Sri K. Jayaram Reddy

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhupalapally

JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex · Jayashankar Bhupalapally · Telangana

Sri K. Jayaram Reddy, Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhupalapally, is posted at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex, Jayashankar Bhupalapally, Telangana, India. 594 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.

594

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/325/2022 Acquitted

PS Regonda vs Allam Swamy and 2 Others

17 Apr 2025

Page No. 1 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT JAYASHANKAR

BHUPALPALLY

Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

Present: Sri K. Jayaram Reddy, Assistant Sessions Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalpally.

SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

(This case was taken on file by Addl. Judicial Magistrate Of First class, Parkal vide P.R.C.No.13 of 2018 registered in Crime No.219 of 2017 of PS.Regonda for the offences u/s.366, 344 R/w 109 IPC)

1. Name and description : The State of Telangana of the Complainant.through Sub-Inspector of Police PS., Regonda.

2. Name and description of the accused :

A1: Allam Swamy, S/o. Komuraiah, Age; 19 years, Student, R/o. Regonda village and Mandal, (Died and Abated)

A2: Bairi Harish, S/o. Venkatnarsu, Age; 22 years, Auto Driver, R/o. Regonda village and Mandal.

A3: Gunjr Srinu, S/o. Sammaiah, Age; 30 years, Coolie, R/o. Chelpur village of Ghanpur(M) Mandal.

3. Offences with which charged : U/s. 366,344 r/w. 109 IPC

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: Accused are found not guilty.

6. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 235(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The un-marked case property i.e., auto bearing no. AP 21 TY 8347 which was returned to the owner towards interim custody vide order in Crl.M.P. No. 324 of 2018 shall stands good after appeal time is over. The case was abated against the accused No.1.

Page No. 2 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

7. Prosecution conducted by :Sri Md. Rafeeq Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: Sri T. Parameshwar Advocate This case is coming up before me on 08-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence ofSri Md. Rafeeq, Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri T. Parameshwar, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS., Regonda, has filed charge sheet in

Crime No.219 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 366, 344 r/w 109 IPC against the accused no.1 and Sec. 366 r/w. 109 IPC against the accused no.2 and 3.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 24-09-2017 at 14.00 hours the Lw.1/Sadaiah went to police station and gave report stating that his daughter Lw.3/Victim girl and the accused no.1 studied 6th to 10th class at ZPSS, Regonda and in the meantime they fell in love. On coming to know about the love episode the defacto complainant and his wife admonished their daughter/Lw.3 and she completed intermediate in Sri Chaithanya Junior college, Bheemaram. She is studying degree in Keshava Degree college at

Hanamkonda and the accused no.1 is studying degree in CDC, Hanamkonda.

The victim girl and the accused no.1 have decided to get married after completion of minority. Recently on the eve of Dusshera festival the victim girl and the accused no.1 went to their respective houses. When the parents of victim girl were seeing matches, she narrated the same to the accused no.1 but she refused to marry him without consent of her parents. On 22/23-09- 2017 at about 1200 hours the accused no.1 went to the house of victim girl in

Page No. 3 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

the auto of accused no.2 and made a phone call to her. When the victim girl came out of the house, the accused no.1 took her to Hanamkonda in the auto of accused no.2. The accused no.3 who is the brother in law of accused no.1, provided provisions and arranged some amount. They have decided to get married after became majors and are living separately without any physical correlation. Thereafter the defacto-complainant lodged a report and on receipt of information the victim girl decided to return to her home. On 11-10-2017 at about 11.00 hours the accused no.1 dropped her at Regonda and told her to go home. She went to her home and revealed the entire episode to her parents.

Then the defacto-complainant and his wife surrendered the victim girl before the police. Hence the report.

3.Basing on the report of Lw.1/Defacto complainant a case was registered in Crime No.219 of 2017 under Section 366 r/w 109 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation the Lw.11/ASI of police examined the defacto-complainant and his wife and recorded their statements. Later he visited the scene of offence and prepared CDF in the presence of Lw.4/Ramesh and Lw.5/Subhash. The Lw.12/SI of police took up further investigation. The

Lw.10/WASI recorded the statement of victim girl and she was handed over to her parents as per the orders of the court. On 11-10-2017 the accused no.1 was arrested. On interrogation he voluntarily confessed the offence. On 21-12-2017 the accused no.2 was arrested. On interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with accused no.1 and 3.

Basing on his confession police recovered the auto bearing no. AP 21 TY 8347 under cover of panchanama in the presence of Lw.8/Nagaraju and

Page No. 4 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

Lw.9/Sandeep Reddy. On 13-03-2018 the accused no.3 was arested. On interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with accused no.1 and 2. The accused no.4 to 6 are the close friends of accused no.1 and also classmates of victim girl and as per the victim girl there is no infovlement of accused no.4 to 6, hence their names are deleted with permission of SDPO vide C.No. 294/Refer/SDPO-BHP/2017, dt. 21-12-2017.

After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused no.1 to 3.

4.The case was taken on file by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Parkal, for the offences under Sections 366, 344 r/w. 109 IPC against

the accused no.1 and Sec. 366 r/w 109 IPC against the accused no.2 and 3.

5.On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. As one of the offence charged against the accused, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Section 209 CrPC, committed the case vide P.R.C.No.13 of 2018 to the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal.

6.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, registered the case as

Sessions Case No.329 of 2018 and made over the case to Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Warangal for disposal according to law. later this case is

transferred to the Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, J.S Bhupalpally, on the point of jurisdiction. The Hon’ble Prl. Sessions Judge, J.S Bhupalpally re-numbered the

Page No. 5 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

case as SC.No. 325 of 2022 and made over the case to this court, for disposal in accordance with law.

7.The case against the accused no.1 was abated on 17-03-2022 as he died.

Upon hearing both sides, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Charge under Section 366 r/w. 109 IPC is framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In support of its case the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to Pw.7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. No material object is marked. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined u/sec. 313

Cr.P.C. The accused no.2 and 3 denied the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for accused and perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the charge

U/Sec. 366 r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt ?

11.The learned APP argued that the accused no.1 and the victim girl Pw.2 are classmates and they fell in love. He further argued that the accused no.1 kindapped the Pw.2 with the help of accused no.2 and 3 as she refused to

Page No. 6 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

marry her without consent of her parents. He further argued that during the pendency of the case the accused no.1 died and the case against the accused no.1 is abated. He further argued that the accused no.2 was the driver of auto in which Pw.2 was kidnapped and that the accused no.3 provided provisions and money to the accused no.1 at Hanamkonda. He further argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, hence prayed to convict the accused.

12.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the case is abated against the accused no.1 and that the accused no.2 and 3 are no way concerned with this alleged offence. He further argued that names of the accused no.2 and 3 are not mentioned in FIR and no one have mentioned their names. He further argued that there is no evidence against the accused no.2 and 3 and that basing on table investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused no.2 and 3. He further argued that there are no signatures of panch witnesses on Crime details form and that the accused no.2 and 3 are falsely implicated in the case. He further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt hence prayed to acquit the accused.

13. POINT: The defacto-complainant is examined as Pw.3. The mother of victim girl is examined as Pw.1 and the victim girl is examined as Pw.2. The panch witnesses for CDF are examined as Pw.4 and Pw.5. Pw.6 and Pw.7 are the investigation officers. The case of the prosecution is that the accused no.1 kidnapped the Pw.2 and the accused no.2 and 3 abeted the accused no.1. But

Page No. 7 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

the case against the accused no.1 is abated as he died during the pendency of the case. This court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of prosecution. The evidence of Pw.1 would goes to show that about six years ago the accused no.1 kidnapped her daughter during midnight at about 12.00 AM. She further deposed that she woke up at 4.00 AM and found missing of her daughter and when she searched the mobile phone of her daughter she noticed that the accused no.1 made a phone call to her. Thus Pw.1 did not depose any thing against the accused no.2 and 3, therefore the evidence of Pw.1 is of no use to connect the accused no.2 and 3 to the present case.

14.In view of the evidence of Pw.2/victim it is clearly established that the accused no.1 was the classmate of Pw.2 and he followed her on the pretext of love and after filing of the case she married to the accused no.1. It has been brought on record through the evidence of Pw.2 that while she was studying

Degree she went to her house for Dussehra festival and that at that time the accused no.1 made a proposal to marry her and one day he threatened to commit suicide. She further deposed that due to fear of suicide she agreed to marry the accused no.1 and on 22-09-2017 during midnight hours the accused no.1 went to the house of Pw.2 in the auto of accused no.2 and taken her to

Hanamkonda to his room. When the relatives of the accused no.1 went there to perform their marriage Pw.2 informed that she would marry when she attained majority. The learned counsel for the accused cross examined Pw.2 and in her cross examination Pw.2 admitted that the accused no.1 alone forced her to go with him. Thus in view of the clear admission of Pw.2 that the accused no.1 alone forced her, it can be inferred that there is no involvement of accused

Page No. 8 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

no.2 in the offence. Further Pw.2 did not depose anything against the accused no.3.

15.The defacto complainant/Pw.3 deposed that about six years ago his daughter Pw.2 who was studying at Hanamkonda went to their house at the time of Dussehra festival and that on the next day they found missing of their daughter. He found the mobile phone in his house in which name of Swamy was listed in dialed calls. Thus Pw.3 did not depose any single word against the accused no.1 to 3. The panch witnesses for CDF are examined as Pw.4 and Pw.5 out of which Pw.4 is turned hostile. Though Pw.5 deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama, in his cross examination he admitted that he did not sign on any panchanama. Moreover on perusal of the Ex. P.3 CDF it appears that there are no signatures of panch witnesses. The ASI of police and

SI of police who are examined as Pw.6 and Pw.7 deposed about the investigation done by them. According to Pw.7 the accused no.2 and 3 confessed the offence, but it is a settled principle that confession before the police officials is not admissible.

16.As stated above, though there is some piece of evidence to hold that the accused no.1 and Pw.2 were classmates and they were in love and that the accused no.1 has taken Pw.2 to Hanamkonda, there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution to show that the accused no.2 and 3 abetted the accused no.1 in commission of the offence. In the light of above discussion this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all

Page No. 9 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

reasonable doubt and as such the accused no.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly this point is answered.

17.In the result, Accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec. 366 r/w 109 IPC and they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The case against the accused no.1 was abated.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property i.e., auto bearing no. AP 21 TY 8347 which was returned to its owner vide

Crl.MP.No.324/2018 shall stands good, after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2025).

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

J.S BHUPALPALLY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW-1/LW-2 : Sankella Vanamma. PW-2/LW-3 : Sankella Sandya. PW-3/LW-1 : Sankella Sadaiah. PW-4/LW-4 : Ravula Ramesh. PW-5/LW-5 : Polu Subhash. PW-6/LW-11 : M.Ganapathi. PW-7/LW-12 : Sri N. Sadhakar.

For the Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Report. Ex.P-2 : FIR.

Page No. 10 of 10 SC No. 325 OF 2022

SC No. 329 OF 2018(Old)

Ex.P-3 : CDF along with rough sketch. Ex.P-4 : Relevant portion of confessed panchanama of Accused No.1. Ex.P-5 : Relevant portion of confession panchanama of Accused No.2. Ex.P-6 : Seizure panchanama. Ex.P-7 : Photograph of the auto.

For the Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JS. BHUPALPALLY.

H.M.O.P/29/2025

Alla/ Marri Lavanya vs Vsnil

19 Apr 2025

Page No. 1 of 5 HMOP.No.29 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Saturday, this the 19th day of April, 2025.

Present: K.Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge,

JS.Bhupalpally.

HMOP.No.29 of 2025

Between: 1.Alla @ Marri Lavanya, W/o. Marri Koteshwar Reddy @ Marri Koteshwar, D/o. Alla Gopal Reddy, Aged: 33 years, Occu: House Wife, R/o. Motlapally Village, Mogullapally Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

2. Marri Koteshwar Reddy @ Marri Koteshwar, S/o. Marri Bhoomi Reddy, Aged: 33 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Marrivanipalle Village, Illanthakunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

…Petitioners

And

Nil

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 17.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Naresh Reddy, advocate for petitioners No.1 and 2, having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce on mutual consent desolving the marriage of the petitioners which was performed on 05.04.2018.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that marriage of the petitioners was performed on 05.04.2018 at Sai Maheshwara

Gardens, Sri Ramulapalle Road, Kothapally Village, Jammikunta

Mandal as per the Hindu customs and traditions and their marriage

Page No. 2 of 5 HMOP.No.29 of 2025 was consummated and out of the wedlock they are blessed with a son namely Marri Anirudh Reddy on 13.08.2019. After birth of the son indifferences arose between them and they are living separately from each other since 29.12.2019. Several panchayats were convened but efforts of the elders were vent in vain. Both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. As per the agreement the petitioner No.2 returned the dowry of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) and paid an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards her permanent alimony and future maintenance, total Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) paid through the demand draft bearing No.000066, dt.29.03.2025,

HDFC Bank. Further the petitioner No.2 agreed to gift the agricultural land to their minor son namely Marri Anirudh Reddy measuring

Ac.0.15 0gts out of Sy.No.676B/A, Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.613/B/A, and

Ac.0.05 gts in Sy.No.674/A total Ac.1.00 gts situated at Sirsedu village,

Ellanthakunta mandal, Karimnagar district and executed a registered gift deed towards his maintenance and the rythu bandu amount or any other benefits of the land shall be credited into the joint account of their minor son and he is entitled to receive the same is after attaining his majority. The petitioner No.2 agreed to take custody of their minor son and maintain him through the income of the agricultural land. The petitioner No.1 agreed to not press the cases vide M.C.No.35 of 2022 and D.V.C.No.50 of 2022 on the file of the

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jayashankar Bhupalpally. Both parties exchanged their respective articles including gold and silver

Page No. 3 of 5 HMOP.No.29 of 2025 ornaments. Both parties further agreed not to file any civil or criminal cases against each other. The petitioner No.1 shall have no right to claim any amount from the petitioner No.2, hence the petition.

3.During the course of enquiry the petitioners are examined as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who filed affidavits in lieu of their chief examination reiterating the petition averments. Besides the oral evidence the petitioners have filled Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4. Ex.A.1 is the marriage card and

Ex.A.2 is the marriage photographs. In view of the oral evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, it is clearly established that both parties are Hindus and their marriage was performed on 05.04.2018 as such the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked. Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 are the Aadhar Cards of the petitioners which reveals their identity particulars.

7. It has been brought on record through the evidence of PW.1 and

Page No. 4 of 5 HMOP.No.29 of 2025

PW.2 that after birth of the son indifferences arose between them and they are living separately from each other since 29.12.2019. Several panchayats were convened but efforts of the elders were vent in vain.

Both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage with mutual consent. As per the agreement the petitioner No.2 returned the dowry of

Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) and paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards her permanent alimony and future maintenance, total Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) paid through the demand draft bearing No.000066, dt.29.03.2025, HDFC Bank. Further the petitioner No.2 gifted the agricultural land to their minor son/Marri Anirudh Reddy measuring

Ac.0.15 0gts out of Sy.No.676B/A, Ac.0.20 gts in Sy.No.613/B/A, and

Ac.0.05 gts in Sy.No.674/A total Ac.1.00 gts situated at Sirsedu village,

Ellanthakunta mandal, Karimnagar district and executed a registered gift deed vide document bearing No.132/2025, dt.16.04.2025 towards his maintenance. The petitioner No.1 undertakes that not to claim maintenance from the petitioner No.2. Further the petitioner No.1 agreed to not press the cases vide M.C.No.35 of 2022 and D.V.C.No.50 of 2022 on the file of the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jayashankar Bhupalpally. Both parties exchanged their respective articles including gold and silver ornaments. Both parties further agreed not to file any civil or criminal cases against each other. This court has conducted counseling, but both parties refused to live together. Therefore since the parties have already settled their terms, as they are living separately from each other since more than five

Page No. 5 of 5 HMOP.No.29 of 2025 years and as cooling period is waived, this petition can be allowed. The petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent.

Accordingly this point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage of the petitioners which was performed on 05.04.2018. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of April, 2025.)

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS.BHUPALPALLY.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners For Respondent.

PW.1 – Alla @ Marri Lavanya. -Nil-

PW.2 – Marri Koteshwar Reddy @ Marri Koteshwar.

Exhibits marked.

For Petitioners

Ex.A-1: Original Marriage Card, Dt. 05.04.2018.

Ex.A-2: Marriage photographs (No.2).

Ex.A-3: Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1.

Ex.A-4: Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2.

For Respondent

-Nil-

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS. BHUPALPALLY.

EP/8/2024

Mittapally Shankari vs Gandla Sampath

19 Mar 2025

Page No.1 of 4 E.P. No. 08 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY.

Wednesday, the 19th Day of March, 2025

Present: K.Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge,

JS.Bhupalpally.

E.P. No. 08 of 2024

Between:

Mittapally Shankari, S/o. Ashalu, Age: 66 years, Occ: Singareni Employee, R/o. Q.No. 270, Block No. 20 Millenium Colony, Bhupalpally, J.S. Bhupalpally District.

…Decree holder.

And

Gandla Sampath, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Singareni Employee, R/o. Plot No. 689, H.No. 5-289, Krishna Colony, Bhupalpally, J.S. Bhupalpally District.

...Judgment-Debtor

This Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 12-03-2025 in the presence of Sri P. Bhadraiah Advocate for DHR and Sri S. Ravinder Advocate for the JDR, having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following::-

:: O R D E R ::

This Execution Petition is filed under order 21 rule 48 C.P.C., to attach the salary of the JDR for realization of decreetal amount.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the suit filed by the DHR for recovery of money was decreed. The JDR having knowledge about the passing of decree, failed to deposit the decreetal amount and costs as awarded by the

Page No.2 of 4 E.P. No. 08 of 2024 court in the suit intentionally. No appeal is preferred by the JDR against the decree passed against him. Hence the E.P.

3. The Judgment-Debtor filed counter and admitted that he is having acquaintance with the DHR, but denied the rest of the allegations of the petition. The contention of the JDR is that he never approached the DHR and never borrowed any amount. The JDR has denied the execution of promissory note in favour of the DHR. The decree holder has falsely created a document and forged his signature and filed this false suit in order to cause loss and to defame the JDR. Due to harassment of DHR, the JDR has filed a suit vide OS No.

55 of 2017 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal. The decree holder intentionally attached the schedule property against the JDR, hence prayed to dismiss the EP with costs.

4. During the course of enquiry no oral evidence is adduced and no document is marked on either side.

5. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

1.Whether the DHR is entitled for any relief as prayed for?, 2.To what relief?.

7. The learned counsel for the DHR submitted his arguments reiterating the petition averments. He further argued that the suit filed by the Decree holder for recovery of money was decreed with costs and interest. He further

Page No.3 of 4 E.P. No. 08 of 2024 argued that the JDR is a singareni employee and having sufficient means, but he intentionally avoiding to deposit the amount. He further argued that no appeal is preferred by the JDR against the decree as such the decree passed by this court attained finality. Hence prayed to allow the E.P. The learned counsel for the JDR argued that the JDR never borrowed any amount from the DHR and never executed any promissory note in his favour. He further argued that the

DHR has falsely created a document and forged the signature of JDR and filed a false suit in order to cause loss and to defame the JDR, hence prayed to dismiss the EP with costs.

8. POINT: This court has carefully scrutinized the material available on record. Perusal of the record reveals that the suit filed by the DHR for recovery of money vide OS No. 98 of 2022 (OS No. 819 of 2017 Old) was decreed with costs against the person and property of the defendant on 07-06-2024 for an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs. Eight lakhs only) with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% p.a.

from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of

Rs.8,00,000/-. After filing of the EP, warrant u/s. 21 Rule 48 C.P.C., was issued for attachment of salary of JDR and the same was served.

9.It is an admitted fact that the JDR is a singareni employee and he is having knowledge of passing of decree. Though the JDR contended that he never borrowed any amount from the DHR and that his signature was forged on promissory note and filed a false suit, the JDR did not prefer any appeal against the judgment passed by this court. Thus the decree passed by this court

Page No.4 of 4 E.P. No. 08 of 2024 attained finality. The JDR denied the execution of promissory note in favour of the DHR, but he failed to substantiate the same and it is a settled principle that the executing court can’t go beyond the decree. It is not the case of the JDR that he has no means to clear the debt. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case this court is of the view that the EP can be allowed.

Accordingly this pint is answered.

10. In the result, the E.P. is allowed. The attachment of salary of JDR dt.22-07-2024 under order 21 Rule 48 C.P.C., is made absolute subjected to sec.60 CPC, and the EP is closed.

(Typed to dictation on my personal laptop, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 19th day of March, 2025.)

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BHUPALPALLY.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Decree Holder For Judgment Debtor

-Nil- -Nil-

Exhibits marked.

For Decree Holder For Judgment Debtor

-Nil- -Nil-

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

J.S. BHUPALPALLY.

H.M.O.P/19/2025

Thakkalapally Kiran vs Vsnil

11 Apr 2025

Page No. 1 of 4 HMOP.No.19 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

Present: K.Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge,

JS.Bhupalpally.

HMOP.No.19 of 2025

Between:

1. Thakkalapally Kiran, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged: 30 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o. H.No.1-62 Moranchapally Village of Bhupalpally Mandal of Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

2. Thakkalapally @ Chekka Samatha @ Kavya Sri, W/o. Kiran, D/o. Kumaraswamy, Age: 25 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. Gollavada Thirumalagiri village, Regonda Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

…Petitioners

And

Nil

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 08.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Chiranjeevi, advocate for petitioners No.1 and 2, having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce on mutual consent desolving the marriage of the petitioners which was performed on 04.05.2018.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that marriage of the petitioners was performed on 04.05.2018 at Gollavada Thirumalagiri Village of

Regona Mandal as per the Hindu religion, caste and customs. After the marriage the petitioner No.2 joined the conjugal society of the petitioner No.1

Page No. 2 of 4 HMOP.No.19 of 2025 but due to different nature and thoughts both the petitioners are living separately from each other since 09.03.2022. The petitioner No.1 filed HMOP

No. 162 of 2022 and the same is pending. A panchayat was held on 25.01.2025 in which the both parties agreed to settle the issue by dissolving their marriage on mutual consent. Both parties have exchanged their respective articles including gold and silver ornaments. The petitioner No.1 agreed to give a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only) towards the permanent alimony and future maintanence of petitioner No.2.

The petitioner No.2 is in possession of 3 thlas of gold besides the amount of

Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only). The petitioner No.2 agreed to with draw the criminal cases filed against the petitioner No.1 and his parents. Both parties further agreed not to file any cases against each other, hence the petition.

3.During the course of enquiry the petitioners are examined as PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and got marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of

divorce on mutual consent as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 who filed affidavits in lieu of their chief examination reiterating the petition averments. Besides the oral evidence the petitioners have filled Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

Page No. 3 of 4 HMOP.No.19 of 2025

Ex.A.1 is the marriage CD, Ex.A.2 is the marriage photographs and Ex.A-6 is the wedding card. In view of the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with

Ex.A-1, Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-6 it is clearly established that both parties are Hindus and their marriage was performed on 04.05.2018 as such the provisions of the

Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked. Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-5 are the Aadhar Cards of the petitioners which reveals their identity particulars. Ex.A-4 is the resolution of elders.

7. It has been brought on record through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that their marriage was not consummated and out of the wedlock they have no issues. Since disputes arose between them they are living separately from each other since 09.03.2022. The efforts of the elders were not successfull to make the petitioners to live together. Finally both parties agreed to take divorce on mutual consent. The petitioner No.1 has paid an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.2 towards her permanent alimony and future maintanence. Both parties have already exchanged their respective articles and they further agreed not to file any civil or criminal cases against each other. This court has conducted counseling, but both parties refused to live together. Therefore since the parties have already settled their terms, as they are living separately from each other since more than three years and as cooling period is waived, this petition can be allowed. The petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent. Accordingly this point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce

Page No. 4 of 4 HMOP.No.19 of 2025 u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage of the petitioners which was performed on 04.05.2018. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of April, 2025.)

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS.BHUPALPALLY.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners For Respondent.

PW.1 – Thakkalapally Kiran. -Nil-

PW.2 – Thakkalapally @ Chekka Samatha @ Kavya Sri.

Exhibits marked.

For Petitioners

Ex.A-1: Marriage Cds (No.2).

Ex.A-2: Original marriage photographs.

Ex.A-3: Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1.

Ex.A-4: Original resolution copy.

Ex.A-5: Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2.

Ex.A-6: Original wedding cards (No.2) dt: 04-05-2018.

For Respondent

-Nil-

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS. BHUPALPALLY.

H.M.O.P/89/2024

Polampelli @ Nadigola Jyothi vs NIL

19 Apr 2025

Page No. 1 of 4 HMOP.No.89 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAYASHANKAR BHUPALPALLY

Saturday, this the 19th day of April, 2025.

Present: K.Jayaram Reddy,

Senior Civil Judge,

JS.Bhupalpally.

HMOP.No.89 of 2024

Between:

1. Polampelli @ Nadigola Jyothi, W/o. Polampelli Anil Kumar, Aged: 28 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 4-265, Krishna Colony, Bhupalpally Village and Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.

2. Polampelli Anil Kumar, S/o. Ram Chander, Aged: 39 years, Occu: Singareni Employee, R/o.Q.No.SD-118, Naspur Colony, Mancherial District.

…Petitioners

And

Nil

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 17.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Bhadraiah, advocate for petitioners No.1 and 2, having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act for decree of divorce on mutual consent desolving the marriage of the petitioners which was performed on 02.12.2015.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that marriage of the petitioners was performed on 02.12.2015 at Krishna Colony,

Bhupalpally Villalge and Mandal as per the Hindu caste, customs and traditions and their marriage was consummated. Out of the wedlock they have no issues and have lead marital life till 29.10.2020.

Page No. 2 of 4 HMOP.No.89 of 2024

Thereafter, some misunderstandings were arose between them and the petitioners have got different views about leading their lives.

Since 29.10.2020 the petitioners are residing separately and there is no cohabitation. The parents, family members and elders of both sides have tried their level best to make the petitioners to lead amicable and peaceful life, but the efforts made by them put in vain.

Finally, the petitioners decided to take divorce with mutual consent.

As per the agreement the petitioner No.2 agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1 towards future maintenance and permanent alimony.

Both parties have exchanged their respective ornaments and articles, hence the petition.

3.During the course of enquiry the petitioners are examined as

PW.1 and PW.2 respectively and got marked Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of

divorce on mutual consent as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT: This Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 who filed affidavits in lieu of their chief examination reiterating the petition averments. Besides the oral evidence the petitioners have filled Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A.1 is the marriage photo. In view of the

Page No. 3 of 4 HMOP.No.89 of 2024 oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2, it is clearly established that both parties are Hindus and their marriage was performed on 02.12.2015 as such the provisions of the Hindu Marriage

Act can be invoked. Ex.A-2 is the Aadhar Cards of the petitioner No.1 and 2.

7.It has been brought on record through the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 that their marriage was consummated and out of the wedlock they have no issues. Since disputes arose between them they are living separately from each other since 29.10.2020. The efforts of the elders were not successfull to make the petitioners to live together.

Finally both parties agreed to take divorce on mutual consent. The petitioner No.2 paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1 towards future maintenance and permanent alimony. Both parties have exchanged their respective ornaments and articles. This court has conducted counseling, but both parties refused to live together. Therefore since the parties have already settled their terms, as they are living separately from each other since more than four years and as cooling period is waived, this petition can be allowed. The petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on mutual consent. Accordingly this point is answered.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting decree of divorce u/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act dissolving the marriage of the

Page No. 4 of 4 HMOP.No.89 of 2024 petitioners which was performed on 02.12.2015. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no order as to costs.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of April, 2025.)

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS.BHUPALPALLY.

Appendix of evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners For Respondent.

PW.1 – Polampelli @ Nadigola Jyothi. -Nil-

PW.2 – Polampelli Anil Kumar.

Exhibits marked.

For Petitioners

Ex.A-1: Marriage photo.

Ex.A-2: Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.1 and 2.

For Respondent

-Nil-

Sd/-

(K.Jayaram Reddy)

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JS. BHUPALPALLY.

Order Record 590 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
H.M.O.P/29/2025	Alla/ Marri Lavanya vs Vsnil	19 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/89/2024	Polampelli @ Nadigola Jyothi vs NIL	19 Apr 2025	Order	—
SC/325/2022	PS Regonda vs Allam Swamy and 2 Others	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/19/2025	Thakkalapally Kiran vs Vsnil	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/8/2024	Mittapally Shankari vs Gandla Sampath	19 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/99/2022	Dasari Mohan Reddy vs Jogula Sammaiah	19 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/7/2025	Godishala Nagaraju/Nagaraju Reddy vs Vsnil	19 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/15/2024	Pulla Bhaskar vs Guddadu Ramu	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
SC/406/2022	Kothapally Venkatswamy vs A8, Jadi Rambabu @ Kishore	18 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/97/2024	Erukulla Vinod vs Erukulla Sowmya Laxmi	18 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2025	Vaddepalli Thirupathi vs Vsnil	17 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/102/2024	Muthyam Venkatesh vs Muthyam/Pogu Tejaswini/Manashwini	17 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/238/2022	Bochu Nissi vs Neelarapu Samuel	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/370/2024	Saga Vara Prasad vs Mittapally Kumara Swamy	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/15/2025	Joopaka/Koppula Pooja vs Vsnil	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/3/2023	J.Revanth vs Jamakayala Pallavi	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/18/2023	Garrepally Yadhagiri vs Choppari Prameela	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
SC/5/2024	SHO PS Chityal vs Pinagani Bhavana Rushi	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
SC/22/2023	The SHO P.S, Bhupalpally vs Bakam Ramesh	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/17/2025	Thallapelli Shiva Priya/Priyanka vs Vsnil	27 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/85/2024	Bakam Ramesh vs Bakam @ Nedam Lavanya	27 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/70/2024	Renukuntla Raju vs Renukuntla @ Ratnam Amala	25 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2025	Chilukala Nagaraju vs Vsnil	24 Feb 2025	Order	—
IP/1/2024	Thode Sampath Reddy vs Muthyala Rajender and another	21 Feb 2025	Order	—
SC/369/2022	The State of Telangana Through SHO P.S Chityal vs Perumandla Sandeep	21 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
EP/6/2024	Gaddam Yadagiri vs Kampa Mogili	20 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/10/2025	Siripuram Venkata Ramana vs Vsnil	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/92/2024	Smt. Pilli / Pittala Prasanna vs Pilli Rakesh Kumar	10 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/6/2025	Kurma Premelatha vs Nil	07 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/5/2025	Misala / Azmeera Swetha vs Vsnil	06 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2025	Gundaboina Archana/ Gante Swaroopa vs Vsnil	31 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/4/2025	Byri / Vemula Sravika vs Vsnil	29 Jan 2025	Order	—
SC/23/2023	The SHO P.S, Chityal vs Md. Raheem Pasha	27 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/242/2022	Devunuri Shankaraiah vs Anishetty Raju	22 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/1/2025	Vennapureddy Vijay Kumar vs Vsnil	20 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/66/2024	Jakkinaboina Naresh vs NIL	16 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/118/2022	Chinthapatla Shankar vs Lingam Raju	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/80/2024	Kasthuri Rajabapu vs Kasthuri @ Akudari Rajamani	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
SC/403/2022	The State through SI of Police, Kataram PS vs Madem Tharun	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
SC/410/2022	Rajesh Kalva vs Naresh Medipelly	20 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/4/2022	PANGUNURI PRAMEELA vs PANGUNURI PRABHAKAR	19 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
SC/13/2023	The SHO PS Mahadevpur vs Ramagiri Saraiah	18 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/28/2022	RAVULA MALLAMMA vs RAVULA RAJESHAM	11 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/29/2022	Ravula Mallamma vs Ravula Rajesham	11 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/90/2024	Palishetti Vinay vs NIL	10 Dec 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/88/2024	Katukojuwala @ Nagunoori Vinisha vs Nil	06 Dec 2024	Order	—
OS/2/2022	ABDUL RAYEES KHAN vs SIDDAM MONDI	28 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/90/2022	Barikal Kamalakar vs Jonnala Padma	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
SC/407/2022	Langari Ravi vs Shirishetti Mahesh	27 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
OS/52/2022	Akula Mallaiah vs Aldandi Kailasam and another	26 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/182/2022	Mergu Ramesh vs DURGAM ASHOK	20 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
EP/1/2024	Gadde Sammaiah @ Sammireddy vs Kamatala Suresh	18 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/187/2022	Mundrathi Mahender vs Mundrathi Sambaiah and others	13 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/49/2023	Markandi @ Gangineni Ramadevi vs Markandi Narsingarao	13 Nov 2024	Order	—
EP/4/2023	Yalla Ravi vs Singareddy Venkatesham	11 Nov 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/31/2023	Narala Devendar vs Narala @ Merugu Swapna	08 Nov 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/43/2024	Dandu @ Devunuri Kavitha vs Dandu Thirupathi	07 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/83/2022	Kondapaka Sampath vs Chandragiri Shankar	06 Nov 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/23/2022	Madem Rajababu vs Madem Manjula	30 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2024	Putta Sravan Kumar vs Vsnil	28 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/180/2022	Mantena Prashanth vs Kyatham Shiva Kumar	25 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/226/2022	pogalla Bhagya Laxmi vs Kasam Narotham Reddy	25 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
IP/7/2022	Ankeshwarapu Karunakar Gandhi vs Dhoolam Mondaiah	23 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/76/2024	Santhoshapu @ Chinthala Akhila vs Vsnil	22 Oct 2024	Order	—
EP/785/2022	M Chandraiah vs Dongala Mallaiah and two others	21 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/272/2022	Badithela Mallaiah vs Kusunapu Kistaiah	21 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
SC/413/2022	The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Adavimutharam vs Madem Tharun	21 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/15/2023	Sri Ragam Rajender vs Smt Ragam @ Rallabandi Vijaya	18 Oct 2024	Order	—
SC/385/2022	SHO Tekumatla vs Velishetty Venkatesh	10 Oct 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/59/2022	Erukulla Vinod vs Erukulla Sowmya laxmi	04 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/68/2024	Darugula Prabhakar vs Vsnil	01 Oct 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/77/2024	Marri @ Bairi Sharanya vs NIL	01 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/271/2022	A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Chelpur Branch vs Gunda Bhatukamma	30 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/414/2022	Bajja Suresh(The State of Telangana through SHO P.S. Adavimutharam) vs Hatkar Raghu @ Raghu Nayak	30 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/423/2022	Chirra Budamma(SHO PS Koyyur) vs Thallapalli Rakesh	30 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/45/2024	Sampelli Jagan Mohan Rao vs Sampelli Pavani @ Potte Vidya Rani	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/131/2022	Punnam Vijaya laxmi and Another vs Jayyaram Sarojana @ Swarupa and 3 Others	27 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/284/2022	Kasarla Ravinder Reddy vs Karsarla Venkat Reddy	27 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/7/2023	The State of Telangana through SHO PS., Ghanpur(M) vs Anumala Surender	27 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
SC/353/2022	PS Bhupalpally vs Akkapaka Rakesh	27 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/97/2023	Katla Sampath vs Katla @ Annaboina Srilatha	27 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/164/2022	Lade Mahesh vs Bisadi @ Lade Manisha	27 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/54/2022	Sappe Krishna Murthy vs Bhukya Bheemudu and another	25 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/74/2024	Puppala Srinivas vs Vsnil	25 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/195/2022	Devulapalli Srinivasulu vs Kore sammaiah	20 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/101/2022	Porika Raj kumar vs Porika Swapna @ Jarupula swapna	19 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/6/2024	Naineni Sampath Rao vs Kunadi Prabhakar Reddy	18 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/249/2022	Samala Raghupathi vs Samala Venkateshwarlu	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/63/2024	Gopu ranjith Kumar vs Vsnil	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/53/2024	Pingili Rathnakar vs Minugu @ Pingili shyamala @ Vanitha	10 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/331/2022	The State of Telangana Through SHO P.S Bhupalpally vs Bomma Ramesh	09 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/62/2024	Aili Mahesh vs NIL	09 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/219/2022	Boina ramesh vs Durganapally Ramgopal	04 Sep 2024	Judgement	—
OS/74/2022	Aleti Madhukar vs Thangallapally Raju	28 Aug 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/18/2024	Jadala Ashok vs Jadala @ Parshaveni Laxmi	28 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/4/2024	Mesineni @ Bojelli Swapna vs Mesineni Venugopal Rao	27 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/59/2024	Gangula Sruthi vs Vsnil	23 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/181/2022	Irsadla Vamshikrishna vs Potharaveni Anusha	23 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/47/2024	Bashaboina Kiran Kumar vs NIL	22 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/51/2024	Jarpala Ravi Kumar vs NIL	22 Aug 2024	Order	—

Showing 100 of 590 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		4
Mar 2025		12
Feb 2025		14
Jan 2025		9
Dec 2024		7
Nov 2024		12
Oct 2024		15
Sep 2024		21
Aug 2024		14
Jul 2024		19
Jun 2024		27
May 2024		10

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri K. Jayaram Reddy handled?

Sri K. Jayaram Reddy has handled 594 court orders since 2022 at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 17 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri K. Jayaram Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Sri K. Jayaram Reddy primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri K. Jayaram Reddy currently posted?

Sri K. Jayaram Reddy is posted as Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhupalapally at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex, Jayashankar Bhupalapally, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri K. Jayaram Reddy available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri K. Jayaram Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri K. Jayaram Reddy dispose cases?

Sri K. Jayaram Reddy disposes approximately 17 cases per month, based on 594 orders handled over their tenure at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri K. Jayaram Reddy serving?

Sri K. Jayaram Reddy has been serving at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

H 51%

OS 27%

SC 13%

EP 6%

IP 2%

ELECOP 1%

S 0%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Apr 2025

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhupalapally · 594 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Mr. Dilip Kumar Naik Sr

Principal Junior civil Judge-cum- judicial Magistr...

129 orders

Smt G. Akhila

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Addl. Judicial...

1 orders

S.V.P.Surya Chandra Kala

Fast Track Special Court for Expeditous disposal o...

0 orders

Sri T.Kanhyalal

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

0 orders

← View all judges at JS Bhupalapally, PDJ Court Complex