Sri K.Kusha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: SRI K.KUSHA, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar

FAC PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 318 OF 2013

Name of the complainantThe State through Inspector of Police, P.S. Karimnagar I town

Name of the accused A1 Shatriya Ravinder Singh S/o Homelal Singh, age: 24 years, caste Bondila r/o Boiwada, karimnagar

A2 Yella Santosh s/o Late Laxmi Rajam, age: 28 years, caste: Padmashali, r/o Sankepalli v/o Vemulawada Mandal now at Vidyanagar, Karimnagar

A3 Bontha Ramchander @ Sriram S/o Muthaiah, age: 27 years, caste waddera r/o Gudur v/o Narsampet Mandal,Warangal district now at Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar mandal,

A4 M.D. Moiz S/o Anwar Baig, age: 25 years, caste: Muslim, r/o Qr.No.194, Police H.Qrs, Mukarampura, Karimnagar

A5 Manthena Sagar S/o Shankar, 21 years, caste: Madiga, r/o Hanman Basthi, Bellampalli, Adilabad district (The case against A2 is split up and numbered as SC 292 of 2018 since, NBW pending against him). Crime number Cr. No. 72 of 2012 of P.S. Karimnagar I town

Charges framed Under Sections 120-B, 307 IPC and Sec. 25 (1)

(a) of Arms Act.

PRC.No. PRC.No. 14 of 2013 Addl. JMFC Karimnagar

Case committed by Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty 2

Finding of the Court Not guilty Sentence or Order In the result, A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian Arms Act and acquitted u/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. No order as to the material objects 1 and 2 is passed as the case against A2 vide SC 293 of 2018 is pending.

This case is coming on 8-8-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public prosecutor for State and of Sri Raju Nunavath, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I town P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Crime No. 72 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B 307 IPC and Section 25 (1)(a) of Arms

Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that:

On 12-3-2012 on receipt reliable information that some persons are moving near Ujwala Park, Karimnagar with fire arms illegally then, as per instructions of the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I town (LW10), he along with his staff Y,Janardhan PC 2343, U.Srinivas,PC 278, S.Srinivas, HC 540,

G.Ashok Reddy, HC 1798 and B.Anjaiah ASI of Karimnagar I town proceeded to Ujwala Park, Karimnagar at 8.00 a.m., and found (5) male persons and one of them carrying a bag under suspicious circumstances.

Immediately they apprehended them and on checking found fire arms with 5 cartridges. On enquiry they appeared to be in a mood to confess some offence then, their SI secured two mediators Lws 1 and 2 Elkapalli Madhu 3 and Erumalla Mahesh and interrogated each of them individually and separately they disclosed their names as A1 to A5. As per the confession of

A1 to A5 fire arms i.e., one country made tapancha and (5) cartridges of 12

Bore weapon has been seized from the possession of A1 under cover of seizure panchanama. A1 to A5 further confessed that they hatched a conspiracy to kill the brother of A2 by name Sathish who has spent the entire money and purchased properties on his own name and in the name of his mother and also keep the wife of A2 as his mistress during his absence from India as he was went to Gulf countries for a period of six and half years and returned to India for the last Dashera.

Thereafter, A1 to A5 along with seized property brought to police station Karimnagar I town and registered a suo moto case in Crime No. 72 of 2012 u/sec. 307, 120-B IP and Sec. 25 (1)(a) of IA Act and issued F.I.R.

Subsequently, the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I town (LW10) took up the investigation, he examined Lws 3 to 7 Y.Janardhan PC 2343,

U.Srinivas, PC 278, S.Srinivas Hc 540, G.Ashok Reddy HC 1798, B.Anjaiah,

ASI and recorded their statements. Thereafter, after completion of formalities of arrest forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand.

Later he collected the FSL report from the expert and obtained permission from the District Collector, Karimnagar in C2/3559/2012 dt. 11-9-2012 to prosecute the accused A1 to A5 u/sec. 25(1)(a) of I.A. Act. After completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file by taking the cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 IPC and Sec. 25 (1)(a) of I.A.Act against the accused No.1 to 5 and registered it as PRC 14 of 2013 on the 4 file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar and on appearance of the accused, case documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., As the alleged offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as such committed the same to the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar by following the procedure under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and in turn registered it as SC No.

318 of 2013 and made over to this Court for disposal in accordance with

Law.

The case against A2 is split up and numbered as SC 292 of 2018 since, NBW was pending against him since, long time.

4.On appearance of accused A1, A3 to A5 and on hearing the counsel

for the accused and Additional P.P., and on considering the material on

record, charge under Sections 120-B, 307 IPC and Sec. 25 (1)(a) of Arms

Act, have been framed, read over and explained to them, for which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined (LW1)

Elkapalli Madhu, (LW2) Erumalla Mahesh who are the mediators for confession and recovery panchanama, Lws 3 Y.Janardhan PC 2343, LW6

G.Ashok Reddy, LW7 B.Anjaiah, ASI who assisted the investigating officer as Pws 3 to 5, LW9 Y.Chandrashekar Goud, who is the first investigating officer as Pw6 and LW10 v.Surender, Inspector of Police, who further investigated the case and filed charge sheet as Pw7. The learned Addl. P.P.

given up the evidence of LW4 U.Srinivas, PC 278, LW5 S.Srinivas HC 540, and LW8 Dr.V.Venkateshwarlu, Asst. Director of APFSL Hyderabad.

6. In support of oral evidence, the prosecution also got marked Ex. P1 to P15 and Mos 1 and 2.

5

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded their false implication, however, they did not choose to led any evidence in defence.

8. Heard arguments from both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or

not?

POINT:

10. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, it has to be seen whether the prosecution could able to make out a case under sections 120-

B, 307 IPC and Sec. 25 (1)(a) of Arms Act against the accused.

11. In a criminal trial the burden of proving everything is essential to establish the charge against the accused is always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until and unless the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed; subject to of course to some statutory exception.

12. In the light of the above statutory provision and cardinal principles of the criminal jurisprudence, what is the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case is to be looked into.

13. The evidence available on record is the evidence of Pws 1 to 7.

6

14. At the out set it is the case of the prosecution that on 12-3-2012 on reliable information PW6 and his men proceeded to Ujwala Park at 8.00 a.m., and found the accused moving under suspicion circumstances and apprehended them and on interrogation confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of mediators.

15. Pws 6 and7 are the investigation officers; and according to them A1 to A5 hatched a plan to eliminate the brother of A2 by name Yella Satish and in that process assembled near Ujwala park and ultimately caught by them. The accused are facing charges under Sections 120-B IPC Conspiracy, 307 IPC attempt to commit murder and Section 25 (1)(a) of Indian Arms

Act, 1959. PW6, the investigation officer has registered a suomoto case based on confession of the accused made before Pws 1 and 2. Ex.P13 is the relevant portion of confessional cum recovery panchanama. Pws 1 and 2 who are the mediators did not support the prosecution case as alleged in the manner and they went to the extent of saying that they went to police station in order to get back the motor cycle of PW1 which was seized by the

Traffic police at that time Pw6 has obtained their signatures on blank papers without disclosing any fact.

16. Therefore, the very presence of Pws 3 to 6 who are police personnels near Ujwala park at 8.00 a.m., on 12-3-2012 becomes suspicion/doubtful. PW6 the investigation officer who has recorded the confession statements of all the accused and recovered Mos 1 and 2 from the possession of A1 did not choose to examine the material witness Yella

Satish who is brother of A2. The prosecution has failed to explain as to why the said material witness has not been examined. The non examination of material witness shakes the very root of the genesis of the information received by Pw7.

7

17. In the absence of material witness the very base for registering the crime weakens the entire story of the prosecution. Therefore, the charge u/sec. 120-B and 307 IPC is not sustainable.

18. It is very heartening to note that Pws 3 to 7 police personnels did not identify any one of the culprits during the course of evidence in the

Court. They went to the extent of saying due to time gap they could not able to identify the accused with their names. Pws 6 and 7 the investigation officers who and laid charge sheet also failed to identify the person from whom Mos 1 and 2 were seized. If that being the case, then, the seizure becomes suspicion/doubt and further the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 mediators has to be taken into consideration that Ex.P13 confessional cum seizure panchanama has been prepared at the police station. Except, confession of the accused there is no other evidence to tag the accused for the charged offence. Whatever, the confession made before PW6 the investigation officer is inadmissible in evidence as the same is hit by

Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

19. Be it noted, the prosecution also relied on Ex.P15 Expert opinion to sustain a charge u/sec. 25 (1)(a) of Indian Arms Act. The report discloses that item No.1 and 2 country made SBBL pistol and 12 bore cartridges are falls under the purview of Arms Act. The report further discloses that “however, if firing pin is fixed it can be put into working order. PW7 investigation officer who has collected Ex.P15 deposed that at the time of seizure MO-1 is without any firing pin. Moreover, the Ballistic Expert has opined that pistol (MO1) is not fit for firing in present condition. So, therefore, the report furnished also discloses that MO-1 is not fit for firing and therefore, it is not serviceable. Above all, Pws 3 to 7 the police officials 8 failed to identify the person from whom Mos 1 and 2 are seized. In such case, the seizure becomes suspicion/doubt.

20. It is needless to say that suspicion however, grave and strong cannot substitute the place of legal proof. It is also settled law that whenever there is suspicion and doubt in the prosecution evidence then benefit should be given to the accused. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove any of the charges.

21. On careful consideration of the evidence of Pws 1 to 7 coupled with Ex.P1 to P15 and Mos 1 and 2, this Court is of opinion that the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused has to be acquitted.

Point answered, accordingly.

22. In the result, A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 307 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of Indian

Arms Act and acquitted u/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C., The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. No order as to the material objects 1 and 2 is passed as the case against A2 vide SC 293 of 2018 is pending.

Dictated to Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of August, 2018.

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

9

Appendix evidence Witnesses examined For the prosecution For the defence Pw.1- Elkapalli Madhu --none- Pw.2- Erumalla Mahesh Pw.3- Y.Janardhan PC 2343 Pw.4- G.Ashok Reddy HC Pw.5- B,Anjaiah ASI Pw.6- Y.Chandrashekar Goud SI Pw.7- v.Surender (Inspector)

Exhibits marked For the prosecution Ex.P1 to Signatures of PW1 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P6

Ex.P7 to Signatures of PW2 on confession cum seizure panchanama of accused Ex.P12

Ex.P 13 Relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

Ex.P14 First information dated 12-3-2012

Ex.P15 Expert opinion

For the defence --- Nil--- Material Objects marked MO-1 Country made Tapancha MO-2 Cartridges (5)

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT; SRI K.KUSHA, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Karimnagar FAC Prl. Senior Civil Judge Karimnagar.

TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF June, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 35 OF 2012

Between:

Shriram Chits Private Limited, Secunderabad, branch at 2-8-233, Mukarampura, Karimnagar represented by its Authorized Signatory and the Senior Manager N.Murali, s/o Sathaiah, aged: 33 years, r/o Mukarampura, Karimnagar …. Plaintif

And

1.K.Sanjev Kumar Goud S/o Karunakar Goud, age: 38 years, Occup: Business, at M/s Sri Venkata Ganga Poultry Format village Vatipally, Dischpally of Nizamabad District r/o H.No 5-6-501/409, Dwarakanagar of Nizamabad District,

2.M.Mahender Goud S/o Ganga Goud, age: 53 years, Occup: Business, at Sri Sai Ganga Family Poultry Nizamabad r/o H.No. 5-8- 797/A, Yellammagutta Nizamabad District,

3.P.Govardhan Goud S/o Srinivas Goud, age: 47 years, Occup: Business, C/o Vyshnavi wines, Nizamabad r/o H.No. 9-7-169, Gajulpet at Nizamabad district,

4.D.Jaya Simha S/o Limbadri Swamy, age: 37 years, Occup: Business at Tyres Retradings Nizamabad r/o H.No. 6-2-157/9 Subashnagar of Nizamabad district,

5. Ch.Madhu S/o Bhoomaiah, age: 41 years, Occup; Business and Agent O/o Bajaj Allianz Life Industries Ltd., r/o H.No. 3-5-270, Shiva Nagar of Nizamabad proper and District Defendants.

This suit coming on 11-6-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.Venugopal Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri T.Venuguopal, Advocate for defendants, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif chit fund company for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,45,887/-.

2. The brief averments of the plaintif are as under:

That the defendant No.1 has joined as a chit member for total value of chit of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be subscribed @ 20,000/- per month for a period of 50 months and accordingly entered into an agreement of chit on 12-7-2008executed chit agreement on 12-12-2008 and was allotted ticket No. LLS 05/2004.

It is further averred that the defendant No.1 also participated in the auction conducted on 17-4-2008 and became successful bidder having agreed to forego Rs. 4,00,000/- out of Rs. 10,00,000/- which was duly confirmed by the company.

In order to draw the prize amount the first defendant has produced defendant No.2 to 5 as guarantors and thereby executed agreement of guarantee and thus, all the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 8,20,0000/-.

The defendant No.1 has committed default after 33 installment i.e., from April, 2011 onwards and in spite of demands failed to pay the outstanding liability and lastly got issued legal notice on 2-8-2011 and even, then, the defendants failed to pay the outstanding liability which prompted to file the present suit for recovery of amount as indicated.

3

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying all the averments made by the plaintif including joining as a chit subscriber, execution of documents and receiving of prize amount and further submitted that there is no cause of action and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement in the lines of defendant No.1 which is adopted by D2, D4 and D5.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, this court has settled the following issues:- 1)Whether D1 joined as a chit subscriber in plaintif chit fund company by executing suit documents? 2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

6. On behalf of plaintiff, pws 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs. A1 to A13.

7. On behalf of defendants DW1 was examined but no document was marked.

8. Heard both sides.

Issue No.1:

9. Since, all the defendants have specifically denied about execution of suit documents and receiving of prize money and therefore, burden casts upon the plaintif to unravel the same.

4

10. In order to establish the suit claim, the plaintif chit fund company got examined Sri Ch.Venkata Chary, Senior Office Assistant,

Legal department as PW1, who deposed that the defendant No.1 has joined as a chit subscriber for total value of Rs. 10,00,000/- to be subscribed @ 20,000/- per month for total period of 50 months and accordingly executed chit agreement on 12-7-2008 and thereafter, participated in the auction held on 17-4-2009 and became successful bidder having, agreed to forego an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of Rs.

10,00,000/- and thereafter, in order to draw the prize amount has produced D2 to D5 as guarantors who in turn executed an agreement of guarantee on 1-6-2009 and also further executed promissory note for Rs. 8,20,000/- on 11-6-2009 and thereby company has paid Rs.

5,71,550/- by way of cheque and Rs. 28,450/-was adjusted by way of receipt. Thus, total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid to D1 on 11-6- 2009.

11. He, further deposed that the defendant No.1 paid 33 installments and committed default from 34 installment falling from

April, 2011 onwards and all the defendants failed to pay the outstanding amount despite legal notice.

12. In support of said evidence, Exs. A1 to A13 were marked. The plaintif also got examined the Bank Manager Axis Bank, Mukarampura branch, Karimnagar as PW2, who deposed that the plaintif chit fund company maintaining current account No. 290010200001687 since, more than 12 years and in the process issued cheque bearing No.

549281 for a sum of Rs. 5,71,550/-/- issued to Sanke Sanjeev Kumar 5 which is for transfer and accordingly, the same has been credited to

SB account bearing No. 291010100002790 belongs to SanJeev Kumar on 11-6-2009.

13. The defence putforth by the defendants is of total denial. The learned counsel for the defendants would maintained that the defendant No.1 never joined as a chit subscriber of the plaintif chit fund company at karimnagar and therefore, the question of execution of Ex.A1 to A4 in favour of the plaintif chit fund company does not arise and that a false suit has been filed only to extract money from the defendants.

14. Undisputedly the defendant No.1 K.Sanjeev Kumar goud is a resident of Vattipally, Dichpally, of Nizamabad district.

15. According to PW1, the defendant No.1 joined as a chit subscriber on 12-7-2008 at Karimnagar who in turn executed Ex.A1 agreement of chit. The said document shows that the plaintif chit fund company is being run in door No. 2-8-233, Mukarampura,

Karimnagar has been registered in the office of the chit Registrar,

Karimnagar on 15-7-2008 which bears the signature of foremen and as well as the defendant No.1 K.Sanjeev Kumar. Ex.A2 is the agreement of guarantee showing that the defendant No.2 to 5 executed agreement of guarantee in respect of future liability of Rs. 8,20,000/-.

All the defendants belongs to Nizamabad. The defendants 1 to 3 have specifically pleaded that their signature has been forged on Ex.A1 to

A4. But, they did not choose to carry the same for comparison and 6 opinion. Therefore, the inference that can be drawn that the said documents are genuine and executed by the defendants 1 to 5 at karimnagar.

16. Be it noted, the defendant No.1 got examined as DW1, who deposed that he never joined in th chit fund scheme of the plaintif company at any point of time nor executed any document on 17-4- 2009 nor received any prize amount on 11-6-2009 or any other date and did not sign any document and that the documents filed by the plaintif are forged and fabricated for the purpose of this case.

17. The plea of forgery is taken by the defendants and therefore, it is for them to establish about the forgery. Except, the denial there is no clinching evidence showing that Ex.A1 to A4 are forged documents.

The defendants 2 to 5 who filed a written statement in the lines of defendant No.1 did not choose to enter into witness box nor ofered themselves to be cross-examined. Thus, there is no supporting evidence to the testimony of DW1 that Ex.A1 to A4 are forged documents.

18. During cross-examination DW1 has admitted that he joined as a chit subscriber in the plaintif chit fund company at Nizamabad who supplied with one pass and copy of chit agreement apart from byelaws.

He further admits that the plaintif chit fund company filed Execution proceedings at Nizamabad seeking attachment of movables at

Nizamabad; then, he and other defendants filed stay of Execution proceedings along with setting aside ex parte decree petition. This 7 shows that defendants are aware of the pleadings put forth by the plaintif chit fund company and yet no complaint was made before

Registrar of chit at Karimnagar nor try to find out about execution of agreement of chit Ex.A1 at Karimnagar.

19. The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently urged that when all the defendants hails from Nizamabad town then, where is the need for the defendant No.1 to join as a chit member in the plaintif chit fund company at Karimnagar. But, Ex.A1 chit agreement dated 12- 7-2009 clearly goes to show that the suit chit transaction has commenced in the plaintif chit fund company at karimnagar. The defendant No.1 who admitted that he joined as a chit member in the plaintif chit fund company at Nizamabad did not produce the document supplied to him in order to show that there is only one chit transaction at Nizamabad but, not chit transaction at Karimnagar. So, in the absence of other evidence, the contentions raised by the counsel for the defendants that there is no need for D1 to join as a chit subscriber at karimnagar has to be kept out side the purview of consideration.

20. Ex.A1 to A4 documents goes to show that the defendant

No.1 to 5 have executed the same in favour of plaintif at Karimnagar.

PW2 the Bank Manager of Axis Bank has clearly stated that a cheque for Rs. 5,71,550/- has been credited to SB account of Sanjeev Kumar K.

who is defendant No.1. Ex.A13 is the letter issued by the Bank

Manager in support of said statement. The defendant No.1 did not file his bank statement showing that he did not received any amount of Rs.

8 5,71,550/- through cheque bearing No. 549281. Thus, the entire evidence of Pws 1 and 2 goes unrebutted. Mere denital of suit chit transaction and execution of Exs. A1 to A4 does not ipso facto shakes the credit of Pw1 and cannot be discarded.

21. At-last, the counsel for the defendants urged that cheque was issued in the name of Sanke Sanjeev Kumar but, whereas D1 is described as K.Sanjeev Kumar Goud and thus, it indicates that D1 did not received any prize amount from the plaintif chit fund company; but, as stated supra that D1 failed to produce his bank statement pertaining to SB Account No. 291010100002790 and a such, the contention raised by the counsel for the defendants cannot be considered. Above all, Ex.A11 is the Ledger statement shows that D1 has paid chit installment through cash and well as cheque. The same is not contradicted by the defendants more particularly by D1 by producing his bank statement. Therefore, the entries made in Ex.A11 goes unrebutted. If really, the plaintif chit fund company intended to initiate false claim as put forth by the defendants then, the plaintif would not have filed Ex.A11 ledger statement and therefore, I do not find any force to disbelieve the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 which is well supported with Ex.A1 to A4 and Ex.A11 documents.

22. On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that of plaintif and defendants, this court is of considered view that D1 has joined as a chit subscriber in the plaintif chit fund company by executing Ex.A1 to A4 documents and that D1 has committed default in paying chit installments from April, 2011.

Hence, issue answered in favour of plaintif.

9

Issue No.2:

23. In view of finding of issue No.1 in favour of the plaintif and as the defendants failed to rebut the plaintif evidence with regard to suit chit transaction and documents and as such, the plaintif chit fund company is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed.

Hence, issue answered, accordingly.

Issue No.3:

24. In the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 3, 45,887/- (Rupees three lakhs, forty five thousand, eight hundred eighty seven only) against the defendants 1 to 5 with costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% per annum till its realization on the principal amount.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of June, 2018.

Prl.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the plaintiffFor the defendants Pw.1 Ch.Venkata Chary DW1 K.Sanjeev Kumar Goud Pw.2 Sura Raj Kumar

Exhibits marked For the plaintiff Ex.A1 Agreement of chit dated 12-7-2008 Ex.A2 Agreement of guarantee dated 11-6-2009 Ex.A3 Promissory note dated 11-6-2009

Ex.A4 Cash voucher dated 11-6-2009

Ex.A5 Office copy of legal notice dated 2-8-2011

Ex.A6 Postal receipt of D1

Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement of D2 10

Ex.A8 to unserved postal cover of D3 to D5

Ex.A10

Ex.A11 Statement of account copy.

Ex.A12 Authorization of PW1

Ex.A13 Letter dated 15-3-2018

For the defendants: --- Nil---

Prl.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT : KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:SRI K.KUSHA,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR,

FAC. ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

O.S.No.23 OF 2014

Between:-

Vemula Devaiah S/o. Hanmanthu age 62 yrs, Occ: Ex. Service man R/o. H.No.2-20, Rekurthy (v) of Karimnagar mandal and district.

….Plaintiff.

And

Dasari Vijayalaxmi W/o. Sanjeev age 44 yrs, Occ: Household R/o. Vannaram village of Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on this day for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Chandrashekar, Advocate for the plaintiff, and of Sri P.Sugunakar Rao, Advocate for the defendant; the plaintiff present in person and fled memo not pressing the suit, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: JUDGEMENT ::

The plaintiff present in person and fled memo stating that the matter has been settled with the defendant outside the Court with the intervention of village elders and not pressing for the suit.

In view of memo, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 18thday of January, 2017.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar: KARIMNAGAR

Present: SMT.J.MAITHREYI,

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar,

KARIMNAGAR .

08-01-2018

OS/278/2011

Between:-

Sri Raja Rajeshwara Granits, rby Koduri Sridhar G Address: 7-1-544, M.thota, KNR proper … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Ms Shiva sai Granits, rby Vemula Srinivs Address: 1-34, Padmanagar, Karimnagar.

2:Akkapalli Chandrashekar 3:Gurram Anand kumar 4:Konda Venkatesham … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

PW.1 called absent despite conditional order, cost of Rs.600/- no paid to the defendants. As can been seen from the docket PW.1 failed to attend the court since 17-08-2017 unreasonable and unwanted time has been granted to the witness and even then did not turned up to proceed with marking of documents and the matter has under gone several adjournments for want of presence of PW.1. It appears that the plaintiff is not interested in prosecuting the matter. No presentation from counsel for plaintiff. Hence, suit is dismissed.

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

KARIMNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar: KARIMNAGAR

Present: Sri. K. Prasad,

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar,

KARIMNAGAR .

OS/144/2016

Between:-

Karra Ravinder Reddy Address: Aged 47 YearsOcc BusinessRo H.No.5-73 Saraswathinagar locality of Theegalaguttapalli Village of Karimnagar Mandal and District … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Gangula Sudharkar Address: Aged 55 years,Occ BusinessRo H.No.3-1-205Christian Colony locality of Karimnagar city 2:Moola Prabhakar Reddy Age: 57 3:Moola Prashanth Reddy Age: 28 4:Srinivas Kuruvella Age: 47 5:Noothi Venkatesham Age: 41 6:Noothi Chandraiah Age: 35 7:Gudimalla Srikanth Age: 31 8:Sirikonda Kamalakar Rao Age: 44 9:Pendela Rajamouli Age: 44 10:Gatla Surender Reddy Age: 45 11:Katukojwala Narahari Age: 71 12:Katukojwala Rajesh Age: 44 … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

Plaintiff present in person and filed memo stating that matter has been settled with defendant out side the court and not pressing for the suit. Hence, suit is dismissed.

Addl Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar

KARIMNAGAR