Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada · Krishna · Andhra Pradesh

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is posted at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh, India. 256 court orders on record since 2014. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS cases.

256

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/652/2011

Gadamsetty Damodara Rao vs Gurram Subba Rao

30 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.652/2011

BETWEEN: Gadamsetty Damodara Rao.

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Gurram Subba Rao.

......Defendant.

This suit is coming on 21042015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. David Ratna Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri B. Hari Babu, Advocate for defendant ; and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his sons, men, agents and servants etc., from ever interfering into the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and with costs.

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

The plaintiff inducted into the schedule property as a tenant for running City Hospitals and Pharmacy attached to it on the name of Sai Balaji

Medical and Fancy on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/. On 0142004 the defendant handed over the plaint schedule property i.e., one month prior to the induction for making necessary arrangements. The terms of lease were settled between the plaintiff and defendant through the mediators namely G.N.V. Raman Rao and P.

Narasimha Rao. Further the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.1 lakh with the defendant towards security, the defendant also refused to furnish any receipt for receipt of said one lakh. The defendant also gave a declaration stating that the plaintiff was his tenant, for obtaining drug licence. The said declaration was addressed to the Assistant Director Drugs Control Administration. The plaintiff made necessary arrangements and he spent Rs. 15 lakhs for running Herbal

Hospital and Fancy in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has been regularly paying rents to the defendant and further used to enhance the rent for every two years by 10% as agreed with the defendant.

3.While the matter stood thus, the defendant after receipt of rents for the month of May2011 in the fist week of June2011 demanded the plaintiff to enhance the rent up to Rs. 5,000/ per month or to vacate the schedule premises.

Further the defendant openly proclaimed that he knew the methods of evicting the plaintiff from the schedule property. While so, when the plaintiff offered rent for the month of June2011, in the first week of July2011, the defendant refused to receive the same by stating that he will accept the rents, if paid rent at the rate of

Rs. 5000/ per month. Later the plaintiff sent a cheque, dt. 05072011 for Rs.

2,660/ to the defendant for the month of June2011. But the defendant refused to receive the same and further on 07072011 by 9.00 a.m., he along with six other persons went to the schedule property and created a havoc and handled the few customers and compounder by holding their necks and pressing them out of the schedule property. They also threw away some of furniture from the schedule property and further they removed the sign board of city Hospitals arranged by the plaintiff, when the intervention of few persons, they were resisted. While going away the defendant proclaimed that he will evict the plaintiff within 10 days forcibly without due process of law. Though the plaintiff gave a report to police, but the police refused to register the same. Hence, the suit.

4.The defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments of the plaint. He further stated that the plaintiff was irregular in paying the monthly rents. There was no written rental agreement, though the plaintiff carried out his business for a period of six years and later he became noncompetent to run such business for several reasons and thereby he lost his capacity of paying monthly rents to the schedule property. Consequently, the plaintiff closed his business during the month of June2009 and he himself used to engage in medical business through another medical shop in the same area near by schedule premises. After closure of business, the plaintiff committed in default of paying monthly rents relating to the plaint schedule premises with effect from 01072009 at the rate of Rs. 8,000/ per month. He further submitted that the plaintiff has to pay Rs. 1,84,000/ plus the minimum Electricity charges payable to the department would be roughly at Rs.350/ per month. He further stated that the plaintiff stated his inability before the elders namely Naraynam Ananda Tagore,

Batchu Seetharamaiah, Kandukuri Pardha Saradhi and Batchu Pitchaiah and two others. He further stated that the plaintiff vacated the schedule property on 22nd

May, 2011 and delivered its vacant possession to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is no more a tenant of the schedule property. He further stated that later, after vacating the schedule property by the plaintiff, it was leased to one Batchu

Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Ramesh on 04062011 who is running Rice business on a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/ under the name and style of M/s Sri

Venkata Durga Rice Corporation & General Stores. While the matter stood thus, the plaintiff with a dishonest intention filed the present suit with false untenable, unsustainable, concocted and fabricated allegations. He further stated that there is no primafaice case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, hence, the suit may be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my predecessor for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as

P.W.1 and his brother was examined as P.W.2 and Exs. A1 to A11 were marked.

On behalf of defendant, he himself was examined as D.W.1 and third parties were examined as DWs.2 and 3. Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff was regular in payment of rents, but all of a sudden the defendant raised the rent to abnormal rate and he refused to pay the such enhanced rent, the defendant and their men threatened the plaintiff by saying that he would see that the plaintiff to be evicted from the schedule property without following due procedure of law.

Later he approached this court and obtained Temporary Injunction and while interim orders were in force, the plaintiff was forcibly evicted by the defendant and their men without following any due process of law. Therefore, considering the evidence of plaintiff, the suit may be decreed.

9.On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff was due of payment of arrears of rent even without paying arrears of rent which was due to the defendant, the plaintiff, himself vacated the schedule property and handed over the vacant possession of the schedule property to the defendant. Later with false allegations he filed the present suit and therefore, considering the evidence of Dws. 1 to 3 the suit may be dismissed.

10. ISSUE NO. 1:

It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff was a tenant of the schedule property. Inorder to prove his tenancy, the plaintiff filed as many as number of documents i.e., Exs. A1 to A11. At the same time it is also an admitted fact that the plaintiff is not in possession of the schedule property on today. Even according to admission made by the plaintiff, he has not been in possession of the schedule property for the last 3 years. Further it is an admitted fact that one

Batchu Venkata Subrahmanya Ramesh is the tenant of the schedule property and he was inducted into the schedule property as a tenant in the month of July2011 and he has been doing business in Rice. Now it is to be looked into the said aspect that whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?.

11. As seen from the plaint, it was filed on 15072011, but as per the contention of defendant that the plaintiff vacated the schedule property in the month of May2011 and handed over the vacant possession to him. Now the burden is on the part of the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on the date of filing of suit, but the plaintiff instead of placing the documentary proof he concentrated on the oral testimony through his evidence and the evidence of his brother i.e., P.W.2. As per the recitals of the plaint, there was a mediation held between himself and defendant on two occasions i.e., in the initial stage of inducting into the schedule property and at later stage, but the plaintiff did not choose to examine any of them to prove his version.

12.At the same time, the defendant concentrated on the arrears of rent which was due by the plaintiff, though the present suit is filed for seeking permanent injunction. If at all there are arrears of rent due to be paid to the defendant he has to seek a proper remedy by filing a proper suit or case before proper court. In order to prove the arrears of rent, which are due by the plaintiff, the defendant also examined D.Ws. 2 and 3, but at this juncture since the suit is for seeking a bare injunction, this court cannot touch the evidence of DWs. 2 and 3 on such lines as I stated above.

13.To strengthen the case of the defendant, he placed oral evidence along with documentary evidence showing that he let out the schedule premises to some other person, for which he placed an invitation card (Ex.B2) and photographs along with C.D (Ex.B1). The contention of the plaintiff is that he got temporary injunction orders from this court against the defendant, but the defendant violated the said orders and got him forcibly evicted from the schedule premises and in such circumstances, what prevented him to proceed against the defendant for violation of injunction orders. Though the plaintiff argued that he gave a report to police, but no piece of document was exhibited before this court to show that he gave a report to police against the defendant. Further the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued now the defendant's son is running business in the schedule property. But whereas the defendant examined D.W.3 who happened to the tenant of the schedule property and he categorically deposed that he was the nonresidential commercial tenant of the schedule property belonging to the defendant and he was doing business in selling of rice on the name and style of

M/s Sri Venkata Durga Rice Corporation and General Stores and he joined in the schedule property as a tenant on 04062011 on a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/ , the said fact was not denied by the plaintiff, though he was cross examined at length.

He further stated in his cross examination that there was a lease agreement between himself and the defendant and he filed the said lease agreement before this court. No doubt, he filed the said agreement before this court, but it was un registered and as such it was not marked as a document on behalf of defendant.

14.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is running a medical shop which is situated at a distance of 100 yards from the schedule property and he never closed the said shop. Even according to the evidence of defendant and in such circumstances the question of closing down his business at the schedule property does not arise. He further stated that the said fact was admitted by D.Ws. 2 and 3 i.e., about maintaining a medical shop which is near by the schedule property. Merely running a medical shop at a distance of 100 yards from the schedule property cannot be presumed that there is no necessity for the plaintiff for closing down his business at the schedule property. Further there is a clear admission by the plaintiff that he mentioned in the plaint about his induction in the schedule property in the year 2004 instead of 2005, but apparently, there was no any amendment to his pleadings.

15.The cardinal principal of granting permanent injunction is that the plaintiff has to establish his business over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, but as I discussed above, it is clear that the plaintiff though he filed the present suit and obtained Temporary Injunction Orders, but he failed to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and as such there is no primafaice case and balance of convenience in his favour. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for seeking permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, this issue is answered infavour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.

16.ISSUE NO.2:

In view of my findings under issue No.1, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April2015.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFEDANT.

P.W.1 : G. Damodara RaoD.W.1:G. Subba Rao. P.W.2: GV.Subrahmanyam.D.W.2: Batchu Subbaiah. D.W.3: B.V.Subrahmanya Ramesh.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Trading licence demand notice issued by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, dt. 01032009. Ex.A2:Trade licence receipt issued by Vijayawada Municipal Corporation,

dt. 02032009.

Ex.A3:Electricity bill along with paid receipt, dt. 06062011. Ex.A4:Payment receipt issued by TATA Indicom vide mobile No. 9246479492, dt. 0507201. Ex.A5:Letter issued by A.P Drug Control department changing the license numbers. dt. 18072006. Ex.A6: Nine photographs along with 3 C.Ds. Ex.A7:Internet Generated copy of Detailed TOT ledger of M/s Sri Balaji Medical & Fancy from 01042005 to 31032013 issued by Govt. o A.P Commercial Tax department. dt.16042013. Ex.A8:Bills issued by Total Tele service Ltd., to the plaintiff for the period of 01062009 to 18072011.

Ex.A9:Report given to the police commissioner by the plaintiff,

dt. 16082011.

Ex.A10:Electricity bill particulars for the period from 1909 to 1211 vide USC No. 6435318031876. Ex.A11:Electricity bill particulars for the period from 0109 to 1211 vide USC No. 6435318258848.

FOR DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1:Five photographs along with C.D. Ex.B2:Invitation Card.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.652/2011

BETWEEN: Gadamsetty Damodara Rao, S/o Veerabrahmam, Hindu, A/a 46 years, Business, R/o D.No.976152, K.T. Road, Vijayawada.

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Gurram Subba Rao, Hindu, A/a 70 years, properties, M/s Venkata Durga Rice Traders, Brahmin street, Vijayawada.

......Defendant.

Suit for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his sons, men, agents and servants etc., from ever interfering into the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and with costs.

Suit presented on : 12072011

Suit filed on : 15072011

Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction U/s 50 (1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs.31,920/ on which a Court Fee of Rs.1846/ is paid u/s 19 & 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose since March, 2004 when the terms of lease are settled , plaintiff paid Rs. 1 lakh as security deposit and property is delivered to plaintiff, since 01042004, o1042006, 01042008 and 01042010 when the plaintiff enhanced the rents periodically as agreed upon and at present paying the rent is Rs.2,660/ from 01042010, since the 1st week of June,2011 when the defendant demanded the plaintiff to enhance the rent up to Rs.5000/ and when the plaintiff had send the June month rent through cheque and on 07 072011 when the defendant came to the plaint schedule property along with his men and created havoc there and tried to evict the plaintiff forcibly from the schedule property and subsequently at Vijayawada the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court.

DECREE.

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed without costs;

2. That there be no order as to costs.

3. That the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.4,112/ and the plaintiff also do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil.

( copy of schedule is here with attached )

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 30th day of April2015.

I ADDL.JUNIOR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

1. Stamp on powerRs. 200

2. Stamp on plaintRs.

3. Stamp on processNil Rs.

4. Pleader fees (Sr) Rs. 300000 Pleader Fees (Jr) Rs. 100000

5. Writing chargesRs. 5000

6. Typing chargesRs. 5000

7. Stamps on petition.Rs. 1000 Costs certified :Rs.4,11200

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be able to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order .

OS/889/2014

Paruchuri Padmaja vs Mohammad abdul Jabbar

07 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 7th day of May2015.

O.S.No.889/2014

BETWEEN: Paruchuri Padmaja.

…...Plaintiff.

AND:

1. Mohammad Abdul Jabbar.

2. Maseera.

3. Anumala Venkata Ratnam.

.. Defendants.

This suit is coming on 05052015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.R.K. Sarma, Sri J.V.Prasad, Advocates for the Plaintiff and of Sri P. Sudhakar Rao, Sri P. Arun Kumar, Advocates for defendants 1 to 3; and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed the suit for seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, followers, vendees, nominees etc., from ever interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property of the plaintiff and with costs.

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

The plaintiff inducted into the schedule property as a tenant in the year 2009, of which the 1st defendant is the absolute owner and 2nd defendant is the wife of 1st defendant. 3rd defendant is a follower of defendants 1 and 2.

Initially, the plaintiff used to pay Rs. 1600/ per month towards rent before inducting into the schedule property, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/ to 2 the 1st defendant towards advance. There was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and 1st defendant with regard to tenancy. The plaintiff further stated that she has been running a Tiffn Centre and Curry point in the schedule property and she is paying electricity consumption charges. As per the oral terms and conditions, 1st defendant agreed for tenancy of the plaintiff till 30092011. Even after lapse of period the plaintiff expressed her willingness to continue the business in the said premises, for which the 1st defendant accepted for enhancement of the rent from Rs. 1600/ to Rs. 2,500/ per month and the same was accepted by the plaintiff for continuing the tenancy till 01032013 and again on 01032013, the 1st defendant increased the rent for Rs. 3,000/ per month till 01012014. Later on 01012014 the rent was increased from Rs.3000/ to Rs.

3300/ per month. There are no arrears of rent to be paid by the plaintiff to 1st defendant. There is no practice of issuing receipts for collection of monthly rents by the 1st defendant. While the matter stood thus, in the month of November 2014, the 1st defendant informed that he would enhance the rent @ 10% on the existing rent. The plaintiff also accepted the said proposal, when the plaintiff offered the rent for the month of November2014 from December2014, the 1st defendant asked her to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property. Further the 1st defendant along with his wife stopped the supply of municipal water to the plaintiff and when questioned about the said act by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 directed the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property. On 21122014 defendants 1 and 2 with the support of 3rd defendant came to the schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to vacate the schedule 3 premises by 31122014 or else they will see that the plaintiff will be evicted forcibly. Hence, the suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement.

The defendants 1 and 2 denied the averments of the plaint and further they stated that there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the agreement was up to December2014. Later there was no any agreement and now the plaintiff has been in illegal occupation of the schedule property. Further defendants 1 and 2 with the support of 3rd defendant threatened the plaintiff with direconsequences. There is no cause of action for filing of the present suit and as such the suit may be dismissed.

4. 3rd defendant denied the averments of the plaint and further he stated that initially he was the tenant of the suit schedule property and he vacated the same in the year 2009. Later he being a friend of the husband of the plaintiff and mediated the matter between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 for letting out the schedule premises to the plaintiff. Then there was a written agreement in writing between the plaintiff and 1st defendant for a period of two years. Later the agreement was renewed and now there is no any agreement and as such the plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the schedule property. Further he stated that the husband of the plaintiff is an influenced person and they are threatening the defendants 1 and 2 with direconsequences. Hence, he prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, she herself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A20 were marked. The defendants reported no evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff established about her tenancy over the schedule property by placing Exs. A1 to

A20. Now there is an apprehension of fear at the defendants since, the defendants at one stage before filing of the suit threatened the plaintiff to vacate the schedule property. The plaintiff is running a Tiffin Centre and Curry Point in the schedule property, if she gets evicted from the schedule property without following due procedure of law, she will be put to irreparable loss. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, the suit may be decreed in her favour.

9.On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendants argued that the plaintiff did not come to this court with clean hands though there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and 1st defendant relating to the schedule property, but the plaint shows that there was only oral agreement. P.W.1 herself admitted that there was a written agreement between herself and 1st defendant.

Further the plaintiff was irregular in payment of rents and the defendants never made any attempt or threatened the plaintiff to ask her to vacate the schedule property. Hence, the suit may be dismissed.

5 10.) ISSUE NO. 1:

P.W.1 being the plaintiff, she categorically deposed in her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint. She further placed as many as number of documents i.e., Exs. A1 to A20 on her behalf. All these documents are showing the possession of the schedule property by the plaintiff as a tenant. It is an admitted fact from the defendants that the plaintiff is a tenant of the schedule property. Now the question is : whether there is a primafaice case and

balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff for seeking permanent

injunction?

No doubt as argued by the learned counsel for defendants that there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and 1st defendant relating to the schedule property for lease, but not any oral agreement as stated by the plaintiff in her plaint. Merely on that ground the case of the plaintiff cannot be rejected. It is quite natural since the plaintiff has been in occupation of the plaint schedule property and at the same time it can be presumed that the land lord of the schedule property in support of defendants 2 and 3 might have tried to evict the plaintiff from the schedule property. If at all the shop premises is to be required by the defendants, defendants 1 and 2 have to follow the due procedure of law for evicting the plaintiff from the schedule property.

As many as number of allegations were brought against the plaintiff by the defendants in their written statements, in such circumstances, it is expected from them to place oral evidence, but here in the present suit, even they 6 did not enter into the witness box to depose their version. In such circumstances,

I can draw an adverse inference against the pleadings set up by them as false. In this regard I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

Vidhyadhar Vs Manik Rao ( 1993 (3) A.L.T 1(SC) where in it was held that as here under “Where a party to the suit does not appear into witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be crossexamined by other side, presumption would arise that case set up by him is not correct. As has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Court's and Privy Counsel beginning from the decision in Sarada Singh Vs Gurdial Singh and another (AIR 1927 P.C. 230).

As I discussed above, there is a primafaice case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and in these circumstances, if permanent injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff, she will be put to irreparable loss.

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

11.ISSUE NO.2:

In view of my findings under Issue No.1 the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, followers, vendees, nominees etc.,from ever interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property of the plaintiff. .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 07th day of May2015.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFEDANT.

P.W.1 : P. Padmaja None

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Electricity bill, dt. 13092014. Ex.A2: Electricity bill, dt. 15102014. Ex.A3: Electricity bill, dt. 15122014. Ex.A4:meSeva receipt, dt. 23112014. Ex.A5:meSeva receipt, dt. 23122014. Ex.A6:Monthly mess cards (6) Ex.A7:two photographs along with C.D. Ex.A8:M.O receipt, dt. 100142015. Ex.A9:M.O coupon, dt. 17012015. Ex.A10:counter foil receipt, dt. 21012015. Ex.A11:office copy of letter, dt. 02022015. Ex.A12:postal receipt, dt. 02022015. Ex.A13:return cover. Ex.A14:counter foil receipt, dt. 13032015. Ex.A15:`office copy of letter, dt. 16032015 along with return cover. Ex.A16:counter foil receipt, dt. 31032015. Ex.A17:Trade license demand notice. Ex.A18:meSeva receipt, dt.31032015. Ex.A19:meSeva receipt, dt.20032015. Ex.A20:covering letter, dt. 01042015.

FOR DEFENDANTS

NIL

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

OS/115/2015

Chavala Ravi kumar vs Chokka Essak

16 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 16th day of April 2015.

O.S.No.115/2015

BETWEEN: Chavala Ravi Kumar.

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Chokka Essak.

......Defendant

This Original suit is coming on 17042015 before me in the presence of Sri B. Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained exparte; and the matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of sum of Rs.45,340/ being the principal and interest due under the suit pronote, dt.05032013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.30,000/ repayable with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/ from the plaintiff on 05.03.2013 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Ibrahimpatnam on the even date after receipt of consideration, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff and postponing the payment on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 20.02.2015 to the defendant.

The defendant received the said notice and kept quite without complying the demand of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount and costs.

3. The defendant remained exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, in order to prove his case, he himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.

5. Heard the plaintiff.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount ?

7.POINT:

The plaintiff in order to prove his version by way of chief affidavit which is admitted as his chief examination, while reiterating his version got marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1, Office copy of legal notice as Ex.A2 and Postal acknowledgment as Ex.A3. As the defendant did not choose to contest the suit, the evidence of Pw.1 and Exs. A1 to A3 which remained unchallenged to prove the version of the plaintiff that the defendant executed the promissory note after receiving consideration. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount. Thus, the point is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.45,340/ along with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a, from the date of decree till realization on principal sum of

Rs.30,000/.

Directly typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of April, 2015.

IADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff:Defendant: PW.1 Ch. Ravi KumarNone

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR.

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note, dt. 05032013.

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice, dt. 20022015.

Ex.A3:Postal acknowledgment.

For defendant : Nil.

IADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, the 16th day of April 2015.

O.S.No.115/2015

BETWEEN:

Chavala Ravi Kumar, S/o Ch. Rama Mohan Rao, Hindu, A/a 32 years, R/o D.No.1296, Ferry road, Ibrahimpatnam. Krishna District.

…...Plaintiff.

AND: Chokka Essak, S/o Ch. Devendra Rao, Hindu, Government B.C Boys Hostel, Veerlupadu Mandal, Jujjuru Post, Krishna District.

......Defendant

Suit presented on : 03032015

Suit filed on : 06032015

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction u/s 50 (1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs.45,340/ on which a court fee of Rs.2,266/is paid u/s 20 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act .

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05032013 at Ibrahimpatnam when and where the suit transaction took place within the jurisdiction of this court.

DECREE.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 45,340/ along with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% p.a., from the date of decree till realization on principal sum of Rs.30,000/;

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,907 / towards costs of the suit .

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 16th day of April2015.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1. Stamp on powerRs. 200

2. Stamp on plaintRs. 226600

3. Stamp on processRs. 5500 NIL

4. Adv. FeeRs. 148400

5. Writing chargesRs. 5000

6. Typing chargesRs 5000 Total: Rs. 3,90700

I ADDL.JUNIOR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

OS/906/2013

M.John Mohan Gandhi vs M.John Steevanson

23 Apr 2015

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday the 23 rd day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.906/2013

BETWEEN: Munnangi John Mohan(Gandhi)

....Plaintiff.

AND Munnangi John Stevenson

.....Defendant.

This Original suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri M.S.Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. A. Gopala Sastry, Advocate for defendant; and matter is having stood over to this day for consideration and upon hearing and perusing the entire material on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents, followers interfering and transferring the plaint schedule property into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit

2.No representation for plaintiff. Plaintiff is called absent. Even on last adjournment also there was no representation for plaintiff. It shows that the plaintiff is not interested to proceed further in this suit. Hence this suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April, 2015.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

..NIL..

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE; VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy, I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday the 23 rd day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.906/2013

BETWEEN: Munnangi John Mohan(Gandhi)

....Plaintiff.

AND

Munnangi John Stevenson

.....Defendant.

Suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men agents, followers interfering and transferring the plaint schedule property into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit

Suit presented on : 12122013

Suit filed on : 31122013

Value of the suit for the purpose of C.F and jurisdiction u/s 50 (1) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act is Rs . 20,000/ on which a Court Fee of Rs. 1,572/ is paid u/s 26(c) of schedule II Article I (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose i the year 1975 when the father of plaintiff and the defendant applied for pattas and when the authorities issued pattas on the name of mother of the plaintiff i.e., I Raja Mani and the defendant and when the mother of the plaintiff and defendant applied for loan to construct a house and later on when constructed a RCC building in tow portions and when the father of the plaintiff and defendant died and when disputes arose in between them and when the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the schedule property and where the plaint schedule property is situated at Woodpet, Vijayawada within the jurisdiction of this court.

DECREE.

1. That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default as there is no representation of plaintiff.

2. That there be no order as to costs.

(Copy of schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of April2015.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

NIL

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

OS/169/2014

K.S.Prahavathi Devi vs A.Ananda Kumar

16 Apr 2015

Order Record 217 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/889/2014	Paruchuri Padmaja vs Mohammad abdul Jabbar	07 May 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/652/2011	Gadamsetty Damodara Rao vs Gurram Subba Rao	30 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/906/2013	M.John Mohan Gandhi vs M.John Steevanson	23 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/115/2015	Chavala Ravi kumar vs Chokka Essak	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/169/2014	K.S.Prahavathi Devi vs A.Ananda Kumar	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/789/2014	Smt Pagidipalli kotamma vs Smt Pagidipalli Kanaka Ratnam	16 Apr 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/43/2015	V. Lakshmi Kishore vs Tupakula Gopi	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/691/2014	D.Saibaba Reddy vs Bonda Sri Krishna Kumari	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/749/2014	Vangeti Upendra vs Guntur Subbulu	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/872/2014	Pathan Ibrahim vs Turala Somaraju	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/879/2014	D.Subba Reddy vs Challa Simhachallam	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/916/2014	Noor Muhammad Khan vs Katta Ajaya kumar	31 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/3/2015	Dowlat Khan vs Sk.Nanna	24 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/586/2014	Pinemaneni Ratheesh Kumar vs Vssathuluri Parasuramudu	24 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/761/2014	Sriram Savitri vs Malapati Anand	24 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/839/2014	Nadakuditi Krishna Rao vs Yarragunta Tulasamma	19 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/28/2015	Podili Nageswara Rao vs Thommanda Chanti Babu	17 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/62/2015	Kodali Prabhavathi vs Sai Divya Residency flat owners welfare Associaa	17 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/918/2014	V.Prabhu kishore vs Karreddula Jayaram	17 Mar 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/832/2014	V.Prabhu Kishore vs Musse Sattaiah	26 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/846/2014	V.Prabhu kishore vs Boddireddy konda Babu	26 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/13/2015	Mathangi Srinivasa Rao vs Vsmathangi Naga Raju	24 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/772/2014	Chennupati Rama mohan Rao vs Desiboina Punna Rao	21 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/678/2014	Palanati Satyanarayana vs Miriyala John	20 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/720/2014	Chalasani Anjaneyulu vs Vsgutta Ravi Babu	19 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/778/2014	Mallisetti Naga Vaasa Mani vs Gudivasa Surya Kumari	19 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/827/2014	Konala Atchi Reddy vs Tahasildar	12 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/782/2014	Manchamsetty veera vankata Satyanarayana vs Thota Rajya Lakshmi	10 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/865/2014	P.Satyanarayana vs Gummadi Brahmaji	10 Feb 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/856/2014	annam Kumari vs Jupudi Ramana	23 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/738/2014	Repalle sekhar Babu vs Chintha Poorna chandra Rao	22 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/209/2014	Chandu Ramaswamy vs Tanneeru Uma Maheswara Rao	19 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/519/2014	Sunkara Nagabhushana Rao vs Majeti Ramana Chandra kiran	19 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/737/2013	dantala. danial vs Vsm.yelisammaand vijayaraol	19 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/985/2010	Mopidevi Chakravarthi vs Yaddanapudi Rohini Kutumba Kumar	19 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1006/2010	Y.Rohini Kutumba Kumar vs M.Chakravarthi	19 Jan 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/725/2014	V. Prabhu Kishore vs Masanam Swathi	31 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/774/2014	Vanasetty narayana Rao vs Shik Kasim	18 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/675/2014	Thota Venkata Krishna Rao vs The Joint Collector,	17 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/724/2014	ch Bhaskara Rao vs Sri Visweswara Rao	17 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/753/2014	Bussa Sambaiah vs Bussa Radha Krishna	12 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/595/2014	Surabattula Sarada Narasamamba vs Ponamala Venkatadri	11 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/510/2011	ANDHRA BANK CREDIT CARD DIVISION vs SANKA SIVARAMA KRISHNAIAH	10 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/180/2014	Vikram Ramana Rao vs Andhra bank	03 Dec 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/276/2013	Kondapalli Nitish Harsha vs Kondapalli Rambabu	29 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/547/2014	Gogula Santosh vs Gogula Bhaskara Rao	29 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/20/2014	y bhaskarao vs Vsgollapudi gramapachayatiu	28 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/305/2014	Kinnera Prasad vs Patibandla Rajasekhar	27 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/606/2014	Uppu siva naga malleswari vs Challa peda venkateswara Rao	27 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/358/2014	Sri Seetharama Kalyanamandapam, Rep. its Managing vs Kallepalli Lakshmi	26 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/638/2014	Beeram Rama krishna vs Pothula Seetharama Lakshmi	26 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/240/2014	GRVN Durgamba vs Gunda Raj Kumar	25 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/369/2014	Dhulipala Satyanarayana vs K.srinivasa Rao	25 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/567/2014	palli prakash vs The joint collector	25 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/203/2014	Tenneti Sudhakara Rao vs Tenneti Srinivasa rao	24 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/399/2014	Siddineni Siva Sankar vs Ramesh Babriya	24 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/429/2014	Thondepu Venkata Kutumba Lakshmi Sailaja vs Chakravaram Katam Raju	24 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/491/2014	Atluri Venkataratnam vs Anne bhavani krishana	24 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/525/2014	Padamata Suresh Babu vs Attaluri Siva Prasad	24 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/715/2014	Alapati Satyanarayana vs Sha Vikaram das	21 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/729/2013	Dugaputi Vijaya vs M.Srirama Murthy	19 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/349/2013	Margadarshi chit fund vs Vairamudi Chandra lSekhar	18 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/546/2014	Anne Bala Rama Murthy vs Alamuri Chandra sekhar	18 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/615/2014	Gudapalsa Durga, vs Gandikota Durga	18 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/616/2013	M.Srinivasa Rao vs M.Lakshmi	18 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/436/2014	Patturi Murili vs K.Veera Raju	17 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/685/2014	D.Subba Reddy vs Chaganti pulla Reddy	17 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/90/2014	DAMINENI. SRAVANI vs DUDDUKURI. SATYANARAYANA AND TWO OTHERS	14 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/390/2014	Bdam Gangadhara Srinivasa Rao vs K.Phanidra	14 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/647/2014	N.V.Ramana Murthy vs Battu Venkata Lakshmi Annapoorna	14 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/584/2014	State Bank of India vs Paidipamula Sailaja	12 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/556/2014	Cheeli Benarjee vs Vemula Thirupathamma	10 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/663/2014	Bora Gopal Krishna vs Kodeyboina Bhaskar Chandra Sekhar	10 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/144/2014	Railway Pensioner Welfare Association vs Divisional Railway Manager	07 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/205/2014	Gundu Uma Maheswara RAo vs Rajanala Srinivasa Rao	07 Nov 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/218/2014	M.SrinivasaRao vs Sk.Abdul Khader	31 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/572/2014	Kakaraparthi Raghunadha Sai vs M.V.S.S.A.V.Prasad	30 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/660/2012	Batchu Ramamohana Rao vs Uppalapati Vijayalakshmi	30 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/512/2014	Syndicate Bank Kanuru Branch vs Valliboyina Vasu	29 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/670/2013	Nirmal Kumar Jain vs Nukala Venkata Subba Rao	29 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/702/2014	Puppala Ramesh Babu vs Jakki Venkateswarlu	29 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/230/2014	Koppula Rama Rao vs Sayyed Mysoor Vali	28 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/861/2013	MADASU PADMA vs KOTA ANASUYA	28 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/352/2014	Potluri Usha Rani vs Y. Srinivasa Rao	27 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/381/2014	KJ Gayatri vs Golla Harinath	27 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/489/2014	State Bank of India vs Karnati Appa Rao	27 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/627/2014	V.Prabhu Kishore vs Vschitturi Mahesh	27 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/766/2013	lakshmifinance g.p.a holder c.satyanarayana vs S. venkatareddy and other	27 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/530/2014	Badugu siva nageswara Rao vs Burre Gandhi,	24 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/101/2014	Alluri Pnaduranga Rao vs Voleti Venkata Subba Rao	21 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/80/2014	Yarlagadda Radhakrishna Rao vs Seelam Ganga Nagamma	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/576/2014	Namala Srinivasa Rao alias Srinivas vs The Estate Officer , Rythu	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/697/2014	Bolla Lakshmi vs Kandavalli Ramanamma	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/704/2013	Nekkalapu Ravindra Kumar vs Koli Chaitanya	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/877/2013	Bolisetty Siva Kanya Kumari vs P.Madhavi	20 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/129/2014	OLLA. DALINAIDU AND OTHER vs TKKISETTI. OLLA. SYAMASUNDARI	18 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/268/2014	L.Venkateswara Rao vs M.Devaki	17 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/332/2014	M.Ranganayakulu vs Dr Valluri Raja Sekhar	17 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/122/2014	Chunduri Srinivasa Rao vs Tahsildar	16 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/272/2014	TMSK Kumar vs B.Sriniva Rao	16 Oct 2014	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 217 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2015		1
Apr 2015		5
Mar 2015		13
Feb 2015		14
Jan 2015		11
Dec 2014		13
Nov 2014		36
Oct 2014		49
Sep 2014		8
Aug 2014		34
Jul 2014		10
Jun 2014		31

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy handled?

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy has handled 256 court orders since 2014 at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada. The average disposal rate is 18 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy hear?

Based on available records, Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits) at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Where is Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy currently posted?

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy is posted as I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy dispose cases?

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy disposes approximately 18 cases per month, based on 256 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada.

Since when is Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy serving?

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy has been serving at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada since 2014.

Case Types

OS 100%

Posting History

Mar 2014 — May 2015

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada · 256 orders

Other Judges at this Court

M.Suneel Kumar

II Addl. District Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions...

15 orders

Smt. L. Thejovathi

III Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

K.neelima

IV Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

0 orders

G.Rajeswari

V Additional District and Sessions Judge Vijayaw...

686 orders

Bandela Abraham

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) V...

620 orders

N.padmavathi

VIII Additional District and Session Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Sri G.Subrahmanyam

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

3 orders

Smt M.Sudha

XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC)...

7 orders

Smt K. Madhavi Devi

Principal Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

218 orders

Smt.K.Vani

I Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy

II Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

458 orders

Smt.k.aruna

III Additional Senior Civil Judge Vijayawada

0 orders

Smt.M.Satya Kumari

IV Addl Senior Civil Judge cum V ACMM Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri K.P. Sai Ram

VI Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

408 orders

Sri.Ch.L.Srinivasa Rao

VII Addl Senior Civil Judge Vajayawada

377 orders

Sri Chapala Srinivasa Babu

Prl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- Metropolitan Magis...

1,336 orders

Ms. G.devika

I Addl Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Metr...

301 orders

Sri S.Srikanth

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Additional Met...

0 orders

Shaik Rehana

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- III Additional...

969 orders

T.anjani S.s.rama Aditya Rishik

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- IV Additional M...

600 orders

Smt P Santhi

V Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- V Addition...

0 orders

B Radha Rani

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,518 orders

M.S.Karimulla

I Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,985 orders

Smt.Nettem Radhika

II Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

319 orders

Sri.P.Tirumala Rao

III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada

1,555 orders

Sri U.Ram Mohan

IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada

15 orders

Sri.Marapu Sridhar

VII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawad...

0 orders

Sri P.Ramana Reddy

IX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

KP Sai Ram

XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vijayawada

0 orders

Sri Kandepu Seeta Rama Krishna Rao

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada

125 orders

A.anitha

Spl. Judge for Trial of Criminal Cases Relating to...

18 orders

N Radhika

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Vijaya...

70 orders

Kampa Jayalakshmi

Special Judge for POCSO Act Vijayawada.

0 orders

Sri G.Bhupal Reddy

Special Judge for Commercial Disputes Vijayawada

28 orders

← View all judges at II Addl DJ Court Vijayawada

Sri J.V.V.Satyanarayna Murthy

J U D G M E N T

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFEDANT.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR DEFENDANTS

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

DECREE.

I ADDL.JUNIOR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

JUDGMENT

balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff for seeking permanent

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDEX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFEDANT.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR DEFENDANTS

­­NIL­

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

J U D G M E N T

IADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR.

IADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

DECREE.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

I ADDL.JUNIOR.CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

J U D G M E N T

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL

VIJAYAWADA.

DECREE.

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

MEMO OF COSTS

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Present: Sri J.V.V. Satyanarayana Murthy,

I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday the 16 th day of April, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

NIL