One Sake Nallappa borrowed an amount of Rs.75,000/­ (Rupees

Seventy five thousands only) from the plaintiff on 20.01.2022 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

and that original borrower Sake Nallappa died on 17.07.2022 leaving behind him, the defendants 1 and 2 as legal heirs to his estate. After the death of

Sake Nallappal, the plaintiff made several demands on the defendants 1 and 2 after the death of Sake Nallappa to repay the amount, but the defendants failed to discharge the debt due under the said promissory note. Hence the suit. 

3. The defendants received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained ex parte to the proceedings on 30­12­2022. 

4. In order to prove the contention of the plaintiff, he got himself examined as PW.1 and filed his chief affidavit, reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the plaint. He also got marked Ex.A1 the suit Promissory note executed by the deceased Late Sake Nallappa for Rs.75,000/­ dated 20.01.2022 in favour of plaintiff, the office copy of legal notice to 2nd defendant, Postal Receipt, dt.27.07.2022 and Served Postal acknowledgment, dt.23.07.2022 as Exs.A1 to

A4 respectively. 

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. 

6. Basing on the plaint pleadings, the points for consideration are :

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for”

2. “To what relief”?

7. Point No:1 :­ 3

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed

for”?

It is the case of plaintiff that one Sake Nallappa borrowed an amount of

Rs.75,000/­ from him on 20.01.2022 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a and the said Sake Nallappal executed promissory note in his favour but failed to discharge the same and was died on 17.07.2022 leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs and after death of

Sake Nallappa he repeated demands including issuance of legal notice(Ex.A2), the defendants did not repay the debt amount.

To prove his case, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the document marked under Ex.A1 on his behalf, proves that the deceased/

Sake Nallappa borrowed Rs.75,000/­ from the plaintiff on 20.01.2022 and executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff but failed to discharge the amount due under the said promissory note during his life time and Exs.A2 to A4 shows that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on defendants and servedto them.

 The evidence of PW1 as well as the contents of Exs.A1 to A4 remained unchallenged since the defendants were set exparte and did not deny the contention of the plaintiff. However the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought by him merely because the defendants set exparte and not denied his contention. The plaintiff has to prove his claim by producing sufficient evidence on his own strength. To prove his case, the plaintiff relied on his oral evidence as PW1 and on documentary Evidence under Ex.A1 to A4. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents marked under Ex.A1 on his behalf, proves that the deceased Sake Nallappa borrowed Rs.75,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1, but failed to discharge the amount, during his lifetime due under the said promissory note and the defendants also failed to discharge the 4 debt, inspite of Ex.A2 Legal Notice. Hence the plaintiff proved his case and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

Apart from that the plaintiff is also entitled for the presumption as contemplated under section 118 of N.I Act 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. The defendant did not choose to deny the contention of plaintiff and rebut the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff. Hence it can be said that the plaintiff proved her case and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff.

9. Point No.2: “To What relief”?

In view of the finding on Issue No.1 the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as follows:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of deceased

Sake Nallappa which is in the hands of defendants for Rs.85,100/­ (Rupees

Eighty five thousand and one hundred only) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.75,000/­ (Rupees Seventy five thousands only).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 thday of February, 2023.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW1: Gajjala Bharath KumarExparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Promissory Note dt. 20­01­2022 executed by Late Sake Nallappa for Rs.75,000/­

Ex.A2 : Legal Notice to 2nd defendant

Ex.A3 : Postal Receipt, dt.27.07.2022

Ex.A4 : Served Postal acknowledgment card on 2nd defendant, dt.23.07.2022

For defendant:

NIL.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Present:Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.351 of 2022

Between:-

Bala Venkatanarayana, S/o. B.Narasimhulu, Hindu, Aged 61 years, Cultivation, Resident of D.No.7/58, Old Police Station, Yadiki Village, Post and Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

Jakki Reddy Rami Reddy @ Jaggi Reddy Rami Reddy, S/o. J.Yella Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 56 years, Cultivation, Resident of D.No.1-112/1, Krindhi Geri, Near Venkateswara Temple, Peapully Village, Post and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant * * * * *

This suit came on 24-02-2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri C.Ramesh Natha Reddy and Sri.K.Sankar Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiff and defendant having remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.3,29,958/- (Rupees Three lakhs twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifty eight only) being the principal amount and interest due on the promissory note

dated 18.04.2016 said to be executed by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with interest agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 24% per annum and for costs.

2

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

The defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty five thousands only) from the plaintiff on 18.04.2016 for his family necessities and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order. On demand, the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 18.03.2019 and endorsed the same on the back side of the suit pronote, subsequently the plaintiff made several demands on defendant but he did not repay the amount due promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount with subsequent interest and costs. The defendant is an agriculturist and thus, the interest is claimed at 12.5% per annum. 

3.The defendant having received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained ex parte to the proceedings on 19-01-2023

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as PW1. He also got exhibited Promissory note, dt.18.04.2016 and Part Payment made by the defendant, dt.18-03-2019 as Exs.A1 and A2 respectively.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from defendant as prayed for ?

3

7. Point:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay

Rs.3,29,958/- under suit promissory note, dt.18.04.2016 with subsequent interest.

To substantiate the same, he got examined himself as PW.1 and filed proof affidavit which is accepted on oath as his chief examination. The said chief examination is just replica of his pleadings. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 promissory note, goes to show that on 18.04.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff (PW1) for his family necessities and on the same day, he executed a promissory note for the said amount i.e., Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff (PW1), agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand that the defendant made part payment of Rs.1,000/- on 18.03.2019 and inspite of repeated demands the defendant failed to repay the remaining amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 as well as the contents of Exs.A1 and A2, remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, the court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, the court holds that the plaintiff with his evidence is able to establish that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. As the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under Ex.A1 promissory note, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against him. Moreover, the suit is filed within the period of limitation.

Hence, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to prove the suit claim and so, he is entitled to recover the suit amount. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff in the following manner:

4

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,29,958/- (Rupees

Three lakhs twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifty eight only) to plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW1: Bala Venkata Narayana

For defendant:

Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is Promissory Note, dt.18.04.2016 for Rs.2,00,000/­

Ex.A2 is Part payment made by the defendant, dt.18.03.2019

For defendant: NIL. Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Present:Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.250 of 2022

Between:­

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, A.KondapuramVillage, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Sattaru Venkata Prasad, S/o. S.Gopal, Aged 32 Years, Cultivtion, Kandigopala Village and Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2.Venkala Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Nagappa, Aged 37 Years, Cultivtion, Kadavakallu Village and Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Defendants

* * * * *

This suit came on 24­02­2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Kesavaiah,Advocate for Plaintiffand defendants having remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,21,648/­ (Rupees Two lakhs twenty one thousand six hundred and forty eight only) being the principal and interest due by the defendants to the plaintiff­bank under the loan agreement

dated 22.09.2017 executed by the defendants in favor of plaintiff­bank

repayable with interest at contractual rate as per the agreement and for costs.

2

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

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff­bank for financial accommodation for his crop and the plaintiff bank sanctioned Loan in Ac

No.91090071976 for an amount of Rs.1,30,000/­ on 22.09.2017 to the 1st defendant and he executed agreement and the 2nd defendant agreed to stand as guarantor to repay the same with interest at 7% per annum as per the directions of RBI or such other rates as fixed by the bank from time to time and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and signed on agreement dated 22.09.2017 but the defendants committed default and failed to pay inspite of repeated demands and a registered notice dated 27.11.2020. The defendant

No.1 acknowledged the debt on 21.09.2020 on his behalf and on behalf of the defendant No.2 who is the guarantor. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants having received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained ex parte to the proceedings on 20­10­2022.

4. In support of the plaintiff’s claim, the Manager of the plaintiff­bank examined as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Basing on the plaint pleadings, the points for consideration are: 

1. “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim”?

2. “To What relief”?

7.Point No.1:­ “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim”?

In order to prove its claim, the plaintiff bank got examined its manager as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. PW1 who the manager of plaintiff­bank filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. As could seen from Ex.A1, it shows that D1 & D2 executed original agreement for agricultural 3 advances and original deed of guarantee for agricultural advances in favour of plaintiff bank, on 22­09­2017. As could be seen from Ex.A2, it shows that the defendant No.1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,30,000/­ from the plaintiff bank, on 22­09­2017. As could be seen from Ex.A3 it shows that the 1st defendant acknowledged the debt on their behalf on 21.09.2020. As could be seen from

Ex.A4 it shows that the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to both defendants, dated 27.11.2020 it appears that the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants for repayment of debt. As could be seen from Ex.A5/Account

Extract, it shows that an amount of Rs.2,21,648/­ was due by the defendants as on 14­09­2021.

7. After considering the evidence of PW1, it is apparent that his evidence was not dis­credited in any manner. The plaintiff­bank by examining PW1 and by producing all the original documents substantially established the transaction with the defendants and there is no material on record to discredit the version of the PW1. Hence I am of the view that the PW1 proves the suit claim and the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim from the defendants.

8. Point No.2 : “To what relief”?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.2,21,648/­ (Rupees Two lakhs twenty one thousand six hundred and forty eight only) with subsequent interest at 6% p.a from the date of the suit till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.1,30,000/­ (Rupees one lakh thirty thousands only).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW1: P.Gajapathi Reddy

For defendant:

Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement for agricultural advances and original deed of guarantee for agricultural advances executed by Defendant No.1 and 

D2 in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.22.09.2017

Ex.A2 : Defendant No.1 signed in withdraws receipt in favour of the Bank for

Rs.1,30,000/­,dt.22.09.2017

Ex.A3 : 1st defendants acknowledged the debt, dt.21.09.2022

Ex.A4 : Office copy of Notices issued to both the defendants, dt.27.11.2022

Ex.A5 : Account extract, dt.14.09.2021

For defendant: NIL.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Present:Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.230 of 2022

Between:­

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, A.KondapuramVillage, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Banagani Ramakrishna, S/o.B.Pedda Suryanarayana, Aged 40 Years, Cultivtion, Rangarajukunta Village, Kummanamala Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2.Banagani Lakshminarayana, S/o.B.Narayana, Aged 49 Years, Cultivtion, Rangarajukunta Village, Kummana­ mala Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Defendants

* * * * *

This suit came on 24­02­2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Kesavaiah,Advocate for Plaintiffand defendants having remained ex parte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,82,447/­ (Rupees Two lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and forty seven only) being the principal and interest due by the defendants to the plaintiff­bank under the loan agreement

dated 01.07.2017 executed by the defendants in favor of plaintiff­bank

repayable with interest at contractual rate as per the agreement and for costs.

2

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

The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff­bank for financial accommodation for his crop and the plaintiff bank sanctioned Loan in Ac

No.91026116373 for an amount of Rs.1,69,000/­ on 01.07.2017 to the 1st defendant and he executed agreement and the 2nd defendant agreed to stand as guarantor to repay the same with interest at 7% per annum as per the directions of RBI or such other rates as fixed by the bank from time to time and 2nd defendant stood as guarantor and signed on agreement dated 01.07.2017 but the defendants committed default and failed to pay inspite of repeated demands and a registered notice dated 27.11.2020. The defendant

No.1 acknowledged the debt on 21.09.2020 on his behalf and on behalf of the defendant No.2 who is the guarantor. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants having received summons, failed to appear before this court and remained ex parte to the proceedings on 14­10­2022.

4. In support of the plaintiff’s claim, the Manager of the plaintiff­bank examined as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.

5. Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

6. Basing on the plaint pleadings, the points for consideration are: 

1. “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim”?

2. “To What relief”?

7.Point No.1:­ “Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim”?

In order to prove its claim, the plaintiff bank got examined its manager as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. PW1 who the manager of plaintiff­bank filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. As could seen 3 from Ex.A1, it shows that D1 & D2 executed original agreement for agricultural advances and original deed of guarantee for agricultural advances in favour of plaintiff bank, on 01­07­2017. As could be seen from Ex.A2, it shows that the defendant No.1 withdrawn an amount of Rs.1,69,000/­ from the plaintiff bank, on 01­07­2017. As could be seen from Ex.A3 it shows that the 1st defendant acknowledged the debt on his behalf. As could be seen from Ex.A4 it shows that the plaintiff bank got issued legal notice to both defendants, dated 27.11.2020 it appears that the plaintiff bank demanded the defendants for repayment of debt. As could be seen from Ex.A5/Account Extract, it shows that an amount of Rs.2,82,447/­ was due by the defendants as on 14­09­2021.

7. After considering the evidence of PW1, it is apparent that his evidence was not dis­credited in any manner. The plaintiff­bank by examining PW1 and by producing all the original documents substantially established the transaction with the defendants and there is no material on record to discredit the version of the PW1. Hence I am of the view that the PW1 proves the suit claim and the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim from the defendants.

8. Point No.2 : “To what relief”?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.2,82,447/­ (Rupees Two lakhs eighty two thousand four hundred and forty seven only) with subsequent interest at 6% p.a from the date of the suit till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,69,000/­ (Rupees one lakh sixty nine thousands only).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff:

PW1: P.Gajapathi Reddy

For defendant:

Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement for agricultural advances and original deed of guarantee for agricultural advances executed by Defendant No.1 and 

D2 in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.01.07.2017

Ex.A2 : Defendant No.1 signed in withdraws receipt in favour of the Bank for

Rs.1,69,000/­,dt.01.07.2017

Ex.A3 : 1st defendants acknowledged the debt, dt.21.09.2022

Ex.A4 : Office copy of Notices issued to both the defendants, dt.27.11.2022

Ex.A5 : Account extract, dt.14.09.2021

For defendant: NIL.

Sd/- J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: TADIPATRI

Present: Sri J.Sujin Kumar,

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu. FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

Friday, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 226 of 2022

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, A.KondapuramVillage, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. … Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Konankti Damodoar Naidu, S/o. K.Krishna Murthy, Aged 46 Years, Cultivtion, Boggoninatla Village, Kummanamala Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

2.Kolasari Lakshmanna, S/o. K.Sanjappa, Aged 74 Years, Cultivtion, Rangaraju Kunta Village, Kummanamala Post, Putlur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.… Defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs.2,91,548/- being the principal and interest due by the defendants to the plaintiff bank under the loan agreement, for

Rs.1,62,000/-, dt.21.03.2017 executed by the Defendants in favour of plaintiff bank repayable with interest at contractual rate as per the agreement and for costs of the suit.

This suit came on 24­02­2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Kesavaiah, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendants having remained ex parte and on perusing the material papers on record this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

Counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo stating that both parties compromised and the defendant paid entire suit amount and prays to dismiss the suit. Memo is recorded. Hence this suit is dismissed as settled out of court. 

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of February, 2023.

Sd/­J.Sujin Kumar II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu,

FAC Junior Civil Judge, Tadipatri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

­NIL­

Ild/­ JSK II AJCJ/ATP, FAC.JCJ/TDP.