Smt.K.Jayanthi

Junior Civil Judge

Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

Smt.K.Jayanthi, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 27 court orders on record since 2016. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/65/2015

SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam

30 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt K.Jayanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.

O.S.NO. 65 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India (ADB) Narsampet, Branch rep., by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff

And

1. Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam, Rajanpally Rep., by its President, Secretary,

2. Bhaddi Sunitha, W/o.Mainar, Age: 32 years,

3. Merugu Rama, W/o. Bhaskar, Age: 39 years,

4. Merugu Shailaja, W/o.Chandar, Age: 29 years,

5. Bhathini Manga, W/o. Ramakrishna (D/o. Sammaiah), Age: 25 years,

6. Merugu Ramalaxmi, W/o. Jakkaiah, Age: 65 years, (died)

7. Vemula Padma, W/o. Mogili, Age: 46 years,

8. Polam Annapoorna, W/o. Narsingam, Age: 25 years,

9. Merugu Mounika, W/o. Satyam, Age: 26 years,

10. Merugu Swaroopa, D/o. Saraiah, Age: 44 years,

11. Manda Nuthana, W/o.Komuraiah, Age:25 years,

12. Katla Sarala, W/o. Prabhakar, Age: 39 years,

13. Manda Sarojana, W/o. Ilaiah, Age: 65 years, All R/o. Ramatheertham village of Nallabelly mandal, Warangal district. (Suit against D-6 is dismissed as abatted by order, dt. 16.12.2016) …Defendants

This suit having come before me on 16.12.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Madhava Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 5, D-7 to D-13 remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following.

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

This suit filed for Recovery of money basing upon loan agreement.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff bank namely State Bank of India incorporated under the

State Bank of India (Ac No.23 of 1955) having its Central office at Bombay and 2 carrying on business at Narsampet, Warangal district.

The Defendant no.1 is the self help Group Comprising of Defendant nos. 2 to 15. The defendant no.1 represented by defendant nos. 2 and 3 borrowed a loan of amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh and fifty thousand only) on 29-10-2010.

The Defendant no.2 and 3 as President and Secretary of the defendant no.1 group, have executed Articles of Agreement and all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank basing upon the resolution passed by their group. The defendants have availed loan facility through loan account No. 31681610704. The Defendant no.1 renewed the loan amount by executed Revival Letter-I, dated: 10-03-2014.

Subsequently the defendants failed to repay the loan amount in spite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,99,152/- (Rs. One lakh, ninety nine thousand, one hundred and fifty two only) together with future interest. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money.

3.The defendant nos. 1 to 5 and defendant nos. 7 to 13 remained ex- parte. By orders, dt. 16-12-2016 suit against defendant no.6 is dismissed as abated.

4. To substantiate the suit claim, the authorized signatory on behalf of plaintiff bank was examined as Pw-1 and exhibited Ex.A-1 to A-10.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief as prayed for?

6.It is the brief case of plaintiff that defendant no.1 represented by 3 defendant nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of other defendants have availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank on 10.03.2014 by executing necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank. After borrowing the loan amount, the defendantshave failed to repay the due amount inspite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff.

7.In order to prove the plaint allegations, the authorized signatory on behalf of the plaintiff got examined as Pw-1 and reiterated almost all the averments of the plaint in-lieu of his chief examination.

8.The oral evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In view of oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A-1 to A-10, the plaintiff has proved that Defendant nos. 1 to 13 are liable to pay the suit amount together with interest. Hence, the point in question is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff bank.

9.In the result, this Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant nos.

1 to 5 and defendant nos. 7 to 13 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.

1,99,152/- (Rs. One lakh, ninety nine thousand, one hundred and fifty two only) together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016)

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Kambali Basappa -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Loan Application filed by defendants, dt. 22.03.2011.

Ex.A.2 : Articles of agreement for financing self help groups, dt. 22.03.2011,

Ex.A.3 : Inter-se agreement of the self help group (S.H.O), dt. 22.03.2011,

Ex.A.4 : Resolution passed by self group for taking loan from the bank,

dt. 22.03.2011,

Ex.A.5 :Arrangement letter (Sanction letter) dt. 22.03.2011,

Ex.A.6 :Group Photo of defendants,

Ex.A.7 :Revival letter-I, dt. 10-03-2014,

Ex.A.8 :Demand notice issued by plaintiff bank, dt. 22.03.2014,

Ex.A.9 :Statement of account,

Ex.A.10 : Statement of Account.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

OS/66/2015

SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam

30 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt K.Jayanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.

O.S.NO. 66 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India (ADB) Narsampet, Branch rep., by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff

And

1. Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam, Rajanpally Rep., by its President, Secretary,

2. Bhaddi Sunitha, W/o.Mainar, Age: 32 years,

3. Merugu Rama, W/o. Bhaskar, Age: 39 years,

4. Merugu Shailaja, W/o.Chander, Age: 29 years,

5. Bhathini Manga, W/o.Ramakrishna (D/o. Sammaiah, Age: 25 years,

6. Merugu Swaroopa, D/o. Saraiah, Age: 44 years,

7. Vemula Padma, W/o.Mogili, Age: 49 years,

8. Merugu Ramalaxmi, W/o. Jakkaiah, Age: 65 years, (died)

9. Merugu Bhagya, W/o.Ilaiah, Age: 43 years,

10. Polam Annapoorna, W/o.Narsingam, Age: 25 years,

11. Manda Nuthana, W/o. Komuraiah, Age: 25 years,

12. Katla Sarala, W/o.Prabhakar, Age: 39 years,

13. Manda Sarojana, W/o. Ilaiah, Age: 65 years, All R/o. Ramatheertham village of Nallabelly mandal, Warangal district. …Defendants (Suit against D-8 is dismissed as abatted by order, dt. 16.12.2016) …Defendants

This suit having come before me on 16.12.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Madhava Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 7, D-9 to D-13 remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following.

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

This suit filed for Recovery of money basing upon loan agreement.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff bank namely State Bank of India incorporated under the State

Bank of India (Ac No.23 of 1955) having its Central office at Bombay and carrying on 2 business at Narsampet, Warangal district.

The Defendant no.1 is the self help Group Comprising of Defendant nos. 2 to 13. The defendant no.1 represented by defendant nos. 2 and 3 borrowed a loan of amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh and fifty thousand only) on 10-03-2010.

The Defendant no.2 and 3 as President and Secretary of the defendant no.1 group, have executed Articles of Agreement and all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank basing upon the resolution passed by their group. The defendants have availed loan facility through loan account No. 31091362703. The Defendant no.1 renewed the loan amount by executed Revival Letter-I, dated: 26-02-2013.

Subsequently, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount in spite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendant jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,40,980/- (Rs. One lakh forty thousand nine hundred and eighty only) together with future interest. Hence the suit was filed.

3.The defendant nos. 1 to 7 and defendant nos. 9 to 13 remained ex- parte. By orders, dt. 16-12-2016 suit against defendant no.8 is dismissed as abated.

4. To substantiate the suit claim, the authorized signatory on behalf of plaintiff bank was examined as Pw-1 and exhibited Ex.A-1 to A-10.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief as prayed for?

6.It is the brief case of plaintiff that defendant no.1 represented by 3 defendant nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of other defendants have availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank on 10.03.2010 by executing necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank. After borrowing the loan amount, the defendants have failed to repay the due amount inspite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff.

9.In the result, this Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant nos.

1 to 7 and defendant nos. 9 to 13 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.

1,40,980/- (Rs. One lakh, fourty thousand, nine hundred and eighty only) together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016)

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Kambali Bazappa -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Loan Application filed by defendants, dt. 10.03.2010.

Ex.A.2 : Articles of agreement for financing self help groups, dt. 10.03.2010,

Ex.A.3 : Inter-se agreement of the self help group (S.H.O), dt. 10.03.2010,

Ex.A.4 : Resolution passed by self group for taking loan from the bank,

dt. 10.03.2010,

Ex.A.5 :Arrangement letter (Sanction letter) dt. 10.03.2010,

Ex.A.6 :Group Photo of defendants,

Ex.A.7 :Revival letter-I, dt. 26-02-2013,

Ex.A.8 :Demand notice issued by plaintiff bank, dt. 22.03.2014,

Ex.A.9 :Statement of account,

Ex.A.10 :Statement of Account.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

OS/63/2015

SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Indira Mahila Podupu Sangam

30 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt K.Jayanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.

O.S.NO. 63 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India (ADB) Narsampet, Branch rep., by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff

And

1. Indira Mahila Podupu Sangam, Rajanpally Rep., by its President, Secretary,

2. D. Shantha, W/o. Ravi, Age: 40 years,

3. E. Vijaya, D/o. Papaiah, Age: 45 years,

4. G. Vijaya, W/o. Kattaiah, Age: 40 years,

5. G. Buchamma, W/o. Narsaiah, Age: 45 years,

6. R. Padma, W/o. Venkanna, Age: 40 years,

7. M. Venkatamma, W/o. Muthaiah, Age: 45 years,

8. M. Sammakka, W/o.Ramulu, Age: 40 years,

9. D. Uppamma, W/o. Muthaiah, Age: 45 years,

10. Esam Sarojana, W/o. Venkanna, Age: 40 years,

11. E. Devamma, W/o. Rajeshwar, Age:45 years,

12. Gatti Sammakka, W/o. Ramulu, Age: 40 years, All R/o. Rajanpally village of Gudur mandal, Warangal district. …Defendants

This suit having come before me on 16.12.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Madhava Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and defendants remained ex- parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

This suit filed for Recovery of money basing upon loan agreement.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff bank namely State Bank of India incorporated under the State

Bank of India (Ac No.23 of 1955) having its Central office at Bombay and carrying on business at Narsampet, Warangal district.

The Defendant no.1 is the self help Group Comprising of Defendant 2 nos. 2 to 12. The defendant no.1 represented by defendant nos. 2 and 3 borrowed a loan of amount Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakh only) on 29-10-2010. The Defendant no.2 and 3 as President and Secretary of the defendant no.1 group, have executed

Articles of Agreement and all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank basing upon the resolution passed by their group. The defendant have availed loan facility through loan account No. 31482733277. The Defendant no.1 renewed the loan amount by executing Revival Letter-I, dated: 15-10-2013. Subsequently the defendant failed to repay the loan amount in spite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,99,407/- (Rs. Two lakh, ninety nine thousand four hundred and seven only) together with future interest. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money.

3.The defendant nos. 1 to 12 remained ex-parte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim, the authorized signatory on behalf of plaintiff bank was examined as Pw-1 and exhibited Ex.A-1 to A-10.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief as prayed for?

6.It is the brief case of plaintiff that defendant no.1 represented by defendant nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of other defendants have availed loan facility from the plaintiff bank on 29.10.2010 by executing necessary documents in favour of plaintiff bank. After borrowing the loan amount, the defendants have 3 failed to repay the due amount inspite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff.

8.The oral evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In view of oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A-1 to A-10, the plaintiff has proved that Defendant nos. 1 to 12 are liable to pay the suit amount together with interest. Hence, the point in question is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff bank.

9.In the result, this Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant nos.

1 to 12 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,99,407/- (Rs. Two lakh, ninety nine thousand, four hundred and seven only) together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016)

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Kambali Basappa -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Loan Application filed by defendants, dt. 29.10.2010.

Ex.A.2 : Articles of agreement for financing self help groups, dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.3 : Inter-se agreement of the self help group (S.H.O), dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.4 : Resolution passed by self group for taking loan from the bank,

dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.5 :Arrangement letter (Sanction letter) dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.6 :Group Photo of defendants,

Ex.A.7 :Revival letter-I, dt. 15-10-2013,

Ex.A.8 :Demand notice issued by plantiff bank, dt. 22.03.2014,

Ex.A.9 :Statement of account,

Ex.A.10 : Statement of Account.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

OS/64/2015

SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Devi Mahila Podupu Sangam Rajampally

30 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt K.Jayanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.

O.S.NO. 64 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

State Bank of India (ADB) Narsampet, Branch rep., by its Branch Manager. …Plaintiff

And

1. Devi Mahila Podupu Sangam, Rajanpally Rep., by its President, Secretary,

2. Jatoth Mukunda Devi, W/o. Charansingh, Age: 32 years,

3. Maloth Renuka, W/o. Badru, Age: 33 years,

4. Banoth Chitti, W/o. Yakub, Age: 33 years,

5. Bukya Eeri, W/o. Eerya, Age: 43 years,

6. Daravath Vinodha, W/o. Veeranna, Age: 33 years,

7. Banoth Roja, W/o. Balya, Age: 43 years,

8. Bukya Manne, W/o. Tikya, Age: 70 years,

9. Dharavath Ghamsi, W/o. Borra, Age: 55 years,

10. Dharavath Rami, W/o. Mangya, Age: 43 years,

11. Daravath Chavli, W/o. Vasya, Age: 43 years, All R/o. Rajanpally village of Gudur mandal, Warangal district. …Defendants

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

This suit filed for Recovery of money basing upon loan agreement.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff bank namely State Bank of India incorporated under the State

Bank of India (Ac No.23 of 1955) having its Central office at Bombay and carrying on business at Narsampet, Warangal district.

The Defendant no.1 is the self help Group Comprising of Defendant nos. 2 to 11. The defendant no.1 represented by defendant nos. 2 and 3 borrowed a 2 loan of amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs. One Lakh, fifty thousand only) on 29-10-2010. The

Defendant no.2 and 3 as President and Secretary of the defendant no.1 group, have executed Articles of Agreement and all necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank basing upon the resolution passed by their group. The defendants have availed loan facility through loan account No. 31482733801. The Defendant no.1 renewed the loan amount by executing Revival Letter-I, dated: 15-10-2013. Subsequently, the defendants failed to repay the loan amount in spite of receiving demand notice from the plaintiff. As on the date of filing of the suit, the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,70,166/- (Rs. One lakh seventy thousand one hundred and sixty six only) together with future interest. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money.

3.The defendant nos. 1 to 11 remained ex-parte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim, the authorized signatory on behalf of plaintiff bank was examined as Pw-1 and exhibited Ex.A-1 to A-10.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief as prayed for?

8.The oral evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. In view of oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A-1 to A-10, the plaintiff has proved that Defendant nos. 1 to 11 are liable to pay the suit amount together with interest. Hence, the point in question is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff bank.

9.In the result, this Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant nos.

1 to 11 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,70,166/- (Rs. One lakh, seventy thousand, One hundred and sixty six only) together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016)

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Kambali Basappa -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Loan Application filed by defendants, dt. 29.10.2010.

Ex.A.2 : Articles of agreement for financing self help groups, dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.3 : Inter-se agreement of the self help group (S.H.O), dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.4 : Resolution passed by self group for taking loan from the bank,

dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.5 :Arrangement letter (Sanction letter) dt. 29.10.2010,

Ex.A.6 :Group Photo of defendants,

Ex.A.7 :Revival letter-I, dt. 15-10-2013,

Ex.A.8 :Demand notice issued by plantiff bank, dt. 22.03.2014,

Ex.A.9 :Statement of account,

Ex.A.10 : Statement of Account.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

OS/64/2016

Orsu Thirupathaiah vs Badam Krishanmurthy

30 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NARSAMPET

FRIDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

PRESENT: Smt K.Jayanthi,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, FAC Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet.

O.S.NO. 64 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

Orsu Thirupathaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Narsampet village and mandal, Warangal district. …Plaintiff

And

Badam Krishna Murthy, S/o. Raju, Age: 45 years, Occ:Employee in Singareni Collaries Company limited, R/o.H.No.4-1-221/1, Chapanakunta village of Manuguru mandal in Khammam District. …Defendant

This suit having come before me on 16.12.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained ex- parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

This suit filed for Recovery of money basing upon demand promissory note.

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other. On such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and forty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 20.06.2015 on execution of demand promissory note and agreed to repay due amount together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

After borrowing the loan amount, the defendant failed to repay the same inspite of repeated requests and demands including legal notice, dt. 17.4.2016. As on the date of suit, the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- together with interest.

3.The defendant remained ex-parte.

4. To substantiate the suit claim, the authorized signatory on behalf of plaintiff bank was examined as Pw-1 and exhibited Ex.A-1.

5.This court heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is

entitled to the relief as prayed for?

6.It is the brief case of plaintiff that on 20-06-2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and forty thousand only) on execution of promissory note and agreed to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. As on the date of suit the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and eighty eight thousand only).

7.In order to prove the plaint allegations, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and reiterated almost all the averments of plaint in-lieu of his chief examination.

8.It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and fourty thousand only) from him on execution of demand promissory note on 20.06.2015. Ex.A-1 is the demand promissory note. There are no suspicious circumstances in Ex.A-1 to disbelieve the same. The oral evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

In view of oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary 3 evidence Ex.A-1, the plaintiff has proved that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount basing upon Ex.A.1. Hence the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, this Suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and eighty eight thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum on Principal amount of Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.

Two lakhs and forty thousand only) from the date of suit till decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum until realization.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2016)

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Orsu Thirupathaiah -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Original promissory note, dt. 20.06.2015.

FOR DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/-

FAC JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAMPET.

Order Record 27 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/63/2015	SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Indira Mahila Podupu Sangam	30 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/64/2015	SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Devi Mahila Podupu Sangam Rajampally	30 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/64/2016	Orsu Thirupathaiah vs Badam Krishanmurthy	30 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/65/2015	SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam	30 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/66/2015	SBI ADB Narsampet rby its BM vs Chanukya Mahila Podupu Sangam	30 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/69/2016	Allem Swrupa vs District colletor	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/109/2016	ANDHRABANK REP K.V RAO vs BANDA VENKATESWAR RO	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/122/2016	Rajidi Manohar Reddy vs Rajidi Ramesh Reddy and 2 others	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/125/2016	SYED BABAR vs PALEPU SAMPATH RAO	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/164/2013	LINGALA VIJAYA vs SURABI MANIMALA	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/329/2010	Are Hyma vs Tokala Karnakar Reddy	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/389/2016	Mamunoori Swarnalatha vs Muddam Swamy	16 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/71/2016	B.Kalamma vs District colletor	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/385/2013	MERUGU KAVITHA vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/487/2009	KUCHANA JAYA vs KUCHANA RAMESH AND 11 OTHERS	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/503/2013	BASHABOINA BABU vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/504/2013	GURRAM RAVINDER vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/602/2013	PENDLI SAMBALAXMI vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/603/2013	BHUKYA VIMALA vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/711/2013	vallepu upplamma vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/712/2013	VARRE ANUSHA vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/713/2013	MALOTHU BIXAPATHI vs BHUKYA VIJAY	09 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
MC/12/2014	Bhukya Sujatha and two other vs Bhukya Veeranna	09 Dec 2016	Copy of order	—
CC/391/2013	SURINENI MOHAN RAO vs SAPAVAATH YAKUB	02 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/522/2016	Mekala Laxmaiah vs Kummarikunta Sandeepkumar and another	02 Dec 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
OS/102/2016	DARAVATH MANYA vs JATOTH MOHAN	30 Nov 2016	Copy of Judgement	—
CC/546/2011	Lenkalapalli Vanamma vs Lenkalapalli Sambaiah	13 Oct 2016	Copy of Judgement	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2016		25
Nov 2016		1
Oct 2016		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.K.Jayanthi handled?

Smt.K.Jayanthi has handled 27 court orders since 2016 at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 10 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.K.Jayanthi hear?

Based on available records, Smt.K.Jayanthi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.K.Jayanthi currently posted?

Smt.K.Jayanthi is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.K.Jayanthi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.K.Jayanthi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.K.Jayanthi dispose cases?

Smt.K.Jayanthi disposes approximately 10 cases per month, based on 27 orders handled over their tenure at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.K.Jayanthi serving?

Smt.K.Jayanthi has been serving at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex since 2016.

Case Types

CC 56%

OS 41%

MC 4%

Posting History

Oct 2016 — Jan 2017

Junior Civil Judge · 27 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Mohd. Yousuf

Prl Junior Civil Judge cum Prl Judicial Magistrate...

16 orders

Sri P. Giridhar

Addl Junior Civil Judge cum Addl Judicial Magistra...

51 orders

Sri A. Pradeep

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE NA...

26 orders

← View all judges at Narsampet, JCJ Court Complex