Smt K.Hima Bindu

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka) · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt K.Hima Bindu, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, is posted at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 3,916 court orders on record since 2017. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

3,916

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/83/2024 Acquitted

The State Rep by SHO of SEB PS, Kothapeta vs Kota Nagu

23 Dec 2024

1 C.C. 83./2024

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

KOTHAPETA.

Present: Smt.K.Hima Bindu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothapeta.

Monday, this the 23rd day of December, 2024.

CC.No.83/2024 CC.No.83/2024

Cr.No.454/2022 of Proh & Excise Police Station, Kothapeta. Cr.No.454/2022 of Proh & Excise Police Station, Kothapeta. Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Kothapeta Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Kota Nagu, S/o VenkataRao, A/39 years .C/Gowda, R/o Peravaram Village, Atreyapuram Mandal

...Accused

This case is presented before me on 20-12-2024 for arguments in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri I. Padamjirao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing arguments, upon perusing the material available on record 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, S.E.B Kothapeta Police Station has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.454/2022 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(B) r/w8(B)of APP Act-2020 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 23-10-2022 at about 2.30 P.M during the raid conducted by the

LW.2/PW.2 along with staff at Peravaram Village limits of Atreyapuram

Mandal, found the accused having a bag in his right hand. On suspicion 2 C.C. 83./2024

LW.2/PW.2 detained the accused with the help of staff. On questioning the accused, he revealed that the bag contained some illicit liquor in it. They tried for mediators and secure one person, on verify the bag in the presence of staff and mediator, it contains one myca bag cover containing 20 liters of ID liquor. On enquiry the accused furnished his address particulars as noted above and stated that he purchased the above ID liquor from an unknown person at Peravaram village limits of

Atreyapuram Mandal and selling the same at higher prices. The

LW.2/PW.2 explained that possession, transportation, selling of ID liquor is an offence under AP Prohibition Act, 1995 Amendment 2020. Then seized the above property after drawing 300 ml of ID liquor in a separate bottle as sample sealed and affixed slips duly signed by the LWs1&2 and the accused under the cover of Mediators Report drafted at the scene of offence. The LW2/PW.2 Inspector of Police, Atreyapuram PS registered a case in Cr. No. 454/2022 under section 7(B) r/w8(B) of APP Act. The

Station House officer produced the accused before the Hon’ble Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta for Judicial remand. The LW.2/PW.2

sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh. And

Excise Laboratory, Kakinada through the Asst. Enforcement

Superintendent, Amalapuram for analysis. The Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada who analyzed the sample opined in his letter CE No. 3123/2022

dated 14-12-2022 in Sl No.37016 that the sample is “illicitly Distilled

Liquor, Unfit for human Consumption and injurious to health. The

LW.2/PW.2 sent reaming property destruction proposals to Superintendent of Police, Kakinada laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 7(B) r/w8(B) of AP Prohibition Act.

3 C.C. 83./2024

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec 7(B) r/w8 (B) of APP

Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of

APP Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 , PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4and M.O.1.

7. On completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness, for which accused denied. On behalf of accused no oral evidence is adduced and no documents were marked.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 188 IPC and 8(e) of APP Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The learned APP fairly contended that the matter may be decided on merits. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made to secure independent 4 C.C. 83./2024 witnesses, that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of independent witness, a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

11. Section 7-B r/w. 8-B of APP Act read as follows as hereunder:

7-B. Prohibition of Boot Legging Activities: The manufacturing, transporting, setting, buying, importing, exporting or storing of any alcoholic liquor and supplying or transporting of any raw materials for the manufacture of alcoholic liquor illegally or clandestinely, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the A .P. Excise Act, 1968 is hereby prohibited.”] 8-B. Penalty for sale, export, import and transport of alcoholic liquor manufactured illegally and clandestinely:- whoever in contravention of section 7-B of this Act indulges in sale, export, import or transport of illicitly distilled alcoholic liquor shall on conviction be liable for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend upto eight years and with fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs for the first offence and which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs for the second offence

12. According to the prosecution case, accused possessed I.D. arrack and tried to sell the same in contravention of provisions of Prohibition Act and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of A.P.

Prohibition Act.

13. P.W1 and 2 in their evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, arrested the accused and receiving mediator report and the same was marked as MO1 is the sample bottle of ID arrack. PW.2 deposed that on 23-10-2022 at about 02-30 PM while along with PW1 along with his staff conducting raid at Peravaram Village limits of Atreyapuram Mandal,at 5 C.C. 83./2024 accused house with capacity of 20 Liters and found ID Arrack in the said plastic tin. Then he returned to police station and registered a case in

Cr.No.454/2022 U/Sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of APP Act. Ex.P2 is the FIR, he sent

FIR to the concerned he produced the accused before the court and forwarded judicial remand. Ex.P3 is the letter of adivse. He received chemical analysis report and opined that ID Arrack. Ex.P4 is the chemical analysis report. The remianing property sent to the Deputy Commissioner,

Proh and Excise Kakinada for confession and after confiscation the same was destroyed under the cover of mediators report. LW2 took up further investigation and after the completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused. He can identify the accused witness identified the accued at the box in the court hall. PW2 deposed that he verified the investigation done by the PW2 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that the accused possessed I.D. arrack. This part of evidence deposed by P.W.1 and2 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it is clearly stated that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. This part of evidence with regard to confession either in the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 or in Ex.P.1 is held inadmissible. According to Section 118 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.W1 and 2 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained unshattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.W.1 and 2 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of I.D. arrack by the accused and they seized the same. But, according to Section Sec.23 of A.P. Prohibition Act, the police at the time of 6 C.C. 83./2024 seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police tried to secure the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons around the scene of offence. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, the non-presence of independent witnesses creates doubt as to the genuineness of case of prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to comply Section 23 of A.P.

Prohibition Act and Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

16. No independent witnesses were present and were examined in this case. Except police officials, no other independent evidence supported the prosecution case. Ex.P1 and Mo.1 merely shows that the contraband seized is illicitly distilled liquor, that itself does not mean that the accused possessed or sold the same. In these circumstances, this court is of opinion that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of police officials and to convict the accused. Therefore, this Court opines that, prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for Acquittal.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(b) R/W 8(b) of APP Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The 7 C.C. 83./2024 case property i.e. Mo.1 ID Liquor one bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of December, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : 25-10-2024: Ch. Harika Siva Jyothirmayi P.W.2 : 25-10-2024: A.Annavaram SI of police and Excise DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION : Ex.P123-10-2022Mediator Report Ex.P223-10-2022First Information Report in Cr.No.454/2022 Ex.P315-11-2022Letter of Advise Ex.P414-12-2022Chemical Analysis DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: ID Liquor one bottle

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

8 C.C. 83./2024 9 C.C. 83./2024

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Smt.K.Hima Bindu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothapeta.

CC.No.83/2024

Date of offence:23-10-2022 Complaint:23-10-2022 Apprehension of accused:23-10-2022 Commencement of trial:25-10-2024 Closing of trial :25-10-2024 Sentence or order:23.12.2024 Reasons for delay:--- Name of the complainant:Sub Inspector of Police, Proh& Excise Police Station, Kothapeta.

Name of the accused :Kota Nagu, S/oVenkataRao, A/39 years .C/Gowda, R/oPeravaram Village, Atreyapuram Mandal

Offence:Under Section 7(B) R/W 8(B) of APP Act Plea of the Accused :Not guilty Finding:Not guilty Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(b) R/W 8(b) of APP Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. Mo.1 ID Liquor one bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

CC/1839/2022 Acquitted

The State Rep. by SEB P.S., Kothapeta vs Borra Durga

23 Dec 2024

1 C.C. 1839./2022

THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

KOTHAPETA.

Present: Smt.K.Hima Bindu,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothapeta.

Monday, this the 23rd day of December, 2024.

CC.No.1839/2022 CC.No.1839/2022

Cr.No.149/2020 of Proh & Excise Police Station, Kothapeta. Cr.No.149/2020 of Proh & Excise Police Station, Kothapeta. Between:

State : Sub Inspector of Police, Prohibition & Excise Kothapeta Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Borra Durga, W/oNageswara Rao, A/46Years,C/ Gowda,Peravaram Village,Atreyapuram Mandal

...Accused

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, S.E.B Kothapeta Police Station has filed

Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.149/2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.7(B) r/w 8(B)of APP Act-2020 against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 29-06-2022 at about 10.30 P.M during the raid conducted by the

LW.3/PW.2 along with staff at Peravaram Village limits of Atreyapuram

Mandal, found the accused having a bag in his right hand. On suspicion 2 C.C. 1839./2022

LW.3/PW.2 detained the accused with the help of staff. On questioning the accused, he revealed that the bag contained some illicit liquor in it. They tried for mediators and secure one person, on verify the gunny bag in the presence of staff and mediator, it contains gunny bag cover containing 05 liters of ID liquor. On enquiry the accused furnished his address particulars as noted above and stated that he purchased the above ID liquor from an unknown person at Peravaram village limits of

Atreyapuram Mandal and selling the same at higher prices. The

LW.2/PW.2 explained that possession, transportation, selling of ID liquor is an offence under AP Prohibition Act, 1995 Amendment 2020. Then seized the above property after drawing 300 ml of ID liquor in a separate bottle as sample sealed and affixed slips duly signed by the LWs1&3 and the accused under the cover of Mediators Report drafted at the scene of offence. The LW3/PW.2 Inspector of Police, Atreyapuram PS registered a case in Cr. No. 149/2020 under section 7(B) r/w8(B) of APP Act. The

Station House officer produced the accused before the Hon’ble Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta for Judicial remand. The LW.3/PW.2

sent the sample bottle to the Chemical Examiner, Regional Proh. And

Excise Laboratory, Kakinada through the Asst. Enforcement

Superintendent, Amalapuram for analysis. The Chemical Examiner,

Kakinada who analyzed the sample opined in his letter CE No. 1578/2020

dated 12-08-2022 in Sl No.30226 that the sample is “illicitly Distilled

Liquor, Unfit for human Consumption and injurious to health. The

LW.3/PW.2 sent reaming property destruction proposals to Superintendent of Police, Kakinada laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 7(B) r/w8(B) of AP Prohibition Act.

3 C.C. 1839./2022

3. The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec 7(B) r/w8 (B) of APP

Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused in compliance of Section 207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure (in short hereinafter referred as “Cr.P.C.”)

5. Accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/Sec. 7(B) r/w8(B) of

APP Act framed against the accused read over and explained to accused in Telugu U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. After having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 , PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4and M.O.1.

8.Heard both the sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec. 188 IPC and 8(e) of APP Act beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:-

The learned APP fairly contended that the matter may be decided on merits. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution failed to follow the procedure for search and seizure of alleged contraband and that no efforts were made to secure independent 4 C.C. 1839./2022 witnesses, that itself shows the police foisted false case against the accused for their statistical purpose and as there is no testimony of independent witness, a benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused and he may be acquitted.

11. Section 7-B r/w. 8-B of APP Act read as follows as hereunder:

Prohibition Act.

13. P.W1 and 2 in their evidence staunchly supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered the crime, arrested the accused and receiving mediator report and the same was marked as MO1 is the sample bottle of ID arrack. PW.2 deposed that on 29-06-2020 at about 10-30 PM while along with PW1 along with his staff conducting raid at Peravaram Village limits of Atreyapuram Mandal,at 5 C.C. 1839./2022 accused house with capacity of 05 Liters and found ID Arrack in the said plastic tin. Then he returned to police station and registered a case in

Cr.No.149/2020 U/Sec. 7(B) r/w 8(B) of APP Act. Ex.P2 is the FIR, he sent

Proh and Excise Kakinada for confession and after confiscation the same was destroyed under the cover of mediators report. LW3 took up further investigation and after the completion of investigation fled charge sheet against the accused. He can identify the accused witness identified the accued at the box in the court hall. PW2 deposed that he verified the investigation done by the PW2 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. Prosecution's case is that the accused confessed that the accused possessed I.D. arrack. This part of evidence deposed by P.W.1 and PW2 with regard to the confession cannot be received into evidence because of

Evidence Act, 1872 every person is competent to testify. The evidence of P.W1 and 2 clearly supported the prosecution case and remained unshattered as to the facts witnessed by them.

15.P.W.1 and PW2 categorically deposed that they witnessed the possession of I.D. arrack by the accused and they seized the same. But, according to Section Sec.23 of A.P. Prohibition Act, the police at the time of 6 C.C. 1839./2022 seizure of property, must follow the procedure enshrined in Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. i.e., the police shall secure the presence of independent witnesses and during their presence as mediators, the police shall seize the contraband. But, there is no piece of evidence on record that police tried to secure the presence of independent witnesses. No reason was specified either in the charge sheet or in the prosecution evidence for non-issuance of written notices to the persons around the scene of offence. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, the non-presence of independent witnesses creates doubt as to the genuineness of case of prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to comply Section 23 of A.P.

Prohibition Act and Section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. adds strength to the argument on behalf of the accused that a hefty attempt was made by the police to drag the accused into the web of alleged crime.

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(b) R/W 8(b) of APP Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 7 C.C. 1839./2022 six months from the date of the Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The case property i.e. Mo.1 ID Liquor one bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 23rd day of December, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :

PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : 29-11-2024: K.Durga Bhavani P.W.2 : 29-11-2024: P.Rambabu, SI of police and Excise kothapeta PS DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:

PROSECUTION : Ex.P129-06-2020Mediator Report Ex.P229-06-2020First Information Report in Cr.No.149/2020 Ex.P3 nilLetter of Advise Ex.P412-08-2020Chemical Analysis DEFENCE : -Nil-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: ID Liquor one bottle

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

8 C.C. 1839./2022 9 C.C. 1839./2022

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

Calendar of cases tried by Smt.K.Hima Bindu, Junior Civil Judge– Cum–Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. (FAC) Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kothapeta.

CC.No.1839/2022

Date of offence:29-06-2020 Complaint:29-06-2020 Apprehension of accused:29-06-2020 Commencement of trial:29-11-2024 Closing of trial :29-11-2024 Sentence or order:23.12.2024 Reasons for delay:--- Name of the complainant:Sub Inspector of Police, Proh& Excise Police Station, Kothapeta.

ame of the accused :Borra Durga,W/oNageswara Rao, A/46Years, C/Gowda,PeravaramVillage,Atreyapuram Mandal

Offence:Under Section 7(B) R/W 8(B) of APP Act Plea of the Accused :Not guilty Finding:Not guilty Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 7(b) R/W 8(b) of APP Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. Mo.1 ID Liquor one bottle shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judl. Magistrate (Prl. Asst Sessions Judge), Rajahmahendravaram.

10 C.C. 1839./2022

OS/230/2024

Chinnam Bapireddi vs Kadali Mutyala Rao

15 May 2026

1 Fair in O.S.230/2024

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Smt.K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Razole.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

O.S.No.230/2024

Between : Chinnam Bapireddi, S/o Ramanayya, Hindu, Cultivation, 63 Years, Aarthamuru Village,

Mandapeta Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema ...Plaintiff

District.

And

1) Kadali Mutyala Rao, S/o Venkanna, Hindu, 55 Years, Alluri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Colony, Antarvedipalem Village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District.

2) Kadali Gayathri, W/o Mutyala Rao, Hindu, 50 Years, Alluri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju Colony, Antarvedipalem Village, Sakhinetipalli Mandal,

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District....Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 12.05.2026 for plaintiff’s evidence in the presence of Sri.G.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte and heard learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to grant decree for recovery of

Rs.1,22,566/- against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization, for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

Both the defendants are husband and wife. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.10.2022 2 Fair in O.S.230/2024 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge debts and agreed to repay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per mensem per hundred to the plaintiff or his order on demand and executed the promissory note dated 10.10.2022 in favour of the plaintiff. Despite demands the defendants did not repay the due.

Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 20.05.2024 to the defendant.

The said notice is refused by the defendant under postal endorsement dt.27.05.2024 and kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3.On 15.04.2025 D1 called absent. No representation. Written statement of D1 not filed. Stipulated period completed. Hence D1 set exparte on 15.04.2025. Paper publication against D2 filed. Check and found correct. On 11.02.2026 D2 called absent. No representation. Hence D2 set exparte on 11.02.2026.

4.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and through the evidence of P.W.1,

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants did not choose to pay the amount due under the promissory note.

Hence the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed in the plaint. After hearing the arguments of plaintiff and considering the entire material on record.

5.Now the point for determination before this Court is :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed in the plaint ?

ii) To what relief ?

POINT No.1 :

6.In order to prove hiscase the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint through his chief affidavit 3 Fair in O.S.230/2024 and same is admitted in lieu of his chief examination of PW.1. PW.1 exhibited the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff dated 10.10.2022. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt dated 20.05.2024.

Ex.A3 is the refused registered two R.P covers addressed to the 1st defendant.

The averments mentioned in the chief affidavit are remained unchallenged as there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants. The evidence of PW.1 corroborated with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiff proved his case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendants for the amount mentioned in the plaint. The defendants are liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff as there is no defence from his end. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7.POINT No. 2 :

In view of answer to Point No.1, the suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant Nos.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,22,566/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade - III corrected,

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Razole.

4 Fair in O.S.230/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW.1 : 12.05.2026 : Chinnam Bapireddy

For Defendants: -None- (Exparte)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : 10.10.2022 : Promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : 20.05.2024 : Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt dated 20.05.2024.

Ex.A3 :-: Refused registered two R.P covers addressed to the 1st defendant.

For Defendants: NIL

Sd/- K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Razole.

Note: The parties are hereby directed to apply for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as soon as possible within three years as the record will liable to be destroyed three years after the date of decree of order.

// True Copy //

OS/173/2025

Rudraraju Veerraju vs Kanumuri Venkata Subba Raju

12 May 2026

1

Fair in O.S.No.173/2025

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, RAZOLE.

Present: Smt K.Hima Bindu

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum – Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of May, 2026.

O.S.No.173/2025

Between :

Rudraraju Veerraju, S/o Surapa Raju, 63 Years, Hindu, D.No.2-10. Pedaveedhi, Near Ramalayam, Chinchinada,

Yelamanchi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Plaintiff

And

Kanumuri Venkata Subba Raju, S/o Venkatapathi Raju,

Hindu, 45 Years, Ramarajulanka, Malikipuram Mandal....Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 08.05.2026 for plaintiff’s evidence in the presence of Sri J.H.Sagar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and heard learned counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff to grant decree for recovery of Rs.4,89,800/- against the defendant with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization, for costs of the suit and for other reliefs.

The brief averments of the plaint as follows :

2.The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.12.2022 for his necessities i.e., family expenses and to discharge debts and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Malikipuram Village and agreeing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or his order on demand. When the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge his debt personally and through elders. But on one reason or other the defendant postponed to discharge the debt of plaintiff. Hence the suit.

2

Fair in O.S.No.173/2025 3.After registering the plaint, through Court summons of defendant served personally on 20.08.2025. RP of defendant served personally. On 26.11.2025 written statement not filed. Stipulated period 90 days completed. Hence defendant is set expartee on 26.11.2025.

4.The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and through the evidence of P.W.1, Ex.A1 was marked. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed in the plaint. After hearing the arguments of plaintiff and considering the entire material on record.

5.Now the point for determination before this court is :

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed in the plaint ?

ii) To what relief ?

POINT No.1 :

6.In order to prove his case the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and reiterating all the averments mentioned in the plaint through his chief affidavit and same is admitted in lieu of his chief examination of P.W.1. P.W.1 exhibited the documents under Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 22.12.2022. The averments mentioned in the chief affidavit are remained unchallenged as there is no appearance on behalf of the defendant. The evidence of P.W.1 corroborated with Ex.A1, the plaintiff proved his case. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for decree against the defendant for the amount mentioned in the plaint. The defendant is liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff as there is no defence from her end. Accordingly, this point is answered.

3

Fair in O.S.No.173/2025 7.POINT No. 2 :

In view of answer to Point No.1, the suit shall be decreed.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,89,800/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on

principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade - III corrected,

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Razole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 : 08.05.2026 : Rudraraju Veerraju (Exparte)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

dated 22.12.2022.

For Defendant: NIL

Sd/- K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Razole.

// True Copy //

OS/179/2025 Compromised

Dommeti Manikantha Kiran Kumar vs Chelluboina Durga Paddala Venkanna

15 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: RAZOLE

Present: Smt.K.Hima Bindu Civil Judge(Junior Division)-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole, Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.179/2025

Between:

Dommeti Manikantha Kiran Kumar, S/o.Srinivas, Business, Aged 32 years, r/o D.No.12-1, Canal Road, Razole, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District

...Plaintiff

and

Chelluboina Durga Paddala Venkanna, S/o Late Venkata Swamy, Business, Aged 50 years, r/o D.No.10-141, Behind Fire Station, Razole, Razole Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District

...Defendant

The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for Promissory Note to pass a decree for a sum of Rs.4,04,666/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Six only) in favour of the plaintiff, against the defendant with costs and subsequent interest and other reliefs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for expartee plaintiff evidence in the presence of Sri Sattiraju Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2 :: JUDGEMENT ::

I.A.417/2026 U/Rule.109(2) CRP filed and allowed. The matter is advanced from 29.07.2026 to today ie 15.05.2026. Both parties called present. Memo filed by the plaintiff counsel stating that the defendant approached the plaintiff through elders and got the matter compromised. The defendant paid an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand Only) towards full quittance of the suit claim. The plaintiff also received the same. F.S.Recorded. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court on this 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-K.Hima Bindu,

Civil Judge(Junior Division)-cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Razole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side

Sd/-K.Hima Bindu,

CJ(JD)–cum–JMFC,Razole.

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

Order Record 3,869 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/179/2025	Dommeti Manikantha Kiran Kumar vs Chelluboina Durga Paddala Venkanna	15 May 2026	Judgement	Compromised
OS/230/2024	Chinnam Bapireddi vs Kadali Mutyala Rao	15 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/226/2025	Sakhinetipalli Sujatha vs Appari Subrahmanyam	15 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
MC/12/2022	Vempalli Sravani Sandhya alias Nadimpalli Sarvani vs Vempalli Gurunatharaju	13 May 2026	Order	—
OS/173/2025	Rudraraju Veerraju vs Kanumuri Venkata Subba Raju	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/253/2025	Adabala Satyanarayana vs Sudha Durga	12 May 2026	Judgement	—
EP/15/2025	Rekapalli Narayanarao vs Chikkam Pundareekasha Pradeep alias Pradeep	06 May 2026	Order	—
OS/55/2026	Dodda Veera Venkata Satya Varaprasad vs Kombathula Chandrasekhar	06 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/211/2025	Dondapati Rajarao vs Nethala Nirmala Jyothi	05 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/80/2026	Annamneedi Narasimha Rao vs Annamneedi Krishna Rao	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/298/2024	Medepalli Adinarayana vs Medepalli Bhavani alias Gandham Bhavani	01 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/124/2024	Narni Kankaraju vs Alluri Bala Suryanarayana Varma	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/521/2024	Narni Kanakaraju vs Alluri Bala Suryanarayana Varma	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/43/2023	M/s Margadarisi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Amalapuram vs Chelluboina Peddi Raju	23 Apr 2026	Order	—
CC/496/2025	Raja Nagaratna Kumar vs Kolla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/2/2026	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited, rep by its Manager, Amalapuram vs Pichika Poleswara Rao	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/3/2026	M/s Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Manager, Amalapuram vs Thota Venkata Rao	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/5/2025	Bonam Venkataratnam vs M/s Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd	17 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/60/2020	S.I. of Police, Sakhinetipalli P.S., vs Kollabathula Premkumar	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/692/2023	SHO, Sakhinetipalli vs Karupalli Sumanthkumar	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/2493/2022	SHO, Sakhinetipalli vs Nadimpalli Gopala Krishnam Raju	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/12/2024	Karri Narasimha Rao vs Chellingi Omkar	02 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
EP/36/2023	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd Rep by its Manager, Amalapuram vs Pippala Ram Babu	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/14/2019	Ivvala Venkata Hari Krishna vs Pasalapudi Nageswara Rao	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/294/2024	Adapa Rambabu vs Dasari Venkateswarlu	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/571/2026	The State represented by its Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. and Excise Station, Razole vs Namana Raja Narasimha Rao	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/130/2025	Thote Prasad Kumar vs Kakara Srinivasa Rao	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/201/2025	The State represented by its Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh and Excise Station, Razole vs Devireddy Bala Chandraraju	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/312/2021	SHO, Nagaram PS vs Rayudu Satya Madhu	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/532/2024	The State Station House officer, Nagaram PS vs Rachakonda Venkateswara Rao	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/96/2024	Kadali Vijaya Kumar Prasad vs Molleti Nageswararao	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1599/2023	State Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Adabala Balakrishna	26 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/156/2024	Narkedimilli Subbalakshmi vs Narkedimilli Manjuladevi	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/368/2024	State rep. by Proh. and Excise Inspector vs Sadhanala Sai Manikanta	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1583/2022	SHO, sakhinetipalli vs Paruva Vickey	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/51/2023	Pentapati Gangarao vs Nayudu Bangarayya	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/76/2023	Pamarthi Venkata Rambabu vs Mutyala Nagarjuna Naidu	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/258/2025	Chelluboina Ganeswara Rao vs Devireddy Venkata Srinivasa Rao	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1371/2023	Sub Inspector of Police, Razole vs Seelam Satish Babu	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/41/2024	Pechetti Ramakrishna vs Sirigineedi Venkata Sriramamurty	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/120/2021	Bonam Venkata Subbarao vs Bejawada Srinivasarao	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1664/2022	SHO, Razole vs Muthyala Paradhasaradhi	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/45/2024	Tenneti Rajababu vs Nakka Prasad	18 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/91/2025	Cherukuri Sathibabu vs Pogaku Srinu	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/489/2019	S.I. of Police, Nagaram P.S., vs Katta Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/1276/2023	Sub Inspector of Police, Nagaram P.S. vs Gokavarapu Srinivasarao	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/12/2023	Bhupathi Bhaskara Reddy vs Sandepudi Eliah	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/261/2020	SHO, Malikipuram vs Geddam Pushpavathi	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/445/2024	SHO Malikipuram PS vs Bathula Durga Prasad	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/5/2026	Sathi Ganga Bhavani vs Nakka Dharma Rao	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/9/2026	The State represented by its Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. and Excise Station, Razole vs Kanumuri Pallamraju	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/10/2026	The State represented by its Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. and Excise Station, Razole vs Katta Lakshmanudu	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/11/2026	The State represented by its Proh. and Excise Sub Inspector, Proh. and Excise Station, Razole vs Geddam Jhansi Rani	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/160/2024	The State Station House Officer, Nagaram PS vs Paramsetti Krshanarjun alias Arju	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/362/2024	State Sub Inspector of Police, Razole PS vs Paramsetti Krishnarjuna Rao	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/4/2026	Kusuma Bala Raju(Died) vs Kusuma Ganeswararao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/14/2025	Rekapalli Narayanarao vs Gubbala Panchajanya Prabhakaramurty(Nani)	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/19/2024	Gatiganti Vithal Pandurangarao vs Korukonda Krishnarao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
EP/65/2024	Mataparthi Venkateswara Rao vs Kankatala Nagaraju(died)	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/7/2026	Appana Kasi Viswanadham vs Madasu Anasuya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/14/2022	Gunisetti Sambamurthy vs Guniseti Venkateswara Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/22/2022	Mallipudi Murali Krishna vs Yadla Chandra Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/22/2025	Bommidi Satyanarayana vs Koppadi Dharmaraju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/27/2026	Komaragiri Venkatanandam vs Komaragiri Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/34/2026	Kombathula Satyanarayana vs Nainala Nanda Siva Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/38/2025	Katta Rama Krishna vs Ari Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/87/2019	Billa Saraswathi vs Veduruparthi Balaji Satyanarayana Murthy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/143/2019	Indian Overseas Bank, Razole vs Sunkara Venkata Ramesh Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/180/2024	Mutyala Adinarayana vs Addala Venkata Tirupathirao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/183/2016	Vedurparthi Balaji Satyanarayana murthy vs Billa Saraswathi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/197/2023	Dasari Satyanarayana vs Chigurupati Solman Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/217/2024	Adabala Sathish vs Gunisetti Nageswararao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/4/2025	Adabala Maridayya alias Bujji vs Appari Balaraju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/20/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Toleti Chiranjeevi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/21/2023	SHO, Sakhinetipalli vs Chelluboina Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/21/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Adabala Bujji	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/22/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Ravuri Ramulayya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/23/2024	Dasari Satyanarayana vs Chigurupati Solman Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/23/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Ravuri Nagesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/24/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Ankani Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/25/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs M.Raghavulu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/26/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Nalli Suvarna Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/27/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Tatikayala Srinu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/28/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Sundara Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/29/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Sadanala Pawan	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/30/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Javvadi James	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/31/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Mupparthi Shankar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/32/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Achanta Adhinarayana	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/33/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Kandepalli Appala Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/34/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Ulluri Rakesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/35/2026	S.I of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Kollu Koshore	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/36/2026	S.I of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Areti Durga Prasad	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/37/2026	S.I of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Kanuri Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/38/2026	S.I of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Ravuri Narasimha Rao	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/39/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malikipuram Police Station vs Medicherla Hanumanthu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/40/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Pesingi Brahmaji	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/41/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Penke Appala Raju	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/42/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Guthula Manikanta	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/43/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Chinta Chatrapathi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/44/2026	Sub Inspector of Police, Malkipuram Police Station vs Medicherla Teja	14 Mar 2026	Other	—

Showing 100 of 3,869 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		11
Apr 2026		13
Mar 2026		705
Feb 2026		47
Jan 2026		40
Dec 2025		655
Nov 2025		14
Oct 2025		24
Sep 2025		98
Aug 2025		45
Jul 2025		141
Jun 2025		19

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt K.Hima Bindu handled?

Smt K.Hima Bindu has handled 3916 court orders since 2017 at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 46 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt K.Hima Bindu hear?

Based on available records, Smt K.Hima Bindu primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka).

Where is Smt K.Hima Bindu currently posted?

Smt K.Hima Bindu is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka), East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt K.Hima Bindu available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt K.Hima Bindu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt K.Hima Bindu dispose cases?

Smt K.Hima Bindu disposes approximately 46 cases per month, based on 3916 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka).

Since when is Smt K.Hima Bindu serving?

Smt K.Hima Bindu has been serving at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

CC 76%

OS 19%

EP 3%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

FDP 0%

DVC 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2024 — Dec 2024

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE · 249 orders
May 2023 — Present

Junior Civil Judge · 3,667 orders
Oct 2017 — Nov 2017

Principal Civil Judge( Junior Division)-cum- J.M.F.C, Amalapuram

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Compromised 1

Petition Allowed 1

Other Judges at this Court

A.sai Kumari

senior civil judge cum Asst.Sessions judge

199 orders

B. Jaswanthi Yadav

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

2,373 orders

← View all judges at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Kothapet (Taluka)