Smt K. Saradambha

1

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. K.SARADAMBA

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam

Monday, the 16 th day of March, 2020

CC No. 100/2018 Old C.C.No. 151/2017

Between : State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Pendurthy L & O P.S. Visakhapatnam City. … Complainant

And

Siyadri Narasimha Rao, S/o. China Appala Naidu, age 45years, SC, D.No.13-292/A,

Arilova, AmbedkarNagar, Sector-2, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. Driver of RTC bus

Regd.No. AP 28 Z 5040.… Accused

This case is coming on 16.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned APP for State and Sri. M.A.Raju, Learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Police filed chargesheet under section 304-A IPC in crime no. 605/2016 of Pendurthy PS, Visakhapatnam City against the accused to punish him according to law.

2. Brief averments of the chargesheet:

On 18.10.2016 at 1.00 pm LW1 reported that his mother / Mahendrawada

Laxmi Narasimamba ( here in called the deceased ) aged 76 years while crossing the BRTS road at Durga Nagarm, Vepagunta. The driver of the APSRTC bus bearing no. AP 28 Z 5040, route no. 541 drove the same in rash and negligent manner in high speed while proceeding from Pendurthy towards Vepagunta, dashed his mother / deceased, she sustained grivious injuries, LW4 shifted the injured to SR hospital, GOpalapatnam for first aid later shifted to Apex hospital for better treatment while checking by medical officer, she died. LW15 registered the report

2

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP of LW1 as a case in crime no. 605/2016 under section 304-A IPC and endorsed the same to LW14 for investigation. LW14 visited the scene of offence examined the witnesses 1 to 7 and recorded their statements and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in presence of the LW8 to 10 and sent the body to postportem examination later corpus was handover to the blood relatives and

LW11 photograph the crime scene on 19.10.2016. The police served 41-A Cr.P.C.

notice to the accused enlarged him on bail and sent a letter to the MV Inspector /

LW12. After receiving the MV report and postmortem certificate handover the case file to LW15. He verified investigation of LW14 and filed chargesheet.

3.The III Metropolitan Magistrate ( The court was changed as VII Metropolitan

Magistrate) taken cognizance against the accused under section 304-A IPC and

numbered as CC No. 151/2017 on 28.03.2017, that was transfered to V Addl.

Junior Civil Judge as per orders of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 06.01.2018 said court issued summons to the accused for appearance.

4.On appearance of the accused furnished copies under section 207 Cr.P.C.

and examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. when accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Summons were issued to the LW1 to 3 while pending the summons to the witness again the matter was transferred. Later it was transferred to this court as per orders of the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Visakhapatnam dated 15.12.2018 in vide dis no. 1243.

5.In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution cited as many as witnesses 1 to 15. LW16 was added as per criminal MP no. 214/2020 out LW16 witnesses, the prosecution examined the PW1 to 10 and exhibited Ex.P1 to P9.

The remaining witnesses given up by the APP and LW7 evidence is closed as per

VR report.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. the incriminating evidence against him is readover and explained to him he denied the same pleaded not guilty.

3

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

7.Heard for both:

8.Point for determination:

"Whether the accused established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt

or not."

i) Whether the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident or not.

ii) Whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle or not.

iii) Whether the accused driven the APSRTC Bus bearing no. AP

28 Z 5040 with rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased or not.

9. Point No.1:

The prosecution case is LW1 mother Laxmi Narasimamba / deceased while crossing the BRTS road, the driver of APSRTC bus bearing no. AP 28 Z 5040 driven the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased mother of LW1 and she sustained grivious injuries while taking treatment she died at Apex

Hostel.

In order to prove the prosecution case LW1 who is son of the deceased got examined as PW1, according to him the accident was occurred on 17.10.2016 by the time of accident he was at his business place / Prahladapuram he came to know about the incident through one P.Srinivasa Rao. Immeditely rushed to the hospital and lodged report before the SHO and LW2 is his wife, LW3 is his elder brother. At the scene of offence he observed the two RTC buses, one bus bearing no. AP 28 Z 5040 was placed in the right side of the road who was placed towards

GOpalapatnam, LW2 and 3 evidence given up by the prosecution, LW4 /

P.Srinivasa Rao, P.Bhargavi were got examined as PW2 and 3. According to PW2, she taking training as a data entry operator at the computer center running by

4

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP the grand son Rama Murthy, she came to know the incident owner through onwer of the deceased when she rushed to the spot found that there is a deceased laying on the road with injuries and found that one RTC bus at the spot bearing bus no. AP 28 Z 5040 route no. 541 faced from the Pendurthy to Gopalapatnam.

Later blood relatives came there and shifted to the hospital and she came to know that the injured died. PW3 stated that PW1 is his tenant, his mother sustained in the accident when she one went to purchase the oil from shop while returning one

RTC bus dashed the deceased coming from Pendurthy towards Gopalapatnam, she saw the incident from his terrance and immediately rushed to the spot when injured sustained bleading head injury and he informed to the PW1 immediately shifted to injured to SR Hospital, Gopalapatnam by the time his wife also came to the scene of offence and visited the hospital, later injured shifted apex hospital, medical officer declared the death of the deceased.

Another eye witness LW6/ G.Appa Rao given up by the APP and LW7/

S.Kondala Rao evidence was closed in view of the VR report by stating that where aboout not known. The remaining witnesses LW8 to 10 were the witnesses to the inquest over the deceased dead body conducted by the LW14. One of the witnesses P.Ramalaxmi got examined as PW4, inquest report got marked through

PW4, medical officer P.V.Ramana got examined as PW7 and he issued PM certificate. And he opined that death occurred due to head injury, postmortem certificate got marked as Ex.P6. After perusal of the evidence available on record the deceased Laxmi Narasimamba made that an accident on 17.10.2016 and the report was lodged by her son on 18.10.2016 under section 304-A IPC and registered the same as crime no. 605/2016 and LW14 investigation officer/S.Satyanarayana conducted inquest over the deceased dead body and sent the body to the postmortem. After receving the postmortem certificate, the charge sheet was filed but as seen from the inquest report, the deceased is Laxmi

Narasimamba and conducted inquest at KGH in the presence of the

5

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

Panchayatidars and blood relatives as scene from the Ex.P6, the deceased sustained 1 to 16 injuries as per postmortem certificate, cause of death is multiple injuries. After careful perusal of the Ex.P2 and P6 there is no doubt the deceased was died due to injuries. According PW1 to 4, the deceased met with accident but none of the witnesses not identified the person who caused the death. There is no necessity to conduct the postmortem certificate and inquest if the person died in nature so the reasons mentioned Ex.P2 and P6 are trust worthy to decide the death of the deceased.

10. Point No. 2:

According to the Ex.P1 report, the accused is the driver of RTC bus bearing no. AP 28 Z 5040 route no. 541. On 17.10.2016 at about 18.00 hours, the drive of the bus proceeded from Pendurthy towards Vepagunta while crossing BRTS roard said RTC bus dashed the deceased and sustained injuries, the police served the 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and enlarged him on bail if the accused not a driver of the bus, there is no necessity to served before the police, the police filed statistical and ticket accountable record and said copy got makred as EX.P9. Ex.P9 stands in the name of S.N.Rao, the remaining data pertaining to the RTC bus AP 28 Z 5040 route no. 541. According to the Ex.P9, the accused engaged as a driver of that bus on 17.10.2016. After careful perusal of the evidence available on record, the driver of the bus drove the bus on 17.10.2017 but the eye witness not identified the driver who is accused in this case, the circumastantial evidence i.e., the bus placed at the time at the scene of offence towards right side of the road which was faced towards Gopalapatnam as scene of the offence of the PW3, 4, 5,

The driver was not present at the scene of offence. The police got photos at scene of offence through PW5 said photos are got marked as Ex.P3 three in number. The photos not containing any receipt to show that the photos were taken on that day.

The positive photos discloses the bus number only. The evidence is not sufficient to conclude that the driver of the bus is accused in this case.

6

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

11. Point No.3:

The driver of the APSRTC bus bearing bus no. AP 28 Z 5040 driven the bus with rash and negligent manner and high speed while proceeding from Pendurthy towards Vepagunta dashed the LW1 mother deceased / M.Laxmi Narasimamba.

The prosecution in order to prove the case, got examined the eye witnesses LW4, 5 as PW2 and PW3, none of the witnesses spoken about the identification of the driver of the bus both are stated there was a bus placed at the scene of offence but the driver was not present, the photos who taken at scene of offence got examined as PW5, said photos also discloses that bearing no. APSRTC bus. There is no material to show that the accused driven the bus on that day except the statestical and ticket accountable record Ex.P9.

On perusal of the records, there is no doubt that the deceased died in the acident due to road accident but the evidence available on record not sufficient to convict the accused. When the eye witnesses failed to identified the accused driver of the crime vehicle, then the doubt aroses that the bus driver is accused or not. The benefit of doubt will goes to the accused. The Learned counsel of the accused also strongly opposed vehimently argued the eye witnesses of the incident not identified the driver, and PW3 saw the incident from terrace not supported to the prosecution case, the incident happened 30 meters from the house and there is no possibility look the bus which was moved. And photographs also not established any evidence to identified the driver of the bus. Moreover, as per report the deceased is 75 years old and she fell down on the road. The police file the case against the accused inorder to help the deceased family for claim, the essential ingredients not attracted in this case. The benfit of doubt will goes to the accused.

After careful perusal of the evidence, the court given to the conclusion that none of the witnesses identified the accused driver of the bus, the prosecution

7

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP utterly failed to established the guilt of the accused. There is no sufficient evidence to convict the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A IPC, he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence of 304-A

IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancel, after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in

the open court, this the 16th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence

P.W.1 : M.Venkta RaoNil

P.W.2 : P.Bhargavi

P.W.3 : P.Srinivasa Rao

P.W.4 : P.Ramalaxmi

P.W.5 : V. Ramesh

P.W.6 : S.Satyanarayana

P.W.7 : P.V.Ramana Rao

P.W.8 : T. Durga Prasad

P.W.9 : T. Murali

P.W.10 : K. Ramesh

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution

Ex.P1: Report

Ex.P2: Inquest Report

8

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

Ex.P3: Three Color Photos

Ex.P4: Scene observation report

Ex.P5: Rough sketch

Ex.P6: Post mortem certificate

Ex.P7: MVI report

Ex.P8: Original FIR

Ex.P9: Statistical and Ticket ancestral record.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PJCJ/VSP

9

C.C.No. 100/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHPATNAM.

C.C.No. 100/2018

Date of offence : 17.10.2016

Date of complaint or report : 18.10.2016

Date of apprehension : 41-A Cr.P.C

Date of release on bail: Station Bail

Date of commencement of trial : 18.07.2018

Date of Closure of trial: 12.02.2020

Hearing of arguments : 12.02.2020

Date of Judgment : 16.03.2020

R E M A R K S :

Complainant :

State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police Pendurthy L & O P.S. Visakhapatnam City.

Accused : Siyadri Narasimha Rao, S/o. China Appala Naidu, age 45years, SC, D.No.13-292/A,

Arilova, AmbedkarNagar, Sector-2, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. Driver of RTC bus

Regd.No. AP 28 Z 5040.

Offence : 304-A IPC

Finding :Found not guilty

Sentence : The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC. He is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds if any shall stands cancelled after lapse of the appeal time.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

1

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. K.SARADAMBA

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 18 th day of March, 2020

CC No. 77/2018 Old C.C.No.514/2018

Between : Kadiyam Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Residing at Door No. 31-8-74/2, Bangaramma Metta, Visakhapatnam. … Complainant

And

N.A.V.Satish, S/o. Narala Srinivasa Rao, HIndu, aged 45 years, residing at Door no. 44-42-3/12, Srinivasa Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Accused

This case is coming on 18.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. K.Venkata Rao Advocate for complainant and Sri.MVS Rama Rao,

Learned Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The complainant filed complaint under section 190(1) (a), 200 and 357

Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w. 142 NI Act against the accused to punish him according to law.

2. Brief averments of the complaint:

The accused approached the complainant on 10.10.2016 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for his family expenses and clear the sundry debts executed a demand promissory note in favour of the complainant at the residence of the complainant and further agreed to pay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a., to the complainant or to his order. Inspite of several requests made by the complainant, the accused did not choose to pay either principal or interest and postponing the same on one pretext or others. Finally issued the checque in favour of the complainant bearing no. 7416481 dated 30.12.2017 drawn on State

2

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

Bank of Hyderabad. The complainant presented the said cheque for clearance in his banker Canara Bank, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam and same was returned with an endorsement of funds in sufficient and bankers issued bank return memo.

The complainant got issued legal notice on 30.01.2018 calling upon the accused to repay the entire cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice said notice was received by the accused on 01.02.2018 but he did neither pay the amount nor approached the complainant. Moreover, the accused sent a reply notice with false allegation. Hence, complainant has no alternative except approache the Hon'ble court hence this complaint.

3.The case was taken on file under sectionn 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act r/w. 142 of NI Act by II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam on 22.06.2018 and numbered as 514/2018 and transfered the matter in view of the proceedings of Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam under vide dis no. 864 dated 08.11.2018 and re-numbered as 77/2018.

4.The accused appeared before this court and copies furnished accordingly he is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the substance of the acquisitions levelled against him for the offence under section 138 r/w. 142 of NI Act explained in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the complainant case, the complainant himself got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to P6 except complainant, none was examined.

6.After completition of the prosecution case, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. incriminating evidence against the accused is read over explained to him in Telugu. After having understood the same, the accused denied the same pleaded not guilty and claimed defence evidence, not adduced any defence evidence.

7.Heard for Both:Learned counsel for the accused and complainant submitted their written statement.

3

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

8. Point for Determination:

"Whether complainant established the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act r/w. 142 of NI Act beyond

all reasonable doubt or not."

9. Point No. 1:

The complainant case that accused approached him and borrowed 2,00,000/- on 10.10.2016 and agreed to repay the same with interest @24 p.a., on his demand or order when he failed to pay the same, accused got issued cheque bearing no. 74168 when it was dishonour and returned with an endorsement of funds in sufficient, he got issued notice and finally and filed his complainant within limitation.

10.In order to prove his case, the complainant Ex.P1 to P6, Ex.P1 is the original promissory note dated 10.10.2016 and cheque bearing no. 741681 dated 30.12.2017 and cheque returned memo dated 01.01.2018. Office copy of registered lawyer notice dated 30.01.2018. Acknowledgement card from the accused and reply notice from the accused dated 02.02.2018. The complainant counsel carefully described that the accused received legal notice eaven after he did not chosen to pay the neither cheque amount or approached the complainant.

The accused sent reply notice through his counsel it shows that the accused received mandatory notice when he failed to pay the amount within 15 days. The cause of action was arosed. The complainant waited till lapse of stipulated period provided under section 138 of NI Act. The complainant followed all the mandatory proceedings provided under law. Moreover, the accused did not produced either oral evidence or documentary evidence to prove the same.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused argued that the alleged promissory note not executed by accused on 10.10.2016, he borrowed amount on 20.02.2014 by that time the complainant took one blank cheque for security

4

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP purpose. The accused signed on blank unfilled promissory note and no witnesses were present. The accused agreed for 36% interest and he used to pay Rs.

60,000/- per month from march, 2014 to May, 2016, he paid 1,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of loan amount. Therefore, he used to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month towards interest. The blanks in the promissory note and cheques were filled

before for the purpose filing this case under NI Act.The complainant during

examination admitted that he is not an income tax assessee and did not know full name of accused and his occupation, burden is on the complainant to prove that accused borrowed an amount on 10.10.2016 but not on 20.02.2014. The contention of the accused is that he never executed the promissory note it is appeared and filed into court. Any proof of the document has to be made through the author of the said document. In this case, the complainant did not chosen to examine the bankers to prove the return of the cheque marking of document is different from proof of the same. In this case, Ex.P3 is not proved as complainant failed examine the bank officials regarding return of the cheque. The complaint filed in civil court recovery of an amount due under the promissory note. There is no legal enforcible debt and complainant failed to prove his case.

After careful perusal of the evidence available on record that the accused what ever stated in his argument that he availed loan from complainant previously for the purpose of security, he given cheque and he had been falsely implicated in this case.

Section 139 of NI Act provided that presumption in favour of the holder which was be pressumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature refered in section 138 NI Act for the discharged in whole or in part of any debt or other liable. The presumption is not itself offence, the accused has to rebut the same when he failed to proved his case it makes a prima facie for party for whose benefit it exists.

5

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

Section 118 of NI Act also provides presumptions in favour of the complainant and repeatedly in nature when the complainant examined by the accused directly and during trial for his case set out by the complainant . Further burden on the accused and he may clear that presumption of law through rebuttedly.

Herein this case, the accused admitted the singature on the promissory note and cheque then pressumption has contemplated under section 139 of NI Act as to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. Mere saying that the cheque in question was given by him to the complainant as a security purpose is not sufficient to repay the presumption.

Section 20 of the NI Act declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legal enforcible in the case of signed blank cheque ansd the drawer case authority to drawee to fill up the agreed liable and same was held in case of

Madukar Vs. Desai AIR 2007 NOC 108. The accused approached complainant for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- it is only disputed by the accused that he had never approached complainant for taking loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, he stated that he has only singed on promissory note it was blank unfilled. Accused counsel cross examined witnesses at lengthy but complainant not stated anything in favour of the accused as alleged by him. The admission made by the accused he has only signed on the blank promissory note at the time none was present when he signed on it. But no prudent person will signed blank promissory note when asking as to for what purpose he will be used. when the accused himself admitted that he was signed on blank promissory note and given to the complainant, the accused himself has given authority to the complainant to fill the contents of the said promissory note without taking any legal action. Even it is given for the purpose of security he authorise the complainant to right in the promissory note as they have been agreed the accused raised another point for the complainant not filed his income tax returns and none was examined. In order to prove the

6

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP documents filed by the complainant, the argument does not raise any adverse inference against the complainant and the accused submitted arguments has no merit, the complainant served the notice to the accused and received same given reply. When the accused failed to disprove the case of the complainant either ion basis of material available on record or by adducing any defence evidence. So the complainant successfully proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

9. In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence U/sec.138 r/w 142 of

N.I. Act and convict him U/sec.255(2)(3) Cr.P.C.

Quantum of Sentence :

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, he pleaded nothing. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nil plea of the accused, though I do not consider that the accused is entitled for benevolent provisions of Probation of

Offenders Act, a lenient view is warranted . Hence the accused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay compensation to the complainant U/sec.357( 3) Cr.P.C. in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakh only ) which is equivalent to the impugned cheque Ex.P-2 with interest thereon at 9% P.A from the date of cheque i.e. 30.12.2017 within a period of two months from today failing which,to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of one month more.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in

the open court, this the 18th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

7

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Defence

P.W.1 : Kadiyam Venkata Rao, Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

Ex.P1: is the Original promissory note dated 10.10.2016.

Ex.P2: is the Original Cheque bearing no. 741681, dated 30.12.2017.

Ex.P3: is the cheque return dated 01.01.2018.

Ex.P4: is the office copy of registered lawyer's notice dated 30.01.2018.

Ex.P5: is the acknowledgment card.

Ex.P6: is reply notice dated 02.02.2018.

For Defence

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PJCJ/VSP.

8

C.C.No. 77/2018 PJCJ-MM/VSP

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE :: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. K.SARADAMBA

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam

Wednesday, the 18 th day of March, 2020

CC No. 77/2018 Old C.C.No.514/2018

Date of offence : Prior to 13-3-2018 Date of complaint or report : 13-3-2018 Date of apprehension : --- Date of release on bail: --- Date of commencement of trial : 26.10.2018 Date of Closure of trial: 06.01.2020 Hearing of arguments : 27.01.2020 Date of Judgment : 18.03.2020 R E M A R K S :

Between : Kadiyam Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Residing at Door No. 31-8-74/2, Bangaramma Metta, Visakhapatnam. … Complainant

And

N.A.V.Satish, S/o. Narala Srinivasa Rao, HIndu, aged 45 years, residing at Door no. 44-42-3/12, Srinivasa Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Accused

Offence : U/Sec. 138 r/w. 142 of NI Act.

Finding :Found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act.

Sentence : the accused found guilty for the offence U/sec.138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act and convict him U/sec.255(2)(3) Cr.P.C.

Quantum of Sentence :

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him, he pleaded nothing. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nil plea of the accused, though I do not consider that the accused is entitled for benevolent provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, a lenient view is warranted . Hence the accused is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Six months and to pay compensation to the complainant U/sec.357( 3) Cr.P.C. in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- ( Rupees two lakh only ) which is equivalent to the impugned cheque Ex.P-2 with interest thereon at 9% P.A from the date of cheque i.e. 30.12.2017 within a period of two months from today failing which,to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of one month more.

sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge -

cum Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Smt. K. Saradamba Rent Controller-cum- IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum-X Metropolitan Magistrate (FAC) III Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 13th day of April, 2018

O.S.237/2017

Between:

Md. Sabeer s/o. late Md. Hussian,aged about 39 years, business R/o D.No. 44- 28-3/1, Bhobi lane ,Railway New colony, Visakhapatnam.

... Plaintif

And

Ch.Veeraraju S/o. Ch.Sankara rao, aged years, working as Track MNTR -IV PF No. 08072528 Bill Unit NO. 3104-291 Engineering Dept. under Sr. Section Engineer, PW office, Gnanapuram ,East Coast Railway, Visakhapatna.

...Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B.Kavitha Vani,P.Kkotesara rao and SS Padmashree,, Advocates for Plaintif and Sri. Jannela Srinivasa rao, Advocate for defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,99,591/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt 13-03-2015 for Rs. 2,00,000/- executed by the defendant infavour of plaintif agreeing to repay the same with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% pa from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintif submits that the defendant approached the plaintif and requested to arrange money of Rs. 2,00,000/- and they are in need of family expenses and for sundry debts, the plaintif agreed to give money to the defendant. On 19-3-2015 the defendant came to the house of plaintif after taking consideration by way of cash of

Rs. 2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same on demand together with interest @24% p.a either to the plaintif or his order and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintif for the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the even date i.e 19-3-2015 the said promissory note was self scribed by the scriber before the attestor. the defendant signed on the revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note and put his thumb impression. All the transactions took place in the house of plaintif.

2

The plaintif further submits that subsequently on repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through his men, the defendant did not chose to repay either interest or principal due under the above said promissory note and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. In the mean while, the plaintif came to know that the defendant is applied for VRS and trying to leave the jurisdiction to avoid many creditors including plaintif as such, the plaintif constrained to file the above suit for recovery of amount under the strengthen of this promissory note along with principal and interest which is legally enforceable debt,.

hence this suit.

3. Defendant appeared before the Court through his counsel, he filed his written statement, denying the material allegations as null and void and claiming the plaintif to put strict proof of the allegations.

Defendant further averred that he did not executed any pronote to any one including the defendant and the suit pronote is rank forged and the defendant did not know the attestors and scribe. the transaction of execution of suit promissory note itself is a false one and the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated for the purpose of the suit with the help of the attestor and the scribe. the suit promissory note is a created, concocted, fabricated and forged document. The defendant further submits that he reserves his right to file additional written statement if any. hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5.On the basis of rival contentions of both parties the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

2. Whether plaintif is entitled for suit amount as prayed for?

3. To What relief?

6.To substantiate his claim, Plaintif filed his chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterating plaint averments and exhibited Ex.A1, Even after ample opportunities defendant not come forward to let in their evidence for the reasons best known to him.

3

7.Heard learned counsel for plaintif, defendant called absent . No representation, hence defendant’s side evidence closed, Perused the entire record.

Issue No.1 & 2.

8.These are issues interlinked hence discussed simultaneously.

It is the case of the plaintif that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs. 2,00,000/- and they are in need of family expenses and for sundry debts and exe- cuted suit promissory note on 19-3-2015 under Ex.A1, the defendant came to the house of plaintif after taking consideration by way of cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same on demand together with interest @24% pa either to the plaintif or his order and executed a demand promissory note infavour of plaintif for the said amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the even date i.e 19-3-2015 , Ex.A1 was self scribed by the scriber before the attestor. the defendant signed on the revenue stamp affixed on the promissory note and put his thumb impression. All the transactions took place in the house of plaintif. Ex.A1 discloses that the promissory note executed on 19-3-2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-. The defendant did not let any evidence on his behalf. defendant did not cross examine the plaintif or to file any piece of paper on his behalf. The defendant cannot find any truth for his favour of the defendant. The contents of the Ex.A1 reveals that it was executed for Rs. 2,00,000/- and signed by the borrower it seems that Ex.A1 executed for consideration. Even after demands orally defendant not come forward to repay the borrowed amount. Hence, he has no other alternative then to file this case.

9. On the other hand the defendant only file written statement he stated that plaintif is fabricated the suit promissory note and defendant never executed alleged suit promissory note in the name of the plaintif, he never borrowed any amount from plaintif at any point of time, and he have no necessity to borrow the amount. as alleged in the suit does not arise.

10. The defendant taken plea that simply that Ex.A1 was forged and fabricated one they did not taken any step to send the document for expert 4 opinion under sec 73 of Indian Evidence Act. The oral denial of the defendant cannot be considered one. The defendant taken balled plea against the plaintif the rebuttal evidence to disprove his case . As defendant admitted signatures as per section 118 of N.I Act presumption is infavour of plaintif that the document is supported by consideration. As the defendant denied the passing of consideration of Rs.50,000/- onus of proof is on him to prove non passing of consideration.

11. To discharge his onus defendant neither entered into witness box nor let in any cogent oral or documentary evidence, as defendant not entered into witness box to substantiate his case adverse inference can be drawn under section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act. Further It is held in Vidyadhar Vs

Manik Rao AIR 1999 SC 1441 “Where a party to the suit does not enter into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not ofer himself to be cross examined by the other side a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

12. As plaintif filed suit so to substantiate his claim examined himself as PW1 by filing evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examination reiterating the plaint averments and marked Ex.A1. On perusing Ex.A1 it reveals that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 19-3-2015 by executing promissory note, the defendant failed to discharge onus of proof so, presumption is draw in favour of plaintif that with full knowledge after receiving Rs.2,00,000/- defendant executed Ex.A1 hence the suit pronote is binding on him.

15.As per Sec 118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act if the Negotiable instrument execution is proved or admitted by defendant the presumption will be in favour of plaintif that instrument was made or drawn for consideration.

As per the above discussion plaintif proved execution of suit pronote so, presumption can be drawn in favour of plaintif that consideration is passed under Ex.A1. Plaintif proved execution of suit pronote and issues 1 & 2 are 5 answered accordingly infavour of plaintif, hence plaintif is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

10.Issue No.3: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 2,99,591/-(Rupees Two lakhs ninty nine thousand five hundred and ninety one only) with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a on

principal amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) from the date of suit i.e

17-4-2017 till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2018.

RCC- cum-IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Md. Sabeer NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the original promissory note executed by the defendant infavour of the plaintif for Rs.2,00,000/- dt 19-3-2015 .

FOR DEFENDANT:

NIL.

RCC-cum- IV A.J.C.J, FCC – III A.J.C.J/VSP.

6

1

O.S.No. 123/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. K.SARADAMBA

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Thursday , the 5 th day of March, 2020

O.S.No.123/2018.

Between:

Johnson Lewin, S/o. Late George Lewin, Christian, aged 40 years, residing at Door

No. 20-100-13, Gollaveedhi, Chengalaraopeta, Visakhapatnam-530001.

...Plaintiff

And :

Surakala Yellayya, S/o. Appala Swamy, Hindu, aged 52 years, Residing at Door No.

31-34-16, Bangaramma Metta, Allipuram, Visakhapatnam-530004.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 05-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. R.Shyam Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and ofSri.G.Dhana Raju, defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 91,877/- together with subsequent interest @ 24% from the date of institution of the suit to till the realization and costs of the suit.

2. Brief averments of the plaint:

On 06.11.2016, the defend borrowed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses to clear the sundry debts and executed demand promissory note on even day in favour of the plaintiff and agree to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., to the plaintiff or his order.

When the plaintiff demanded to pay the same on several times, the defedant failed to pay neither interest nor principal to the plaintiff hence, this suit.

2

O.S.No. 123/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appeared before the court and filed his written statement by denying all the allegations in a plaint in para wise and submitted the defedant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time, never executed promissory note dated 06.11.2016 in the alleged pronote is rank forged, fabricated document created by the plantiff for his illegal gain and to wrongful loss to this defendant and it was not started by any cash consideration. The defendant have no obligation to pay the amount much less the alleged amount. The plantiff did not approached the court with clean hands hence, the suit is not maintainable liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed for trail:

1.Whether the promissory note dated 06.11.2016 is true, valid, binding on the defendant or not.

2.Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated and forged document is pleaded by defendant.

3.Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount together with interest and costs as prayed for.

4.to what relief.

5.In order to prove the case, the plantiff himself got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 promissory note, he got examined V.Apparao as PW2. On the other hand, the defendant himself got examined as DW1 , he got examined one

V.VijayKumar as DW2. No documentary evidence is on behalf.

6.Heard for both: The defendant counsel submitted his written arguments.

7. Issue No.1:

The plaintiff case is that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff on 06.11.2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and discharge of sundry debts and agree to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order. When the plaintiff demanded, he choosen to

3

O.S.No. 123/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP pay the same, the plaintiff filed original suit promissory note and it was got marked as Ex.A1.

On perusal of the Ex.A1 promissory note discloses that it was executed on 06.11.2016 for an amount of Rs. 70,000/- in the name of plaintiff, the suit promissory note containing revenue stamp across the revenue stamp, the person

S.Yellayya signed across the revenue stamp. The PW2 / V.Apparao signed as 1st attestor to the document and scribe name also mentioned as Satish Kumar, the counsel of the defendant cross examine the PW1 at lengthy and he putforth several questions about the income of the plaintiff for that questions the plaintiff answer that he is getting income nearly Rs. 25,000/- per month through his business, he got acquittance with defendant through one person, relative R.

Eswara Rao. During cross examination, the plaintiff accepted, he is not an income tax assessee even though he has arrange the amounts to one V.Sanyasi naidu,

K.Raju and some other persons, some of the maters were already settled and some suits are pending before various courts, that shows that plaintiff having some capacity to arrange the amount. When the plaintiff got examined the attestor V.Apparao, PW2 he stated that the Ex.A1 promissory note, transaction taken place in his presence one G.Satish Kumar fillup the blanks of the promissory note. If receiving the consideration amount, the defedant executed promissory note. During the cross examination when the defendant putforth the questions that how many persons were present at the time of transaction. The witness says that four persons were present and transation took place between evening hours at the house of plaintiff, he admitted that he signed as an attestor on Ex.A1 promissory note.

On the other hand, the defendant denied the transaction and stated that he is an employee and he is no necessity to borrow the such huge amounts. When the plaintiff counsel cross examine the DW1 and putforth the questions that he denied his signature on Vakalat and signature on alleged promissory note and when the counsel asked the defedant to verify the signatures on Vakalat and

4

O.S.No. 123/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP promissory note. The defendant on verification stated that which appears slight difference but both are belongs to same person denying the singnature on Vakalat executed in favour of his counsel. The contention of the defedant and his pleadings fell into miserable but he never asked the trial court as compared the admitted signature of the defendant and signature on written statement, depositition with that of the disputed signature in Ex.A1. In absence of the expert opinion, the court could not find any discrepancies between disputed signature and admitted signature in the above documents. When the defendant denied his own signature in the Vakalat and written statement under such circumstances, no credibility attached to the evidence of DW1. The defendant who would deny the case by a plea of forgery but has failed to take any steps to prove the same. The court can draw the adverse inferences against him.

Section 118 of NI Act provided that presumption shall be made are drawn accepted or endorse for consideration, only the contrary is proved. The defendant herein this case utterly failed to rebut the plea taken by the plaintiff.

After careful perusal of the evidence available on record coupled with documents, the court come to conclusion that the defendant when he denied his signature during cross examination on his Vakalat and written statement, his evidence totally declared, the remaining evidence of PW1 and 2 remained unchallenged, unrebutted. Considering the evidence of the PW1 supported by evidence of PW2, this court come to conclusion that plaintiff prove his case. Point is answered accordingly.

8. Issue No.2:

The plaintiff case is, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 70,000/- on 06.11.2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and clear the sundry debts, having received consideration defendant executed a demand promissory note infavour of the plaintiff, agree to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.,

Herein this case, the plaintiff got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 i.e., original promissory note and he got examine the atttestor V.Apparao as PW2 when

5

O.S.No. 123/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP the defendant evidence was declared due to that he himself denied his signature on his pleadings and Vakalat. The evidence of the DW2 came into picture. The plaintiff established his case by proceeding the Ex.A1 original promissory note, the evidence of PW1 not challenged by the defedant, not adduced any rebuttal evidence by sending the document to the expert opinion. The evidence of the

PW1 establishes that the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff when the execution of the promissory note established by the plaintiff not challenged by the defendant which fell into the conclusion proofs. Considering the above foregoing reasons, finding that the plaintiff entitled the suit amount. Point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff for amount of Rs. 91,887/- together with subsequent interest @ 12 % p.a., on

principal amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the date of suit to till the date of decree and

judgment, thereafter 6% from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in

the open court, this the 5th day of March, 2020.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW-1:- Johnson LewinDW1:- Surakala Yellayya

PW-2:- V.Apparao DW2:- V.VijayKumar

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1:- Promissory note

For Defendants:-

Nil

PJCJ/VSP.

1

O.S.No. 501/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. K.SARADAMBA

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Thursday , the 29 th day of February, 2020

O.S.No. 501/2018

Between:

Reesu Vishnu Murthy, S/o. Kamaraju, Hindu, Aged 39 years, Residing at Dr. No. 36- 92-262/17/33, Srinivasa Nagar, Barma Camp, Visakhapatnam-530008.

… Plaintiff

And :

D.Shyamala, W/o. Ammanna Raju, Hindu, aged 55 years, Residing at D.No. 22-19- 18/18, Indralok Avenue, Flat No. 208, R.P.Road, Sajjapuram, Tanuku, West

Godavari – 534211.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 29-02-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Giridhar, Advocate for Plaintiff and ofSri.B.John Mohan, Advocate for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining her men, agents and men acting on behalf of from evicting the plaintiff from the schedule except under due process of law and costs of the suit.

2. Brief averments of the plaint:

The plaintiff approached the defendant and requested him to lease out the suit schedule property for the period of 3 years commencing from 20.08.2009.

The defendant agreed to lease out the same on monthly rent of Rs. 1300/- per month, the plaintiff paid 30,000/- in the month of August, 2009 towards security deposite same will not carry any interest. The rent was enhanced time to time, present rent is 5,000/-. The plaintiff running furniture works under the name and

2

O.S.No. 501/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP style of Manmadha Vishnu old wood material since 2009 in the said schedule shop room. It was siutated at NGO Colony, Muralinagar bearing door no. 37-12-68/2 and obtained permission form-C Certificate of Registration towards licence and doing business regularly paying rents without any default and defendant also grant permission to made suitable alternations for furniture work. The plaintiff spent Rs 50,000 /- for that alteration to the schedule premises. The lease is oral lease, the defendants all of sudden the rent was enhanced from 5,000 /- to 12,000 /-. The plaintiff on expressed his inability to agreed that rent then the defendants demanded him to vacate the premises within 15 days, the defendant is influenced person threatened the plaintiff they given action to vacate her forcibly due to that fear the plaintiff has no other option except filing this suit, hence, this suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant appear before the court and filed written statement by denying all the allegations in the plaint in para wise and defendant submitted that plaintiff is a tenant of plaint schedule property since

February, 2010 and rent is 6,000/- per month payable by 1st week of every proceeding month. The plaintiff is cronic defaulter of paying the monthly rent regularly and use to make a part payments of the arrear of rent there was an arrear rent 48,000/- by end of oral lease agreement for the period of three years which expired by 31.01.2013. The plaintiff orally renewed the rent agreement by enhanced rent from 6,000/- to 7,000/- per month. The plaintiff is agreed and also agreed to clear the arrear rent of Rs. 48,000/- within one month but the plaintiff paying agreed monthly rent 7,000/- as per new oral agreement after expiry of agreement period of 31.1.2016. The plaintiff and defendant mutually agreed and fixed rent @ 10,000/- per month for period of 2 years which expires by 31.01.2018. The defendant again defaulter in payments of rents agreed by her from March, 2016 when the defendant tried to contact the plaintiff he is used to avoid talking to her when the defendant came to Visakhapatnam in the last week of August, 2018. The plaintiff closed his shop and did not available the defendant

3

O.S.No. 501/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP being a lady came from Thanuku, East Godavari returned to her house. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff instigated other tenants to file suit against the defendant seeking relief to injunction and the plaintiff file above suit along with other tenants OS No. 502/2018, 503/2018 before the Hon’ble court.

This defendant taking necessary course of action to tenant her case in those matters by filing written statement opposits that got issued notices to the tenants i.e., plaintiff herein and other tenants OS No. 502/2018, 503/2018 affection from the plaint schedule and also counter claim for arrears of rent according to law. The plaintiff being cronic defaulter in payments of monthly rent so she is not entitled for equitable relief of injunction, there is no bonefides in the above suit. The plaintiff approached the Hon’ble court with inclined hands by concealing the truth hence suit is not maintainable liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff entitled for permanant injunction as prayed for.

2.to what relief.

5.In order to prove the case, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 and A2. Inorder to prove his case he got examined as K.Srinivas as PW2. On the other hand, there is no oral documentary evidence for defendant and defendant not cross examined the plaintiff and his witnesses.

6. Heard for Plaintiff:

7. Issue No.1:

On careful perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff and defendant there is no denial about the dural relationship that is tenant and land lord between plaintiff and defendant. The claim of rent also not denied by the defendant as agreed by the plaintiff at the time of enter into the schedule property. When it was enhanced time to time, the plaintiff denied same not agreed to accept to pay the enhanced rent but the plaint averments all are very silent. There is no specific pleading

4

O.S.No. 501/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP when the defendant enahnced, from which month that was effected, how much amount they demanded to pay. The pleadings are very silent, the chief examinatin affidavit of the plaintiff also not discloses.

On the other hand, the defendant also not cross examine the witness the took only plead that the plaintiff entered into premises in the year of 2016 by agreeing the rent of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Thereafter, it was enhanced time to time upto 10,000/-, the lease is oral lease, there is no written agreement.

On careful perusal of the evidence available on record, coupled with document, the plaintiff exhibited Ex.A1 electricity consumption bill 2 in number along with receipts. The electricity consumption bill and receipts stands in the name of defendant D.Syamala and schedule bearing no. 37-12-68/2, remaining documents positive photos 2 in number exhibited Ex.A2. The photos discloses that the name and style of the shop but there is no denial about the possession of the plaintiff at the schedule premises by the defendant. The initial burden lies the plaintiff that as of date of filing the suit they are in possession herein this case.

The plaintiff not mentioned in pleadings when the defendant visited the schedule premises when she demanded to vacate the premises, there is no specific cause of action in this suit. The person who approached the court would be reasonable in every suit for permanant injunction that the plaintiff in such application as made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in his favour. When the tenant as established the prima facie case about the genuiness of the agreement set up by the before agreeing the injunction. The court have to scrutinise the evidence carefully to balance the rights of landlord on the one language and tenant on the other. The case on hand of tenant is clear who does not have prima facie case. The tenants here in his case simply said that the defendant enhanced rent very high and its not confer and they refused to accept the same if the tenants really interested then certainly deposit the rent upto date within one month to continue his possession in premises, such proceedings not

5

O.S.No. 501/2018

PJCJ-MM/VSP taken by the tenant in this matter. The tenant as not made out any prima facie case in the above suit. Considering the above foregoing reasons not maintainable.

Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the suit is dismissed. Orders in IA No. 516/2018 stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in

the open court, this the 29th day of February, 2020.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW-1:- Reesu Vishnu MurthyNil

PW-2:- K.Srinivas

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A.1:- is the electricity consumption bills 2 in number and along with receipts 2 in number.

Ex.A.2:- is the positive phots 2 in number.

For Defendants:-

Nil

PJCJ/VSP.