FAIR
IN THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT: SRI K.JAMALESWAR RAO, B.COM, LL.M.,
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE
Friday, the 14 th day of September, 2012
E.P.25/2007 IN O.S.83/2005
Between:
===Balireddy (Gavara) Tulasi Devi W/o Gangadhara Srinivasa D/o Ramu, Hindu, House wife, aged 19 years resident of D.No.2-173, Sainagar Colony, Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1. Gavara Simhachalam, S/o (late) Appanna, Hindu, aged about 70 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Madaka Devudamma, W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, resident of D.No.3-189, Madakapalem, Manthripalem Post, Near Lankelapalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dt. Salapu Narsingarao, S/o.Ramana, Hindu, Age 25 years, rest do.
3. Gavara Ramu, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 45 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Gavara Ramunaidu S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 43 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5. Gavara Paradesinaidu S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 41 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
6. Korukonda Appala Narasamma W/o Nookaraju Hindu, aged about 39 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Sirasapalli Lakshmamma W/o Apparao, Hindu aged about 36 years, resident of Sirasapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
8. Gavara Appala Raju S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 34 years, r/oYerikinaidupalem,D.No.2-52,SabbavaramMandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Respondents/Defendants
This petition coming on this day i.e., 27-08-2012 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Nagadevi, Advocate for the
Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri.S.D.Jagannadha Raju, Advocate for
Respondents/Defendants and having stood over of consideration till this day this court delivered the following.
O R D E R
1)The Petitioner/Plaintiff prays to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to the 3rd parties pending disposal of the suit and pass such other appropriate orders.
2)It is the contention of the petitioner that D1 is the father and
D2 to D8 are the children of D1, that D3 is her father and that D1 is her paternal grand father. It is also the contention of petitioner that D1 is
Kartha of the joint family constituted by herself and the respondents/defendants, that her forefathers have got landed property.
That after their demise the property vested to joint family comprising herself and the defendant. It is also the contention of the petitioner that she has sought for the partition of the suit schedule property and allotment of her share but the respondents are not co operating and further the respondents are trying to alienate the schedule properties.
Hence the petition to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties to 3rd parties.
On the other it is the contention of the respondents that R3 has given divorce to the mother of the petitioner that he married another woman and gave birth to one male child by name Madhu and one female child b7y name Pavani it is the knowledge of one and all including the petitioner herein. It is also the case of the respondent that the schedule properties are not all joint family properties and as the plaintiff is ever in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also contended by the respondents that the 1st respondent has two wives and through his 2nd wife has begot son named as Nagaraju. Accordingly the respondents sought to dismiss the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for both parities.
Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for.
Upon perusal of the petition and counter averments it could be understood that the petitioner herein while seeking for partition of the suit schedule properties sought for temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties by the respondents to the 3rd parties. It is the contention of the petitioner that the suit schedule property belongs to joint family and that 1st respondent/D1 being Kartha of the family is managing the affairs of the joint family and also the properties. Though the respondents have contended that the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties besides contenting that R3 has given divorce to the mother of the petitioner, that the 1st respondent has two wives etc., this court is of the opinion that the contentions raised by the respondents are the points that should be discussed and decided during the course of the trial in the main suit. In that view this court is also of the opinion that the petitioner herein is entitled for the temporary injunction from alienation of the schedule properties by the respondents. Keeping in view that the petitioner has got prima fascie case in her favour since she also constitutes the joint family, that balance of convenience also lies in her favour since if the property is alienated the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff would be defeated and that irreparable injury would also be caused to the petitioner in the even of not granting temporary against respondents from alienating the schedule properties.
Accordingly this court holds that the petitioner/herein is entitled for the relief of temporary injunction against the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the main suit.
In the result, petition is allowed. No costs.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 27 th of August, 2012.
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER:
NIL
FOR RESPONDENTS:
NIL
PSCJ/AKP.
Date of Presentation:03-12-2009 Date of filing :03-12-2009
IN THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT: SRI K.JAMALESWAR RAO, B.COM, LL.M.,
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE
Monday, the 27 th day of August, 2012
I.A.885/2009 IN O.S.239/2009
Between:
Balireddy (Gavara) Tulasi Devi W/o Gangadhara Srinivasa D/o Ramu, Hindu, House wife, aged 19 years resident of D.No.2-173, Sainagar Colony, Sabbavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner/Plaintiff And:
1. Gavara Simhachalam, S/o (late) Appanna, Hindu, aged about 70 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Madaka Devudamma, W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged about 48 years, resident of D.No.3-189, Madakapalem, Manthripalem Post, Near Lankelapalem, Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam Dt. Salapu Narsingarao, S/o.Ramana, Hindu, Age 25 years, rest do.
3. Gavara Ramu, S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 45 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
4. Gavara Ramunaidu S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 43 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
5. Gavara Paradesinaidu S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 41 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
6. Korukonda Appala Narasamma W/o Nookaraju Hindu, aged about 39 years, resident of D.No.2-52, Yerikinaidupalem, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
7. Sirasapalli Lakshmamma W/o Apparao, Hindu aged about 36 years, resident of Sirasapalli, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
8. Gavara Appala Raju S/o Simhachalam, Hindu, aged about 34 years, r/o Yerikinaidupalem, D.No.2-52, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. …Respondents/Defendants
The Petitioner/Plaintiff prays to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule property to the 3rd parties pending disposal of the suit and pass such other appropriate orders.
A fixed Court fee of Rs.2-00 is paid.
This petition coming on this day i.e., 27-08-2012 for final hearing in thepresenceofSmt.K.Nagadevi,Advocateforthe
Petitioner/Plaintiff and Sri.S.D.Jagannadha Raju, Advocate for
Respondents/Defendants and having stood over of consideration till this day this court delivered the following.
DECRETAL ORDER
1) that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed by granting temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties till the disposal of the main suit.
2) that there be no order as to costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27th day of August, 2012.
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE.
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
No costs memo is filed on either side
PSCJ/AKP.
Draft
IN THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT: SRI K.JAMALESWAR RAO, B.COM, LL.M.,
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE
Thursday, the 26 th day of August, 2010
I.A.494/2009 IN H.M.O.P.6/2003
Between:
Appikonda Varalaxmi, W/o. Sreenivasa Rao, Hindu by caste, Aged about 21 years, Household duties, residing at Nagavaram Village, Munagapaka
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
…Petitioner/1 st Respondent. And:
Appikonda Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Ramulu, Hindu by caste, Aged about 23 years, cultivation, residing at Nagavaram, Munagapaka Mandal.
…Respondents
This petition coming before me 26-08-2010 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.D.Jagannadha Raju, Advocates for the
Petitioner/1st respondent and Sri. V.V. Jogayya, Advocate for Petitioner and having stood over of consideration till this day this court delivered the following.
O R D E R
1)The Petitioner/Plaintiff prays to issue temporary injunction in his favour and against the respondents/defendants restraining them, their men, agents, servants and representatives from ever interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.
2)The contents of the petitioner are, late Salapu Musalaiah father of Salapu Sanyasi Rao got the plaint schedule property in a partition that took place with his brothers more than 50 years ago. Since then, they have been enjoying the plaint schedule property with absolute rights, after the death of the father of the petitioner all the schedule properties have been devolved on petitioner being the only son as well as sole legal heir who has been enjoying the plaint schedule properties with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all including the respondents. Having recognized the petitioner’s right, title, possession and enjoyment over schedule property, the Government issued Pattadar and Title deed pass books infavour of the petitioner.
Thus, the petitioner has been in peaceful, continuous and un-interrupted possession and enjoyment to the schedule property in petitioners own right by raising paddy in some part, casurina tope in some part and nut tope in some part. The petitioner has been paying taxes payable for the schedule property.
The respondents have no manner of right, title, possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Due to political rivalries and also on the instigation of persons who are inimically disposed towards the petitioner and the respondents have entertained an evil idea to interfere with possession and enjoyment of schedule property and grab the same.
All the respondents conspired together and came in a body the schedule property on 22-10-2009 and tried to forcible spoil the paddy crop which has been raised in some part and remaining part of the schedule property by dispossessing the petitioner there from. The petitioner has resisted the handed and illegal acts of the respondents. Then the respondents left the place by proclaiming that they will again come to schedule properties and occupy the same at any cost even at the cost of petitioner’s life.
3) The respondent / Petitioner submit that the petitioner made an attempt to summon the original record and the endorsement to the effect that there was no such record pertaining to the names of the parties of the petition. The Executive Officer who served during that period is also no more and that is the endorsement of the court officer.
In such circumstances, the summoning of Deputy Commissioner of
Endowment does not serve the purpose and the allegations made in the application that his evidence is helpful to the present case is totally false, incorrect and denied. The witness Deputy Commissioner of Endowments cannot have the knowledge to speak anything about the records of any particular Devastanam because he is in the control of the several Devastanams, when the records are not available how
Deputy Commissioner of Endowments can depose to the facts of the matter. It is nothing but an unfutile attempt of the petitioner to summon the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments and he cannot prove the contents of the Ex.B1 in any manner. Hence the summoning of witness is unwarranted. There are no bonafidies in the petition. The petition is belated one.
4)Heard the learned counsel for both parities.
5)Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for.
6) It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent married one Ganta Nagamani on 10-11-2002 at Venkateswara Swamy
Temple, Nakkapalli and hence keeping inview of the failure of the
Executive Officer to produce the document intends to summon on the Dy.
Commissioner (Endowments), Visakhapatnam for production of the original record pertaining to the marriage of the respondent that one
Ganta Nagamani.
7) On the other hand the respondent contents that the petitioner made an attempt to summon the original record and that the endorsement was submitted to the effect there there was no such records pertaining to the names of the parties of the petition, that the Executive
Officer who served during that period was also available being out of service.
8)This court upon perusal of the contentions on both sides and further keeping in view that no respondent to the earlier orders of this court it was submitted that the concerned record was not available etc.
9)This court has of the opinion that the petition for the same purpose again is not maintainable.
10)Accordingly, this court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of summoning the witness.
11)In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 26 th of August,, 2010.
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED
NIL
Draft
IN THE COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ANAKAPALLE
PRESENT: SRI K.JAMALESWAR RAO, B.COM, LL.M.,
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE
Thursday, the 26 th day of August, 2010
MEMO IN I.A.610/2010 IN O.S.198/2010
Between:
Mr. Sabbella Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Reddy, Hindu by Caste, Aged 55 years, Residing G.V. Koteswara Rao Street, Anakapalle.
…Petitioner/plaintiff And:
Mr. Yerra Venkata Ramana, S/o. Bangarayya, Hindu by caste, Aged about 38 years, Resident of D-No-45-54-3, Flat No.402, Kingscristal, Abidnagar,
Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam -16.
…Respondent/Defendant
This petition coming before me 26-08-2010 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. P. Naidu and Sri P. Subba Reddy Advocates for the
Petitioner/plaintiff and Sri. P.V.S. Sai Kumar, D. Govind Rao and K. Vinod
Kumar, Advocate for Respondent / Defendant and having stood over of consideration till this day this court delivered the following.
O R D E R
1)The Petitioner/Plaintiff prays to considered the petition schedule premises Door No. as 45-57-22/15 instead of Door No.45-57-24.
2)The contents of the petitioner are, it is submitted that the respondent stated in his counter that the schedule premises Door No.45- 57-22/15 hence the petitioner prays that this honourable court prays that this honourable court may be pleased to considered the petition schedule premises Door No. as 45-57-22/15 instead of Door No.45-57-24.
3)The objections memo filed by the respondent / Defendant are the respondent respectfully submitted that the petitioner filed a memo
before this Honourable Court dt.13-08-2010, stating that the respondent
stated petition schedule property Door No.45-57-22/15 instead of 45-57- 24 and therefore he prays that the honourable court may be pleased to considered petition schedule property Door No.45-57-22/15 instead of 45- 57-24 and the respondent further submits that the memo filed by the petitioner is bad under law and after disclosing the defect in the petition the petitioner trying to cover the lacunas and same is prohibited under law. The memo filed by the petitioner is no weight and not valid before law and therefore the respondent humbly prays that the honourable court may be pleased to record the objection on memo filed by the petitioner dt.13-08-2010 and dismiss the same, in the interest of justice.
4)Heard the learned counsel for both parities.
5)Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff is permitted to change the Door No. of the schedule property as prayed for?
6)It is the contention of the petitioner holding that the respondent in his counter in I.A.610/10 has given the Door No.45-57- 22/15 instead of Door No.45-57-24 and in that view since the respondent himself has given the said Door No. and the same may be noted as the
Door No. of the schedule property.
7)on the other hand the respondent contents that the petition is bad in law, and after disclosing the defect in the petition the petitioner is try to cover the lacunas and hence sort to reject the memo for change of the Door No. of the schedule property.
8) Keeping in view that the respondent himself has given the
Door No.45-57-22/15 as the correct Door No. in place of 45-57-2.
9) The petitioner has permitted to change the Door No. of the schedule property as Door No.45-57-24.
11)In the result, the memo is accepted.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 26 th of August,, 2010.
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ANAKAPALLE.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED
NIL
Written statement of K.Jamaleswara Rao, Prl. Senior Civil
Judge, Anakapalli for Articles of Charges framed as per
orders in ROC.No.258/11-VIGILANCE CELL Dt.14-8-2012 of
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.1:
I, K. Jamaleswara Rao, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli,
Visakhapatnam District submit that on 22-6-2011 I was proceeding from
Visakhapatnam to Anakapalli in my own Maruthi Car bearing No.AP29P 5371, that at about 9-30 A.M when I have reached at Gajuwaka I met with an accident, that my car went under the rear portion of the lorry and it is a great survival for me. The photos submitted herewith will explain the seriousness of the incident and it’s a great fortune for me to have life after the incident. Some drops of blood have come out from my nose, with the help of the persons present at the spot I could withstand/overcome situation. The persons present there asked me to report to the Police, but I have flatly refused. Inspite of such a grave incident I wanted to attend the court and called my Bench Clerk to inform him that I would attend the court half an hour late due to the incident. One of my staff members have come to the Bus Station, Anakapalli to pick me to the court. I attended the court and some of my staff members have come to my chambers to enquire about the incident. I had no intention at all of reporting to the police of the incident. I am not in a position to re-collect who from amongst my staff have proposed and made it of reporting the incident by showing Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar as driver by obtaining my consent to the police at Anakapalle even as I continued to be in shock and distress. I did attend the bench and adjourned the matters and retired to the chambers. Immediately, to withstand the shock I did practice meditation in my chambers. After having meditation for about an hour or so I regained my mental faculties to some extent and then I realized about the reporting of the incident that some thing went wrong as regards the reporting of the matter to the police. I got upset of reporting which was not at all my intention and contacted the police so as to avoid it. But, unfortunately by the time I contacted I was informed that G.D. entry was already made in the name of
Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar. Though it was not my intention to report the matter since it has already taken place I wanted the police to stop the proceedings. Thus I do not know how the reporting to the police has taken place. I have not used the reporting of the incident to the police for claiming the insurance for the damages of the car and that the claim was made purely on the basis of the comprehensive policy I was holding for successive periods. A fine of Rs.200/- or 300/- was imposed by police for closing the G.D. entry against Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar and since Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar has nothing to do with the incident I thought it was appropriate on my part to pay the fine.
I had no intention to implicate Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar in the incident. Infact such an attitude is against my consciousness, but I could not do any thing for an incident that has taken place while my mental faculties were not at all normal. I sincerely appeal that whatever has taken place i.e., reporting of the matter to the police at Anakapalli showing Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar as a driver has taken place while my mental faculties were not at all normal/could not be taken to be normal.
By virtue of the above explanation, I deny the charge that I implicated
Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar to declare him as a driver of the car at the time of accident, that I assured him to take care of things and that as such the said Jagadeesh
Kumar constrained to declare him as a driver of the car. It is not the idea that has originated in my mind/from me to report the matter to the police and that in such a situation I deny the charge of falsely implicating Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar. I also submit that there is nothing to take care of the things inrespect of showing of Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar as a driver and it could be discerned from my various statements that at no point of time I have stated that Mr.Jagadeesh Kumar was driving the car. I have always stated that the accident has taken place while I was driving the care and that apart the state of my mental faculties which were filled with fear and shock could speak that it is only an un-intended act. I have no intention to implicate any person much less K.Jagadeesh Kumar. I further submit that I have not made any medical claim in this regard. I may be pardoned to state that on that fateful day of the grave accident what is of utmost importance to me is my life and well being of my family members and not the implication of somebody else. Accordingly, I deny the charge of falsely implicating Mr.K.Jagadeesh Kumar etc.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.2:
I submit that I have been staying at Head Quarters from March 2012. I also submit that at all previous stations I stayed at Head Quarters only.
Accordingly I deny the charge of commuting from Visakhapatnam to Anakapalle for the whole period of my working at Anakapalli i.e., the period from 31-03-2010 the date of my joining till date.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.3:
I submit that I stated in my statement dt.15-5-2012 that I was given posting as Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, that I joined as such on 31- 03-2010 that after my joining at Anakaplli I went to earmarked residential quarter and found the same in a “NOT READY TO OCCUPY” condition. Besides the reasons “NOT READY TO OCCUPY” condition I have also stated the reasons pertaining to my children etc. Thus I have not at all stated in my statement dated.15-5-2012 that earmarked quarter at Anakapalli is not in a fit condition and that as such, I deny Article of Charge No.3 that I did give two contradictory statements. In any of my statements at any point of time I did not state that the earmarked quarter is not in a fit condition and thus I deny the charge of giving two contradictory statements one in the statement, dt.20-03-2012, that I did not mention that the earmarked quarter at Anakapalli is not in a fit condition to occupy and that subsequently, in my explanation dt.15-5-2012 I did mention that the earmarked quarter at Anakapalli is not in a fit condition submitted to the
Hon’ble Registrar, Vigilance, High Court of A.P. keeping in view that I have used
only the term “NOT READY TO OCCUPY CONDITION”.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR ARTICLE OF CHARGE NO.4:
I submit that I have not at all utilized the court time for preparation of the
Company Secretary course, that I have applied for leave and got sanctioned the leave by the Hon’ble High Court for preparation and appearance in the examinations pertaining to Company Secretary-ship Course. I have never spent time in my chambers pursuing the Company Secretary-ship Course. I also submit that as Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District I performed my duties to the best of my abilities and with due diligence.
However, In spite of the efforts to the best of my abilities, I could not get the disposals as per the norms and directions of the Hon’ble High Court due to the peculiar circumstances prevailing at Anakapalli Station in general and in the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli such as always attending to some kind of remarks, reports etc. unconcerned to judicial work in particular. Thus I deny the charge that while working as Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli
Visakhapatnam District I have not been showing any inclination to court work and spending most of the time in the chambers for pursuing the company secretary course, instead of devoting time for disposal of cases as Judicial
Officer.
I humbly submit that I will take every care so as not to give scope for arising of such things in future. Therefore, I pray the Hon’ble High Court, that the
Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to drop further proceedings.
Yours faithfully
Encl: Photos 4 in No. (K.Jamaleswara Rao) Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli
Anakapalli, Dt.11-09-2012.
From To, Sri.K.Jamaleswara Rao, B.Com, LLM, The Hon’ble Registrar (Vigilance) Prl.Senior Civil Judge, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Anakapalli Hyderabad
THROUGH THE HON’BLE DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM
Honoured Madam,
Sub: A.P.State Judicial Service – Senior Civil Judge – Sri.K.Jamaleswara Rao, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District – Issue of Articles of Charge (s) – Calling of Written Statement - Written Statement of Sri.K.Jamaleswara Rao, Prl.
Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli – Submitted.
Ref: Proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Order in ROC.No.258/2011-Vigilance CELL dt.14-8-2012.
--(***)—
I have the honour to submit herewith my written statement with explanations for the Articles of Charge (s) framed against me as per the
Proceedings of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Hyderabad in the reference cited supra.
Yours faithfully
Encls: Written Statement.
(K.Jamaleswara Rao) Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli