Smt.K.Sreedevi

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

III Addl District Court Kakinada · East Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.K.Sreedevi, I Addl.Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada, is posted at III Addl District Court Kakinada, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,069 court orders on record since 2015. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, AS cases.

1,069

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/200060/2016

Kosuri Sudha vs B.Radha Krishna

13 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present:-Smt K.Sreedevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 13th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.60/2016

Between:-

Kosuri Sudha…Plaintif

And

1. Bosukonda Radha Krishna

2. Bosukonda Narendra Krishna ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 11.4.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Krishna Prakash, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri

G.Ramesh Chandra, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.6,95,410/- with subsequent interest and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendants 1 and 2, who are father and son, jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff at Kakinada on 9.11.2014 for the purpose of investment in their business by way of cheque bearing No.301184 drawn on Andhra Bank,

Gandhi Nagar Branch, Kakinada and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 2.50ps., per cent per mensum with yearly compound to the plaintiff or her order on demand and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not pay the promissory note amount and evading the same on one pretext or other. Thereupon the plaintiff got issued a notice

dt:20.1.2016 to the defendants demanding for repayment of the debt and

the defendants received the notice on 25.1.2016, but they did not choose to give any reply or pay the suit amount. Hence the present suit is filed for recovery of the suit debt.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement which was adopted by 2nd defendant denying the averments in the plaint and further contended that he is the father of 2nd defendant. They jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and received the consideration by way of cheque and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

The defendants repaid the said debt by way of cash in 2nd week of June, 2015. The plaintiff did not issue any receipt for the said repayment, but cancelled the promissory note executed by the defendants in the presence of 1st defendant and kept the same with her by saying that she requires the said cancelled documents for her records. The 1st defendant did not insist for return of the cancelled documents or receipts due to close friendship in between the families of both plaintiff and defendants. The 1st defendant, his wife and 2nd defendant borrowed amounts from this plaintiff, M/s. Srinivasa

General Finance Corporation, Kakinada, Datla Ramakrishna Varma, Alluri

Anand and father of this plaintiff, who are his close relatives. Subsequently, the defendants repaid the said amounts to the respective lenders. There are some logger heads arose between the said M/s. Srinivasa General Finance

Corporation, Kakinada and 1st defendant recently regarding the transaction between the defendants and Datla Ramakrishna Varma. Therefore, the said firm bore grudge against the defendants’ family and got filed the suit through the plaintiff, her father and Datla Ramakrishna Varma for recovery of amounts. The alleged promissory note is rank forgery and fabricated the same with an intention to dictate the terms relating to the matter between

Datla Ramakrishna Varma and defendant’s taking advantage of non-issuing of receipt for the repayment made by the defendants towards the original debt. After repayment of the said debt, there is no relationship between the plaintiff and defendants as lender and borrower and there is no previty of contract between them on the suit promissory note. The defendants have not received any consideration on the alleged suit promissory note and the 3 writings on the alleged promissory note are not that of the defendants and the attestor is the henchman of the plaintiff. The defendants never received any notice and the signature on postal acknowledgement does not belong to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff might have been influenced the postal department and created the postal acknowledgement. The interest claimed is usurious and penal. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:-

1)Whether the suit promissory note dt:9.11.2014 is true,

valid and binding on the defendants?

2)Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendants filed chief affidavit of 1st defendant as D.W.1. But the chief affidavit of D.W.1 eschewed as he did not appear before the Court or before advocate commissioner for cross-examination and Ex.B.1 was marked.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and he argued by reiterating his pleadings in the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the defendants did not submit their arguments, hence their arguments are treated as heard.

7. ISSUE NOS.1 & 2:

“Whether the suit promissory note

dt:9.11.2014 is true, valid and binding

on the defendants?

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the

suit amount as prayed for?” 4

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 jointly borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 9.11.2014 at Kakinada by way of cheque bearing No.301184 drawn on Andhra Bank, Gandhi Nagar

Branch, Kakinada, for the purpose of investment in business agreeing to repay the same with interest at 2.50ps., per cent per mensum and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay the said debt.

Thereafter the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on 20.1.2016 and the defendants received the same, but did not give any reply.

8.When the plaintiff contended so, the defendants contended that they discharged the amount borrowed from the plaintiff, but the plaintiff did not issue any receipt and cancelled the promissory note in their presence and did not return the said cancelled promissory note stating that the cancelled documents are required for her records. The alleged suit promissory note is rank forged one with the help of attestor, who is her henchman. There are disputes in between the defendants and M/s. Srinivasa

General Finance Corporation, Kakinada and its partners and in that connection this suit is filed to harass the defendants.

9.To prove her contention, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and she stated in her chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the plaint. The plaintiff also marked the suit promissory note dt:9.11.2014 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as in Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice dt:20.1.2016 got issued by the plaintiff as in Ex.A.2 and two postal acknowledgements of defendants as in Ex.A.3.

10.Apart from her oral testimony, the plaintiff also examined the attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note by name Kolaparti Narayana Rao as P.W.2.

P.W.2 stated in his chief affidavit in the same lines as deposed by P.W.1.

Further he stated that he was present on the request of the defendants in 5 the house of father of plaintiff S.N.Ananda Raju. The 1st defendant is the scribe of the promissory note. The cheque was issued by the plaintiff in the name of 1st defendant at the request of defendants. After receiving the cheque, the defendants signed on the revenue stamp affixed to the promissory note and also underneath to the revenue stamp. Thereupon he signed as attestor. After he subscribed his signature, 1st defendant noted his name as the scribe of promissory note (Swahastham).

11.On the other hand, the 1st defendant himself was examined as

D.W.1 and he stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the written statement. He also marked account copy for the financial year 2015-16 relating to the plaintiff maintained by the defendants as in Ex.B.1.

Subsequently, the defendants filed I.A.146/2018 to appoint an advocate commissioner to record the cross-examination of D.W.1 as D.W.1 could not move from the bed and the said petition was allowed by appointing

Smt. B.U.R.Rajeswari, Advocate as Commissioner. But the said advocate commissioner returned the warrant as the defendants did not cooperate with her for cross-examination, hence the evidence of defendants’ side is closed and the evidence of D.W.1 is eschewed by making an endorsement in the chief affidavit. Hence, there is no evidence on behalf of the defendants.

12.When P.Ws.1 and 2 stated so, the counsel for the defendants cross-examined them and during course of cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that he knows Alluri Ananda Raju and both the defendants are doing business and they are having firms and they borrowed amount under Ex.A.1 for business purpose. The defendants used to borrow amounts from her father and used to repay the same. There were no disputes in between her father and the defendants in respect of previous transactions. Her family and the family of the defendants are having cordial terms. She denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the defendants that the 6 defendants repaid the amount borrowed by them and also cancelled the pronote executed by them, but she did not pass any receipt or return the cancelled promissory note and that the defendants did not insist for the same in view of relationship with their family. She volunteers that defendants did not pay any amount or interest under Ex.A.1. She also further denied the suggestions put to her that Ex.A.1 was created through her father by M/s. Srinivasa General Finance, Kakinada and got filed the present suit through herself in view of the disputes in between the defendants and said Finance Company and no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to the defendants and the signatures on Ex.A.1 are not the signatures of the defendants and no transaction under Ex.A.1 took place.

During course of cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he used to attend work of plaintiff and her family members. He used to put his signature as

K.Narayana Rao and he did not scribe any promissory notes except one endorsement in another transaction in between family members of plaintiff and defendants. He further stated that previously he worked under plaintiff and used to maintain the accounts of plaintiff and he went to the house of plaintiff on the date of Ex.A.1 in usual course without any specific reason. He denied the suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for the defendants that no transaction under Ex.A.1 took place in between plaintiff and defendant and that the present suit was got filed by one Datla Ramakrishna

Varma and that no consideration was passed under Ex.A.1 to the defendants and Ex.A.1 was created at the instance of Datla Ramakrishna Varma.

12.Though the counsel for the defendants cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at length, to prove his contention that Ex.A.1 promissory note was created by forging the signatures of the defendants with the help of cancelled promissory note which was executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff’s father, who is partner of M/s. Srinivasa General Finance,

Kakinada, nothing was elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2 to disbelieve 7 their version. Further, nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2 by the counsel for the defendants in respect of the time, date and place of execution of Ex.A.1 promissory note to show the circumstances which negatives existence of Ex.A.1. As nothing was elicited from the mouth of P.Ws.1 and 2 to prove the contentions of the defendants, I inclined to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the defendants did not come to witness box by giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to confront the signatures under Ex.A.1. Hence, it is fatal to the case of the defendants.

13.No doubt it is for the plaintiff to take steps to prove the signatures of the defendants under Ex.A.1 as the defendants denying their signatures in Ex.A.1. Though the plaintiff did not take any steps to send the disputed signatures to the expert, this Court has ample power to compare the disputed signatures of the defendants under Ex.A.1 with their admitted signatures available on the record by exercising the power under Sec.73 of

Indian Evidence Act. When the admitted signatures of defendants 1 and 2 in their Vakalat and the signature of 1st defendant in his written statement are compared with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1, both are appearing similar even to the naked eye and I found no variation.

14.As the defendants did not adduce any kind of evidence to prove their contentions and in view of my observation with regard to the disputed signatures on comparing with the admitted signatures, on considering the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A.1 and I hold that Ex.A.1 promissory note dt:9.11.2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Accordingly, issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

15. ISSUE No.3:- "To what relief?"

In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, this suit is liable to be decreed as prayed for.

16. In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff for an amount of Rs.6,95,410/- with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

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

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1 : Kosuri Sudha (plaintiff) P.W.2 : Kolaparti Narayana Rao (attestor of Ex.A.1 promissory note)

For Defendants :-

D.W.1 : Bosukonda Radha Krishna (1st defendant) (eschewed)

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A.1 /09.11.2014:Suit promissory note executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- Ex.A.2 /20.01.2016:Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A.3 / –-- :Two Postal acknowledgments of the defendants.

For Defendants :-

Ex.B.1 / --- : Account copy for the financial year 2015-16 relating to the plaintiff maintained by the defendants.

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II A.S.C.J.,

Kakinada.

OS/100402/2017

Devabhaktuni Ramesh Babu vs Kalpesh Kumar Jain

04 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present:-Smt K.Sreedevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Wednesday, the 4th day of April, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.402/2017

Between:-

Devabhaktuni Ramesh Babu …Plaintif

And

Kalepesh Kumar Jain ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.S.V.Lakshmaji Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.6,82,000/- from the defendant with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 2.8.2.016, Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.9.2016, Rs.1,00,000/- on 7.10.2016 and Rs.3,00,000/- on 15.2.2017 from plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintiff and executed a registered mortgage deed

dt:15.2.2017 vide document No.364/2017 in favour of the plaintiff. At the time of

execution of registered mortgage deed, the defendant handed over title deed documents i.e., four registered sale deeds dt:16.4.2016, dt:25.10.2012,

dt:13.1.2011 and dt:8.5.1998 and encumbrance certificate to the plaintiff. As per

the terms of the said mortgage deed dt:15.2.2017, the defendant agreed to pay the interest on the principal amount every month and discharge the principal amount within 2 years from the date of execution of the mortgage deed. If the defendant committed default in payment of principal amount or interest on principal, the paintiff can recover the entire amount with interest at Rs.2/- p.c.p.m. at one time by enforcing the mortgage deed. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay any amount in discharge of the mortgage debt.

Therefore, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice on 28.8.2017 demanding the defendant to discharge the above debt. Hence the suit.

3.In this case several times summons were issued to defendant through Court and R.P., but the same were returned unserved. Hence steps petition was filed and publication was ordered in Janatha Daily news paper, but the defendant did not appear before the Court, hence he was set exparte.

4.In order to substantiate the above contention, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the plaint and marked the registered simple mortgage deed dt:15.2.2017 executed by the defendant as in Ex.A.1, office copy of registered legal notice dt:28.8.2017 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant as in Ex.A.2, registered sale deed

dt:16.4.2016 executed by Avala Srinu in favour of defendant as in Ex.A.3, registered

sale deed dt:25.10.2012 executed by Nagam Govindarajulu in favour of Avala Srinu as in Ex.A.4, registered sale deed dt:13.1.2011 executed by Patti Venkata Lakshmi in favour of Nagam Govindarajulu as in Ex.A.5, registered sale deed dt:8.5.1998 executed by D.Srinivas Kameswara Rao in favour of Patti Venkatalakshmi as in

Ex.A.6, Encumbrance certificate as in Ex.A.7 and postal receipt of defendant as in

Ex.A.8.

5.The plaintiff also examined Gantakolla Durga Prasad, 1st attestor of

Ex.A.1 registered mortgage deed as P.W.2. He also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1. P.W.2 also stated that in his presence the defendant received the consideration under mortgage deed dt:15.2.2017 and put his signature on the mortgage deed. At the time of transaction himself, plaintiff, defendant, one

I.Nageswara Rao, 2nd attestor and D.Venkateswara Rao, scribe were present. In their presence the defendant put his signature on the mortgage deed.

6.As the defendant was set ex parte, the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 left unchallenged. Hence, I am inclined to consider the unchallenged testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.8. On considering the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the registered mortgage deed dt:15.2.2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and also deposited the four registered sale deeds with the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for the suit amount as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.6,82,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the

principal sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Time for redemption is three months.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade II Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 4th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1 : Devabhaktuni Ramesh Babu (Plaintiff) P.W.2 : Gantakolla Durga Prasad (1st attestor of Ex.A.1)

For Defendant :- NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A.1 /15.02.2017:Registered mortgage deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.A.2 /28.08.2017:Office copy of registered notice got issued by the defendant. Ex.A.3 /16.04.2016:Registered sale deed executed by Avala Srinu in favour of the defendant. Ex.A.4 /25.10.2012:Registered sale deed executed by Nagam Govindarajulu in favour of Avala Srinu. Ex.A.5 /13.01.2011:Registered sale deed executed by Patti Venkatalakshmi in favour of Nagam Govindarajulu. Ex.A.6 /08.05.1998:Registered sale deed executed by D.Srinivas Kameswara Rao in favour of Patti Venkatalakshmi. Ex.A.7 / --- : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A.8 / --- :Postal receipt of the defendant.

For Defendant :- NIL.

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II A.S.C.J.,

FAC I A.S.C.J.,

Kakinada.

OS/99/2018

Padada Srinivasa Reddy vs Basava Ravi Kumar

13 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KAKINADA. Present:-Smt K.Sreedevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 13th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.99/2018

Between:- Padala Srinivasa Reddy…Plaintiff

And

Basava Ravi Kumar ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vasudha Srinivas, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount of

Rs.5,88,000/- from the defendant with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from the plaintiff on 14-02-2016 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount. On that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 26-12-2017 and the said notice was received by the defendant, but the defendant failed to repay the due under suit promissory note. Hence the suit.

3.In this case summons were served on the defendant 16-03-2018 but the defendant did not appear before the Court on 03.04.2018 , hence the defendant was set exparte.

dt:14-12-2016 as in Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice dt.26-12-2017 got

issued by plaintiff as in Ex.A2, Postal acknowledgment of defendant as in

Ex.A3. As the defendant was set ex parte, the oral testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A3 left unchallenged. Hence, I am inclined to consider the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3. On considering the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the suit promissory note

dt:14-12-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the

plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.5,88,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 13th day of April,

2018.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1 : Padala Srinivasa ReddyDefendant :- NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1Suit promissory note dt:14-12-2016

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dt. 26-12-2017

Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgment of defendant

For Defendant :- NIL.

II A.S.C.J.,

Kakinada.

OS/51/2018

Sririginidi Bhimashankarrao vs Chintapalli Balakrishna Murthy

28 Mar 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: KAKINADA.

Present:-Smt K.Sreedevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge FAC I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Wednesday, the 28th day of March, 2018

ORIGINAL SUIT No.51/2018

Between:-

Siriginidi Bhimashankarrao…Plaintif

And

Chintapalli Balakrishna Murthy ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Venu and Sri V.S.Murali Rao, Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.3,12,133/- from the defendant with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 4.10.2015 for family expenses and for medical expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., yearly compound either to the plaintiff or his order and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded several times to the defendant to repay the debt. The defendant did not repay the debt even on repeated demands and purposefully postponing the same on one pretext or other. The plaintiff is claiming only simple interest even though contractual rate of interest is compound interest. Hence the suit.

3.In this case summons were served on the defendant, but he did not appear before the Court on the date of first hearing, hence the defendant was set exparte.

4.In order to substantiate the above contention, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and stated in his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments in the plaint and marked the suit promissory note dt:4.10.2015 as in Ex.A.1. As the defendant was set ex parte, the oral testimony of P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 left unchallenged. Hence, I am inclined to consider the unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1. On considering the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the suit promissory note dt:4.10.2015 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,12,133/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade II Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2018.

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif:-

P.W.1 : Siriginidi Bhimashankarrao

For Defendant :- NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :-

Ex.A.1 /04.10.2015:Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-.

For Defendant :- NIL.

Sd/- K.Sreedevi,

II A.S.C.J.,

FAC I A.S.C.J.,

Kakinada.

OS/47/2018

Karedla Butchi Venkata Ram Kumar vs Pathuri Prakasha Rao

13 Apr 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

KAKINADA. Present:-Smt K.Sreedevi, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge.

Friday, the 13th day of April, 2018.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.47/2018

Between:- Karedla Butchi Venkata Ram Kumar…Plaintiff

And

Pathuri Prakasha Rao ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained ex parte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of the suit amount of

Rs.5,07,200/- from the defendant with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and to award costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from the plaintiff on 18-12-2016 for his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount. On that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 20-11-2017, but there is no response from the defendant.

Hence the suit.

3.In this case summons were served on the defendant 10-02-2018 but the defendant did not appear before the Court on 9.3.2018 , hence the defendant was set exparte.

dt:18-12-2016 as in Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice dt.20-11-2017 got

issued by plaintiff as in Ex.A2, Postal acknowledgment of defendant as in

dt:18-12-2016 is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the

plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.5,07,200/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the Open Court, on this the 13th day of April,

2018.

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1 : Karedla Butchi Venkata Ram Kumar

For Defendant :- NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1Suit promissory note dt:18-12-2016

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dt. 20-11-2017

Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgment of defendant

For Defendant :- NIL.

II A.S.C.J.,Kakinada.

Order Record 1,060 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/100533/2016	Kilimi Nagireddy vs Pitta Ramayamma	22 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/59/2018	Merla Satyanarayana vs Nallamilli Veeralakshmi	19 Apr 2018	Order	—
EP/100037/2017	MVV Ramana Rao vs G.Uma Maheswari	19 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/200554/2017	Mutyala Venkata Ramalakshmi vs Puppala Mangatayaru	19 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200602/2017	Isukapalli Devi vs Guntamukkala Durga Prasuna	19 Apr 2018	Judgment	Compromised
EP/200081/2016	Model Chit Corporation Ltd.Reptd. byits manager,Ka vs Smt.Edara Veeraraghavulu and 5 others	17 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/47/2018	Karedla Butchi Venkata Ram Kumar vs Pathuri Prakasha Rao	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/99/2018	Padada Srinivasa Reddy vs Basava Ravi Kumar	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200060/2016	Kosuri Sudha vs B.Radha Krishna	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200061/2016	Nallaparaju Ananda Raju vs B.Radha Krishna	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200065/2016	Nallaparaju Ananda Raju vs B.Radha Krishna	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200069/2016	Nallaparaju Ananda Raju vs B.Radha Krishna	13 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/119/2018	Allakki Radharamani vs Avantsa Ishwarya @ Jyothi	12 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200011/2013	Gada Venkateswasrlu, vs Geddada Nageswara rao	11 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200137/2017	Vatsavayi Sandeep Raju rep by Vatsavai Ramaraju vs United Dredging and Infrastructure rep by Managing partner PD Varma	11 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200541/2013	Bayala Lakshmi vs Vs1.Bayala China veerabhadra Rao	11 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200489/2017	Obilisetti Haribabu vs Yeramilli Ganesh	10 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200801/2012	1.Ms New India Assueance Co.Ltd vs Vs1.Ms Agritrade International PET.Ltd,	10 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200009/2013	1.Pepakayala Ramakrishna vs Vs1.Papakayala Maneswara Rao	09 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/200073/2016	Chintapalli Nageswara Rao vs Rotta Ramana	06 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/41/2018	Sundara Mohankumar vs Katta Srinivas	06 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100402/2017	Devabhaktuni Ramesh Babu vs Kalpesh Kumar Jain	04 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200300/2013	Jakki Venkata Reddy vs Vs1.Jakki Peda Appayamma	04 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100005/2017	Karri Adi Reddy vs D.V.Nanaji and another	03 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/100251/2017	Datla Ramakrishna Varma vs Bosukonda Radha Krishna	03 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/135/2018	Kandiboyina Sindhu Sahithi vs Bosukonda Radhakrishna	03 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100047/2011	Ms.Satya Chits and Finance vs Inuganti Ramprakash	02 Apr 2018	Order	—
AS/200010/2013	Samsani Appa rao vs Rayudu Ganga ratnam @ Gangavathi	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200014/2013	Ms. NCC Ltd. Formerly Nagarjuna constructions co. vs Potula Bramaramba	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200017/2013	Chelle Satyanarayana vs Katuri Venkata ratnam	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200023/2013	Secretary vs United India Insurance comany Ltd.,	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/200108/2015	State bank of India, Kakinada vs Abdul Aziz	02 Apr 2018	Order	—
OS/200076/2016	S.V.Subba rao vs Samireddy Rambabu	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200693/2016	Madireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Gudala Satynarayana	02 Apr 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100064/2017	Kondumahanti Satyanarayana vs Nalla Saibaba	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/51/2018	Sririginidi Bhimashankarrao vs Chintapalli Balakrishna Murthy	28 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100336/2017	Pabbineedi Satyanrayana vs Pinpathu Apparao	28 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
EP/23/2018	Ganta Satya Durga vs Bandaru Srinivas	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/30/2018	Sri Rama Finance Rep.by its managing parter Datla Tirupathi Raju vs Bosukonda Radhakrishna	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/200674/2016	Goluguri Siva Reddy vs Nallam Veerababu	27 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200890/2011	Jami Ammoramma and 2 others vs Chekkapalli Chandravathi and 1 other	27 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200339/2015	Gonthureddy Venkata Lakshmi vs A.Gnaga Bhavani	24 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/477/2017	Motaparthi Bhanu Sridhar vs Ramasetti Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	23 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200019/2013	Shri Ram Chits Pvt. Ltd, Kakinada vs Dasi Lakshmi Neeraja	22 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
EP/25/2018	Kalturi Vijaya Lakshmi vs Vatsavahi Mehar Prasad Raju	22 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/200606/2017	Kodi Sri Ganesh vs Gokarakonda Satyanarayana	22 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
AS/200016/2012	Kona Lakshmi vs Uppu Srinivasa rao	21 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200513/2017	Anasuri Govindu vs Bandi Appanna	21 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200573/2017	Dharmapuri Sathish vs Sakshi Suresh Kumar	21 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/469/2017	Devara Subba Rao vs Komanabathula Vijaya Kumar	20 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200496/2017	Dammala Yedukondalu vs Ravula Venkateswara Rao	20 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
EP/200062/2017	Nakka SuriBabu vs Somu Nagendra Prasad	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/200192/2017	Kota Venkata Ramana vs Karri Mahalakshmi	13 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
EP/200067/2016	Nallamsetti Mahalakshmi vs Chittam Narayanarao	12 Mar 2018	Order	—
OS/585/2017	Karri Raja Reddy vs Vanumu Durga Devi	12 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
SC/200279/2017	Sub Inspector of police,II Town,Kakinada vs Kowlu Kalyan Kumar @ Kalyan	12 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200406/2017	Aripaka Raju vs Kurakula Nagendra Kumar	09 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100426/2017	Padala Ramireddy vs Chanuboyina Venkateswarulu	08 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100095/2017	Kakarlapudi Suryanarayana Raju vs Kandikatla Srinivasa Rao	07 Mar 2018	Order	—
EP/100098/2017	Kapil Chit Funds vs S.S.Subrahmanyam	07 Mar 2018	Order	—
AS/200013/2013	K.John Joseph vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,	07 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200099/2017	Karri Adhi Reddy vs Dwarapu Ravi Kumar	07 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200445/2017	Bhupathi Satya Dhanalakshmi @ Satya vs Mugada Surya Prasad @ Prasad	07 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100518/2016	Sripadam Suryanarayana vs Sripadam Venkata Ramarao	06 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200493/2017	Koyya Gopala Krishna vs Penupothu Venkata Rao	06 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100444/2017	Sri Vamsi General Finance rep by Devabhaktuni Ramesh Babu vs Siripurapu Ramakoteswara Rao	05 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/106/2018	Kalidindi Bimbi vs Kasina Jagan Mohana Rao	05 Mar 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200326/2007	Neredupalli Venkata Ramana and 3 others vs Lingala Babu	28 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/33/2018	Vinukonda Macha Rao vs Patnala Venkateswara Rao	27 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200222/2016	S.Veera Raghava REddy vs D.R.Reddy	27 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200363/2015	Seelam Lakshmi vs Pithani Chandravathi	27 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200585/2016	Mohamed Abdul Kareem vs Pandiri Suma	27 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/100495/2017	Thotakura Rambabu vs Velamarthi Lakshmi Nookaratnam	26 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200226/2016	K.Neeraja vs G.Rani LAitha Kumari	26 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/300865/2014	Merla Veera Venkata Ramjee chowdary vs Kaneti Surya Mohan Kumar	24 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
IP/100013/2017	Sanaboina Nageswara Rao vs Palivela Suneela	23 Feb 2018	Order	—
EP/100077/2017	Karri Veera Ganesh vs Sigetepu Satyanarayana	19 Feb 2018	Order	—
OS/324/2017	Mallidi Subbayamma vs Muddurthi Sreenivasa Rao	16 Feb 2018	Order	—
OS/200732/2016	Susarla Padma vs Prabhat Mahapatro	16 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200384/2017	Chikkala Krishna Murthy vs Palivela Mahalakshmi	12 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200048/2017	Mohammed Shameer vs Mohammad edrees	10 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200381/2017	Sabbella Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy vs Pepakayala Pullayya	10 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/537/2017	Rayudu Veera Venkata Prasanth Kumar vs Chirra Venkata Rao	09 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/580/2017	Adabala Lokesh vs Devarapalli Chinnammi	09 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200622/2016	Gypsum and Plasters rep by KOtha Veera Chakradhara Rao vs Karthikeya Enterprises rep by Veera Krishna Kishore	08 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200727/2015	Karri Adi Reddy vs Yannam Dhominka Reddy	08 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200472/2016	Karri Adhi Reddy vs Avidi Gangadhara Rao	05 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200581/2015	K.M.Bhanu Pratap vs Kanta Ramachandra Rao	05 Feb 2018	Judgment	—
OS/300321/2013	Chandalada Suryanarayana vs Damera Rama Devi	31 Jan 2018	Judgment	—
SC/100090/2017	State S.I. of police, Port P.S. Kakinada vs Karri Lova Prasad	31 Jan 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100008/2017	Medapati Srinivasareddy vs Dwarampudi Ramesh Reddy	30 Jan 2018	Order	—
EP/100022/2017	Jakku Baginayudu vs Vangapandu Ramakrishna	30 Jan 2018	Order	—
EP/200022/2017	YVV Gangadhara Narayana Prasad vs Vatsavahi Mehar Prasad Raju	30 Jan 2018	Order	—
OS/200119/2017	Statebank of India, Velangi rep by Manager vs Nalla Satyanarayana Murthy	30 Jan 2018	Judgment	—
OS/200614/2016	Inuganti Rangababu vs Pemmadi Gangadhar	30 Jan 2018	Judgment	—
EP/100043/2017	Desetti Surya Rao vs Redoji Surya Rao	29 Jan 2018	Order	—
OS/377/2017	Patnala Eswara Veerabrahmam vs Pabolu Nookaraju Satyanarayana Murthy	25 Jan 2018	Judgment	—
OS/468/2017	Nallamilli Sreenivasa Reddy vs Reddi Eswara Rao	25 Jan 2018	Order	—
OS/100064/2017	Nuny Venkateswara Chowdary vs Kotyala Bhaktha Hanumantha Rao	25 Jan 2018	Order	—
OS/100067/2017	Nuny Madhava Rao vs Kotyala Bhaktha Hanumantha Rao	25 Jan 2018	Order	—

Showing 100 of 1,060 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2018		35
Mar 2018		33
Feb 2018		21
Jan 2018		42
Dec 2017		67
Nov 2017		46
Oct 2017		27
Sep 2017		30
Aug 2017		28
Jul 2017		45
Jun 2017		45
Apr 2017		39

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.K.Sreedevi handled?

Smt.K.Sreedevi has handled 1069 court orders since 2015 at III Addl District Court Kakinada. The average disposal rate is 31 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.K.Sreedevi hear?

Based on available records, Smt.K.Sreedevi primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at III Addl District Court Kakinada.

Where is Smt.K.Sreedevi currently posted?

Smt.K.Sreedevi is posted as I Addl.Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada at III Addl District Court Kakinada, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.K.Sreedevi available online?

Yes. 9 judgments by Smt.K.Sreedevi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.K.Sreedevi dispose cases?

Smt.K.Sreedevi disposes approximately 31 cases per month, based on 1069 orders handled over their tenure at III Addl District Court Kakinada.

Since when is Smt.K.Sreedevi serving?

Smt.K.Sreedevi has been serving at III Addl District Court Kakinada since 2015.

Case Types

OS 60%

EP 27%

AS 5%

E 4%

SC 3%

IP 0%

Posting History

Nov 2017 — Apr 2018

I Addl.Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 61 orders
May 2015 — Apr 2018

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada · 1,008 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.G.Anandi

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

457 orders

K Nagamani

IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Kakinada

14 orders

Sri.P.Govardhan

VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kakinada

509 orders

Sri.B.Srinivasu

Principal Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

6 orders

Sri.N.Vijaya babu

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

657 orders

Kethavath Moti Lal

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge,Kakinada

326 orders

A.naga Malleswari

Principal Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

1 orders

Ms.V.Sahithi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

798 orders

Smt.S.Mani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,Kakinada

2,070 orders

Smt.D.Sree Devi

III Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate Court, Kakinada

3,912 orders

Ms.Nirupa Bhanj Deo

IV Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate Court,Kakinada

0 orders

Smt.Shaik Shireen

V Addl. J.F.C.Magistarte Court,Kakinada

3,923 orders

Smt.N.Usha Lakshmi Kumari

Spl. Mobile J.F.C.Magistrate Court,Kakinada

0 orders

Smt K. Sree Devi

P.O.C.S.O Court Judge Kakinada

210 orders

← View all judges at III Addl District Court Kakinada