Smt. K. Asha Rani

Page 1 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11 th day of November, 2022

Present :- Smt.K.Asha Rani,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 139 of 2013

Between:- Pittala Tirapatamma, W/o.Sahadev, Age.53 years, Occ.Household, R/o.H.No.10-6-101, Burhanpuram, Khammam Town and District.

.…Plaintif AND

Bairi Gurunadham, S/o.Labbaraiah, Age.45 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o.Venkatagiri Village, Mudigonda Area, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 11.11.2022 for fnal hearing in the presence of Smt. P.Padmavathi, Advocate for the plaintif and Sri. H. Sree Ram Rao, Advocate for the defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is fled for recovery of money of Rs.1,19,813/-(Rupees One

Lakh Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirteen only) from the defendant.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that:-

a) The plaintif and defendant are known to each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintif and borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand only) on 21.03.2010 for his family necessities and after receiving the said consideration, the defendant

Page 2 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif as collateral security, undertaking to repay the same with interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month payable either to the plaintif or to his order on demand.

b) Thereafter the plaintif made several oral demands for repayment of entire borrowed amount with interest, but the defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Finally on 05.08.2011 the plaintif got issued legal notice demanding the plaintif to repay the entire due amount and the same was served on the defendant. On 16.08.2011 the defendant got issued reply notice with all false and baseless allegations and asked to give copy of suit promissory note. Accordingly the plaintif issued rejoinder notice on 27.09.2011 by furnishing photostat copy of promissory note dated 21.03.2010 and the same was acknowledged. But so far the defendant neither paid the due amount nor given any reply. Hence there is no hope of recovery of money without the help of Hon’ble court.

Hence this suit.

3.The Sole Defendant fled Written Statement denying the averments in plaint and submitted that he never borrowed any amount and never executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif @ 24% per hundred per annum to meet his family necessities on 21.03.2010. It is also submitted that on 05.08.2011 the plaintif got issued legal notice to the defendant to repay the entire alleged due amount and the defendant issued reply notice demanding to supply photostat copy of alleged suit promissory note dated 16.08.2011 and the plaintif supplied the same. The claim of the plaintif is false and baseless and the suit document is forged, fabricated and created one and the plaintif has no cause of action to fle the suit and the cause of action shown by plaintif is created one. The defendant also submitted that he does not know who is K.Venkanna the alleged scribe and B.Koteswara Rao and Lingam Savitri who are alleged attestors to the alleged promissory note

Page 3 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

and they are henchmen of the plaintif. Hence, the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Heard both sides in detail and perused the material on record.

5. Basing on the averments of both sides, the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

Issue No.1:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

6.In order to prove the plaintif’s case, the plaintif himself examined as PW.1 and exhibits A.1 to A.8 marked on his behalf. Ex.A.1 is the Original

Promissory note, dated 21.03.2010, Ex.A2 is the Ofce copy of legal notice

dated 05.08.2011, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, Ex.A4 is Postal acknowledgment,

Ex.A5 is reply notice dated 16.08.2011 (corrections at date), Ex.A6 is ofce copy of rejoinder notice dated 27.9.2011, Ex.A7 is postal receipt and Ex.A8 is postal acknowledgment card. In support of his claim, the plaintif also examined PW.2, who is the scribe of the suit promissory note. In order to substantiate the contentions of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1, but no documents were marked on his behalf.

7.It is the case of the plaintif that he had lent an amount of

Rs.70,000/- to the defendant on 21.03.2010 to meet his family necessities and on receipt of said consideration, the defendant had executed suit

Page 4 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

promissory note which is marked as Ex.A1. On perusal of said document, the contents shows that the defendant Bairi Gurunadham had acknowledged receiving Rs.70,000/- agreeing to repay the same with an interest of Rs.2/- per hundred either to the plaintif or to her demand. In order to prove lending of amount under Ex.A1, the plaintif himself got examined as PW1 and he fled chief examination afdavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked the said promissory note as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Ofce copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2011, Ex.A3 is postal receipt, Ex.A4 is Postal acknowledgment, Ex.A5 is reply notice dated 16.08.2011 (corrections at date), Ex.A6 is ofce copy of rejoinder notice dated 27.9.2011, Ex.A7 is postal receipt and Ex.A8 is postal acknowledgment card.

8.The cross examination of PW.1 was conducted by the Advocate

Commissioner by name Smt/Kum. V.Aruna, Advocate, Khammam on the orders of the Hon’ble Court vide docket order, dated 02.03.2022 and the advocate commissioner on execution of the warrant had returned the warrant with the cross examination of PW.1.

9.(a) In the cross examination recorded by the advocate commissioner, PW.1 stated that she is resident of Khammam and she is having bufaloes and gets income out of it. The defendant is distant relative to her and her husband cousin was given in marriage to defendant. Ex.A1 was scribed in her house. The defendant knows writing and reading.

K. Venkanna is the scribe of Ex.A1 and working under one Dorepalli Ravi kumar, who is residing opposite to her house in Burhanpuram. The attestor

B. Koteswar Rao is another relative and resident of same locality, and

Lingam Savithri another attestor is adjacent to their house. She lent amount

Rs.70,000/- which was kept in her house.

(b) She denied the suggestion that she never lent any amount

Page 5 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

much less an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the defendant on any day more particularly on 21.03.2010 to the defendant, Ex.A2 notice was served to the defendant under Ex.A4. She further denied the suggestion that Ex.A8 acknowledgment is created by her and no rejoinder under Ex.A6 was given to defendant. He further stated that she brought empty promissory note to scribe the same. Ex.A1 contents were scribed on the date of lending of amount under Ex.A1. She denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was prepared after issuing of Ex.A5 by the defendant with the help of her henchmen and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1 to the defendant. She stated that defendant signed on Ex.A1 only at one place and that she lent money under

Ex.A1 to the defendant who is resident of Venkatagiri village and the said

Venkatagiri village is situated adjacent to Khammam. She pleaded ignorance the Mandal in which the said Venkatagiri situated Gurralapadu (v) is also adjacent to Khammam town. Mudigonda is situated about 15 kms away from

Khammam. She pleaded ignorance whether Venkatagiri is Khammam Rural and Mudigonda (M) is diferent Khammam Rural (M), the defendant is not residing either in Gurralapadu of Mudigonda area and she denied the suggestion that Ex.A1 was prepared on an old promissory note.

10.The scribe of the suit promissory note is examined as PW.2 by fling chief examination afdavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the contents in plaint and PW2 stated that, on 21.03.2010 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand only) from the plaintif and after receiving the said amount, he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif in his presence. The defendant had agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2/- per hundred per month. Lingam Savithri and one Bashaboina Koteswara Rao are the attestors of the suit promissory note.

The suit promissory note was scribed by him.

11.The defendant’s counsel cross examined scribe/PW.2, wherein he

Page 6 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

denied the suggestion that no amount was given to defendant in his presence and that defendant do not owe any amount to plaintif and he stated that PW.1 gave amount to defendant on 21.03.2010 after scribe of

Ex.A1. He further denied the suggestion that at the instance of PW.1 he is deposing false as PW.1 is known to him.

12.On careful perusal of the cross-examination of PW.1, made by the defendant’s counsel, the counsel had cross-examined PW.1 on generic terms of denying the case of the plaintif that the amount under Ex.A.1 was not lent by PW.1 and that PW.1 do not have any fnancial capacity to lend the amount under Ex.A.1 to the defendant. But the evidence shows that plaintif/

PW.1 has bufaloes and she got income out of it and she lent the amount to the defendant which was kept in her house. The said evidence of plaintif/PW.1 was not contradicted by any evidence adduced by the defendant or atleast by further cross-examination on that aspect by the defence counsel to doubt the fnancial capacity of plaintif/PW.1. The earning capacity of plaintif/PW.1 was sound enough for believing her version that she lent an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the defendant on 21.03.2010 in the presence of B.Koteswar Rao and Lingam Savithri who are attestors of said promissory note under Ex.A.1 which was scribed by one K.Venkanna(PW.2).

Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 to contradict the version of plaintif.

13.The plaintif’s counsel fled memo along with death certifcate stating that one of the attestor of suit promissory note by name Bashaboina

Koteswara Rao died on 13.04.2017. The same is recorded.

14.In order to disprove the claim of the plaintif, the defendant himself was examined as DW.1 by fling chief examination afdavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the contents of written statement, in which he

Page 7 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

stated that the suit promissory note does not contain his signature and he never puts his signature as Byri Gurunadham and he only puts his signature as “Byru Gurunadham” which is his actual name. Even the column in the suit promissory note at “Vraasi Icchina Vaaru as Byri Gurunadha” which shows that it is a created one and stated that he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintif. In the cross examination he stated that his wife name is Bairu

Aadhi Laxmi. His mother-in-law name is Mandala Kousalya. He pleaded ignorance whether the father name of his mother-in-law is Pittala Veeraiah.

He denied the suggestion that he and plaintif are related to each other. He admitted that he received copy of legal notice sent by plaintif. His advocate sent reply to the notice of plaintif. He pleaded ignorance that, through reply notice whether he asked for copy of promissory note and plaintif had supplied copy of promissory note as per the request made in reply notice. He stated that his advocate only knows about the procedure done in present case. He pleaded ignorance whether after receipt of copy of promissory note on his request he did not give reply to the plaintif’s rejoinder notice. He stated that his advocate fled written statement and he did not approach his advocate for preparing written statement. He pleaded ignorance as to the contents of his written statement. He denied suggestion that he signed on

Ex.A1 as Bairi Gurunadha. He stated that his name is Bairu Gurunadham but not Bairi Gurunadham. He admitted that he received 2 notices sent by plaintif including court wherein his name was mentioned as Bairi

Gurunadham and he did not refuse to receive notices sent by plaintif or court through post and RPAD stating that his name is incorrectly mentioned as Bairi Gurunadha instead of Bairu Gurunadham. He never made any enquiry about K. Venkanna (Scribe), B. Koteswara Rao and Lingam Savithri (Attestors) as stated in Para No.7 of chief afdavit.

15.The defendant raised contention that the description of the surname of defendant as “BYRI” is not correct but it is “BYRU”. On perusal of

Page 8 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

vakalath, written statement, the defendant mentioned the surname as ‘Byru’ but not ‘Byri’. Though the defendant contended about his surname, but he did not cross examine the witnesses on the aspect of surname of defendant.

It is elicited in the cross examination of defendant that he received all notices sent by plaintif including court wherein his name was mentioned as

Bairi Gurunadham and he did not refuse to receive notices sent by plaintif or court through post and RPAD stating that his name is incorrectly mentioned as Bairi Gurunadha instead of Bairu Gurunadham. Admittedly in Ex.A1 it is mentioned with surname of defendant as BYRI. Mere diference of one letter does not throw the entire case of the plaintif. The defendant did not fle any documents to show that his surname is ‘Byru’. Mere mentioning of wrong letter in surname does not give right to the defendant to deny the Ex.A.1.

The defendant cross examined Pws.1 and 2 but nothing was elicited in the cross examination of PW.1 and 2 in support of the contentions of the defendant.

16. The defendant further contended that Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document. When once the defendant had taken the stand of contending that the suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 is the forged and fabricated document, the onus of proof lies on him to prove the same that

Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated document. The defendant did not take appropriate legal steps by fling petition before the Hon’ble Court under

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the suit document for experts’ opinion. No such eforts were made by the defendant to prove his contentions. Therefore, the defendant failed to prove his contentions. The oral and documentary evidence of plaintif established the claim of plaintif.

Hence, the issue is answered, accordingly, against the defendant.

Page 9 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

ISSUE No.2:

To what relief?

17.This court while discussing the issue No.1 had clearly held that the plaintif could prove the suit transaction between him and defendant and also that the defendant had failed to prove that the suit promissory note is out-rightly forged document. Hence, considering the evidence on record, coupled with oral and documentary evidence and material on record, the suit deserves to be allowed.

18.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,19,813/- (Rupees One Lakh Nineteen Thousand

Eight Hundred and Thirteen only) together with interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.70,000/- from the date of suit till the date or decree and thereafter @ 6% on principal amount from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of November, 2022.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:- F or Defendant:

PW.1: P.TirapatammaDW.1:B.Gurunadham PW2: K.Venkatanna

Page 10 of 10 O.S.No.139 of 2013, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif:-

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note, dated 21.03.2010 Ex.A2 : Ofce copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2011 Ex.A3 : Postal receipt Ex.A4 : Postal acknowledgment Ex.A5 : Reply notice dated 16.08.2011 (corrections at date) Ex.A6 : Ofce copy of rejoinder notice dated 27.9.2011 Ex.A7 : Postal receipt Ex.A8 : postal acknowledgment card.

For Defendant:- -Nil-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Pg.No.1 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024

Present: Smt. K.Asha Rani,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

KHAMMAM.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 122 OF 2022

1.Name of the complainant ::The State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S, Konijerla

2. Names of the accused::A1) Shaik Udhndu @ Bujja, S/o. Late Nagula Meera, Age: 48 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A2) Shaik Saida, S/o. Late Nagula Meera, Age: 42 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A3) Shaik Janipasha @ Gannu, S/o. Saida, 20 years, Occu: Student, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A4) shaik Pentu Saheb, S/o. Late Hussain, 28 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A5) Shaik Khadar Baba @ Khadar, S/o. Laumiya, 35 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A6) SK. Jani Miya @ Jani, S/o. Lal Saheb @ Lalmiya, 34 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A7) SK. Nagulmeera, S/o. Late Nannesaheb, 53 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A8) SK. Lal Miya @ Lal Saheb, S/o. Late Nannesaheb, 76 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal.

Pg.No.2 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

A9) SK. Mahaboobi, W/o. Lalmiya, 35 years,Occu:Agriculture,R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. (Not proved). A10) SK. Chinnamadar @ Madar Saheb, S/o. Nannesaheb Late, 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A11) SK. Jani Pasha, S/o. Madarsaheb @ Chinamadar, 27 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A12) SK. Udhandu Saheb @ Udhandu, S/o. Late Nannesaheb, 48 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal. A13)Shaik Dada Saheb, S/o. Late Nannesaheb, 45 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal.

3.Offences under Section::294(b), 323, 427, 307 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.Crime number and Name 229/2020 of P.S, Konijerla of police station

5.PRC.No.::66 of 2021

6.Case committed by ::III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam

7.Prosecution conducted by::Sri. Md. Irshad,

Additional Public Prosecutor

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri V. Srinivasa Rao

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty

10.Finding of the court::Found not guilty

Pg.No.3 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

11.Sentence or Order :: In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 8 and A10 to 13 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 294-b, 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing today in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police P.S. Konijerla had filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.229/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294-b, 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of prosecution case are that:-

(a) That on 18.09.2020 at 00.30 hours, the complainant/L.W.1/Sayyed Shareef came to police station and lodged a report stating that at about 3 days ago, their neighbouring land owner i.e., accused No.2 and his son/accused No.3 made a hole (Gandi) in their land, due to which water was flowing into complainant’s and his uncle/Sayyed Rahim’s land, as a result of which Chilli sprouts were swept away damaging the crop.

(b) on 17.09.2020 at about 10.00 AM., father of complainant i.e., LW3/Sayyed

Janimiya and his grandfather/Chotemiya both closed the hole. On the same day at about 6.00 PM., to talk about above issue, the accused No.1 and 2 came to their lands and complainant’s uncle /LW4/Sayeed Rahim informed him through phone to come to their land, on that the complainant and his father went to their land at that time, accused No.1 to 4 present there and picked up a quarrel with them by abusing them in filthy language saying how they closed the hole and accused No.1 bet LW2/Md.Naseer with agricultural sword (Kota Kathi) and accused No.2 and 4 bet him with stones on his head and right leg as a result of which LW2/Md. Naseer received injury on his hand and he got 15 stitches.

Pg.No.4 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

Meantime, father of complainant LW3/Sayyed Janimiya and his uncle/LW.4/Sayyed Rahim and LW5/Sayyed Ameena Bee came between them on that accused No.1 attacked them with agriculture sword, accsued No.2 to 4 bet them with sticks, as a result of which, LW3/Sayyed

Janimiya received injury on left cheek and also he received injury on his right hand,

LW4/Sayyed Rahim received injury on his left eye and left ear, right side of neck and right hand injury. LW.5/Sayyed Ameena Bee received injury to her right hand fingers, left hand and head injuries.

(c) It is further stated that meantime, LW7/Sayyed Janimiya, LW.8/Sayyed Afzalmiya and LW9/Sayyed Pasha intervened in between them to stop the same, but accused No.3 bet them with sticks. Accused No.1, 2, 4 bet them with hands and his father fell down.

Meantime, the father-in-law of complainant by name LW.6/Sayyed Hussainmiya @ Yerra

Saida came there and was talking with his father at that time accused No.1 to 13 stopped the motorcycle and attacked his father and father-in-law/Hussainmiya with an intention to kill them. Accused No.1 attacked LW6/Hussain Miya with agriculture Sword(Kota Kathi) and accused No.2 attacked him with stone as a result of which he received head injury and remaining accused persons bet his father and LW6/Hussain Miya with hands. They were shifted to KHIMs hospital, Khammam through an auto. Hence, delay occurred in lodging petition. Finally, the complainant requested to cause enquiry and do justice.

(d) Basing on the contents of complaint lodged by complainant/L.W.1/Sayyed

Shareef, LW.18/G. Mogili, Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Konijerla registered a case in

Cr.No.229/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 294-b, 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

(e) During the course of investigation, LW.18/G. Mogili, Sub-Inspector of police, P.S

Konijerla examined the complainant/LW.1/Sayyed Shareef recorded his statement. Later, he visited scene of offence which is situated at Theegalabanjara village of Konijerla Mandal where he secured the mediators LW13/Katta Rambabu and LW.14/Potla Venkataiah and in their presence conducted the scene of offence panchanama, drafted the rough sketch map of the scene of offence panchanama in the Crime Details Form. He further seized one agricultural sword (kota Kathi), 2 sticks of 4 feets length, one stone about 3 kgs in the presence of same mediators and he also examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Md.

Pg.No.5 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

Naseer, LW3/Sayyed Janimiya, LW4/Sayyed Raheem, LW5/Sayeed Ameena Bee,

LW6/Sayyed Hussainmiya, who are eye witnesses and injured, LW7/Sayyed Janimiya,

LW8/Sayyed Afzalmiya, LW9/Sayed Pasha, LW10/Mohammad Abdul Jaleel Pasha @

Jaleel, LW.11/Shaik Aseef and LW.12/Yeruva Sathish, who are eye witnesses.

(f) LW15/Dr. Suresh Neuro CMO KHIMS hospital, Khammam treated the injured

LW.2 to 4 and 6. LW.17/Dr. Anil Kumar, Neuro CMO, KHIMs hospital, Khammam, treated the injured Lws.5. Both the doctors i.e., LW.15 and LW.17 issued wound certificates opining that the injuries received by LW.2, 3 and 5 are grevious in nature and injuries received by LWs.4 and 6 are simple in nature.

(g) On 25.09.2020 at 08.00 hours, LW.18/G. Mogili, Sub-Inspector of police, P.S

Konijerla apprehended the accused No.1 to 8 and 10 to 13, interrogated them and on interrogation, they confessed their guilt of offence, effected their arrest and were brought to the police station at 10.00 hours issued arrest form duly informing the grounds of arrest to accused and their relatives. LW.15/Dr. Venjugopal Remella, MD Radio Diagnosis issued rediaologist report of the Lws.2, 3 and 5 and after completion of investigation, LW.18/G.

Mogili, Sub-Inspector of police, P.S Konijerla has filed charge sheet.

3.The Learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam has taken cognizance of the case and registered it as PRC.No.66/2021. The accused were furnished with copies of relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The

Learned Magistrate, having found prima-facie case, had committed the case to the Court of

Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. as the offence

punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

4.The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam has taken the case on file as SC.No.122/2022 and made over the same to the Court of Prl. Assistant Sessions

Judge, Khammam for disposal according to Law. Thereafter, as per proceedings of the

Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam the case is transferred to this

court vide Dis.No.4071, dated: 28.10.2022.

5.On appearance of the accused before the Court, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and defence Counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C and considering the material on record, as per Section 226 of Cr.P.C. charges for the offence punishable under

Pg.No.6 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC, were framed against the accused, read over, and explained to them in vernacular language. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P8. P.W.1 is complainant. PW.2 to 6 are eye witnesses and injured. PW.7 is eye witness to the incident. All are related to each other.

7.After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the examination of accused under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with, as material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case and there appeared no incriminating material against the accused in prosecution case.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether Prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 294-b, 323, 437 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?” POINT:-

10.PW.1 defacto-complainant and injured, deposed that he knows accused persons as they are his relatives. He does not know any facts of this case. About three years back, some dispute occurred in the village and when they went to verify the same, LW2/Shaik

Naseer, LW3/Sayyed Janimiya, LW.4/Sayyed Raheem, LW.5/Aminabee, LW6/Sayyed

Hussainmiya sustained injuries. He does not know how they sustained injuries, but on the pressure of elders he signed on some papers. He does not know its contents. Ex.P.1 is his signature on complaint dated 18.09.2020. PW.2 injured, deposed that he knows accused

No.1 to 8, 10 to 13 as they are his relatives. He does not know any facts of this case. About three years back, some dispute occurred in the village and when they went to verify the same, he, LW3/Sayyed Janimiya, LW4/Sayyed Raheem, LW5/Aminabee, LW6/Sayyed

Hussainmiya sustained injuries. Some unknown persons pushed them.

PWs.3 to 7 are relatives of PW.1, also deposed on the similar lines of PW.1.

Pg.No.7 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

11.The evidence of PWs.1 to 7 show that they did not state anything against the accused as alleged in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. Hence, the witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution.

12. The material witnesses in this case are P.Ws.1 to 7, but these witnesses had not deposed any incriminating material against the accused. There is no evidence on record to connect the accused with which they stood charged. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor had given up the evidence of Sayyed Afzalmiya, Sayyed Pasha, Mohammad

Abdul Jaleel Pasha @ Jaleel, Shaik Aseef and Yeruva Sathish, who are eye witnesses; Katta

Rambabu and Potla Venkataiah, who are panch witnesses for Crime Details Form; Dr.

Suresh, Neuro CMO KHIMs, who issued would certificate; Dr. Venugopal Remella, MD

Radio diagnosis, who issued Radiology reports of LW.2, 3 and 5; Dr. Anil Kumar, Neuro

CMO KHIMs hospital, Khammam, who issued would certificate; and G. Mogili, SI of police PS Konijerla Investigating Officer, as the material witnesses turned hostile to prosecution case. Though learned Additional Public Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court, had cross examined the witnesses under Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, nothing material was elicited from the cross examination of Pws.1 to 7 except suggesting that they stated before police as in Ex.P.2 to P8, which shows that, the prosecution witnesses are deviating the prosecution story before this Hon’ble Court suggesting that the matter is compromised outside the Court. As there appears no incriminating material against accused for alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 IPC, They are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 8 and A10 to 13 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 294-b, 323, 427 and 307 r/w. 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as required under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-xxx

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Pg.No.8 of 6 S.C.No.122/2022, dt:19.04.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: Shaik Shareef P.W.2: Mohammad Naseer P.W.3: Sayyed Janimiya PW.4: Sayyed Raheem PW.5: Sayyed Aminabee PW.6: Sayyed Hussainmiya PW.7: Sayyed Janimiya

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on complaint dated 18.09.2020. Ex.P2: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3 Ex.P5: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4 Ex.P6: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5 Ex.P7: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6 Ex.P8: Marked Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Sd/-xxx

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KHAMMAM.

***

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 1 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11 th day of November, 2022

Present :- Smt. K. Asha Rani,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 135 of 2016

Between:-

Martha Modimaiah, S/o.Hanumanthu, Age.40 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.6-49, Vallabhi village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. .…Plaintiff

And

Shaik Janmiya, S/o.Hassan Saheb, Age.45 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.3-74/2, Vallabhi Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. ….Defendant ***

This suit is coming before me on 11.11.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri I. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri J. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,11,000/- from the defendant.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that:-

a) The plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff at his residence at Vallabhi village of

Mudigonda Mandal and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) on 25.09.2014 to meet his business necessities and after receiving the said consideration, the defendant had executed promissory note on the same day in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 24% per annum, either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

b) Thereafter, the plaintiff made several oral demands for repayment of borrowed amount [ along with interest accrued thereon, but the defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, on 06.04.2016 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant and acknowledged on 12.04.2016. In fact, the defendant who is doing business was indebted to several

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 2 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

persons in the village and in order to avoid debt, the defendant is trying to leave away the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court by alienating the schedule property which stands in his name. If the defendant succeeds in his attempt, it is very difficult for the plaintiff to realize the decreetal amount in the event of passing of decree. The plaintiff came to know through one Ch. Yellaiah that defendant is trying to enter into an agreement of sale with regard to suit schedule property with third parties. Hence, there is no hope to the plaintiff, that defendant will come forward and pay the amount under pronote. Hence, this suit for recovery of money.

3. a) On receipt of the summons from the Hon’ble Court, the sole defendant filed written statement submitting that the averments made in the plaint are utterly false and the same were denied to be true and the plaintiff shall be put to strict proof of the same.

b) It is submitted by the defendant that he never approached the plaintiff at his residence and he never borrowed any amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.09.2014 and never executed any promissory note on the respective date in favour of the plaintiff, and no consideration was passed under the said pronote.

c) It is also submitted that while he was travelling from Khammam to Vallabhi, he lost his bag, in that bag two empty cheques (SBH Kodada branch, cheques bearing No.170405 and 170406 with the signature on the blank cheques and promissory notes) and also three blank promissory notes and the defendant gave complaint to S.H.O. P.S.Mudigonda. It is also submitted that the suit document was not fill up in the presence of defendant.

d) The defendant further submitted that plaintiff and defendant are residents of same village and they are followers of different political parties and with a view to harass and blackmail the defendant, plaintiff created false documents and filed the suit for wrongful gain, and particulars of the claim is created and invented for the purpose of this suit basing on forged and fabricated document. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Heard and perused the material on record.

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 3 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for consideration:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note ?

3. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated document?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim with interest as prayed for ?

5. To what relief ?

In order to properly appreciate the matter, it is felt proper to discuss issue No.1, 2 and 4 together.

6.Issues No. 1, 2 & 4:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether no consideration was passed under the suit promissory note ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim with interest, as prayed for ?

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1, attestor as PW.2 and scribe as PW.3 by filing their chief affidavits in lieu of chief examination and got Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked through PW.1. Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory Note, dated 25.09.2014. Ex.A2 is the

Office copy of legal notice dated 06.04.2016 and Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment card dated 15.04.2016. The contents in chief examination affidavit of PW.1 are repetitive text of contents in plaint. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts, the same are not reiterated herein. Though, the defendant filed written statement and contested the matter, he did not choose to appear before the court and cross examined PWs.1 to 3 and hence, this court treated the cross-examinations of PWs.1 to 3 as nil. On 11.11.2022, the defendant’s counsel reported that he handed over the case to defendant.

Hence, this court closed the defendant evidence vide docket order, dated 11.11.2022.

8.The contentions of plaintiff/PW.1 coupled with averments in plaint and the chief affidavits of PWs.2 and 3 and also in the light of documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.3, the plaintiff/PW.1 could prove that he lent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant on 25.09.2014 for his business necessities and that the defendant to acknowledge the receipt of amount from plaintiff, executed promissory note under Ex.A.1 in presence of attestors and scribe. The testimony of PW.1

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 4 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

coupled with oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to A.3 proves plaintiff’s case that remains uncontested.

9.Once the plaintiff discharges his burden of proof, the presumptions under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act can be raised by the court to presume that the consideration under

Ex.A.1, on the specific date and time mentioned under Ex.A.1 passed to defendant and it is for the defendant to rebut the said presumption by adducing rebuttal evidence.

10.In this regard, this court had relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in

Meenakshisundaram vs. N. Rangasami,recorded in 1996 (1) CTC 613 , wherein at Para No.14 it was held that; “14. Where in a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under Section 118 by showing preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff. He need not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by any consideration whatsoever. The words 'until the contrary is proved" in Section118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the court to consider the non-existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of Section 118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities, that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint docs not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption 'disappears'. For the purposes of rebutting the initial evidential burden the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 118 does not come again to the plaintiffs rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance. The presumption under Section 118 applies once the execution of the pronote is accepted by the defendant but the circumstance that the plaintiffs case is at variance with the one contained in the promissory note or the notice, can be relied upon by the defendant for the purpose of

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 5 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

rebutting the presumption and shifting the evidential burden to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. ”

11.By virtue of above Judgment, it is for the defendant to prove that the consideration under

Ex.A.1 was not passed to him. But no such efforts were made by the defendant to adduce rebuttal evidence and thereby the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to say that the consideration under Ex.A.1 was passed to the defendant on specific date and specific time.

Hence, the issues No.1, 2 and 4 are answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.3:- Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated document?

12.The defendant mainly contended through his written statement that the suit pronote under

Ex.A.1 was created, fabricated document and that his signature was forged. In the said circumstances, it is for the defendant to adduce his evidence rebutting to presumptions raised by the court under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act and by adducing evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff and the rebuttal evidence adduced by them should in such a way showing preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff.

13.In this regard, this court had relied upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in

Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao & Anr.,recorded in AIR 1999 SC 1441, wherein it was held that; “ 16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh and Anr . This was followed by the Lahore High Court in Kirpa Singh v. Ajaipal Singh and Ors . AIR (1930) Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh AIR (1931) Bombay 97. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh's case (supra). The Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v. Virender Nath and Anr . held that if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference adverse against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand and Ors . , drew a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. ”

O.S.No. 135 of 2016, dated 11.11.2022,

Page No. 6 of 6 Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

14.In the light of above judgment, where the defendant only contends through written statement that the signature under Ex.A.1 was forged and that the suit pronote was fabricated but fails to adduce any evidence by entering into witness box, then, an adverse inference can be drawn against him that his contentions are unreliable. Hence, on overall consideration of matter and in the light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble Madras High Court and considering the material on record, the suit deserves to be allowed.

Issue No.5:- To what relief ?

15.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay sum of

Rs.4,11,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eleven Thousand only) together with interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of November, 2022.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

PW.1: M.Modimaiah -None- PW.2: M. Narasimha Rao PW.3: B.Srinu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Original Promissory note, dated 25.09.2014 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 06.04.2016 Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment card dated 15.04.2016

For Defendant:- -Nil-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Page No. 1 of 5 O.S.No. 780 of 2014, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11 th day of November, 2022

Present :- Smt. K. Asha Rani,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam

ORIGINAL SUIT No.780 of 2014

Between:-

Dumpala Bhavani, W/o.Nagaraju, Age.28years, Occ.Household, R/o.Reddipalli(v), Khammam Rural (M), Khammam District. .…Plaintiff

And

1. Thalari Srinu, S/o.Venkaiah, Age.26 years, occ.Procline Operator, R/o.Khanapuram(V), Mudigonda (M), Khammam District.

2. Sirasu Venkanna, S/o.Bakkaiah, Age.36 years, Occ.Contractor, R/o.C/o.Satyam Chicken Center, Mudigonda (V&M), Khammam District. ….Defendants ***

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 09.11.2022 in the presence of Sri B.Venkaiah, Advocate for plaintiff, and Sri B.Ramesh, Advocate for the defendants; upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,08,850/- and also pending EMIs of

Rs.1,24,000/- from the defendant.

2. The brief averments of plaint are that:-

a) It is submitted that plaintiff is the owner of Tata Hitachi Ex-200 LC procliner with Hitachi

Construction Machinery Model 2007, Machine Sl.No.2001-8108, Machine EX200LC. The same was purchased by plaintiff on 20.06.2013 for Rs.15,20,000/-. Out of which, the plaintiff paid

Rs.2,20,000/- cash, and for the remaining amount M/s.Shriram Equipment Finance Co Ltd.,

Khammam had financed the same on interest. The plaintiff has to repay the said finance @

Rs.60,000/- per month for 28 months to the said finance company.

Page No. 2 of 5 O.S.No. 780 of 2014, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

b) It is further submitted that after paying six EMIs @ Rs.60,000/- per month, the defendants out of acquaintance have approached the plaintiff and offered to purchase the said Tata

Hitachi Machinery. Accordingly, the plaintiff agreed to sell the same, and the said consideration was fixed and defendants No.1 and 2 have to pay Rs.1,00,000/- cash to the plaintiff and for balance amount, they have to pay remaining EMIs @ Rs.60,000/- per month to the said finance company from March, 2014 to till its completion i.e., 21 EMIs. The same was reduced into writing on 25.03.2014 through an agreement of sale and handed over the said machinery to the defendant No.1 and 2. Both the defendants have promised the plaintiff that they will pay the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 24.04.2014. Believing their words, the plaintiff handed over the said machinery to the defendants.

c) That after lapse of said statutory period, the plaintiff made demands to pay cash of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff as per the said agreement, but the defendants used to postpone the payment on different pretext. Further, it is learnt that defendants are not paying EMIs since July, 2014 to the said finance company. In this regard, the plaintiff made demands to the defendants to clear the EMIs dues to the said company, as the authorities of finance company are making rounds to the house of plaintiff. Finally, on 05.06.2014 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants. Inspite of receipt of said notice, the defendants did not come forward to pay the agreed amount along with interest and balance amount due to the finance company @ Rs.60,000/- per month from July, 2014 to August, 2014 and to regularize their account. As such, the plaintiff has lost hope that the defendants would repay the said amount along with accrued interest to him. In view of the above circumstances, the plaintiff has no other go except to seek the help of the Hon’ble court. Hence this suit.

3. a) On receipt of summons from the Hon’ble Court, the defendants filed written statement stating that all the allegations made in the plaint are put to strict proof of the same.

b) It is submitted by the defendants that parties to the suit have no any transactions in any manner. The suit documents are fabricated and forged documents and prepared with an intention to defame the defendants, as the plaintiff has to pay salary of one year to the defendant No.1, as he worked as driver to the plaintiff’s proclainer and in order to avoid payment of salary to the defendant to a tune of Rs.1,80,000/-, filed this false suit. In order to blackmail with malafide

Page No. 3 of 5 O.S.No. 780 of 2014, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

intention she reserving her right to file separate claim petition. The cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff is self invented and the suit is filed without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Since, there is no representation of matter by either side, the arguments on both sides is treated as heard. Perused the material on record.

5. Basing on the contents in plaint, written statement and other material on record, the following issues were framed for consideration:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,08,850/- from the defendants ?

2. Whether the defendant is liable to repay pending EMIs Rs.1,24,800/- to regularize the account?

3. If so, to what relief ?

6.Issue No.1:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,08,850/- from the defendants ?

7.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1 by filing her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exs.A.1 to A.4 got marked through PW.1. Ex.A.1 is

Agreement of sale dated 25.03.2014, Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 05.06.2020, Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment card, Ex.A4 is unserved postal envelop cover. The contents in chief examination affidavit of PW.1 are repetitive text of contents in plaint. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts, the same are not reiterated herein. Though, the defendants filed written statement and contested the matter during pleadings stage, but they did not choose to cross-examine PW.1 and hence this court has treated the cross-examination of PW.1 as nil. On 09.11.2022, there is no representation of matter by defendants, hence, this court treated as no defence evidence, and closed the defendant side evidence.

8.The contentions of plaintiff/PW.1 coupled with averments in plaint and chief affidavit and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 Original agreement of sale in between the plaintiff and defendants shows that defendants No.1 and 2 have entered into an agreement dated 25.03.2014 for

Page No. 4 of 5 O.S.No. 780 of 2014, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

purchase of Tata Hitachi Machinery, for Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount under 21 EMIs to be payable to Shriram Equipment Finance Company Ltd., Khammam branch. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3 is the postal acknowledgment card. Ex.A4 is unserved postal envelop cover shows that the defendants refused to receive the notice. The unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A.1 to

Exs.A.4 proves plaintiff’s claim. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue No.2: Whether the defendant is liable to repay pending EMIs Rs.1,24,800/- to regularize the account?

9.As per the evidence of plaintiff/PW.1, the defendants entered into an agreement dated 25.03.2014 for purchase of Tata Hitachi Machinary and agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff and balance 21 EMIs @ Rs.60,000/- per month to the Shriram Equipment Finance Company Ltd.,

Khammam branch from March, 2014 to till its completion i.e., 21 EMIs. The agreement under

Ex.A1 shows that defendants No.1 and 2 have to pay 21 EMIs to the finance company. But it is

PW.1’s evidence that the defendants did not come forward to pay agreed amount along with interest and also the balance amounts due to the said finance company @ Rs.60,000/- per month from July, 2014 to August, 2014. However, the plaintiff did not made the said Finance company as party to the suit to know actually how many installments have been paid by the defendants No.1 and 2 and also the remaining balance EMIs that has to be paid by the defendant No.1 to 2 to the said finance company. Further, the plaintiff did not take any steps to examine any of the witness under Ex.A1

Agreement. Moreover, the plaintiff did not examine any of the witness to support his contention that how many EMI’s the defendants have to be paid to the said company and the plaintiff did not clearly mentioned that how many EMI’s that has to be paid by the defendants No.1 to 2 to the said

Finance company. It shows that there is ambiguity in the evidence of plaintiff with regard to the

EMIs that has to be paid by the defendants. Hence, under this ambiguity, it is difficult to determine the exact amount dues/EMIs to the Shriram Equipment Finance Company Ltd., Khammam Branch.

Hence, the plaintiff failed to prove the issue No.2, and this issue is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

Page No. 5 of 5 O.S.No. 780 of 2014, dated 11.11.2022,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

10.Issue No.3:-To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT, the suit is partly decreed with costs directing the defendants jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs.1,08,850/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Eighty Hundred and Fifty only) together with interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit, till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of November, 2022.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW.1 : D.Bhavani -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1: Agreement of sale dated 25.03.2014 Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 05.06.2014 Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment card Ex.A.4: Unserved postal envelop cover.

For Defendant:- -Nil-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. K.Asha Rani, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Khammam. FAC Prl.Senior Civil Judge Khammam. Dated this the 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 268 of 2019

Between : Kadari Janaiah, S/o.Ramanadham, Age: 44 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. Presently H.No.10-6-142, Bhurhanpuram, Khammam City and District.

… Plaintiff.

Chava Narendra Babu, S/o. Narasimhaiah, Age:42 years, Occ: Govt. Teacher, R/o. Produturu village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District.

… Defendant This suit is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. Bandarupalli Gangadhar, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing; this Court passed the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,36,493/-, (Rupees four lakhs thirty six thousand four hundred ninety three only ) based on the promissory note.

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

The Plaintiff and Defendant are acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance , the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.06.2016 from the Plaintiff to meet his family necessities by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff, with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Again on 21.02.2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family necessities by executing a promissory note in favour of plaintiff, with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, upon repeated demands, the defendant had issued a cheque for Rs.3,54,000/- towards total due amount under two promissory notes but the same was dishonoured. As such, the plaintiff has no 2 other alternative except to file this suit. Hence, the suit.

3.Though publication filed in Newspaper, the defendant failed to appear before this court and as there was no representation on his behalf, the defendant was set exparte.

4.To substantiate the claim of plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex A1 & A2. Plaintiff reported no further evidence on his behalf. Hence, Plaintiff evidence is closed.

5.Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff and perused the entire record.

6.Now the points for determination are:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

7. POINT :

(a).The Plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1, reiterated the contents of his plaint.

(b) On perusal of Ex.A1 & A2, it shows that the defendant having borrowed a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff, executed promissory notes in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with an interest.

(c)In the circumstances of this case, when there is no rebuttal evidence on record, apart from the evidence of P.W.1, this court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Moreso, when the Defendant chooses to remain ex-parte. This court believes in the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex A.1. This suit is filed within the limitation period.

With the above observation, this court is of opinion that the Plaintiff has proved his claim successfully and is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant along with interest and cost. This point is answered in favour of Plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 4,36,493/-, (Rupees four lakhs thirty six thousand four hundred ninety three only ) with interest @ 12% per annum on

principal amount of Rs.2,60,000/-( Rs.200000 + Rs.60,000/- = Rs.2,60,000/-) from the date of filing

of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on principal amount of

Rs.2,60,000/- from the date of decree to the date of realization .

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of November, 2023.

FAC PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For PlaintiffFor Defendant PW.1:Kadari Janaiah -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff

Ex.A1 Original promissory note, dated 14.06.2016 for sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

Ex.A2 Original promissory note, dated 21.02.2017 for sum of Rs.60,000/-

For Defendant -Nil-

FAC PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. B.Aparna Devi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Dated this the 05th day of December, 2017

O.S.No. 302 of 2017

Presented on : 05-05-2017 Filed on : 05-05-2017 Between : Balavanthula Pullaiah, S/o late Agaiah, Age: 63 yrs, occ: Retd SCCo ltd employee, R/o H.No: 9-11-139/2, Kaman Bajar, Khammam town and District.

… Plaintiff

And

Narahari Rajamouli, S/o Ramulu, Age: 58 Yrs, Occ: Conveyer operator in K.C.H.P, S.C.Co.Ltd, Manuguru, R/o Q.No: T2-393, Mallaram, P.V Colony, Manguru mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. … Defendant

CLAIM FOR:

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 2,64,933/- with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: Cause of action arose on 13-12-2015 when the Defendant approached the Plaintiff, at Khammam.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is valued at Rs. 2,64,933/-, upon which a court fee of Rs. 5126/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

DECREE: This suit is coming up before me on 21-11-2017 for hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Yugandhar, Advocate for plaintiff and Defendant remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing;this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs.

2.That the Defendants do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 2,64,933/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

5

3.That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 05th day of December, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

//2//

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1. Stamps on plaint

2. Stamps on power

3. Stamps on process

4. Stamps on petitions

5. Publication charges

6. Stamps on documents

7. Advocate fee

8. Misc. & type charges ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. B.Aparna Devi, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2017

O.S.No. 225 of 2016

Presented on : 02-04-2016 Filed on : 04-05-2016 Between : Canara Bank, Khammam, Madhucon Complex, Khammam, rep through Manager, Balasani Jyothi Prasad, S/o Ramaiah, Age: 56 Yrs, Occ: Manager, Canara Bank, Trunk road, Khammam, r/o Khammam town.

….. Plaintiff

And

Kotte Ravishankar, S/o Narayana, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: floor mill owner, R/o H.No: 4-1-48, M.V Palem village, Khammam rural mandal, Khammam District.

...Defendant

CLAIM FOR:

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 1,85,558/- with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit.

CAUSE OF ACTION AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION: Cause of action arose at Khammam on 07-01-2008 when the Defendant obtained loan, on 31-12-2010 when the Defendant executed loan agreement, on 23-04-2013 when the Defendant executed acknowledgment, and on 27-02-2016 when the Plaintiff got issued the legal notice at Khammam.

VALUATION OF THE SUIT AND COURT FEE:

This suit is valued at Rs. 1,85,558/-, upon which a court fee of Rs. 4326/- is paid U/s.20 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

DECREE: This suit is coming up before me on 08-06-2017 for hearing in the presence of Sri. A. Ravindra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendant having being remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and stood over for consideration till this day , ; this court doth order and decree:

1.That the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs.

2.That the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,85,558/- with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till realization.

7

3.That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. towards the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, on this the 12th day of June, 2017.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

//2//

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1. Stamps on plaint

2. Stamps on power

3. Stamps on process

4. Stamps on petitions

5. Publication charges

6. Stamps on documents

7. Advocate fee

8. Misc. & type charges ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

8