K.anurag

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //1// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

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

SRIKAKULAM

Present:- Sri.K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.333 of 2020

Between:

Bendi Venkata Ramana, S/o late Appalu, aged about 50 years, Cultivation, Hindu, residing at Door No.1-25, Vakalavalasa village, Srikakulam Mandalam and Srikakulam District. Plaintiff.

And:

1. Pydi Narasimhulu, S/o late Appalasuri, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Door No.1-61, Vakalavalasa village, Srikakulam Mandalam and Srikakulam District.

2. Pydi Pentayya, S/o late Appalasuri, aged about 62 years, residing at Door No.1-60, Rest -do-.,

3. Pydi Ramulamma, W/o late Dalappadu, aged about 62 years, residing at Door No.1-61/1, Rest -do-.,

Defendants.

This suit is coming on 02.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Nagabushana Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri P.Dhanunjaya Rao and Sri S.Gaddyya, Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 3, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this 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 the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //2// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell as follows:

The case of the plaintiff in sum and substance was that the suit schedule property had been originally purchased by his father, late Bendi

Appalu, under a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1980 from Raja Rao and others, and that his father had been in continuous and peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof with absolute right and title during his lifetime. It was further contended that, upon the death of his father, the plaintiff had succeeded to the said property along with other properties and had continued in possession thereof as its absolute owner. The plaintiff asserted that when he attempted to undertake construction over the suit schedule property by collecting material, the defendants, who allegedly had no manner of right, title, or interest over the same, interfered and attempted to trespass into the property on 03.10.2020. Though such attempt was stated to have been prevented with the intervention of elders, the defendants were alleged to have continued to proclaim their intention to forcibly occupy the property, thereby giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of interference and necessitating the filing of the present suit.

3. Gist of the Written Statement of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3:

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had denied the material averments of the plaint, while admitting that the plaintiff was the son of late Bendi Appalu and that the said Appalu had purchased property under a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1980 and had been in possession thereof. However, they had specifically contended that the said property had already been alienated during the lifetime of Bendi Appalu. It was their case that late Bendi Appalu, along with his sons including the present plaintiff, had executed a registered sale deed dated 27.04.1994 in favour of Ajanta Real Estates and Finance, conveying various extents of land comprised in new Survey Nos. 32/7, 32/12, 32/14, 32/15, and 32/16, totally admeasuring Ac. 0.92 cents, corresponding to

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //3// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026 old Survey No. 214 of Vakalivalsa Village. The defendants further contended that the plaint schedule property, described as an extent of 9 cents in Survey

Nos. 228 and 229, in fact corresponded to new Survey Nos. 32/15 and 32/16, which formed part of the property already sold under the said sale deed of the year 1994. They had also relied upon revenue records, including entries available in the MeeBhoomi portal, to contend that the old survey numbers no longer existed independently and had been reclassified under the new survey numbers. On the basis of the above, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff had no subsisting right, title, or interest over the suit schedule property and that the suit was devoid of cause of action. It was further contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the plaintiff, having suppressed material facts relating to the prior alienation, was not entitled to the equitable relief of injunction. The defendants, therefore, sought dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs and also claimed compensation of ₹5,00,000.

4. Based on the rival contentions of both parties, my learned predecessor had settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed

dated 10.09.1980 as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the description of the suit schedule property is correct?

3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

5) To what relief?

5. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, marked

Ex.A1, and examined PW.2 in support of his case. Despite being afforded

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //4// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026 sufficient opportunities, the defendants failed to cross-examine PW.1 and

PW.2. Even after grant of conditional and consecutive adjournments, the defendants did not avail themselves of the opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses. Consequently, the right of the defendants to cross-examine

PW.1 and PW.2 was forfeited.

6. Thereafter, though opportunities were afforded, the defendants did not choose to step into the witness box nor did they adduce any evidence on their behalf. Accordingly, the evidence on the side of the defendants was closed on 20.03.2026.

7. The depositions of PW.1 and PW.2 were already on record and, in order to avoid repetition and prolixity, the same were not reproduced.

Issues No. 1 to 3:

1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed

dated 10.09.1980 as on the date of filing of the suit?

2) Whether the description of the suit schedule property is correct?

3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder or misjoinder of necessary parties?

8. As these issues are interlinked and interconnected, they are taken up together for consideration.

9. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it was considered appropriate to examine the settled principles of law governing suits for permanent injunction.

(a) In Gowram Tippa Reddy and others vs. Vuchala Sudharshan

Reddy reported in 2023 (1) ALT 375 (DB–AP), it was held that in a suit for injunction, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that he was in lawful possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit.

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //5// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

The said principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sunkamma (dead) by LRs vs. S. Pushparaj (dead) by LRs reported in 2018 (2) MLJ 222 (SC), wherein it was categorically held that in a suit for permanent injunction, the primary consideration is lawful possession and not ownership.

(b) In Sudhakara Reddy vs. Lakshmamma reported in 2014 (5)

ALD 385, it was held (at para 10) that in a suit for perpetual injunction, the Court may incidentally examine the question of title, if the circumstances so warrant, for the limited purpose of determining possession.

(c) In Kumar Brothers and Company, Hyderabad vs. A.P. Housing

Board, Hyderabad and another reported in 2014 (4) ALD 276, it was held (at para 16) that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the plaintiff must establish not only his lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, but also prove interference or threat of interference by the defendant, which gives rise to a cause of action.

(d) In Chapa Lakshmi vs. Sri Pentakota Paradesi Naidu reported in 2014 (4) ALT 174, it was held that a plaintiff seeking the equitable relief of injunction must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose all material facts; failure to do so disentitles him from such relief.

(e) In Madduru Papaiah (died) by LRs vs. Ch. Rama Krishna and others reported in 2012 (2) ALD 768, it was held (at para 10) that in a suit for injunction, the burden squarely rests upon the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property. It was further held that mere possession is not sufficient, and the plaintiff must also establish a semblance of right over the property, as a trespasser cannot seek injunction against the true owner.

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //6// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

10. As already observed, the burden squarely rested upon the plaintiff to establish that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

11. In the present case, in order to discharge the said burden, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon Ex.A1, the registered sale deed dated 10.09.1980 standing in the name of his father, late Bendi Appalu.

PW.1 has deposed that his father had purchased the suit schedule property under the said document and was in possession and enjoyment thereof during his lifetime, and that after his father’s death, he succeeded to the property and has been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof. He further deposed that with an intention to raise construction over the suit schedule property, he gathered construction material, and at that stage, the defendants interfered and attempted to trespass into the same. PW.2, examined in support of the plaintiff, has supported the version of PW.1; however, a careful reading of his deposition discloses that it is only a reiteration of the evidence of PW.1 and does not bring on record any independent or additional material particulars so as to strengthen the case of the plaintiff.

12. It is to be noted that though the defendants did not cross-examine

PW.1 and PW.2, and further failed to step into the witness box or adduce any evidence, such failure on their part does not automatically result in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The settled position of law is that the plaintiff must stand or fall on the strength of his own case. Therefore, this Court proceeds to examine whether the plaintiff has independently discharged the burden cast upon him.

13. At this juncture, it is also necessary to take note of the specific stand taken by the defendants in their written statement. The defendants, while not disputing that the plaintiff’s father originally had title over the property, have categorically disputed the plaintiff’s title and possession and

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //7// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026 have further set up a plea of subsequent alienation and changes affecting the property. Thus, the title of the plaintiff is not only denied but is also clouded by specific pleadings. In such circumstances, even though the present suit is one for bare injunction, the burden on the plaintiff becomes more onerous, and he is required to establish, at least prima facie, a clear and lawful basis for his possession traceable to a valid title. The existence of such a cloud over the title necessitates strict proof from the plaintiff.

14. In the present case, the entire claim of the plaintiff rests upon

Ex.A1, which admittedly stands in the name of his father. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he is the sole legal heir of late Bendi Appalu. On the contrary, it is admitted that there are other legal heirs. However, there is neither any pleading nor any evidence explaining the mode of devolution of the property in favour of the plaintiff alone. PW.1 has made a bald assertion that he acquired “perfect title and possession” after the death of his father, but he has not stated whether the property devolved upon him by way of succession, partition, or testamentary disposition. There is no documentary evidence, either in the nature of a partition deed, family arrangement, or will, to substantiate his claim of exclusive entitlement. In the absence of such foundational facts, the claim of exclusive possession by the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

15. Further, when a party asserts possession, particularly in a case where such possession is specifically disputed, it is expected that the best available evidence be placed before the Court. In the present case, the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence such as adangal, 1-B extracts, revenue records, or any other contemporaneous material to establish that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Mere oral assertions of PW.1 and PW.2, in the

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //8// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026 absence of supporting documentary evidence, do not inspire confidence, especially when the possession is seriously disputed by the defendants.

16. In this context, the description of the suit schedule property assumes considerable significance. The property is described as a “dry land.”

However, the plaintiff has not clarified whether the said land falls under

Gramakantam or whether it is a land governed by the revenue authorities.

This distinction is not merely academic but has direct evidentiary implications.

If the land falls within the purview of the revenue authorities, corresponding revenue records would ordinarily be maintained and available. Even in respect of lands described as dry lands or lands not presently under cultivation, records such as adangal, 1-B extracts, or other revenue entries are generally available.

17. It is no doubt true that in the case of vacant land, the principle that possession follows title may be invoked. However, such principle can be applied only when the title of the party is clear and established. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to establish a clear and exclusive title in his favour, for the reasons already discussed. Therefore, he cannot take shelter under the said principle to claim possession. Further, though the defendants have not substantiated their plea of subsequent alienation and changes in the property by adducing evidence, the very fact that such a plea has been raised casts a cloud on the plaintiff’s claim and necessitates strict proof. The plaintiff has failed to meet this requirement.

18. Insofar as the issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is one among several legal heirs of late Bendi Appalu. However, the other co-sharers have not been impleaded as parties to the suit. In the absence of any plea or proof of partition, their non-impleadment assumes importance and further weakens the case of the plaintiff.

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //9// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

19. On a careful, detailed, and cumulative appreciation of the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. He has also failed to prove the identity of the property and has not satisfactorily explained the non- joinder of necessary parties. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has failed to establish his lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, has failed to prove its identity, and has not satisfactorily explained the non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, Issues No. 1 to 3 are answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO. 4

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of permanent injunction as prayed for?

20. In view of the findings recorded on Issues No. 1 to 3, wherein the plaintiff has failed to establish his lawful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, he is not entitled to the equitable relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO. 5:

21. IN THE RESULT, the Suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

O.S.No.333 of 2020 //10// APSR020008342020

Dt.30.04.2026

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 : Bendi Venkata Ramana- None -

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1:Original registered sale deed, dated 10.09.1982 stands in the name of father of plaintiff.

For Defendants:

- No documents are marked –

Sd/- Sri K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

CC.No.83/2019 //1// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Sri K.Anurag,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No. 83 of 2019

Between:

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorized Person, Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Son of Yerrayya, Hindu, aged 27 years, Senior Office Assistant, Srikakulam. Complainant.

And :

Gondela Surya Narayana, Hindu, aged 40 years, S/o Seetayya, Door No.1-83A, Main street, Chettupodilam, Srikakulam, Hiramandalam P.S. Limits.

ACCUSED.

This case has come before me on 13.05.2026, for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri M.Janardhan Rao, Learned Counsel for Complainant and of Smt.K.S.Vani and Sri P.Jayaram, learned Counsel for the accused and this matter having been stood-over for determination till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

01). The complainant filed this complaint against accused for the offence 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.

02). The brief contents of complaint are: The complainant, Shriram

City Union Finance Limited, a private finance company, was represented by its Legal Assistant, Mr. M.Rajasekhar. Subsequently, Mr.Anand was permitted to prosecute the case on behalf of the complainant company. It is the case of the complainant that the accused approached the company and availed a

CC.No.83/2019 //2// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026 vehicle Loan of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) under Loan

Agreement No. SRKL2FW170830001 dated 30.08.2017, agreeing to repay the same in 36 monthly instalments of Rs.12,333/- (Rupees Twelve thousand three hundred and thirty three only) each. It is further submitted that the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 002328 dated 25.09.18 for a sum of

Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand only) drawn on Karnataka Bank,

Srikakulam Branch. When the said cheque was presented on 19.10.18 for encashment through the complainant’s banker, it was dishonoured with the endorsement “funds insufficient.” It is further stated that a statutory notice

dated 09.11.2018 was issued to the accused demanding payment of the

cheque amount, but the accused failed to comply with the same. Hence, the present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed.

02(a). Originally, this complaint was filed before the Court of the I

Additional Judicial Magistrate, Srikakulam. The court took cognizance of the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. A copy of the complaint and the documents relied upon by the complainant were sent to the accused along with the summons, in accordance with Rule 8 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. Subsequently, the case was made over to this Court by virtue of the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal

District Judge, Srikakulam, vide Dis. No. 2561, dated 28.09.2022.

3. On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code and accusation in the complaint was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. On behalf of the complainant, the authorized representative,

Mr.Anand, was examined as P.W.1, and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. Upon

CC.No.83/2019 //3// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026 closure of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. The accused denied the same and reported on defence evidence.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the record I have framed the following points for determination in order to arrive at a definite finding as regards the dispute in the instant case.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

I. Whether P.W.1, Mr. Ananda Rao, has derived valid authorization under Ex.P.1 and is competent to represent the complainant company?

II. Whether there existed a legally enforceable debt or liability between the complainant company and the accused at the time of issuance of

Ex.P.2?

III. Whether the accused has rebutted the presumptions available under

Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

IV. Whether the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT NO. I:

7. At the outset, before considering the factual controversy involved in the present complaint, it is necessary to examine whether the complainant has satisfied the statutory prerequisites contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. To attract penal liability under the said provision, the complainant is required to establish that the cheque was issued

CC.No.83/2019 //4// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026 towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability; that the cheque was presented within the prescribed validity period; that it was dishonoured upon presentation; that a demand notice was issued within the stipulated period; and that despite service of notice, the drawer failed to make payment within the statutory timeframe. Unless all these ingredients coexist, the offence under Section 138 cannot be said to have been constituted.

8. In the instant case, the oral testimony of P.W.1 substantially echoes the averments set out in the complaint. The material on record reveals that the cheque marked as Ex.P.3 bears the date 25.09.2018 and was presented for encashment on 19.10.2018. The banker’s endorsement produced as Ex.P.4 discloses that the cheque was dishonoured on 20.10.2018. Thereafter, the complainant caused issuance of statutory demand notice under Ex.P.5 on 09.11.2018. The postal acknowledgment marked as

Ex.P.6 establishes due service of the notice upon the accused. Significantly, during the course of trial, the accused neither disputed the correctness of the address mentioned in the notice nor denied its receipt. The complaint having been instituted on 12.12.2018 is evidently within the period prescribed under law. Hence, this Court is satisfied that the procedural mandate embodied under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands complied with.

9. However, the principal objection projected by the learned counsel appearing for the accused relates to the competency and authority of P.W.1 to prosecute the complaint on behalf of the complainant company. It is argued that the authorization relied upon by the complainant is legally deficient and incapable of conferring valid authority upon P.W.1.

10. In support of such authority, the complainant has relied upon

Ex.P.2, stated to be an authorization letter issued in favour of PW.1. A scrutiny of Ex.P.2 indicates that it is purportedly issued on the letterhead of M/s.

CC.No.83/2019 //5// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026

Shriram City Union Finance Limited by one Mr. I.V. Prasad, claiming to be an authorized executive of the company. Under the said document, P.W.1, namely Mr.A.Ananda Rao, who is stated to be serving as Senior Officer

Assistant, has allegedly been empowered to represent the company before the Court and adduce evidence on its behalf. The document further recites that such delegation flows from a Board Resolution dated 22.06.2010.

Nevertheless, the said Board Resolution, which constitutes the very source of authority, has not been placed before the Court. In the absence of production of the foundational resolution, the authority claimed under Ex.P.2 remains unsupported and unverified. Mere production of an authorization letter, without establishing the competence of the executant to delegate such powers, cannot by itself be accepted as sufficient proof of authorization.

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston

Computers, wherein it was held that the authority to institute and prosecute proceedings on behalf of a company must emanate from a valid resolution passed by the Board of Directors, and that a mere authorization letter, in the absence of proof regarding delegation of such authority, does not satisfy the requirement of law. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present facts, this

Court finds that apart from Ex.P2, no material has been produced to demonstrate that the executant of the said document possessed lawful authority under a valid Board Resolution to further delegate powers to P.W.1.

Consequently, serious doubt arises regarding the legitimacy of the representation itself. This Court is therefore unable to accept Ex.P.2 as a legally valid authorization empowering P.W.1 to institute and prosecute the present complaint on behalf of the company.

12. Accordingly, this Court holds that P.W.1 lacked proper authorization to represent the complainant company and, consequently, the

CC.No.83/2019 //6// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026 complaint itself is rendered not maintainable. Hence, Point No. I is answered in the Negative.

POINTS NO. II TO IV

13. Notwithstanding the above findings, this Court proceeds to examine whether the complainant has established the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

14. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but a reiteration of the pleadings contained in the complaint and statutory notice.

15. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the complainant company had obtained several signed cheques from the accused at the time of sanction of the loan transaction. He further admitted that the vehicle financed under the loan was hypothecated in favour of the complainant company and that the said vehicle was subsequently seized and sold in auction proceedings for recovery of the loan dues. Significantly, these material facts have not been disclosed either in the complaint, statutory notice, or in the chief-examination affidavit of P.W.1.

16. P.W.1 further admitted that the complainant company has not produced the primary loan documents, namely the loan agreement, demand promissory note, and hypothecation agreement. Though reliance is placed upon the statement of account marked at Ex.P.7, the said document is admittedly a computer-generated document and is not accompanied by the mandatory certificate contemplated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence

Act. Consequently, Ex.P.7 cannot be looked into for the purpose of proving the alleged liability. Further, neither the complaint nor the evidence of P.W.1 discloses the exact outstanding amount allegedly due from the accused as on the date of issuance of the cheque. No particulars are forthcoming regarding the instalments paid, instalments allegedly defaulted, the amount realized through auction of the hypothecated vehicle, or the manner in which the alleged settlement figure of ₹90,000/- was arrived at. These omissions

CC.No.83/2019 //7// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026 assume considerable significance and strike at the root of the complainant’s case.

17. The defence taken by the accused that the cheque in question was one among the signed blank cheques obtained at the inception of the loan transaction therefore appears probable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

18. It is well settled that the presumptions available under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable in nature, and the accused is only required to rebut the same on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the admissions elicited from P.W.1 during cross-examination sufficiently probabilize the defence set up by the accused and create serious doubt regarding the subsistence of legally enforceable liability on the date of presentation of the cheque. Once such rebuttal is made, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, which the complainant has failed to do.

19. Accordingly, this Court holds that the complainant has not established the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and therefore, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out against the accused. Accordingly, Point Nos.II to IV are answered in the Negative.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Anurag,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CC.No.83/2019 //8// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Complainant: For Accused:-

PW-1 A.Ananda RaoNone

Exhibits marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P.1True copy of fresh certificate of Incorporation.

Ex.P.2Certified copy of Authorization Letter, dated 29.11.2014.

Ex.P.3Original Cheque bearing No.002328, dated 25.09.2018 for Rs.90,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Srikakulam.

Ex.P.4Cheque return Memo, dated 20.10.2018 issued by the PW.1’s banker City Union Bank Limited, Srikakulam with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

Ex.P.5 Office copy of legal notice, dated 09.11.2018.

Ex.P.6 Postal acknowledgment.

Ex.P.7 Statement of Account copy, dated 27.10.2018.

For Accused: NIL

Material objects

None

Sd/- Sri. K.Anurag,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

// True Copy //

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Srikakulam.

CC.No.83/2019 //9// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar Cases tried by the Principal Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

CALENDAR CASE No.83 of 2019

Date of offence25.09.2018

Date of filing12.12.2018

Apprehension of the accused13.08.2024

Release on bail of accused-

Taken on file22.01.2019

Commencement of trial16.01.2026

Close of trial13.05.2026

Sentence of Order15.05.2026

Explanation for the delay :The complainant and accused have been called absent and the case is posted from time to time and Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, the delay.

Name of the complainant: Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Represented by its Authorized Person, Mr.M.Rajasekhar, Son of Yerrayya, Hindu, aged 27 years, Senior Office Assistant, Srikakulam.

Name of the Accused:Gondela Surya Narayana, Hindu, aged 40 years, S/o Seetayya, Door No.1-83A, Main Street, Chettupodilam, Srikakulam, Hiramandalam P.S. Limits.

Nature of Offences: Offences punishable under Sections 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Sec.138 : Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.

CC.No.83/2019 //10// APSR020001682019

Dt.15.05.2026

Sec.142 : Cognizance of offences.

Finding of the Court : Found not Guilty

Sentence or order:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment, as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Case Property Order : Nil.

Fine/Compensation Amount: Nil

Sd/- Sri. K.Anurag,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

// True Copy //

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Srikakulam.

O.S.No.85 of 2026 //1// APSR020002562026

Dt.30.04.2026

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

SRIKAKULAM

Present:- Sri.K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.85 of 2026

Between:

Urjana Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o late Vara Prasadu Dasu, aged about 58 years, Occupation Household, resident of LIG, Second-4, APHB Colony, Srikakulam town and district. Plaintiff.

And :

Muddada Ramachandra Rao, S/o late Jagannadham, aged about 49 years, Occupation Government Employee, resident of Golla Street, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram Town and District, Presently working as Record Assistant, Chemistry Lab, Government Degree College for Men, Srikakulam town and district, Phone No.7396262312. Defendant.

This suit is coming on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Anil Kumar Gora and Sri P.Ganapathy Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant having been called absent, remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

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

1. This suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs.8,59,333/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-Nine Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-Three

Only), based on a promissory note for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Only) dated 22.02.2023, allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell as follows:

O.S.No.85 of 2026 //2// APSR020002562026

Dt.30.04.2026

The defendant borrowed a sum of ₹5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.02.2023 for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and discharging sundry debts. In consideration of the said loan transaction, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand. The plaintiff further contends that on repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant issued a cheque bearing no 913722 dated 12.01.26 for sum of Rs.4,00,000/- with a promise to repay the debt with interest after 15 days. Believing the same the plaintiff presented the cheque and same was dishonored with endorsement insufficient fund. Hence the plaintiff issued legal notice both for the dishonour of cheque and another notice demanding the discharge of entire debt under the promissory note with interest. But the defendant neither responded nor repaid the debt. Therefore, having left with no other alternative, the plaintiff has instituted the present suit.

3. Upon receipt of summons, defendant did not make his appearance. Hence, in consequence, he was ex-parte. As per the docket orders dated 24.03.2026.

4. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

5. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?”

Point:

6. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and relied upon the documentary evidence marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. In her chief-examination, through a proof affidavit, PW.1 reiterated that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) from her and had executed the suit promissory note dated 22.02.2023 in her favour

O.S.No.85 of 2026 //3// APSR020002562026

Dt.30.04.2026 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum on demand. She further deposed that despite repeated demands, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt. It is further stated by P.W.1 that the defendant had issued a cheque bearing No. 913722 dated 12.01.2026 for a sum of

Rs.4,00,000/- towards part payment of the debt, which, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured with an endorsement “insufficient funds.”

Thereafter, she got issued legal notices demanding discharge of the entire debt, but the defendant neither responded nor repaid the amount.

7. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted, as the defendant was set ex parte. Her uncontroverted testimony clearly established the execution of the promissory note marked as Ex.A1 and the issuance of legal notices marked as Exs.A2 and A3, along with the postal acknowledgments marked as Ex.A4, which evidenced that the said notices were duly served on the defendant.

8. By virtue of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a statutory presumption arises in favour of the plaintiff regarding the consideration and execution of the promissory note, and there is nothing on record to rebut or displace the said presumption.

9. Therefore, upon consideration of the oral testimony of P.W.1 supported by the documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.4, this Court finds the plaintiff’s case to be credible and duly proved. It is accordingly held that the defendant, having received the suit amount under Ex.A.1, has defaulted in discharging the debt. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.8,59,333/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-Nine Thousand Three

Hundred and Thirty-Three Only), together with subsequent interest at the rate

O.S.No.85 of 2026 //4// APSR020002562026

Dt.30.04.2026 of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization, on the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only).

Typed to my dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 :U.Vijaya Laxmi None

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1:Original promissory note, dated 22.02.2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of registered legal notice, dated 21.12.2025 along with postal receipt.

Ex.A.3 : Office copy of registered legal notice, dated 17.01.2026 issue to the defendant regarding disnonor of cheque.

Ex.A.4 : Comprises postal acknowledgments (2 in Nos.).

For Defendant:

- No documents are marked -

Sd/- Sri K.Anurag,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

1

O.S.No.313/2021 APSR020012462021

Dated 28.04.2026

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

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Sri K.Anurag,

PrincipalCivil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

O.S NO.313/2021

Between: Datla Bhaskara Raju, S/o late Vijaya Rama Raju, aged about 64 years, Agriculturist, resident of Gollalapeta village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff.

And:

1. Datla Narayana Raju, S/o Seetharama Raju, aged about 68 years, Agriculturist, resident of Lavetipeta village, Bonthalakoduru panchayat, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Datla Janaki Rama Raju, S/o Narayana Raju, aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, resident of Lavetipeta village, Bonthalakoduru panchayat, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam District.

3. Gajapathiraju Seetha Devi, W/o Bangarraju, aged about 42 years, household duties, residing at Door No.2-117/4, Raja Veedhi, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Sagi Ravi Varma, S/o Venkatapathi Raju, aged about 55 years, Business, residing at Door No.10-171/7, Plot No.342, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. N.V.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Smt. V.Jyothirmayee and

Sri K.Dhilleswara Rao advocates for Defendants and at the time of trial, the matter having stood over till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men, servants and agents from ever entering into or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and costs of the suit and grant such other relief or reliefs.

2

O.S.No.313/2021 APSR020012462021

Dated 28.04.2026

The case is listed today for the chief examination of PW.1 and for marking of documents. Despite repeated adjournments and consecutive conditional orders, PW.1 has remained absent. A perusal of the docket reveals that the matter has been posted for the chief examination of PW.1 since 22.07.2024. However, PW.1 has consistently failed to appear on each and every adjournment. In the interregnum, a petition was filed seeking permission of this Court to receive certain documents on record, which was allowed on 27.01.2026. Even thereafter, PW.1 did not step into the witness box. Today, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed an adjournment petition stating that the plaintiff/PW.1 is suffering from ill health and has been bedridden for the past three months. However, no medical record or supporting material has been filed in substantiation of the said plea. Hence, the adjournment petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. It is evident that, despite sufficient opportunities and conditional orders, the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence and has remained absent without justifiable cause. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly demonstrates a lack of diligence and disinterest in prosecuting the suit. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to invoke the provisions of Order XVII Rule 2 CPC read with

Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for default.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined and documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

3

O.S.No.313/2021 APSR020012462021

Dated 28.04.2026

Date of Presentation: 31.08.2021/06.09.2021 Date of filing: 06.09.2021

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

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Sri K.Anurag,

PrincipalCivil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

O.S NO.313/2021

Between: Datla Bhaskara Raju, S/o late Vijaya Rama Raju, aged about 64 years, Agriculturist, resident of Gollalapeta village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District.

... Plaintiff.

And:

1. Datla Narayana Raju, S/o Seetharama Raju, aged about 68 years, Agriculturist, resident of Lavetipeta village, Bonthalakoduru panchayat, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. Datla Janaki Rama Raju, S/o Narayana Raju, aged about 44 years, Agiculturist, resident of Lavetipeta village, Bonthalakoduru panchayat, Etcherla mandal, Srikakulam District.

3. Gajapathiraju Seetha Devi, W/o Bangarraju, aged about 42 years, household duties, residing at Door No.2-117/4, Raja Veedhi, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Sagi Ravi Varma, S/o Venkatapathi Raju, aged about 55 years, Business, residing at Door No.10-171/7, Plot No.342, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant their men, servants and agents from ever entering into or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff and costs of the suit and grant such other relief or reliefs.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is notionally valued at Rs.1,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.3,426/- is paid under Section 26 (c) of APCF & SV Act, 1956.

4

O.S.No.313/2021 APSR020012462021

Dated 28.04.2026

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. N.V.Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Smt. V.Jyothirmayee and

Sri K.Dhilleswara Rao advocates for Defendants and at the time of trial, the matter having stood over till this day, this Court doth order and DECREE:-

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default as the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence.

ii) That there be no order as to costs.

(A copy of plaint schedule is enclosed herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Memorandum of costs

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: No costs memos filed on either side

Certified that the decree is drafted properly,

Superintendent.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

1

O.S.No.429/2022 APSR020024762022

Dated 28.04.2026

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

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Sri K.Anurag,

PrincipalCivil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

O.S NO.429/2022

Between: Raavi Prasad, S/o Seetharamayya, aged 56 years, Hindu, Business, resident of plot no.3, Aswni Apartments, Arya Gouda Road, West Mabalam, Chennai, Tamilnadu, present resident of Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam Town and District.

... Plaintiff.

And: Kotilingala Narasimhulu, S/o Late Trinadh, aged 72 years, Hindu, Business, resident of Door No: 3-129, Pondara Veedhi, Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

... Defendant.

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. Apparao Patnaikuni and Smt Ch. Anuradha, Advocates for Plaintiff and

Sri M.H.G.L.N.Raju, Advocatefor Defendant and at the time of trial and the matter having stood over till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 19.06.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff seeks a direction for the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff concerning the said property. In the event of the defendant's failure to do so, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property.

Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks damages, including refund of the sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- with subsequent interest, due to the defendant's breach of the terms and conditions of the suit contract of sale, and also prays for costs.

2

O.S.No.429/2022 APSR020024762022

Dated 28.04.2026

The case is listed today for continuation of the chief examination of

PW.1. However, PW.1 has remained absent. The record discloses that PW.1 has not appeared before the Court since 04.11.2025. Despite repeated adjournments and consecutive conditional orders, PW.1 has failed to step into the witness box. The continuous absence of PW.1 indicates lack of interest on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the suit. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed for default under Order XVII Rule 2 CPC.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined and documents marked

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

3

O.S.No.429/2022 APSR020024762022

Dated 28.04.2026

Date of Presentation: 08.08.2022. Date of filing: 08.08.2022

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

SRIKAKULAM.

Present:- Sri K.Anurag,

PrincipalCivil Judge (Junior Division),

Srikakulam.

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

O.S NO.429/2022

Between: Raavi Prasad, S/o Seetharamayya, aged 56 years, Hindu, Business, resident of plot no.3, Aswni Apartments, Arya Gouda Road, West Mabalam, Chennai, Tamilnadu, present resident of Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam Town and District.

... Plaintiff.

And: Kotilingala Narasimhulu, S/o Late Trinadh, aged 72 years, Hindu, Business, resident of Door No: 3-129, Pondara Veedhi, Srikurmam Village, Gara Mandalam, Srikakulam District.

... Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 19.06.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff seeks a direction for the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff concerning the said property. In the event of the defendant's failure to do so, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to execute a regular sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property.

Alternatively, the plaintiff seeks damages, including refund of the sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- with subsequent interest, due to the defendant's breach of the terms and conditions of the suit contract of sale, and also prays for costs.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is notionally valued at Rs.5,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.7,426/- is paid under Section 39 of APCF & SV Act, 1956.

4

O.S.No.429/2022 APSR020024762022

Dated 28.04.2026

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. Apparao Patnaikuni and Smt Ch. Anuradha, Advocates for Plaintiff and

Sri M.H.G.L.N.Raju, Advocatefor Defendant and at the time of trial and the matter having stood over till this day, this Court doth order and DECREE:-

i) That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default as the plaintiff failed to step into the witness box to prosecuting the suit.

ii) That there be no order as to costs.

(Copy of Plaint schedule is annexed herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

Memorandum of costs

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: No costs memos filed on either side

Certified that the decree is drafted properly,

Superintendent.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.