Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao

Senior Civil Judge

Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 823 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, SC cases.

823

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/171/2016 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police vs Kaki @ Kaku Muthyalaiah

05 Sep 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : GUDUR

Present:- Sri K.S. Rama Krishna Rao Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, the 5th day of September, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No.171/2016

[P.R.C. No.19/2016 of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Gudur in Crime No.41/2013 of Chillakur Police Station]

ComplainantState: Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station

Description of the Accused 1) Kaki @ Kaku Muthyalaiah, son of Venkata Subbaiah, aged 45 years,

2) Kolala Manaiah @ Mani, son of Masthanaiah, aged 25 years,

3) Talari Penchalaiah, son of Ramaiah, aged 27 years

4) Kaki Subrahmanyam, son of Venkata Subbaiah, aged 36 years, (All are Arundhatiya by caste, residents of Thonukumala village, Chillakur mandal)

Charges Under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of the accused Not guilty

Finding of the Court Found not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This case is coming on 04.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.K. Chandrasekhar, advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324 and 509 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.41/2013 of Chillakur

Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.03.2013 at about 7.30 PM all the accused attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 with an intention to kill them. A1 hacked Pw2 with a knife on his head. A2 to A4 beat the Pw2 with iron pipe and sticks. A1 hacked Pw1 on his left elbow. A2 to A4 beat the Pw1 with iron pipe and sticks on his waist. A2 beat Pw3 with iron pipe on her right hand. Injured Pws.1 to 3 were shifted to Government hospital. P.W.1 gave complaint to police. Basing on it, L.W.13/G. Dasaradha Rama Rao , S.I.

of Police registered a case in crime No.41 of 2013 u/s.509 and 324 r/w 34 of

IPC and took up investigation. He recorded the statements of injured, visited scene of offence, seized blood stained earth and controlled earth under the cover of observation report in the presence of mediators. L.W.12/Dr.P.

Lakshmi Devamma treated the injured and issued wound certificates. Since the accused attacked the Pw2 with an intention to kill him and so, section 307 of IPC was added. On 25.03.2013 Lw13/G. Dasaradha Ramarao, S.I. of

Police arrested A1 to A4 and recorded their confession and seized crime weapons in the presence of mediators. He produced the accused before the court. Later, the accused were enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur has taken cognizance for the offence under section 307, 509, 324 r/w 34 of

IPC against accused A1 to A4 under P.R.C. No.19/2016 and furnished copies of documents to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Since the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Gudur committed the case to Court of Sessions, Nellore as

required under section 209 of Cr.P.C which in turn numbered the case as

S.C. No.171/2016 and made over the same to this court for disposal as per law.

5.A1 to A4 appeared before this court. The A1 to A4 were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C and charge under section 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against them, explained them in Telugu for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the event of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw5/N. Sai, Lw6/P. Mastanamma, Lw7/K.

Mutyalaiah, Lw8/V. Chakrapani Reddy, Lw9/K. Rajesh, Lw10/G. Govindaiah,

Lw11/B. Rajendra, Lw12/Dr.P. Lakshmi Devamma, Lw13/G. Dasaradha Rama

Rao, S.I. of Police.

7. After closure of prosecution case, the accused A1 to A4 were not examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C as there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution. Accused A1 to A4 reported no evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A4 for the offence

punishable under section 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond

reasonable doubt”?

10.As per the prosecution case, on 21.03.2013 at about 7.30 PM all the accused attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 with an intention to kill them and A1 hacked Pw2 with a knife on his head, A2 to A4 beat the Pw2 with iron pipe and sticks, A1 hacked Pw1 on his left elbow, A2 to A4 beat the Pw1 with iron pipe and sticks on his waist, A2 beat Pw3 with iron pipe on her right hand.

This court framed charges under section 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A4.

11. At the event of trial, the P.W.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P5 were marked. Pw1 to 3 were injured and Pw4 is said to have acquainted with the facts of the case. Ex.P.1 is signature of Pw1 on complaint. Exs.P2 to P.5 are statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C of

P.Ws. 1 to 4.

12.The evidence of PW1 shows that about six years ago in the night time, a galata has taken place at their village in which he, his brother and his sister-in-law received injuries . They were shifted to Government hospital, Gudur. Police came and obtained his signature on written paper and he does not know its contents. His signature was marked as Ex.P1. They compromised the case.

13.The evidence of Pw2 shows that about six years ago in the night time, a galata has taken place at their village in which he, his brother and his wife received injuries . They were shifted to Government hospital, Gudur.

Police came and obtained signature of his brother on written paper. They compromised the case.

14.The evidence of Pw3 shows that about six years ago in the night time, a galata has taken place at their village in which she, her husband, and his brother received injuries . They were shifted to Government hospital, Gudur. Police came and obtained signature of his brother-in-law on written paper. They compromised the case.

15.The evidence of Pw4 shows that about six years ago in the night time, a galata has taken place at their village in which her husband, her brother-in-law and co-sister received injuries. They were shifted to

Government hospital, Gudur. They compromised the case.

16.As per prosecution case, the accused A1 to A4 attacked P.Ws.1 to 3 with knives, iron pipes and sticks with an intention to kill them and caused injuries. However, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor got marked their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. as Exs.P2 to P4. Likewise, Pw4 also did not speak in favour of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor got marked her statement under section 161 of CrP.C. as Ex.P5.

The P.Ws.1 to 3 effected compromise. As there is no material in the evidence of main witnesses, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the rest of the witnesses. There is no material in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 against the accused. When there is no material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution, this court has no option except discarding the case of the prosecution.

17.In view of above reasons, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

18.In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 5th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw1: N. Seenaiah Pw2: N. Ramanaiah Pw3: N. Rajamma Pw4: N. Chinnamma

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on Complaint

Ex.P.2: Statement of PW1 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.3: Statement of PW2 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.4: Statement of PW3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.5: Statement of PW4 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

FOR DEFENCE: – NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Copies submitted to: -

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi

2. The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to:-

3. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur

4. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gudur

5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police station.

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : GUDUR

SESSIONS CASE No.171/2016

[P.R.C. No.19/2016 of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Gudur in Crime No.41/2013 of Chillakur Police Station]

ComplainantState: Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station Description of the Accused 1) Kaki @ Kaku Muthyalaiah, son of Venkata Subbaiah, aged 45 years,

2) Kolala Manaiah @ Mani, son of Masthanaiah, aged 25 years,

3) Talari Penchalaiah, son of Ramaiah, aged 27 years

4) Kaki Subrahmanyam, son of Venkata Subbaiah, aged 36 years, (All are Arundhatiya by caste, residents of Thonukumala village, Chillakur mandal) Charges Under Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found not guilty Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

DATES OF

Occurrence :21.03.2013

Complaint :22.03.2013

Apprehension of accused:25.03.2013

Released on bail :27.04.2013

Commencement of trial :04.09.2019 Close of trial :04.09.2019 Judgment :05.09.2019

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: In this case, entire case record was received on 05.10.2016 from the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore. Since then, the case was pending for service of summons to accused till 20.06.2017. Accused engaged advocate on 22.11.2017. Accused engaged another advocate on 11.09.2018. Charges were framed on 06.08.2019 and posted for trial by fixing schedule. On 04.09.2019 Pw1 to Pw4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 04.09.2019 . Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with on 04.09.2019 and arguments were heard on the same day. Judgment is pronounced on 05.09.2019. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur

OS/142/2012

Talamati Subba Reddy vs A. Vijaya Bhaskar

22 Aug 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, the 22nd day of August, 2019

O.S. No. 142 of 2012

1. Talamati Ramanamma

2. Talamati Srikanth Reddy

3. Talamati Srihari Reddy (Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are represented by their Power of Attorney agent namely Talamati Subbareddy)

…..Plaintiffs

Vs.

A. Vijaya Bhaskar

…..Defendant

This suit is coming on 30.07.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.S. Natarajan, advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri.P. Haranath Prasada Rao, advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,34,556/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12.5% on

Rs.1,08,000/-.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiffs owned the plaint schedule property. The defendant is tenant on eastern wing of first floor and later, he trespassed into western wing. The plaintiffs filed RCC

No.2 of 1996 for eviction and obtained order on 30.10.2004. The defendant did not vacate the premises and so, the plaintiffs filed execution petition and obtained delivery on 8.9.2008. The occupation of defendant even after eviction order in RCC No.2 of 1996 is unauthorised and illegal. The plaintiffs are entitled for damages of Rs.3,000/- per month from 08.09.2005 to 08.09.2008 for unauthorised occupation by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that he was tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of Door No.227, Saibaba temple street,

Narasingaraopet, Gudur for a monthly rent of Rs.75/-. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.200/- excluding electricity charges. The plaintiffs filed RCC

No.2 of 1996 and obtained eviction order and filed E.P. No.81 of 2006 and obtained possession on 08.09.2008. As per the direction of the court in IA

No.847 of 1993 in OS No.273 of 1993, he paid monthly rent of Rs.200/- till 30.10.2004. He is not a trespasser and he is a tenant of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim rent till date of possession and they are not entitled to claim damages. There is no privity of contract of interest on

Rs.1,08,000/- and so, they are not entitled for interest. The plaintiffs filed suit on 1.9.2009 and alleged cause of action arose on 8.9.2008 and as such, suit is barred by limitation.

4. Basing on the rival pleadings, this court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether there is privity of contract between

plaintiff (sic.plaintiffs) and defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff (sic.plaintiffs) are entitled

for damages as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.As per the orders in IA No.309 of 2018 dated 03.06.2019, Issue

Nos.1 and 2 are recasted as follows:-

ISSUE No.1: Whether there is privity of contract between

the plaintiffs and the defendant with regard to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.1,08,000/-?

ISSUE No.2: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages

as prayed for?

6.At the event of trial, the power of attorney of plaintiffs, T. Subba

Reddy was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A3. The defendant was examined as Dw1.

7.Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant.

8.In this case, the plaintiff sought for recovery of Rs.1,34,556/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12.5% on Rs.1,08,000/-. The defendant contested the suit.

9.The power of attorney of plaintiffs, Sri.T. Subba Reddy was examined as PW1 and he reiterated the main contents of his plaint in his chief-examination. He got marked certified copy of decree in RCC No.2 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, certified copy of the judgment in RCC No.2 of 1996 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and the certified copy of delivery receipt dated 8.9.2008 and they were marked as

Exs.A1 to A3. The defendant was examined as Dw1 . He also reiterated the main contents of his written statement.

ISSUES No.1 & 2: Whether there is privity of contract between

the plaintiffs and the defendant with regard to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.1,08,000/- and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages as prayed for?

10.The evidence of Pw1 shows that he is General Power of Attorney of plaintiffs and Dw1 is tenant on eastern wing of first floor and later, he trespassed into western wing. The plaintiffs filed RCC No.2 of 1996 for eviction and obtained order on 30.10.2004. The Dw1 did not vacate the premises and so, the plaintiffs filed execution petition and obtained delivery on 8.9.2008. The occupation of Dw1 even after eviction order in RCC No.2 of 1996 is unauthorised and illegal. The plaintiffs are entitled for damages of

Rs.3,000/- per month from 08.09.2005 to 08.09.2008 for unauthorised occupation by the Dw1. He filed certified copy of decree in RCC No.2 of 1996, certified copy of judgment in RCC 2 of 1996, certified copy of delivery receipt

dated 8.9.2008, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand, the

4 evidence of Dw1 shows that he was tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of door

No.227, Saibaba temple street, Narasingaraopet, Gudur for a monthly rent of

Rs.75/-. Subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.200/- excluding electricity charges. The plaintiffs filed RCC No.2 of 1996 and obtained eviction order and fled E.P. No.81 of 2006 and obtained possession on 08.09.2008. As per the direction of the court in IA No.847 of 1993 in OS No.273 of 1993, he paid monthly rent of Rs.200/- till 30.10.2004. He is not a trespasser and he is a tenant of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim rent till date of possession and they are not entitled to claim damages.

11.According to the plaintiffs, the Dw1 did not vacate the premises despite eviction order dated 30.10.2004 in RCC 2 of 1996 and they filed EP and obtained possession on 8.9.2008. The Dw1 admitted the same in his evidence. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled for damages of

Rs.3,000/- per month from 30.10.2004 to 08.09.2008. According to Dw1, he deposited rent of Rs.200/- per month upto 30.10.2004 as per the orders in IA No.847 of 1993 in OS No.274 of 1993. He was tenant and he is not a trespasser and so plaintiffs are entitled to claim rent of Rs.200/- till 8.9.2008.

12.Admittedly, the Dw1 was tenant of plaintiffs and eviction order was passed in RCC 2 of 1996 on 30.10.2004 and Dw1 was evicted under due process of law on 8.9.2008. After eviction order, the Dw1 can not be termed as statutory tenant. Of course, he can not be termed as trespasser. The plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages from the Dw1 for unauthorised occupation from 30.10.2004 to 08.09.2008. The Dw1 can not be allowed to pay rent only for the said period. The plaintiffs are claiming damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. The plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence showing the basis for claiming damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month.

The plaintiffs did not examine any neighbours in the locality showing the rate of rents in the vicinity. The Dw1 contended that he is liable to pay rent of

Rs.200/- per month for the said period since he deposited the said amount per month as per the orders in IA No.847 of 1993 in OS No.274 of 1993 till eviction order was passed. This amount is very meagre and so, Dw1 is not permitted to pay the said amount. According to Dw1, he was tenant of a room in the first floor and he used to pay Rs.75/- at the inception and subsequently, he used to pay Rs.200/- excluding electricity charges. His evidence further shows that he credited monthly rent of Rs.200/- till 30.10.2004 as per the orders in IA No.847 of 1993 in OS No.274 of 1993.

In the year 1993, court directed the Dw1 to pay rent of Rs.200/- per month and accordingly, the Dw1 paid till 30.10.2004. Dw1 agreed to pay the said amount from 30.10.2004 to 8.9.2008. It is unreasonable on the part of the

Dw1 to pay monthly rent of Rs.200/- even after ten years of court order. On the other hand, the plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence showing the basis for claiming damages of Rs.3,000/- per month. In these circumstances, I feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.1,000/- per month towards damages.

In view of these reasons, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from 30.10.2004 to 08.09.2008.

13.According to Dw1, he was evicted on 8.9.2008 and the plaintiffs filed this suit on 1.9.2009 and so, suit is barred by limitation. Admittedly, eviction order was passed on 30.10.2004 and the Dw1 did not vacate the premises and plaintiffs filed EP and obtained vacant possession on 8.9.2008. The claim of the plaintiffs is not for recovery of rent, but it is for recovery of damages. Admittedly, the Dw1 was evicted from the premises on 8.9.2008 and the plaintiffs filed this suit on 1.9.2009. Therefore, the suit is within limitation.

14.The plaintiffs claimed damages of Rs.3,000/- per month with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum. The contention of the Dw1 is that there was no privity of contract regarding the rate of interest and therefore , the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim interest. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are claiming damages for unauthorised use of premises even after eviction order.

Even though there is no agreement with regard to interest, they are entitled to claim interest. Therefore, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim interest. The Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3: To what relief?

15.In view of findings on Issues No.1 and 2, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from 30.10.2004 to 08.09.2008 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed partly with proportionate costs and the defendant is directed to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month from 30.10.2004 to 08.09.2008 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 22nd day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs:

PW1: T. Subba Reddy, power of attorney of plaintiffs

For Defendant:

D.W.1: A. Vijaya Bhaskar, defendant

Documents marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of decree in RCC No.2 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Gudur

Ex.A2: Certified copy of the judgment in RCC No.2 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur

Ex.A3: Certified copy of delivery receipt dated 8.9.2008

For Defendant: NIL

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

SC/296/2016 Acquitted

State Sub-Inspector of Police vs Pothala Guravaiah

11 Sep 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : GUDUR

Present:- Sri K.S. Rama Krishna Rao Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Wednesday, the 11th day of September, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No.296/2016

[P.R.C. No.3/2016 of Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri in Crime No.61/2015 of Dakkili Police Station]

ComplainantState: Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station Description of the Accused 1) Pothala Guravaiah, son of Polaiah, aged 30 years

2) Pothala Subrahmanyam, so of Venkatasubbaiah, aged 25 years

3) Pothala Venkatasubbaiah, so of Polaiah, aged 48 years

4) Pothala subrahmanyam, son of chantaiah, aged 45 yars, (All are SC-Mala by caste, A1 to A3 are residents of Yathaluru village, Venkatagiri mandal, A4 is resident of Kammapalli village of Dakkili mandal) Charges Under Sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Court Found not guilty Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

This case is coming on 09.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.P. Rama Prasad, advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration and this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station filed charge sheet against accused A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under sections 307 and 324 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.61/2015 of Dakkili Police

Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 5.8.2015 at about 1.30 PM A1 to A4 attacked the Pw1 with an intention to kill him and beat him. On the report of Pw1, the Lw10/G. Bobbili Raju, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No.61 of 2015 of Dakkili police station u/s.307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC. He recorded the statements of witnesses, visited scene of offence, prepared observation report, rough sketch and seized blood stained stone in the presence of mediators. The

Lw9/Dr.M. Sudheer Kumar treated the Pw1 and issued wound certificate. The accused surrendered before the court and later they were enlarged on bail.

After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri has taken cognizance for the offence under section 307 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A4 under P.R.C. No.3/2016 and furnished copies of documents to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Since the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Venkatagiri committed the case to Court of Sessions, Nellore as required under section 209 of Cr.P.C which in turn numbered the case as

S.C. No.296/2016 and made over the same to this court for disposal as per law.

5.A1 to A4 appeared before this court. The A1 to A4 were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C and charges under sections 307 r/w 34, 323 r/w 34 of IPC were framed against them, explained them in Telugu for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the event of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Lw3/R.Venkateswarlu, Lw4/P. Polaiah, Lw5/K.

Balakrishnaiah, Lw8/N. Koteswara Rao, Lw9/Dr.M. Sudheer Kumar, Medical 3

Officer, Lw10/G. Bobbili Raju, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and Lw11/Sk.

Jilani, Sub Inspector of Police.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A4 for the offence

punishable under sections 307 r/w 34 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC

beyond reasonable doubt?”

10.As per the prosecution case, on 5.8.2015 at about 1.30 PM A1 to A4 attacked the Pw1 with an intention to kill him and beat him. This court framed charges under sections 307 r/w 34 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A4.

11. At the event of trial, the P.W.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. Pw1 was injured and Pw2 and Pw3 are said to have acquainted with the facts of the case. Pw4 is witness for scene observation reports. Ex.P.1 is signature of Pw1 on complaint. Exs.P2 to P.4 are statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Exs.P5 and P6 are signatures of Pw4 on scene observation reports.

12.The evidence of PW1 shows that about four years ago in the after noon a galata has taken place at their village and he received injuries.

He was shifted to Government hospital, Dakkili. Police came and obtained his signature on written paper and he did not know its contents. His signature on complaint was marked as Ex.P1. Since he did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP has declared him as hostile and got marked his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C as Ex.P.2.

13.The evidence of Pw2 and Pw3 shows that they did not know anything about this case. Since they did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP has declared them as hostile and got marked their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C as Exs.P.3 and P4.

14.The evidence of PW4 shows that about four years ago police called him and obtained his signatures on written papers. He did not know its contents. His signatures on scene observation reports were marked as

Exs.P5 and P6. Since he did not support the prosecution case, the learned APP has declared him as hostile.

15.As per prosecution case, on 5.8.2015 at about 1.30 PM A1 to A4 attacked the Pw1 with an intention to kill him and beat him. However,

P.W.1 did not support the prosecution case by turning hostile. Likewise,

Pw2 and 3 also did not support the prosecution case. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor got marked their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C.

as Exs.P2 to P4. Likewise, Pw4 also did not speak in favour of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor got marked his signatures on scene observation reports as Exs.P5 and P6. The P.W.1 effected compromise. As there is no material in the evidence of main witnesses, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the rest of the witnesses. There is no material in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 against the accused. When there is no material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution, this court has no option except discarding the case of the prosecution.

16.In view of above reasons, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and the accused A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

17.In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw1: S. Chinna Narasimhulu Pw2: M. Anjaneyulu Pw3: P. Raghava Reddy Pw4: M.Penchalaiah

For Defence: None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1 on Complaint

Ex.P.2: Statement of PW1 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.3: Statement of PW2 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.4: Statement of PW3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

Ex.P.5: Signature of PW4 on scene observation report

Ex.P.6: Signature of PW4 on scene observation report

FOR DEFENCE: – NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur. Copies submitted to: -

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi

2. The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore. Copies to:-

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri

4. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gudur

5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police station.

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : GUDUR

SESSIONS CASE No.296/2016

[P.R.C. No.3/2016 of Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri in Crime No.61/2015 of Dakkili Police Station]

ComplainantState: Sub Inspector of Police, Dakkili Police Station Description of the Accused 1) Pothala Guravaiah, son of Poaliah, aged 30 years

2) Pothala Subrahmanyam, so of Venkatasubbaiah, aged 25 years

3) Pothala Venkatasubbaiah, so of Polaiah, aged 48 years

DATES OF

Occurrence :05.08.2015

Complaint :05.08.2015

Apprehension of accused:21.08.2015

Released on bail :21.08.2015

Commencement of trial :09.09.2019 Close of trial :09.09.2019 Judgment :11.09.2019

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY: In this case, entire case record was received on 18.01.2017 from the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore. Since then, the case was pending for service of summons to accused till 01.09.2017. Accused engaged advocate on 16.10.2017. Charges were framed on 18.07.2019 and posted for trial by fixing schedule. On 09.09.2019 Pw1 to Pw4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 09.09.2019 . Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused u/s.313 of Cr.P.C was dispensed with on 09.09.2019 and arguments were heard on the same day. Judgment is

pronounced on 11.09.2019. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur

OS/26/2014

Pesala Krishna Rao vs Karna Mallikarjuna Rao

09 Sep 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Monday, the 9th day of September, 2019

O.S. No.26/2014

Pesala Krishna Rao ... Plaintiff

Vs.

Karna Mallikarjuna Rao... Defendant

This suit is coming on 06.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S. Uma Sankar, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.A. Rajamanikyam, advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,16,500/- on the foot of promissory note dated 14.12.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/- .

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.12.2010 from the plaintiff and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Later, the defendant failed to pay the debt. The plaintiff got issued legal notice

dated 10.12.2013. The defendant neither sent reply nor paid the amount.

Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that he borrowed

Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff on 14.12.2010 and executed promissory note for

Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and another promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% per annum. He also borrowed heavy amounts from number of people and executed number of promissory notes. He sustained heavy loss in his rice business. He filed I.P. No.19 of 2013 . The debt of 2 plaintiff of Rs.5,00,000/- was also shown at serial No.33 in I.P. No.19 of 2013.

4.This court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5.At the event of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 and A.2. The defendant was examined as D.W.1.

6.Heard the counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant.

7.In this case, plaintiff sought for recovery of Rs.5,16,500/- on the foot of promissory note dated 14.12.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit.

ISSUE No.1: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount, as prayed for?”

8.To prove his case, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. He reiterated the main contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit. He got marked promissory note and copy of legal notice as Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant was examined as D.W.1. He reiterated the main contents of the written statement in his chief affidavit. The defendant filed written statement stating that he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintiff and executed two promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- . He filed I.P. No.19 of 2013.

9.The evidence of Pw1 shows that he lent Rs.3,00.,000/- to the

D.W.1 and obtained promissory note. He filed promissory note which was marked as Ex.A1. The contents of Ex.A1 show that the D.W.1 borrowed 3

Rs.3,00,000/- from him. His evidence further shows that he got issued legal notice. He filed copy of legal notice. In the cross-examination, Dw1 admitted that he borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from Pw1. The contention of the Dw1 is that he borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from Pw1 under two promissory notes. However, the Pw1 did not admit the same. The main contention of the Dw1 is that he filed I.P. No.19 of 2013 and debt of Pw1 is also shown in the said I.P. The

Pw1 in his cross-examination admitted the same. Mere filing I.P. is no bar to proceed in this case. Admittedly, the Dw1 admitted the debt under Ex.A1.

Admission is the best evidence and it does not require any proof. In view of these reasons, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.2: To what relief?

10.In view of finding on Issue No.1, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

11.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.5,16,500/- (Rupees five lakh sixteen thousand and five hundred only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 9th day of September, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff :

P.W1 : Pesala Krishna Rao, plaintiff

For Defendant :

D.W1: Karna Mallikarjuna Rao, defendant

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note dated 14.12.2010 for Rs.3,00,000/-

Ex.A.2 : Copy of legal notice dated 10.12.2013

For Defendant :

NIL

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

OS/15/2014

Kummuri Dhana Lakshmi vs Uppala Kiran

27 Aug 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: GUDUR

Present: Sri K.S. Rama Krishna Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Tuesday, the 27th day of August, 2019

O.S. No.15/2014

Kummuri Dhana Lakshmi … Plaintiff

Vs.

Uppala Kiran … Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.08.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Jana Suresh, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.D. Venkateswara Rao, advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,03,440/- on the foot of promissory note dated 03.03.2011 for Rs.1,20,000/- .

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- on 03.03.2011 from the plaintiff and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.

Later, the defendant failed to pay the debt. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement stating that he borrowed

Rs.20,000/- from K. Surendra and signed blank promissory note. The suit promissory note is fabricated and manipulated one. There are number of corrections in the promissory note. The plaintiff did not issue legal notice.

4.This court framed the following issues:-

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 03.03.2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.At the event of trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1. The defendant did not participate in the trial.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.In this case, plaintiff sought for recovery of Rs.2,03,440/- on the foot of promissory note dated 03.03.2011 for Rs.1,20,000/-. The defendant though filed written statement did not participate in the trial.

ISSUES No.1 AND 2: "Whether the suit promissory note dated

03.03.2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount, as

prayed for?”

8.To prove his case, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. She reiterated the main contents of the plaint in her chief affidavit. She got marked promissory note as Ex.A1. The defendant filed written statement stating that he borrowed Rs.20,000/- from K. Surendra and signed blank promissory note. The suit promissory note is fabricated and manipulated one. There are number of corrections in the promissory note. The plaintiff did not issue legal notice. However, he did not participate in the trial.

Therefore, the stand of the defendant remained unproved. On the other hand, the evidence of Pw1, coupled with Ex.A1, clearly proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from Pw1 and failed to repay the same.

Therefore, I am of considered opinion that the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the Pw1 is entitled to recover the suit amount. Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

ISSUE No.3: To what relief?

9.In view of findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay Rs.2,03,440/- (Rupees two lakh three thousand four hundred and forty only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation on principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of August, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : P.W1 : Kummuri Dhana Lakshmi, plaintiff

For Defendant: Ex parte

Documents Marked For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1 : Pronote dated 3.3.2011 for Rs.1,20,000/-

For Defendant: Ex parte

Senior Civil Judge, Gudur.

Order Record 818 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
IP/19/2017	Koruturu Muneendra vs M.Sasidhar Reddy	13 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/115/2019	Meraga Ramanamma alias Punnepalli Ramanamma vs Meraga Ravi	13 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
SC/296/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police vs Pothala Guravaiah	11 Sep 2019	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/77/2018	Kasaram @ Ozili Devasena vs Kasaram Venkateswarlu	11 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/177/2019	Gedi Suresh vs Vs	11 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
OS/26/2014	Pesala Krishna Rao vs Karna Mallikarjuna Rao	09 Sep 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/201/2019	Koneti Rajesh vs Vs	09 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/202/2019	G.Rama Swamy alias G.Raman vs Vs	09 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/81/2019	mupala pallavi vs Vsmupala surendar raju	06 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
SC/171/2016	Sub-Inspector of Police vs Kaki @ Kaku Muthyalaiah	05 Sep 2019	JUDGMENT	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/198/2019	Rangineni Naresh vs Vs	05 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/199/2019	Muddandi Balasubrahmanyam alias Ummadi Balasubrahmanyam vs Vs	05 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/200/2019	Boggala Mounika vs Vs	05 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/107/2019	Eswaravaka Srinivasulu vs Eswaravaka Divya	04 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/193/2019	Sangeertham Suneel Kumar vs Vs	04 Sep 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/187/2019	Sannareddy Sridhar Reddy vs Vs	28 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/188/2019	Velugoti Balaji vs Vs	28 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/234/2018	Arani Sai Krishna Reddy vs AraniChamundeswari	28 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
OS/15/2014	Kummuri Dhana Lakshmi vs Uppala Kiran	27 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/164/2018	Karamaneni Suneel Kumar vs Karamaneni Sujatha	27 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/169/2019	Palagani Midhun Reddy vs Vs	27 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/185/2019	Vakati Hemanandan Reddy vs Vs	27 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/156/2019	chengalapattu muni sai vs Vsnill	26 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/179/2019	Cheekolu Munikrishna vs Vs	26 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/181/2019	Neelam Sivasenudu vs Vs	26 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
OS/142/2012	Talamati Subba Reddy vs A. Vijaya Bhaskar	22 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/31/2019	dasari chenchu kiran @kiran kumar vs Vsdasari keerthi @jothi	21 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/167/2019	Peerathur Chandra Babu vs Vs	20 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/168/2019	Nimmala Dhana Kishore vs Vs	20 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
OS/49/2016	Gumicherla Venkata Subbamma vs Karna Sreenivasulu	16 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/78/2017	Union Bank of India, Gudur vs Yaramapu Sarathkumar Reddy	16 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/302/2018	syndicate bank, chintavaram branch (rep.by its branch manager) vs Vsgundala krishna reddy	16 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/122/2016	Narayana Mohana krishna vs Narayana Priyanka @ Malaga Priyanka	16 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/241/2018	Uppala Manikanta vs Uppala Tirupathamma	16 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
OS/21/2015	R.J.Sankar vs Parimala Sudhakar	13 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/184/2016	Polineni Srinivasulu vs Kanna Venkaiah	13 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
SC/276/2016	Sub-Inspector of Polkice, Naidupet vs Shaik Babu @ Sana Babu	13 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/74/2019	musuru siva kumar reddy vs Vsnill	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/137/2019	Polasani Udaya Bhaskar alias Bhaskar vs Vs	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/163/2019	Pathi Lakshmi Ramya vs Vs	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/164/2019	Panabaka Jagadeesh Babu vs Vs	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/165/2019	Challagondla Sudheer Kumar vs Vs	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/166/2019	Gunti Suresh vs Vs	13 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
EP/78/2011	Irakam Chandra Sekhar vs Chitteti Muneendraiah	09 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
EP/86/2017	Yachamaneni Sreenivasulu Naidu vs Guthikonda Ramanaiah Naidu (Died)	09 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
SC/21/2016	S.H.O.D.V.Sathram P.S vs Kuncham Harikrishna	09 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/146/2019	Mangudoddi Vemaiah vs Vs	08 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/158/2019	Gangala Sathish vs Gangala alias Challa Varalakshmi	08 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/45/2019	muchinthala mansa @ ragineni manasa vs Vsragineni lokeshwar rao	07 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/107/2018	/Kotapuri Kasthuraiah vs Kotapuri Revathi	07 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/138/2019	Bontha Ramprasad alias Ramprasath vs Vs	06 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/148/2019	valipi yedukondalu vs Vsvalipi shanthi	06 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/154/2019	bandi venkata ramanaih vs Vsnill	05 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/155/2019	vasamreddy saikrishna reddy vs Vsnill	05 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
SC/184/2016	State Inspector of Police, Gudur vs Sahik Shabber @ Bujji	02 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/145/2019	Challa Chandrasekhar vs Vs	02 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
EP/102/2017	Lankipalli Ranganayakamma vs The Spl.Dy.Collector, (L.A) TGP, Rapur at Gusdur	01 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
OS/151/2018	Indian Overseas Bank Chennuru repd. by it's Branch Manager vs Thalluru Sai Prasad	01 Aug 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/139/2019	Pamula Srinivasulu vs Vs	01 Aug 2019	ORDER	—
IP/34/2018	aKKUPALLI Chenchuramaiah vs Soma Venkata mohan and 39 others	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
IP/35/2015	Dasari Mallikarjuna Rao vs Gunduboina Radha Mani	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/79/2017	Tallam Alleiah vs Tallam Lavanya	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/144/2019	P.Asha Kumari vs Vs	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/161/2018	Pasagadi Srimannarayana vs Pasagadid Vijaya Durga @ Chkka Vijaya Durga	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/171/2017	Chitteri Sree Lakshamma vs Chitteri Penchalaiah	31 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
OS/223/2016	Gandavaram venkata Krishna Reddy vs M.Gowthami	30 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/292/2018	kanderi bhuvaneswari vs Vspakam sreenivasulu	30 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/12/2019	pamala arunakumari @nalini vs Vspamala varaprasad	29 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/137/2016	Gadireddy Sujana vs Runkana Sudheer	29 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/141/2019	Koppala Guravamma vs Vs	29 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
OS/322/2011	Muppalla Devi vs Muppalla Narayana Reddy	26 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/130/2019	Pallikonda Hemanth vs Vs	26 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/132/2019	Pasam Chanikya vs Vs	25 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
OS/6/2016	Iram Easwari vs Kokkiligadda Salmanraju	24 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/131/2019	Chitteti Vinodh Kumar vs Vs	24 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
OS/237/2014	State Bank of India, Venkatagiri vs Jadapalli Jayamma	23 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/57/2018	Athikayala Lakshmi @ Naga Lakshmi vs Athikayala Vasu @ Srinivasulu	23 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/77/2019	dara navakoti vs Vsdara neelima	23 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/133/2019	Bhthoti Nagaraju vs Vs	23 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/193/2018	Nellore Malleswari @ Thgota Malleswari vs Nellore Venkata Ramanaiah	23 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
L.A.O.P/90/2014	Special Deputy Collector vs Dadi Ayyanna	23 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/57/2019	suri pavani@sri lakshmi vs Vssuri setty venkateswarlu	22 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/65/2019	yelakati @jeti leelavathi vs Vsjeti sinu	22 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/71/2019	manapati subarmanyam vs Vsmanapati subhashini	22 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
SC/113/2011	SHO,Gudur I town P.S vs Avileli Srikanth	19 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/189/2015	Madduru Sreenivasulu vs Malli Gopi	16 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/50/2019	chevur chamundeswari vs Vsmamila palli prem kumar	16 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/170/2017	Pandluru Venkataramanaiah vs Pandluru Sukanya @ Kasthuramma	16 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/33/2019	guram bharthi vs Vsgorentla anil kumar	15 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/119/2019	Thirumalasetty Kameswari vs Vs	12 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
EP/140/2015	Vadlaputi Srinivasulu vs Akuluru Kamalamma	11 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
OS/150/2018	Indian Overseas Bank, Chennuru, Represented by its Branch Manager vs Bolleneni Rajeswari	11 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
SC/181/2018	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur I Town vs Vanka Prasad @ Nuthan Prasad	11 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
OS/229/2018	Indian Overseas Bank, Chennuru represented by iots Branch Manager Sri Susokbhan Mahata vs Kanumuru Annapoorna	10 Jul 2019	JUDGMENT	—
H.M.O.P/233/2018	Dasari Ramanaiah vs Dasari Penchalamma	10 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/159/2018	Veeramasi Suresh vs Veeramasi Parvathi	09 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/112/2019	Ravuri Suresh Babu vs Vs	08 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/63/2018	M.Swapna @ D.S.Swapna vs Vs	05 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/109/2019	Maruthotti Hemalatha vs Vs	05 Jul 2019	ORDER	—
H.M.O.P/209/2018	Duggana Vinod Kumar vs DugganaMounika Nagalakshmi@ Mounika@ DudduMounika Nagalakshmi	05 Jul 2019	ORDER	—

Showing 100 of 818 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Sep 2019		15
Aug 2019		44
Jul 2019		47
Jun 2019		33
May 2019		19
Apr 2019		44
Mar 2019		26
Feb 2019		31
Jan 2019		25
Dec 2018		17
Nov 2018		24
Oct 2018		50

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao handled?

Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao has handled 823 court orders since 2017 at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur. The average disposal rate is 29 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao hear?

Based on available records, Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur.

Where is Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao currently posted?

Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao dispose cases?

Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao disposes approximately 29 cases per month, based on 823 orders handled over their tenure at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur.

Since when is Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao serving?

Sri K. Seetha Rama Krishna Rao has been serving at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur since 2017.

Case Types

H 38%

OS 35%

SC 14%

EP 5%

L 3%

IP 2%

S 2%

SCC 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Sep 2019

Senior Civil Judge · 823 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Sri B. Rajesh

Senior Civil Judge

143 orders

Sri K.Venkata Naga Pavan

VII Addl. District Judge

268 orders

Sri Ch. Madhubabu

Prl.Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at Addl Dist Court Complex Gudur