Ms. K.Bindu

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT

AT : HYDERABAD

Dated on this, the 7th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. K. Bindu, VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Original Suit No.1365 of 2022

Between:- Canara Bank, (erstwhile Syndicate Bank by virtue of the Amalgamation of Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank Scheme 2020 made by the Central Government, in exercise of power conferred by Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India), a body corporate constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its Corporate Office situated at 112 J.C. Road, Bengaluru, with branches amongst other places at M.J. Road, Hyderabad District, rep. by its GPA and Manager, Sri. B.Ankush, S/o. Sri. B. Narsingrao B., age: 28 years, R/o. Hyderabad. Email:cb:3024@canarabank.com, Ph: 9440905020. …. Plaintiff

AND

Mr. Syed Samad Ali, S/o. Syed Sultan Ali, aged about 34 years, Occ: Taxi Services, R/o. Sy. No.15, Noor Colony, Shastripuram, Ranga Reddy-500052. PH NO: 9701890764. …. Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 21.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of SRI. N. VENUGOPALA RAO, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,77,908/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine

Hundred and Eight only) together with interest thereon at the rate of 13.00

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.2

per cent per annum compounded monthly from the date of suit till the date of realization.

2(a) The brief facts of the plaint are that, the Plaintiff Bank is a body corporate constituted and functioning under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 having its corporate office at Bengaluru, Karnataka State, with branches across India. The erstwhile Syndicate Bank is amalgamated into Canara Bank by virtue of the

Amalgamation of Syndicate Bank into Canara Bank Scheme 2020 made by the

Central Government, in exercise of power conferred by Section 9 of the

Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and is having its branch office at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the

Defendant, as Borrower, approached the Plaintiff-Bank on 17.01.2017 for a loan of Rs.5,60,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) for the purpose to purchasing Four Wheeler (purchase of New TATA Bolt). The amount of

Rs.5,60,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) was sanctioned by

Plaintiff-Bank vide suit loan Account No.3024/991/368. Furthermore, the

Defendant has executed the Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 19.01.2017. The Plaintiff-Bank disbursed the said loan amount by remitting the same to the credit of Account No.3024/201/105979 of the Defendant as per his instructions and defendant duly acknowledged the receipt of the said loan vide Receipt dated:19.01.2017. It is further submitted that the Defendant agreed to repay the Plaintiff-Bank the loan amount with interest in equated monthly instalments of Rs.12,200/- each, the first instalment being due on 28.02.2017 and subsequent instalments at the same rate due in every month

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.3

on or before 30th of every month and the last instalment being due on or

before 30.04.2022 as per terms of the Loan Agreement dated on 19.01.2017.

The Plaintiff-Bank submits that whenever there was variation in the interest rates, the Plaintiff-Bank displayed the same in Notice Board in the Bank premises. The Defendant also agreed for waiver of notice of variation in interest rates.

2(b)It is further submitted that the Defendant failed to honour terms of the suit loan agreement and also failed to pay the debit balance in the above suit loan account and as a result a sum of Rs.2,77,908/-(Rupees Two Lakhs

Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight only) remained outstanding overdue in the said Overdraft Account as on 28.02.2022, after adjusting all payments, if any, made by the Defendant to the credit of the said loan

Account. The defendant made part payments on account of debt on 19.12.2017, 17.12.2018, 14.08.2019, 05.12.2020, 23.03.2021. The Defendant failed to pay the suit loan amount in spite of several requests and repeated demands made by Plaintiff-Bank as such on 07.03.2022, the Plaintiff got issued the legal notice dated 25.02.2022, by registered post with acknowledgment due, demanding the Defendant to pay the suit claim amount.

But, the Defendant failed to pay the same till date inspite of receipt of the said legal notice. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff-Bank is following prudential accounting norms as per the guidelines issued by the RBI from time to time. In the normal course, interest as and when it falls due is debited to the Borrower's accounts. This interest is treated as income in the hands of the Bank. Whenever an account becomes irregular and no payments are made

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.4

by the Borrower, there is no actual income. In such cases, the RBI has instructed the Banks not to debit interest since it would show an income not actually derived during that period. This does not and cannot in law take away the right of the Bank from claiming interest from the Borrower/Surety-

Guarantor, who is/are liable to pay the interest. The instructions issued by the

RBI are not to benefit the defaulting Borrower or contemplate waiving of interest, but merely present an accounting procedure. While in 1990, the instructions were not to debit the interest in the account which is sticky, in 1993 the RBI came up with further instructions to reverse the un-recovered portion of interest entries already debited to such accounts classified as Non-

Performing Assets (NPA). While reversing the interest debited entries have to be made on credit side but it does not mean that the Borrower has actually made the payments. The loan account in question fall under this category.

Hence, the suit.

3.The summons were issued and paper publication also filed, inspite of the same, the defendant remained absent before this court on 01.09.2025 as such the defendant was set exparte by this court and the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence.

4.To prove its case, the Plaintiff Bank examined the authorized Officer i.e.,

Sri. M. Kishore Kumar as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-7 are marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank and perused the material placed on record.

6.Now the points for determination are:

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.5

1. “Whether the Plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover from the

defendant the suit amount of Rs.2,77,908/-(Rupees Two Lakhs

Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight only) together

with interest thereon at the rate of 13.00 per cent per annum

compounded monthly from the date of suit till the date of

realization as prayed for”?

2. If so, To what relief ?

POINT No: 1

7.Though defendant remained exparte, the initial burden is on the Plaintiff

Bank to prove that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of the

Plaintiff’s Bank its authorized Officer i.e., Sri. M. Kishore Kumar examined himself as PW1 vide his authorization letter marked as Ex.A7. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar averments that are made in the plaint. In the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-7 are marked. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A-1 to A-7 remained unchallenged as defendant remained exparte. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that defendant approached the

Plaintiff Bank seeking for sanction of Loan for purchase of Four Wheeler (New

TATA Bolt) by agreeing to the terms and conditions. It establishes the initial request and intention of the defendant to avail the loan facility. The plaintiff bank averred that a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) was sanctioned to the defendant as is also evident from Ex.A2 i.e., Letter of Sanction. The letter evidences the terms and conditions under which the loan was agreed to be granted by the plaintiff bank. The defendant executed

Ex.A3 i.e., Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank as security for the loan sanctioned. The plaintiff bank averred that the defendant utilized

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.6

the loan facility and committed wilful default in payment of dues. In support of his contention, the plaintiff bank got marked Ex.A6 wherein the details of the transactions are reflected in the Statement of Account i.e.,Ex.A6 and the defendant is in total due to a sum of Rs.2,77,908/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy

Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight only)to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank further averred that it made several demands for repayment of due and issued a legal notice on defendnat as is evident from Ex.A4 i.e., legal notice and Ex.A5 being postal receipts which evidences that legal notice was sent and received by the defendant and inspite of the same the defendant did not repay the amount. However, the defendant has made his last payment on 23.03.2021. To substantiate the case of the Plaintiff Bank, the authorized person of Plaintiff Bank relied upon Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 i.e.,Ex.A1 Loan

Application, (Original), Dated: 17-01-2017; Ex.A2 Letter of Sanction (Original),

Dated: 17-01-2017; Ex.A3 Composite, Hypothecation Agreement, (Original),

Dated: 19-01-2017; Ex.A4 Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 25-02-2022;

Ex.A5 One Postal Receipt, (Original), Dated: 07-03-2022; Ex.A6 True & certified extract of Statement of Suit loan Account, Dated: 28-02-2022; Ex.A7

Authorization Letter, Dated, 31-03-2026.

8.The above evidence of PW1 is cogent and consistent and further supported by the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A7 and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Hence, the Plaintiff Bank has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. The point is answered partly in favour of plaintiff bank.

O.S.No.1365 of 2022 Page No.7

POINT NO.2:

9.In the result, this suit is partly decreed in favour of the Plaintiff Bank with costs against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,77,908/-(Rupees

Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon @ 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 7thday of May, 2026).

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 : Sri. M. Kishore KumarExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 Loan Application, (Original), Dated: 17-01-2017;

Ex.A2 Letter of Sanction (Original), Dated: 17-01-2017;

Ex.A3 Composite, Hypothecation Agreement, (Original), Dated: 19-01-2017;

Ex.A4 Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 25-02-2022;

Ex.A5 One Postal Receipt, (Original), Dated: 07-03-2022;

Ex.A6 True & certified extract of Statement of Suit loan Account,

Dated: 28-02-2022;

Ex.A7 Authorization Letter, Dated, 31-03-2026.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

AT: HYDERABAD

Dated on this, the 13thday of May, 2026

Present: Ms. K. Bindu, VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Original Suit No.402 of 2024

Between:-

State Bank of India, SMEC Centre, Hyderabad, Ground Floor, Gunfoundary, Abids, Hyderabad. Rep by its Manager Sri. K. S. Vinaykumar, S/o. Sadashiv. …. Plaintiff

AND

M/s. Srinivas Dry Cleaning Rep by its Prop. Mandla Srinu H.No. 8-3-169/60/1116, Naveen Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad-500045. …. Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 26.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M.P. Sanjay, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,48,231/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and

Thirty One only) with future interest at the rate of 9.9% per annum with monthly rests from the date of the suit till the date of realization.

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.2

2(a) The brief facts of the plaint are that, the State Bank of India (Incorporated under State Bank of India Act, 1955) having Corporate Centre at Mumbai and one of its branch at, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the defendant is in the business of Dry Cleaning doing business in the name and style of "SRINIVAS DRY CLEANING" and it is proprietary concern. The defendant approached the Plaintiff Bank for sanction of Cash Credit Loan (CC)

Loan facility of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) under "PRADHAN MANTRI MUDRA YOJANA" scheme and after due verification same was sanctioned of to the defendant on 09-09-2021 vide CC Loan A/c No.

40459471866 and the interest on CC Loan has been charged @ 9.9% pa.

calculated on daily products at monthly rests and the facility is available for 12 months from the date of sanction, subject to review every 12 months when it may be cancelled/ reduced depending upon the conduct and utilization of the advance, or as per the bank's scheme. It is further submitted that defendant executed documents i.e., 1) Arrangement Letter (SME-1), dated 09- 09-2021, 2) Agreement of Loan-Cum-Hypothecation (SME-2), dated 09-09- 2021 accepting to the terms and condition of loan agreement and it was acknowledged. The State Bank of India, BHEL R & D Branch, transferred loan account to Plaintiff bank i.e., SMEC, Hyderabad for administrative reasons.

The terms and condition of the Arrangement Letter and the Agreement of

Loan-cum-Hypothecation can be read part and parcel of the plaint. Moreover, the defendant has paid part of loan amounts in 2021 and 2022 reflected in the accounts statement. The defendant paid First EMI of Rs.5,500/- on 15-10-2021 from the date of sanction.

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.3

2(b)It is further submitted that the defendant is irregular in paying the loan amount from the date of sanction and after several demands the defendant has paid Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on 04-06-2022 and thereafter stopped paying the EMIs and the debt has been classified as non- performing assets (NPA) in accordance with the directives/ guidelines relating to asset classifications issued by the RBI. The plaintiff bank (SMEC) branch got issued Legal notice dated 13-07-2023 to the defendant and demanded to repay the balance loan amount of Rs.2,31,865/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty One

Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Five only) with further interest the said notices returned with an endorsement "ADDRESSEE LEFT". Hence, the suit.

3.The summons were issued and paper publication also filed, inspite of the same the defendant remained absent before this court on 17.12.2024 as such the defendant was set exparte by this Court and posted the suit for plaintiff's evidence.

4.To prove its case, the plaintiff Bank examined the authorized Officer i.e.,

Sri. Gopal Krishna Kotturu, as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-7 are marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff Bank and perused the material placed on record.

6.Now the points for determination are:

1. “Whether the Plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover from the

defendant the suit amount of Rs.2,48,231/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty One only) with

future interest at the rate of 9.9% per annum with monthly rests

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.4

from the date of the suit till the date of realization as prayed

for”?

2. If so, To what relief?

POINT No: 1

7.Though defendant remained exparte, the initial burden is on the Plaintiff

Bank to prove that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of the plaintiff’s Bank its authorized Officer i.e. Sri. Gopal Krishna Kotturu examined himself as PW1. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar averments that are made in the plaint. In the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-7 are marked. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A-1 to A-7 remained unchallenged as defendant remained exparte. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that defendant approached the Plaintiff Bank seeking for sanction of Personal

Loan by agreeing to the terms and conditions. It establishes the initial request and intention of the defendant to avail the loan facility. The plaintiff bank averred that a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Thousand Only) was sanctioned to the defendant as is also evident from Ex.A2 i.e., Letter of

Arrangement. The letter evidences the terms and conditions under which the loan was agreed to be granted by the plaintiff bank. It reflects the acceptance of the loan arrangement by the defendant. Ex.A3 i.e., Agreement of Loan-Cum-

Hypothecation which establishes the contractual relationship between the parties. It clearly sets out the loan amount of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Ninety Thousand Only) with agreed rate of interest of 9.90% % and it binds the defendant to repay the loan. The plaintiff bank averred that the defendant

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.5

utilized the Cash Credit Facility and thereafter committed wilful default in payment of dues. In support of his contention, the plaintiff bank got marked

Ex.A6 wherein the details of the transactions are reflected in the Statement of

Account i.e., Ex.A6 and the defendant is in total due to a sum of Rs.2,48,231/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty One only) to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank further averred that it made several demands and issuance of notice vide Ex.A4 which is evident from Postal

Returned cover i.e., Ex.A5, the defendant has not repaid the due amount.

However, defendant made his last payment of Rs.10,000/- on 04.06.2022. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff bank, the authorized person of plaintiff bank relied upon Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 i.e. Ex.A1 Loan Application; Ex.A2

Letter of Arrangement, Dated 09-09-2021; Ex.A3 Agreement of Loan-cum-

Hypothecation 09-09-2021; Ex.A4 Legal Notice, Dated: 13-07-2023; Ex.A5

Postal Return Cover; Ex.A6 Accounts Statement; Ex.A7 Certificate U/Sec 2A(a), 2A(b), 2(c) of Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1891.

8.The above evidence of PW1 is cogent and consistent and further supported by the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A7 and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Hence, the plaintiff bank has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant, to pay an amount of Rs.2,48,231/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Eight

Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty One only) to the plaintiff bank with

O.S.No.402 of 2024 Page No.6

subsequent interest @ 9.9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon @ 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 13thday of May, 2026).

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 : Sri. Gopal Krishna KotturuExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 Loan Application;

Ex.A2 Letter of Arrangement, Dated 09-09-2021;

Ex.A3 Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation 09-09-2021;

Ex.A4 Legal Notice, Dated: 13-07-2023;

Ex.A5 Postal Return Cover;

Ex.A6 Accounts Statement;

Ex.A7 Certificate U/Sec 2A(a), 2A(b), 2(c) of Bankers Evidence Act 1891.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

AT : HYDERABAD

Dated on this, the 7th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. K. Bindu, VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Original Suit No.4098 of 2023

Between:- State Bank of India, Represented by its Chief Manager, SMECC Branch, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad-500 177. …. Plaintiff

AND

1) M/s. SRI LAKSHMI ENGINEERING WORKS, Prop. A.Govardhan, S/o. Narsimulu Aruva, Aged about: 47yrs; Occupation: Business, No.1-204, Pipeline Road, Fathenagar, Hyderabad-500018.

2) Mr.A.Govardhan, S/o. Narsimulu Aruva, H.No.7-1-307/17/15, Subash Nagar, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500018. …. Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 16.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S. Indira Devi, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,91,220/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand

Two Hundred and Twenty only) with subsequent interest @ 10.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the date of suit to till realization from the defendants.

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.2

2(a) The brief facts of the plaint are that, the State Bank of India (Incorporated under State Bank of India Act, 1955) having Head office at

Mumbai and Local Head Office at Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the Defendants approached Plaintiff bank on 01.09.2017 for loan of CC Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) for

Business agreeing to terms and conditions and same was sanctioned vide A/c.

No. CC-37263676677 on 23.10.2017 vide its Sanction letter/letter of arrangement. The Defendant executed documents in favour of plaintiff bank i.e., Arrangement Letter agreeing to pay the Cash credit with interest of 10.75 % per annum with equated monthly instalments, Agreement of Loan cum

Hypothecation and also Hypothecated Stock in favour of plaintiff bank and

Revival letter.

2(b)It is further submitted that for the convenience of the defendants the account was initially allotted to Plaintiff's branch, Malkajgiri West,

Secunderabad, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the account is transferred to plaintiff which handles the NPA accounts i.e., SBI, SMECC Division

Hyderabad. The loan documents and records have been transferred to plaintiff bank SMECCC, Gunfoundry, Abids, Hyderabad for the purpose of recovery of loan amount due, and outstanding due. Furthermore, the Defendants fully availed the CC loan of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only), but failed to keep up the repayment schedule, except for certain payments as such the account turned into NPA. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff issued legal notice dated: 22.07.2023 calling upon the defendants to pay the dues, the payment was not made. Furthermore, as per the prudent norms

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.3

contemplated by RBI the interest component should not be loaded into the account. However, the said sum is included in the outstanding dues at the time of filing of suit. The defendants are in due and payable the entire outstanding sum of Rs.2,91,220/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand

Two Hundred and Twenty only) along with accrued interest as on 18.07.2023.

Hence, the suit.

3.The summons were issued and served, inspite of the same, the defendants remained absent before this court on 14.08.2024 and as such the defendants were set exparte and the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence.

4.To prove its case, the plaintiff Bank examined the authorized Officer i.e.,

Sri. Madhu Babu, as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-8 are marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff Bank and perused the material placed on record.

6.Now the points for determination are:

1. “Whether the Plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover from

the defendants the suit amount of Rs.2,91,220/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Ninety One Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) with

subsequent interest @ 10.75% p.a. with monthly rests from the

date of suit to till realization as prayed”?

2. If so, To what relief?

POINT No: 1

7.Though defendants remained exparte, the initial burden is on the

Plaintiff Bank to prove that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.4

defendants with subsequent interest. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of the plaintiff’s Bank its authorized Officer i.e. Sri. Madhu Babu examined himself as PW1 vide authorization letter marked as Ex.A8. PW1 filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar averments that are made in the plaint. In the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-8 are marked. The evidence of PW1 and Ex.A-1 to A-8 remained unchallenged as defendants remained exparte.

The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that defendants approached the Plaintiff Bank seeking for sanction of CC Loan by agreeing to the terms and conditions. It establishes the initial request and intention of the defendants to avail the loan facility. The plaintiff bank averred that a sum of

Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only) was sanctioned to the defendants as is also evident from Ex.A2 i.e., Arrangement Letter. The letter evidences the terms and conditions under which the loan was agreed to be granted by the plaintiff bank. It reflects the acceptance of the loan arrangement by the defendants. Ex.A3 i.e., Agreement of Loan-Cum-

Hypothecation which establishes the contractual relationship between the parties. It clearly sets out the loan amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

Eighty Thousand Only) with agreed rate of interest of 10.75 % and it binds the defendants to repay the loan. Ex.A4 being Revival Letter, acknowledges the extension of statutory limitation period. The plaintiff bank averred that the defendants utilized the Personal Loan facility and thereafter committed wilful default in payment of dues as per the schedule. In support of his contention, the plaintiff bank got marked Ex.A7 wherein the details of the transactions are reflected in the Statement of Account i.e., Ex.A7 and the defendants are in

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.5

total due to a sum of Rs.2,91,220/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One Thousand

Two Hundred and Twenty only) to the plaintiff bank as on 18.07.2023. Further, it is averred that the plaintiff bank made several demands and issued notice on defendants i.e., Ex.A5 and inspite the receipt of the said notice vide Ex.A6 i.e., Postal Receipts the Defendants failed to pay the suit claim amount. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff bank, the authorized person of plaintiff bank relied upon Exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 i.e., Ex.A1 Application, Dated: 28- 08-2017; Ex.A2 Letter of Arrangement for CC (SME-1), Dated: 23-10-2017;

Ex.A3 Agreement of Loan- Cum -Hypothecation, (SME-2), Dated: 23-10-2017 by the Defendants; Ex.A4 Revival Letter, (SME-11), Dated: 10-08-2020; Ex.A5

Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 22-07-2023; Ex.A6 Postal Receipts, Dated:

22-07-2023; Ex.A7 Extract of Statement of Account No. CC-37263676677 with

Certificate, Dated 18-07- 2023; Ex.A8 Authorization Letter. Dated: 16-04-2026.

8.The above evidence of PW1 is cogent and consistent and further supported by the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A8 and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Hence, the plaintiff bank has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants with subsequent interest as prayed for. The point is answered in favour of plaintiff bank.

POINT NO.2:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.2,91,220/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety One

Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) to the plaintiff bank with

O.S.No.4098 of 2023 Page No.6

subsequent interest @ 10.75 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon @ 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 7thday of May, 2026).

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 : Sri. Madhu BabuExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 Application, Dated: 28-08-2017;

Ex.A2 Letter of Arrangement for CC (SME-1), Dated: 23-10-2017;

Ex.A3 Agreement of Loan- Cum -Hypothecation, (SME-2), Dated: 23-10-2017 by the Defendants;

Ex.A4 Revival Letter, (SME-11), Dated: 10-08-2020;

Ex.A5 Office Copy of Legal Notice, Dated: 22-07-2023;

Ex.A6 Postal Receipts, Dated: 22-07-2023;

Ex.A7 Extract of Statement of Account No. CC-37263676677 with Certificate,

Dated 18-07- 2023;

Ex.A8 Authorization Letter. Dated: 16-04-2026.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT

AT: HYDERABAD

Dated on this, the 7th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. K. Bindu, VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Original Suit No. 5180 of 2025

Between:

1. SYED NAIMATHULLAH HUSSAINI, S/o. Late. Syed Hisam Uddin Ali Hussaini, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.9-11-185/93, Mohammedia Masjid, Golkonda, Hyderabad Aadhar No: 6085 1783 8869.

2. SAMINA FATIMA, D/o. Late. Syed Hisam Uddin Ali Hussaini, W/o. Mohammed Abdul Jaweed, Aged: 45 years, Occ: House Maker, Aadhar No: 4813 5325 5929.

3. SYED NOORUDDIN ALI HUSSAINI, S/o. Late. Syed Hisam Uddin Ali Hussaini, Aged: 44 years, Occ: Business, Aadhar No: 4051 2178 5461, Presently residing @ 6303 RockWell Avenue, Chicago 60659, IL, USA.

All are permanent R/o.H.No: 9-4-86/70, IInd Floor, Flat No. 203, Salar Jung Colony, Near Crown High School, Tolichowki, Golconda, Hyderabad-8, T.S.

4. NAUSHEEN FATIMA, D/o. Late. Syed Hisam Uddin Ali Hussaini, W/o. Hussain Nusrath Ullah Faisal, Aged: 50 years, Oce, House Maker, R/o.H.No: 10-3-283/4, 1st floor Saba Housing, Opp. Jahan ara Masjid, Humayu Nagar, Hyderabad Aadhar No: 2956 3656 6255.

THE PLAINTIFFS NO.2 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER …. Plaintiffs

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.2

And

1. THE TAHSILDAR MRO GOLCONDA,

HYDERABAD.

2. All Concerned.…. Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 22.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. Najma Begum, learned advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 remained exparte and none appeared for the All Concerned/D2 though paper publication is ordered, and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs praying this Court to declare the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 as legal heir of Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini for the purpose of legal status only (hereinafter ‘the deceased’).

2. Brief averments of the plaint:-

It is submitted that the plaintiffs No.1 & 3 are sons and plaintiffs No.2 & 4 are daughters of the deceased Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini, who died intestate on 01-05-2016. After the death of deceased, the plaintiffs are the only surviving Legal Heirs of Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini and except plaintiffs there are no other legal heirs of the deceased. Moreover, the plaintiffs are facing problems to identify themselves as the legal heirs of their father i.e., deceased Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini for the purpose of legal status. The plaintiffs No.2 to 4 has appointed their brother Mr. Syed

Naimathullah Hussaini/Plaintiff No.1 as their General Power of Attorney . It is submitted that, on 20.11.2025, the plaintiff No.1 have approached the defendant no.1 to obtain legal heir certificate and the defendant No.1 refused

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.3

to issue legal heir certificate and advised them to approach the competent

Court of law for obtaining the legal heir certificate. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of the summons, defendant no.1 failed to appear and contest, and though paper publication was issued for defendant no.2, none appeared to contest the claim of the plaintiffs. Hence, the defendants were set ex-parte.

4.To prove the suit claim, on behalf of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW1. In his chief examination, he reiterated the contents of the plaint. PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A10 documents.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the documents.

6. Now the point for determination is :

(Q1) : “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as the only

legal heirs of the deceased Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini, for the

purpose of legal status only”?

(Q2) : If so, To what relief ?

P O I N T 1:-

(a)In order to substantiate their averments in the plaint, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents, Ex.A1 The Original Notarized GPA executed on 13-11-2025

Executed by Plaintiff No. 2 and 4; Ex.A2 The Original Notarized GPA executed on 22-11-2025 Executed by Plaintiff No. 3; Ex.A3 The Original Death

Certificate of the deceased Late. SYED HISAMUDDIN ALI HUSSAINI; Ex.A4

The Original Death Certificate of Mother of Plaintiffs by name ARIFA

SULTANA; Ex.A5 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No1; Ex.A6 The

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.4

Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.2; Ex.A7 The Original Aadhar Card of

Plaintiff: 3; Ex.A8 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.4; Ex.A9 The

Original Marriage Certificate of Plaintiff No.2; Ex.A10 The Original Marriage

Certificate of Plaintiff No.4

PW-1 filed his affidavit-in-chief which is nothing but repetition of the entire contents of the plaint. According to PW1, the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the only legal heirs of Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini. Plaintiffs No.2 to 4 has executed GPA in favour of plaintiff No.1 vide Ex.A1 and Ex.A2

(b)In order to prove the death of Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini, the plaintiffs produced Ex.A3 document. Ex.A3 is the original Death certificate of

Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini issued by GHMC, which discloses that

Late Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini , died on 01.05.2016 at H.No.9-4- 86/77/102, F-101, AL-Hasnath Colony, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

(c)In order to prove the death of Late Mrs. Arifa Sultana i.e., mother of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs produced Ex.A4 document. Ex.A4 is the original Death certificate of Late Mrs. Arifa Sultana issued by GHMC, which discloses that

Late Mrs. Arifa Sultana, died on 04.08.2022 at H.No.11-3-692, Mallepally, Red

Hills, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad.

(d)In order to prove their relationship with Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini the plaintiff No.1 to 4 got marked Ex. A5 to A10 documents, wherein Aadhar card of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and Marriage Certificate of plaintiff No.2 and 4 are filed respectively.

The Exhibits Ex.A5 and Ex.A7, discloses that plaintiffs No.1 and 3 are sons of deceased and Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 discloses that plaintiff No.2 and 4

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.5

are daughters of the deceased.

(d)As there is no contrary evidence on this point, as the evidence of PW1 coupled with exhibits A1 to A10 remained unrebutted, the plaintiffs are entitled to a relief as prayed for. Further the defendants have remained exparte and failed to challenge the testimony of PW1 and did not deny the veracity of Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that it is just, fair and reasonable to declare that the plaintiff No.1 to 4 as the legal heirs of deceased Syed Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini who died on 01-05- 2016, for the purpose of legal status only. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

7. POINT No.2:

In the result, the suit is decreed, without costs declaring that the

Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 herein as the only legal heirs of the deceased Syed

Hisamuddin Ali Hussaini who died on 01-05-2016 for the purpose of legal status only.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 7th day of May, 2026.

VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

PW1 Syed Naimathullah Hussaini.- Nil -

OS.No.5180 of 2025Page No.6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 The Original Notarized GPA executed on 13-11-2025 Executed by

Plaintiff No. 2 and 4;

Ex.A2 The Original Notarized GPA executed on 22-11-2025 Executed by

Plaintiff No. 3;

Ex.A3 The Original Death Certificate of the deceased Late. SYED

HISAMUDDIN ALI HUSSAINI;

Ex.A4 The Original Death Certificate of Mother of Plaintiffs that is ARIFA

SULTANA;

Ex.A5 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No1;

Ex.A6 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.2;

Ex.A7 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff: 3;

Ex.A8 The Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.4;

Ex.A9 The Original Marriage Certificate of Plaintiff No.2;

Ex.A10 The Original Marriage Certificate of Plaintiff No.4.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad

O.S.No.5395 of 2024 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT

AT : HYDERABAD

Dated on this, the 7th day of May, 2026

Present: Ms. K. Bindu, VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Original Suit No.5395 of 2024

Between:- State Bank of India, Barkatpura Branch, #3-4-495/1, Jyoti Soudha, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Branch Manager M. Arjun, S/o. Rajanna. …. Plaintiff

AND

Kishore Kumar Katta, S/o. Anandam Katta, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Employee, H. No. 6-2-936, Meer Bagh Colony, Bank Lane, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda, Telangana 508001. …. Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 16.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Smt. Rapaka Aruna, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte, and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

::JUDGMENT::

This suit is filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendant for recovery

Term Loan amount of Rs.4,86,027/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand

Twenty Seven only) with subsequent rate of interest 10.6% P.A.

2(a) The brief facts of the plaint are that, the State Bank of India (Incorporated under State Bank of India Act, 1955) having Corporate Centre at Mumbai and one of its Local Head Offices at Hyderabad. It is submitted

O.S.No.5395 of 2024 Page No.2

that the Defendant who is the Government employee approached the plaintiff

Bank on 04.08.2020 for personal loan for his family necessities. The plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) vide Loan A/c No.39551013683 with the terms and conditions mentioned in the sanction letter and the same was accepted by the Defendant by affixing the signatures. Furthermore, the defendant has executed Loan Agreement and agreed to repay the said loan with 10.6% in 72 Equated Monthly instalments of Rs.21,065/- and amount was disbursed on 04.08.2020. It is further submitted that the Defendant failed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement. It is further submitted that the plaintiff made several demands to repayment loan amount and defendant loan account was recalled. Apart from other payments the Defendant paid an amount of Rs.9,413/- on 02-06-2023 towards part payment of loan amount. It is further submitted that on 07-10-2024 the Plaintiff Bank issued a legal notice to the Defendant demanding to repay the loan amount Rs.4,86,027/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Twenty Seven only) plus accrued interest thereon and incidental charges but defendant failed to comply the demand made in notice. Hence, the suit.

3.The summons were issued, inspite of the same, the defendant remained absent before this court on 17.12.2025 as such the defendant was set exparte by this court and the suit was posted for plaintiff's evidence.

4.To prove its case, the plaintiff Bank examined the authorized Officer i.e.,

Smt. G. Anuprabha, as PW1 and in the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-6 are marked.

O.S.No.5395 of 2024 Page No.3

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff Bank and perused the material placed on record.

6.Now the points for determination are:

1. “Whether the Plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover from defendant the suit amount of Rs.4,86,027/- (Rupees Four

Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Twenty Seven only) with

subsequent rate of interest 10.6% P.A as prayed”?

2. If so, To what relief?

POINT No: 1

7.Though defendant remained exparte, the initial burden is on the Plaintiff

Bank to prove that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest. In this regard, as stated above, on the side of the plaintiff’s Bank its authorized Officer i.e. Smt. G. Anuprabha examined herself as PW1 vide authorization letter marked as Ex.A6. PW1 filed her chief examination affidavit with the similar averments that are made in the plaint.

In the evidence of PW1, Ex.A-1 to A-6 are marked. The evidence of PW1 and

Ex.A-1 to A-6 remained unchallenged as defendant remained exparte. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that defendant approached the

Plaintiff Bank seeking for sanction of Personal Loan by agreeing to the terms and conditions. It establishes the initial request and intention of the defendant to avail the loan facility. The plaintiff bank averred that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) was sanctioned to the defendant as is also evident from Ex.A2 i.e., Arrangement Letter. The letter evidences the terms and conditions under which the loan was agreed to be granted by the plaintiff bank. It reflects the acceptance of the loan arrangement by the defendant.

Ex.A3 i.e., Personal Loan Agreement which establishes the contractual

O.S.No.5395 of 2024 Page No.4

relationship between the parties. It clearly sets out the loan amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) with agreed rate of interest of 10.6% and it binds the defendant to repay the loan. The plaintiff bank further averred that the defendant utilized the Personal Loan facility and thereafter committed wilful default in payment of dues as per the schedule. In support of her contention, the plaintiff bank got marked Ex.A5 wherein the details of the transactions are reflected in the Statement of Account i.e., Ex.A5 and the defendant is in total due to a sum of Rs.4,86,027/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty

Six Thousand Twenty Seven only) to the plaintiff bank. Further it is averred that the plaintiff bank made several demands and issued Legal notice on defendant i.e., Ex.A4 and inspite the receipt of the said notice the Defendant failed to pay the suit claim amount. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff bank, the authorized person of plaintiff bank relied upon Exhibits Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6 i.e. Ex.A1 Original Application, Dated: 04.08.2020; Ex.A2 Original

Arrangement Letter, Dated: 04.08.2020; Ex.A3 Original Loan Agreement,

Dated: 04.08.2020; Ex.A4 Office Copy of Legal Notice along with Original

Postal Receipt, Dated: 07-10-2024; Ex.A5 Statement of Account along with section 65-B Certificate; Ex.A6 Copy of Authorization letter dated:02.07.2025.

8.The above evidence of PW1 is cogent and consistent and further supported by the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A6 and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Hence, the plaintiff bank has proved that it is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest as prayed. The point is answered in favour of plaintiff bank.

O.S.No.5395 of 2024 Page No.5

POINT NO.2:

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant, to pay an amount of Rs.4,86,027/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand

Twenty Seven only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest thereon @ 10.60 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon @ 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 7thday of May, 2026).

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW1 : Smt. G. AnuprabhaExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 Original Application, Dated: 04.08.2020;

Ex.A2 Original Arrangement Letter, Dated: 04.08.2020;

Ex.A3 Original Loan Agreement, Dated: 04.08.2020;

Ex.A4 Office Copy of Legal Notice along with Original Postal Receipt, Dated:

07-10-2024;

Ex.A5 Statement of Account along with section 65-B Certificate;

Ex.A6 Copy of Authorization letter dated:02.07.2025.

FOR DEFENDANTS

- NIL -

VII JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,HYDERABAD