Smt.K.Lalitha kumari

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Smt.K.Lalitha kumari, Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 1,227 court orders on record since 2013. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, OP, SCC cases.

1,227

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/488/2010

Ms. Optival Health Solutions Private Limited vs Mr. A.Balraj

08 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI, BSC, BL.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

OS.NO. 488 OF 2010

BETWEEN:-

M/s. Optival Health Solutions Private Limited situated at 1-1-300/B/1/A, Ground Floor, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad rep., by R. Venkat Rao, S/o R. Matta Rao, Age : 41 years, Occ: Senior Associate Infrastructure, R/o : Plot No.52, Udaya Nagar Colony, Boduppal, R.R. District.

.....Plaintiff

A N D

1.A. Balraj, S/o A. Pentaiah, Age : 54 years, Occ: Retd., Employee, R/o : H.No.3-5-95, Hyderguda, Attapur, R.R. District.

2.A. Arun Kumar, S/o A. Balraj, Age: 23 years, Occ: Employee, R/o : H.No.3-5-95, Hyderguda, Attapur, R.R. District.

...Defendants

This Suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Venkatesh, counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Kamalakar, Counsel for the defendants and upon perusal of material papers on the record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court made the following:- 2

JUDGMENT

1.Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,36,000/- from the Defendant basing on the Lease

Agreement and Memorandum of understanding.

2.The material averments made by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that, the Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The Defendant is the absolute owner of the shop bearing No. 3-5-95 admeasuring 650 sft., situated at Hyderguda, Attapur, Ranga reddy District. In the course of its business, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant with a request to let-out the premises shop bearing No. 3-5-95 to the Plaintiff , the

Defendant agreed for that, at the time of negotiations that the

Defendant promised that they will make available the premises suitable for Plaintiff's business with some modifications and alterations at the cost of the Defendant. With that condition the

Plaintiff agreed to take the premises on lease. On 13-1-2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the Lease

Agreement on terms and conditions stated in the Lease

Agreement. Thereafter, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to pay the security deposit, the Plaintiff agreed for that, both parties entered into Memorandum of Understanding on 13-1- 2009. The Plaintiff paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards security 3 deposit , the Defendant agreed to refund the amount without interest. The Plaintiff paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 13-1-2009 , the same was acknowledged by the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to pay remaining Rs.1,00,000/- on 1-5-2009. The original Lease Agreement is in the custody of the Defendant.

The Defendant did not come forward to registered the Lease

Deed. The Defendant further agreed to lease out the premises after completion of construction that is within three months.

Lease shall commence from 1-5-2009, the total lease period is five years agreed monthly rents is Rs.15,000/-. After entering into the Lease Agreement, the Defendant promised to remove the walls and premises will be modify as per the requirements of the Plaintiff. In the month of April last week, the Plaintiff's employee visited the premises and noticed that, the premises is not in a condition as promised by the Defendant. Then the employee of the Plaintiff questioned the Defendant about the alterations and modifications of the premises. The Plaintiff also informed the Defendant that the Defendant cannot take the premises unless the modifications are completed and requested the Defendant to return back the security of the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The Defendant requested time for refund of security deposit. After one month, the employee of the

Plaintiff observed that, the premises was let-out to others as the Lease Agreement was entered into was not at all acted 4 upon the parties, the Defendant committed breach of

Agreement. On that the Plaintiff filed the suit for refund of

Rs.1,00,000/- along with the interest at the rate of Rs.36% per month ie., Rs.1,36,000/- along with the subsequent interest.

3.The Defendants filed written statement and counter claim for recovery of Rs.1,95,000/- from the Plaintiff. The contention of the Defendant is that, the Plaintiff had taken the premises on lease for the purpose of carrying out the business of Pharmacy and clinic pathology labs and other allied business. The Plaintiff by its franchisee M/s. Medplus Health

Services requested the Defendant to let-out the premises together with fitting and fixtures along with all other amenities, the Defendant spend Rs.1,50,000/- for renovation and lease hold premises was handed over to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff having satisfied with the renovation work , entered into the premises for a period of three months and failed to pay the remaining balance security deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding. The Plaintiff had vacated the premises without any reason and without any notice and failed to pay the monthly rents Rs.45,000/- for the month of

May, June, July, 2009. The Defendant sustained heavy loss in renovating the building. The Defendant also spend

Rs.1,50,000/- towards expenditure. Total the Plaintiff is liable 5 to pay Rs.1,95,000/-. The Defendant already got issued a notice on 13-8-2009. The Plaintiff with malafide intention filed the suit. The Plaintiff had carried out the business for a period of three months in the lease hold premises. Without giving any notice, vacated the premises. The Plaintiff committed breach of terms of Agreement. The Plaintiff has to pay Rs.1,95,000/- to the Defendant along with the interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The Defendant prays the Court to dismiss the Plaintiff suit and allow the counter claim.

4.The Plaintiff filed the Rejoinder stating that the Plaintiff is not liable to pay the Rs.1,95,000/- , infact the Defendant is making wrongful claim , the Plaintiff never occupied the premises as stated by the Defendant, the Defendant was not completed by 1-5-2009. Hence the Defendant has to refund the security deposit along with the interest. The Plaintiff prays the Court to decree the suit.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed :- 1)Whether the Defendant made any alteration constructions in the lease hold premises as directed by the Plaintiff?

2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

3) Whether the Defendant is entitled for counter claim amount?

4) To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Plaintiff, R. Venkat Rao, Senior Associate

Infrastructures of the Plaintiff company examined as PW1.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. No oral or documentary evidnece adduced by the Defendant. PW1 was cross examined by the Defendant counsel on material aspects. The

Plaintiff filed the suit for suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,36,000/- from the Defendant , basing on the Lease

Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dt: 13-1-2009.

There is no dispute in between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with regard to the execution of the Lease Agreement and execution of Memorandum of Understanding dt: 13-1-2009.

ISSUE NO.2 :- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount?

7.The Plaintiff filed the suit for suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- from the Defendant , basing on the

Lease Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding dt: 13- 1-2009. There is no dispute in between the Plaintiff and the

Defendant with regard to the execution of the Lease

Agreement and execution of Memorandum of Understanding

dt: 13-1-2009. The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Defendant

agreed to make some alterations suitable to the business of the Plaintiff at his cost and promised to handed over the premises by 1-5-2009. The employee of the Plaintiff visited 7 the premises and observed that the alterations and modifications were not done by the Defendant as per terms of the Lease Agreement. The Defendant already received

Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/- of advance security deposit. As the Defendant not complied the terms of the Lease

Agreement. The Plaintiff not occupied the premises. In the month April, 2009 the employee of the Plaintiff visited the premises and noticed that the internal walls were not removed, the same was informed to the Plaintiff , on that the Plaintiff informed the same to the Defendant to refund of the security deposit as the Defendant failed to return back the security deposit amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the Plaintiff filed the suit.

The case of the Defendant is that, there is no such terms and conditions in the Lease Agreement about the renovation or modifications or removal of internal walls of the premises.

The Plaintiff already occupied the premises on 1-5-2009 without paying the remaining balance security deposit of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The Plaintiff vacated the premises without prior intimation , on that, the Plaintiff invested an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- in the schedule property towards fixtures suitable to the business of the Plaintiff, now the Defendant filed the counter claim seeking relief of recovery of three months rent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month, ie., Rs.45,000/- and

Rs.1,50,000/- as the Defendant incurred expenditure towards 8 the fixtures installed schedule premises. As the Plaintiff specifically seeking refund of Rs.1,00,000/- advance security deposit from the Defendant along with interest at the rate of 36% per annum stating that, the Defendant violated the terms of the Lease Agreement. As seen from the Lease Agreement which was marked as Ex.A4, there is no such clause or condition in the Lease Agreement inrespect of the alterations, modifications or removal of internal walls in the schedule premises. In such circumstances, since the Plaintiff case is the Defendant not removed the internal walls as agreed in the

Lease Agreement is not supported by oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of the Plaintiff , R. Venkat Rao, Senior

Associate Infrastructures examined as PW1 categorically admitted that, there is no such clause in the Lease Agreement about the requirements as pleaded by the Plaintiff. More over it is also admitted by PW1 that, there is no separate document or requirements placed before the Defendant to show modifications of the premises suitable for the Plaintiff business purpose. In the absence of the said clause or any document or any evidence , it is very difficult to decide that the Plaintiff placed some requirements of modifications of the schedule property before the Defendant. In such circumstances, there is no evidence available on record to show that the Defendant violated the terms of the Lease Agreement. It is admitted by 9 the PW1 that, as per Memorandum of Understanding, the

Plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Defendant on 1-5- 2009. It is also admitted by the PW1 that, the Plaintiff has not issued any notice to the Defendant about the termination of the Lease Agreement, in such circumstances the contention of the Plaintiff that the Lease Agreement was not acted upon cannot be taken into consideration. The case of the Plaintiff is that, they have not occupied the premises on 1-5-2009 , in such circumstances the Plaintiff ought to have issued a notice by terminating the Lease Agreement and demanded the

Defendant to refund of the advance security deposit of

Rs.1,00,000/- that was not done by the Plaintiff. More over the Defendant got issued a legal notice on 13-8-2009 for that the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 10-9-2009 , even in that notice also, there is no such mention about the termination of the tenancy of cancellation of Lease Agreement.

In such circumstances now the Plaintiff cannot seek refund the said Rs.1,00,000/- along with the interest from the Defendant.

More over as per the terms of Lease Agreement, the Plaintiff should have demanded for refund of security deposit at the time of vacating the premises, if the Defendant failed to return back the amount, the amount shall carry 24% interest and the

Plaintiff shall not vacate the premises till such time. Then it is clear that, the Plaintiff has not followed this condition, at the 10 same time, the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is not occupied the premises on 1-5-2009 cannot be taken into consideration as per the terms of the Lease Agreement, the Tenancy was commencing from 1-5-2009, if at all the Plaintiff is not occupying the premises, on the same day, the Plaintiff ought to have issue notice to the Defendant to that effect, but there is no response from the Plaintiff up to the issuance of legal notice

dt: 13-8-2009 by the Defendant. Hence, the Plaintiff is not

entitled for the recovery of the suit amount.

ISSUE No. 1 : - Whether the Defendant made any additional constructions, in the lease hold premises as directed by the Plaintiff?

Issue No.3 : - Whether the Defendant is entitled for counter claim amount?

8.The Defendant filed written statement cum counter claim stating that, the Defendant incurred expenditure Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional constructions and that the Defendant is claiming rent amount at the rate of Rs.15,000/- for three months ie., Rs.45,000/- . As the Defendant specifically pleaded that the Defendant incurred expenditure of

Rs.1,50,000/- , then it is for the Defendant to prove the same by placing oral and documentary evidence. The Defendant did not enter into the witness box, even though PW1 was cross examined by the Defendant counsel and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 11 marked in the cross examination. Ex.B1 is the office copy of legal notice dt: 13-8-2009 and Ex.B2 is the postal acknowledgment. Except Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 there is no single document filed by the Defendant to show that the Defendant incurred expenditure Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional constructions. It is also admitted by PW1 that there is no clause in the Lease Agreement or Memorandum of

Understanding with regard to the additional constructions. In such circumstances, the claim of the Defendant for recovery of

Rs.1,50,000/- towards additional construction is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. Hence, the Defendant is not entitled for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Plaintiff.

With regard to the recovery of three months rent, it is admitted fact as per the Lease Agreement , Lease is commencing from 1-5-2009 , there is no evidence filed by the Plaintiff to show that, Lease Agreement was not acted upon. Even though the said Lease Agreement is unregistered Lease Agreement, but the Plaintiff has to inform the Defendant about the cancellation of the Lease Agreement, but there is no notice was given to the Plaintiff to the Defendant , in such circumstances, it appears that the Lease Agreement is acted upon. Hence the

Plaintiff has to pay the agreed rents at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month for the months of May, June, July, 2009 ie.,

Rs.45,000/- to the Defendant. Hence, the Defendant is 12 entitled for arrears of rents of Rs.45,000/- from the Plaintiff.

Hence the counter claim is partly allowed for Rs.45,000/- and the Plaintiff is directed to pay the arrears of rents of

Rs.45,000/- to the Defendant.

9.In the result, suit of the Plaintiff is dismissed with costs and counter claim of the Defendant is partly allowed for

Rs.45,000/- with proportionate costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of December, 2016.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1:R. Venkat Rao

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

EX.A1: is the copy of certificate of incorporation

EX.A2: is the copy of Board Resolution dt: 23-11-2009 EX.A3: is the memorandum of understanding dt: 13-1-2009 EX.A4: is the receipt dt: 13-1-2009 EX.A5: is the o/c of legal notice dt 13-8-2009 EX.A6: is the reply notice dt: 10-9-2009 13

EX.A7: is the rejoinder notice dt: 15-12-2009

Ex.A8: is the unregistered lease agreement dt: 13-1-2009 marked subject to objection.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: is the o/c of notice dt: 13-8-2009 Ex.B2: is the postal ack.,

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

DECREE IN ORIGINAL SUIT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI, BSC, BL.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

OS.NO. 488 OF 2010

BETWEEN:-

.....Plaintiff

A N D

1. A. Balraj, S/o A. Pentaiah, Age : 54 years, Occ: Retd., Employee, R/o : H.No.3-5-95, Hyderguda,Attapur,R.R. District.

2. A. Arun Kumar, S/o A. Balraj, Age: 23 years, Occ: Employee, R/o : H.No.3-5-95, Hyderguda, Attapur, R.R. District.

...Defendants

Claim : - Suit filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- together with interest at the rate of 36% p.a., on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit and costs from the Defendants.

Plaint presented on : - 25-2-2010 Plaint Numbered on : - 25-3-2010

Cause of action : - Arose on 13-1-2009 when the Lease Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding was entered with the Defendant on 13-8-2009 when the Plaintiff got issued legal notice, on 10-9- 2009 when the Defendants issued Reply notice on 15-12-2009 when the Plaintiff got issued rejoinder and on all various dates when the Plaintiff requested the Defendant for payment of refundable security an amount and the cause of action is continuous.

Valuation : - Suit is valued at Rs.1,36,000/- and paid Court fee of 15

Rs.3826/-herewith U/s. 20 r/w Article 1(b) & (c) of Schedule 1 of A.P.C.F and SV Act.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A. Venkatesh, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri P.

Kamalakar, counsel for Defendants and upon perusal of material papers on the record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree as follows : -

1. That the suit of the Plaintiff be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs;

2. That the counter claim of the Defendant is partly allowed for

Rs.45,000/- with proportionate costs .

3. That the Plaintiff shall pay a sum of Rs._______to the Defendants towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 8th day of December, 2016.

Prl. Senior

Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

Cost of the suit

For Plaintiff For Defendants

1. Stamp on plaint

2. Stamp on power

3. Process fee

4. Advocate fee ____________________________ TOTAL ____________________________

Prl. Senior

Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District 16

OS/158/2016

Mohd Ibrahim Khaleel vs Mohd. Azhar

09 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI., Bsc., BL

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED ON THIS THE 9th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

OS.No. 158 OF 2016

Between:

Mohd. Ibrahim Khaleel, S/o Mohd. Khaja Age : 29 years, Occ: Business, R/o : H.No.17-2-898/A/2/1/A,

Yakutpura, Rein Bazar, Hyderabad. .....Plaintiff

AND

1.Mohd. Azhar, S/o Mohd.Khaja,

2.Mohd. Amer, S/o Mohd. Khaja

3.Mohd. Shoeb, S/o Mohd. Khaja

4.Mohd. Abrar, S/o Mohd. Khaja

5.Mohd. Asjad, S/o Mohd. Khaja

.....Defendants

This Original Suit is coming for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri. S. Prashanth Kumar, counsel for the Plaintiff and

Defendants remained set exparte and upon perusing the Suit, and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed for declaration that the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of 2 deceased Smt. Mateen Sultana and Sri Mohd. Khaja and the Plaintiff's are the absolute owners of the Plot No.13 admeasuring 406 sq.

yards , Balaji Residency, Palamkole village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga

Reddy District.

2.General notice and publication was issued. No objectors were present. Defendants 3 to 5 were set exparte. Suit against the

Defendants 1 and 2 was dismissed for non payment of process.

3.On behalf of the Plaintiff , the first Plaintiff was examiend as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents.

4.The Plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Smt. Mateena and Mohd. Khaja.

5.The contention of the Plaintiff's are that, the first Plaintiff and the Defendants are the sons and the second Plaintiff is the daughter of Smt. Mateen Sultana and Mohd. Khaja. During the life time of

Smt. Mateen Sultana, she acquired the house plot bearing No.13, 406 sq. yards in SY.No.70/A, 70/1, 70/E, 70/F, 71/A, 71/C, 71/E, 74/A, 74/C, 71/D of Balaji Residency of Palamkole village under registered

Sale Deed document No.3092 / 2005 dt: 2-4-2005 . The mother of the Plaintiff Smt. Mateen Sultana died intestate on 26-5-2007 and the father of the Plaintiff's died on 23-5-2013 leaving behind the Plaintiff's and the Defendants and the legal heirs. The third Defendant on 31- 12-2015 along with the second Plaintiff came to the schedule property 3 and demanded for the share of the second Plaintiff and the second

Plaintiff is not relating to the family. The Defendants are not cooperating with the second Plaintiff as the Defendants denied the legal status of the second Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's approached the Court by filing the suit to declare that the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are the legal heirs of Smt. Mateen Sultana and Mohd. Khaja.

6.As the Defendants were set exparte and there is no objectors, approached before the Court with objections as the Plaintiff's by filing the chief affidavit and marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents proved that the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are the legal heirs of Smt. Mateen

Sultana and Mohd. Khaja and the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property.

Hence the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are entitled for declaration.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Mateen

Sultana and Mohd. Khaja and the Plaintiff's and the Defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. ie.,

Plot No.13 admeasuring 406 sq. yards in SY.No.70/A, 70/1, 70/E, 70/F, 71/A, 71/C, 71/D, 74/A, 74/C, 71/D, Balaji Residency,

Palamkole village, Shamshabad (M), Ranga Reddy District ་

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th Day of December, 2016.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

P.W.1: Mohd. Ibrahim Khaleel

FOR DEFENDANTS :- Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

EX.A1: is the certified copy of sale deed document No.3092 / 2005

dt: 2-4-2005

EX.A2: is the death certificate of Mateen Sultana

EX.A3: is the death certificate of Mohd. Khaja EX.A4: is the Market Value Certificate

FOR DEFENDANTS :- Exparte.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District 5

OS/554/2015

A.Hema Latha vs Yada Anjaiah

08 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI, BSC, BL.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

OS.NO. 554 OF 2015

BETWEEN:-

A. Hema Latha, W/o A. Rajulu, Age: 42 years, Occ: Business, R/o : Plot No.563A, Allwyn Colony, Phase I, Kukatpally, R.R. District.

.....Plaintiff

A N D

Yada Anjaiah, S/o Somaiah, Age : 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.4-32-396, Plot No.996/A, Allwyn Colony, Phase – I, Kukatpally, R.R. District.

...Defendant

This Suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Chakrapani, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon perusal of material papers on the record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of

Rs.10,68,000/- from the Defendant basing on the demand promissory note transaction.

2.Defendant was set exparte.

The Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendant for an amount of Rs.10,68,000/- basing on the three demand promissory notes dt: 23-1-2013. The case of the Plaintiff is that, the Defendant had borrowed Rs.6,00,000/- from the

Plaintiff on 23-1-2013 and executed three promissory notes by agreeing to repay the amount along with the interest at the rate of 2% per month. The Defendant promised to repay the amount within five months. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant got issued three cheques bearing No.825602, 825603, 825605. The Plaintiff presented the cheques in ING Vysya Bank, KPHB and the same was returned as the 'ACCOUNT CLOSED OUT' on 10-7-2013, then the Plaintiff went to the house of the Defendant and found the house was lock and the whereabouts of the Defendant was not known. The Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant indebted to several others and several creditors visiting the house of the Defendant, on that the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the Defendant on 9-4-2015 , the said notice was returned as 'ADDRESSE LEFT WITHOUT INTIMATION' . On that the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant trying to sell away his property. Hence the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of

Rs.10,68,000/- from the Defendant.

3.As the Defendant was set exparte, the Plaintiff filed the 3 chief affidavit by marking the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 proved the suit transaction. Hence the Plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the Defendant along with the interest and cost.

4. In the result, suit is decreed with cost against the defendant for an amount of Rs.10,68,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a., till realisation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of December, 2016.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1:A. Hemalatha

FOR DEFENDANT: Exparte 4

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

ExA1: is the original cheque bearing No.825602 dt:1- 6-2013 drawn on ING Vysya bank.

ExA2: is the original demand promissory note

dt: 23-01-13

ExA3: is the original cheque return memo

dt:10-07-2013

ExA4: is the original cheque bearing No.825603

dt:1-6-2013 drawn on ING Vysya bank.

ExA5: is the original demand promissory note dt:23- 01-13

ExA6: is the original cheque return memo

dt:10-07-2013

ExA7: is the original cheque bearing No.825605

dt:1-6-2013 drawn on ING Vysya bank.

ExA8: is the original demand promissory note dt:23- 01-13

ExA9: is the original cheque return memo

dt:10-07-2013

ExA10: is the office copy of legal notice dt: 9-4-2015

ExA11: is the Postal receipt dt: 9-4-2015 ExA12: is the return postal cover dt: 10-4-2015

FOR DEFENDANT: Exparte

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

OS/1/2016

Smt B. Sathyamma vs The Tahsildar Uppal Mandal

16 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI., Bsc., BL

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED ON THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

OS.No. 1 OF 2016

Between:

1. Smt. B. Sathyamma, W/o late Swamy

2. Smt. B. Yadamma, D/o late Swamy

3. Smt. B. Laxmi, D/o late Swamy,

4. B. Yadaiah, S/o late Swamy,

5. Smt. B. Vara Laxmi, D/o : late Swamy .....Plaintiffs

AND

1.The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, R.R. District.

2.N. V. P. Sudhakar, S/o late Mangayya

3.Smt. N. Lakshmi Kanthi, W/o N.V. P. Sudhakar,

4.A. Shiva Prasad, S/o Balaiah

.....Defendants

This Original Suit is coming for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri. Liaquat Ali Jan, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants remained set exparte and upon perusing the Suit, and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for declaration that the Plaintiffs are the legal heirs of deceased-B. Swamy and the Plaintiffs succeeded 2 the suit schedule property as an absolute owners.

2.General notice and publication was issued. No objectors were present. Defendants 1 to 4 were set exparte.

3.The Plaintiffs filed the suit stating that the first Plaintiff is the wife of B. Swamy and the Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are the children of late B.

Swamy and the first Plaintiff. B. Swamy expired on 5-8-2001 leaving behind the Plaintiffs as his legal heirs. During the life time of B.

Swamy, he acquired the property under registered sale deed under document No.2377/79 dt: 8-3-79 , thereafter the Plaintiffs sold the property to third Defendant under document No.679/12, dt: 3-3-2012 in turn third Defendant sold the property to the frouth Defendant under document No.2420/14, dt: 17-7-2014, now the fourth

Defendant approached the Bank for the purpose of loan , then the officials insisted for legal heir certificate, then the fourth Defendant asked the Plaintiffs to give the legal heir's proof, on that the Plaintiffs approached the Court as the Defendants denied the legal status of the

Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs filed the suit.

4.The Defendants were set exparte and the Plaintiff by filing the chief affidavit and by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents proved that the Plaintiffs are the surviving legal heirs of B. Swamy, succeeded estate of B. Swamy ie., suit schedule property.

5.In the result suit is decreed by declaring the Plaintiffs are the surviving legal heirs of B. Swamy and succeeded the estate of B.

Swamy ie., suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th Day of December, 2016.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :-

P.W.1: B. Yadaiah

FOR DEFENDANTS :- Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS :-

EX.A1: is the Mee seva copy of death certificate B. Swamy EX.A2: is the certified copy of sale deed document No.2377/1979,

dt: 8-3-1979

EX.A3: is the certified copy of sale deed document No.679/12,

dt: 3-3-12

EX.A4: is the certified copy of sale deed document No.2420/14,

dt: 17-7-2014

Ex.A5: is the Market value certificate

FOR DEFENDANTS :- Exparte.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District 4

OS/1766/2014

Bank of Baroda, Gaddiannaram Branch vs Ms.Ramya Prathyusha

16 Dec 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: SMT. K.LALITHA KUMARI, BSC, BL.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016.

OS.NO. 1766 OF 2014

BETWEEN:-

Bank of Baroda, Gaddiannaram Branch, Rep., by it authorised signatory, Chief Manager -G.R.B.Sastry.

.....Plaintiff

A N D

1. Ms. Ramya Prathyusha, D/o K. raghava Rao,

2. K. raghava rao, S/o Seshagiri Rao,

3. Smt. K. Rangavalli, W/o K. Raghava Rao,

...Defendants

This Suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T. Chitturu counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and upon perusal of material papers on the record and the matter having stood over consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.Suit is filed by the Plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,65,479/- from the Defendants 1 to 3 basing on a

Educational loan transaction.

2.Defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte.

The Plaintiff by filing the chief affidavit of M.

Sharat Chandra, Credit Manager as PW1 and by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents.

3.The Plaintiff filed the suit against the Defendant stating that the first Defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,13,800/- towards Educational loan from the Plaintiff Bank.

The Defendants 1 to 3 jointly executed the demand promissory note on 21-6-2006. Thereafter, inspite of repeated demands, the Defendants 1 to 3 acknowledge the debt by executing letter

dt: 25-7-2008 and dt: 23-10-2010 , thereafter failed to pay the

amount, on that the Plaintiff filed the suit after giving notice as the Defendants failed to pay the amount, the Plaintiff filed the suit.

4.The Defendants were set exparte. The Plaintiff by way of affidavit and by marking the documents proved the suit transaction , hence the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the Defendants 1 to 3.

5.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,65,479/- and subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on

Rs.1,13,800/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a., till realisation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of December, 2016.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF

PW-1:M. Saratchandra

FOR DEFENDANTS: Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

ExA1: is the demand promissory note dt: 21-6-2006

ExA2: is the letter of installments dt: 21-6-2006

ExA3: is the letter of Ack., of debt dt: 25-7-2008

ExA4: is the letter of Ack., of debt. Dt: 23-12-2010

ExA5: is the statement of account

FOR DEFENDANTS: Exparte

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Order Record 1,225 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/1/2016	Smt B. Sathyamma vs The Tahsildar Uppal Mandal	16 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1766/2014	Bank of Baroda, Gaddiannaram Branch vs Ms.Ramya Prathyusha	16 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/158/2016	Mohd Ibrahim Khaleel vs Mohd. Azhar	09 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/488/2010	Ms. Optival Health Solutions Private Limited vs Mr. A.Balraj	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/554/2015	A.Hema Latha vs Yada Anjaiah	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1348/2016	Gundala Laxmamma vs L.Sreenivasulu	08 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/45/2014	Smt G.Jyothi vs The Depot Manager	07 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1235/2016	K.srinivasulu vs Smt.M.Anasuya and another	07 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1390/2014	Smt Neela Sheela Devi vs Nagaram Balaiah	07 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/234/2016	The State through Sub inspector of Police Manchal vs Moddu Narender Reddy	05 Dec 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2051/2013	Sri Kaki Narayana vs Sri Gopagalla Shankaraiah	30 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/350/2015	Chintapalli Rao Jagadish vs M.Rajababu	29 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1430/2016	N.Nagaraju vs N.Sridhar	25 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1592/2016	Y.showreddy vs K.ravinder Reddy	25 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/297/2010	Smt. M.Narsamma Wo. Late M.Achaiah vs Thimmapagari N.Srinivasulu Reddy	24 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701/2016	Sreekonda Bhaskar vs Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy	24 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1479/2014	Dr N.Papa Rao vs Mr.Kothamasu Ram Mohan Gupta	23 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1005/2009	Sri K.Satyanarayana vs Sri C.V.Subba Reddy	21 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1006/2009	Smt. Kalyanapu Padmaja Rani vs Smt. Chapala Anuradha	21 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1284/2016	Y. Ravi Kiran vs P.Srinivas and others	18 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/639/2014	Smt Yousuf Begum vs Smt Naseem Shareef	17 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1384/2016	Kadha Venkata lalitha vs Tahsildar, Saroornagar Mandal	16 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
S.O.P/41/2016	S.Rajya Lakshmi vs Laser Shavings India PVt Ltd.	16 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
S.O.P/42/2016	G.Suvarna vs G.Sujatha	16 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/64/2015	Janapatla Manjula vs The Life Insurance Corportin of India	15 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1545/2008	Smt. G.Malathi vs Smt. A.Saritha	15 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1567/2011	K.Malla Reddy vs Roopa Reddy	10 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/17/2016	Kadapa Yellamma vs The Branch Manager	09 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/365/2011	Smt. Saleemunissa vs B.Veera Mouly	09 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/276/2016	Kuthuru Narsimha Reddy vs Yella Latha	08 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1523/2016	Pulipaka Rama Rao vs The Tahsildar	07 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/662/2009	Ms. Saraiwalaa Agrr Refineries Ltd., Rep by its Manager vs Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC)	04 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1402/2016	D.Venkat Reddy vs B.Ravikumar	04 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2096/2013	Challagonda Hanumantha Reddy vs T.Srinivas Reddy	04 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/980/2016	D.Ajay vs D.Arun	03 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2049/2014	Sri Ch.Subramanyeswara Rao vs Sri K.Nancharaiah	03 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/889/2016	Smt Sairi Kalavathi vs Smt Mothukuri Vijaya Kumari	02 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/890/2016	Marripelli Srinivas vs Smt Mothukuri Vijaya Kumari	02 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/194/2010	Darlapally Ramchandraiah vs The State through P.S.Vikarabad	01 Nov 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/275/2016	P.Venkataramana vs Nirmala Gudese	31 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/52/2015	Gudipati Venkata Sri Ramakrishna vs All Concerned	28 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/10/2012	Ms.Sree Latha Consul Ting Engineering, vs Kum.Machunuru Venkata Hari Priya	28 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1465/2016	Smt.Jyothisantialal patel vs Mithaben Patel	27 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1466/2016	Mithaben Patel vs Smt.Jyothisantilal Patel	27 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/33/2016	Kumar Hamal vs Tahasildar	26 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/814/2015	State Bnak of India vs Tiyyagura Naga Sushmitha	26 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1252/2016	Ch.Shoba vs Executive Officer, Bodangpet Panchayath	26 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/418/2016	Smt Kasu Prameela vs The Mandal Revenue Officer	25 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/16/1996	C.Chakradhara Reddy vs C.Chandrasekhar Reddy	24 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/162/2013	Smt.D.Padma vs Ms.Hemraj Udyog	24 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1188/2016	Chinthakindi rakesh vs Chinthakindi Vijay Prasad	17 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1450/2012	Smt.Kommagouni Prashanthi vs Sri K.Surender Reddy	17 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/670/2007	Prameela Bai vs Special Deputy collector	14 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/971/2013	Syndicate Bank., vs Sri Rajesh Shukla	14 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1165/2016	Sama Anitha Reddy vs The Tahsildar	14 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1296/2016	AV GOpala Krishna vs All concern	14 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/762/2015	Sri Shrinath Mokkapati vs M.Rajesh Naidu	13 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1199/2016	Smt.K.Ratna Kumari vs Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal	13 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1581/2014	Mr.Dasari Lingaiah vs Maddoju Mr.Maddoju Venkateswalu	13 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1609/2013	Smt G.Anuradha vs Smt Booma Rangan	13 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2171/2009	Ms Ravindra Industrial and Medical Gases, Rep. by its vs Smt. Katta Laxmi Reddy	13 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/321/2016	The State Through Police Station RGI Airport vs P.Krishna	07 Oct 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/36/2015	K.Sangeetha vs G.R.Gopal	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1123/2016	K.Kalamma vs All Concerned	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2148/2011	Smt. K.Kamakshamma vs V.Sivaji	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2447/2011	C.Radhakrishna Reddy vs Alluru Venkata Rama Raju	29 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/436/2016	Jajula Anjaiah vs Satiwada Simhachalam	27 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1825/2015	N. Mohan Reddy vs MuthiReddy Keshava Reddy	27 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/477/2016	Goulikar Anand vs G.Buchaiah	23 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/799/2014	M.Mohan Reddy vs M.Sudershan Reddy	22 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/509/2007	N.Srishailam vs G.Ashok	20 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1689/2015	M.Bal Reddy vs T.Venkat Reddy	19 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/5/2014	K.Laxmi Kantha vs Mandal Educational Officer	15 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/764/2016	Smt Thikkavarapu Padmavathi vs M.Srinivas Reddy	14 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1427/2009	K.Mahender Reddy vs Santi Kishan	13 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1249/2010	Ms. MNR Bhavitha Chits (P) Limited vs K.Radha Krishna	12 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1610/2015	Gutta Prem Chander Reddy vs Bharath Rama Rao	12 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/31/2016	Shaheen Bagum vs Sania Firdous	09 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/23/2016	Smt Mudigonda Swaroopa vs The Commissioner, The Employee Provident Fund Offi	08 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/434/2010	Smt. Manjula Alimineti Wo. A.Janga Reddy vs A.Indra Reddy	08 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1307/2013	Smt Aktharunnisa Begum vs Mohammad Ghouse	08 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/2005/2012	Smt.P.Sulochana Devi vs A.H.Iftekhar	08 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/121/2011	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Kukatpally, R.R.District vs Mr. C.Ravi Kumar	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1876/2014	Konda Latha vs Amalapur Rajeswari	07 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/671/2016	Smt Kulluri Venkata Subbayamma vs Kusuluri Madhu	06 Sep 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/18/2016	Sri B.Chandershain vs All Concerned	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/626/2016	Ms Kolluju Sushma vs Mrs Gummadi Suryakala	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/717/2016	Leela Devi vs The Tahsildar	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1043/2016	Regu Parameshwari vs Tahsildar	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1572/2014	R.Mohiddin vs Sri Chunduri Subba Rao	19 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/22/2016	Mrs Aleti Nukalamma vs Maheswari	18 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/114/2016	Dasari Sukanya vs The Mandal Revenue officer	18 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/222/2015	Karra Rama Krishna Reddy vs K.Sowmya Reddy	18 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/667/2016	Smt Kalluri Anjamma vs Kusuluri Madhu	18 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/292/2009	R.Suseela vs K.Babu Rao	16 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/761/2016	Kasanai Balamma vs Smt.Nayakamma	12 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/19/2015	Lakshminarayana Royyuru vs Postal SuperintendentSub-Post Master, BHEL	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/565/2016	Smt Syeda Muneer Fatima vs Sri Kota Sathi Reddy	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/734/2016	Smt Kanaka Lakshmi Mokkapati vs The Mandal Revenue Officer	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/765/2016	Smt G.Varalaxmi vs A.P.Housing Board T.W	11 Aug 2016	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 1,225 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Dec 2016		10
Nov 2016		29
Oct 2016		23
Sep 2016		23
Aug 2016		30
Jul 2016		10
Jun 2016		33
Apr 2016		41
Mar 2016		37
Feb 2016		39
Jan 2016		24
Dec 2015		55

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.K.Lalitha kumari handled?

Smt.K.Lalitha kumari has handled 1227 court orders since 2013 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 27 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.K.Lalitha kumari hear?

Based on available records, Smt.K.Lalitha kumari primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Original Petitions) and Criminal matters (SCC, Sessions Cases) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.K.Lalitha kumari currently posted?

Smt.K.Lalitha kumari is posted as Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.K.Lalitha kumari available online?

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

How fast does Smt.K.Lalitha kumari dispose cases?

Smt.K.Lalitha kumari disposes approximately 27 cases per month, based on 1227 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.K.Lalitha kumari serving?

Smt.K.Lalitha kumari has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2013.

Case Types

OS 74%

OP 15%

SCC 4%

EP 3%

RCA 2%

CMA 1%

SC 1%

S 0%

Posting History

May 2013 — Feb 2017

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge · 1,227 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.karna Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge

264 orders

Sri. Vinod Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

1 orders

Smt. Ch.ashalatha

Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal for Rang...

143 orders

Sri.Y.Sathyendra

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

173 orders

Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

IV ADJ-IV Addl.MSJ-cum-I Addl.Family Court

3 orders

Smt.M.Bhavani

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

0 orders

Dundhigalla Sadhana

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga...

19 orders

Smt.T.JayaLakshmi

X Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

891 orders

Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

0 orders

Smt T Anitha

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

0 orders

Smt.M.Vani

Special Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the Cases...

1,621 orders

Ms. K. C. Reddy Devarapalli

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Judic...

0 orders

Smt.Shraddha Sehgal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Special(Mobile)...

87 orders

Ms.Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise...

69 orders

Ms. S.Swarna Mallika

III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl.Jud...

21 orders

Sri B.Kiran Teja

VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl.Judic...

45 orders

Ms. Shereena Mohd

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

0 orders

Mrs. Sravana Swathi Chintada

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magi...

2 orders

Sri J.Hanumantha Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Ma...

12 orders

Arpitha Maram Reddy

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Chief Judi...

24 orders

Sri. Gannarapu Sudarshan

Family Court Judge

0 orders

Smt. P. Srivani

Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar

0 orders

G. Srinivas

Special Sessions Judge for trial and Disposal of P...

55 orders

Sri G.Sampurna Anand

Commercial Disputes Courts RangaReddy

0 orders

← View all judges at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex