Sri K.Surikrishna, B.Com, LL.M.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHONE

PRESENT: SRI K.SURI KRISHNA, B.Com., LL.M., Prl. Junior Civil Judge.

Tuesday the 21st day of June, 2016

E.P.261/2015 IN A.A.1065/2014

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Company Registered under The Indian Companies Act Dhone, Registered office at 123 Anqappa Naicket Street, Chennai-600001 and a Branch D.No.5/106, Upstairs, Makam Street, Old Bustand road, Dhone, Represented by its O.A.G.Dhanunjaya.... D.Hr.

-Vs-

1. B.U.Bala Maddaiah, S/o B.Sunkanna, Hindu, aged about 35 years.

2. B.Sunkanna, S/o B.Thimmaiah, Hindu, Aged about 65 years, Both are R/o H.No.2-24, Kamaganiguntla village, Dhone mandal, Kurnool District. … J.Drs.

…

This petition is presented to me on 20.6.2016 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Madhusudhana Rao, advocate for the D.Hr. and that of Sri S.Bhaskar Naidu and Sri T.Venkateswarlu, advocates for the J.Dr.No.2, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Order 21 Rules 37 & 38 CPC for arrest of the J.Dr.No.2 for realisation of E.P. amount.

2.Counter filed by the J.Dr.No.2 denied the averments made in the petition stating that, he is living by coolie and he is the only earning person in his family. Further he submitted that, he could not get sufficient coolie works and he is unable to maintain his big family.

Further he submitted that, he has no other source of income, and he has no properties, such as movable and immovable, as such, he has no means to pay the E.P. amount. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the E.P.

2

3.In order to prove the respective pleadings, the D.Hr himself examined as Pw-1, and got marked Ex.P-1. On behalf of the

J.Dr. No.2 no evidence adduced and no documents are marked.

4.Heard the arguments on petitioner’s side. The counsel for the J.Dr.No.2 reported no evidence.

5.Now the point that arises for determination :

1)Whether the D.Hr. has proved the means of the J.Dr.No.2 and that there is a refusal and negligent on the part of J.Dr.No.2 ?.

2)To what relief ?

Point No.1 & 2 :-

6.In this case, the D.Hr. filed his chief-affidavit as P.W.1 stating that he obtained an award on 30.3.2015, from the Hon’ble

Arbitrator, later their company requested and demanded the J.Drs. to pay the E.P. amount, but the J.Drs. refused and neglected to pay the amount though they have sufficient means and capacity to pay the

E.P. amount at once. He further stated that the Company filed the E.P.

against the J.Dr.No.2 only. Further he stated that, the J.Dr. No.2 is doing cultivating the lands and getting an income of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and he also having a house bearing No.2-24 worth about

Rs.3,00,000/- at Kamaganiguntla village, of Veldurthy mandal, as such, the J.Dr.No.2 has capacity to pay the E.P. amount at once.

7.Coming to peruse the case of J.Dr.No.2 as he pleaded in his counter that, he is living by coolie and he is the only earning person in his family. Further he stated that, he could not get sufficient coolie works and he is unable to maintain his big family. Further he stated that, he has no other source of income, and he has no 3 properties, such as movable and immovable, as such, he has no means to pay the E.P. amount and prays this Court to dismiss the E.P.

But the J.Dr.No.2 did not choose to give his evidence by entering into witness box and to cross-examine his counter pleadings to others. In a case reported in 2006(4) ALT(1) between Gottumukkala

Venkata Bala Ramaraju –vs- Indapalati Apparao wherein the

Hon’ble High Court held that “once the D.Hr. furnishes the list of

properties of J.Dr. with some details, the J.Dr. must disprove the said plea by placing some material”. In the present case also the D.Hr.

furnished some details regarding the properties possessed by the

J.Dr.No.2 and now it is the bounden duty of the J.Dr.No.2 to disprove the same by placing some material before the Court. The J.Dr.No.2 does not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Court, but simply denied all the pleas taken by the D.Hr. Mere taking of such pleas by J.Dr.No.2 is not sufficient ground to dismiss the E.P. as he has no means to pay the E.P. amount and more over, the J.Dr.No.2 pretty well known about the decree against him, it is his duty to realize the

E.P. amount, but he did not choose to take steps accordingly.

Therefore, the counter pleadings of J.Dr.No.2 does not carry much weight in the light of the above judgment. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any reason to rely upon the only counter of the J.Dr.No.2. Therefore, issuance of warrant of arrest against the

J.Dr. alone will meet the ends of justice for the purpose of realization of E.P. amount. Hence the point is answered in favour of the D.Hr.

and against the J.Dr.No.2.

8.In the result, the E.P. is allowed, issue warrant of arrest against the J.Dr.No.2 on payment of batta by 21.7.2016.

Typed directly to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of June, 2016.

4

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the D.Hr. For the J.Drs.

Pw-1 G.Dhanunjaya. None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the D.Hr.:

Ex.P-1: is the certified copy of Authorization letter Dt:21.9.2015.

For the J.Dr.No.2: NIL

PJCJ., DHONE

5 6

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHONE

PRESENT: SRI K.SURI KRISHNA,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 24 th day of July, 2014

E.P.406/2013 IN O.S.464/2012

Uppari Sunkanna, aged about 48 years, S/o Uppari Balanna, Hindu, Beldari work, R/o Veldurthy village and mandal, Kurnool district. A.P.… D.Hr. -Vs-

G.Sreenivasulu, S/o Govindu, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Press Reporter, R/o Veldurthy Town and Mandal. Kurnool district.… J.Dr.

…

This petition is presented to me on 21.7.2014 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Seshasayana Rao, advocate for the D.Hr. and that of Sri Kanala Mahesh, advocate for the J.Dr. and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Order 21 Rules 37 & 38 CPC for arrest of the J.Dr. for realisation of E.P.amount.

2.Counter filed by the J.Dr. denied the averments made in the petition stating that he is working as coolie on daily wages, as such, his income is not sufficient to maintain his family members and he has no means to pay the E.P. amount. He further submitted that he has no movable or immovable properties and he is not able to pay the E.P. amount at once. If the respondent commits to civil prison, his health and his family members will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the E.P.

7

3.In order to prove the respective pleadings, the D.Hr himself examined as Pw.1, the J.Dr. examined as Rw.1, but no documents marked on either side.

4.Heard the arguments on both sides.

5.Now the point that arises for determination :

1)Whether the D.Hr. has proved the means of the J.Dr. and that there is a refusal and negligent on the part of J.Dr. ?.

2)To what relief ?.

Point No.1 & 2 :-

6.In this case, the D.Hr. filed his chief-affidavit as P.W.1 stating that he obtained decree on 25.7.2013 and demanded the J.Dr.

to pay the E.P. amount, but the J.Dr. refused and neglected to pay the amount though he has sufficient means and capacity to pay the E.P.

amount at once. The D.Hr. states that after his oral demands, having no other alternative he has filed the present E.P. Further he submitted that the J.Dr. is working as Press Reporter in Veldurthy village and getting a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and he has valuable movable and immovable properties in Veldurthy village worth about Rs.4,00,000/-, as such, the J.Dr. has sufficient means to pay the E.P. amount at once, but the J.Dr. with an intention to evade the payment he is not paying any amount, by submitting so, he prayed the Court to send the J.Dr. for civil prison for recovery of E.P.

amount.

7.Coming to peruse the case of J.Dr. as he pleaded in his counter that he is working as a collie on daily wages and that he has no means to pay the E.P. amount and he has no movable or immovable properties, as such, he is unable to pay the E.P. amount at once. During the course of cross-examination, Rw.1 merely denied the suggestions given by the counsel for D.Hr. simply he denied about 8 the properties and source of income etc., without any support of documentary evidence. The J.Dr. is liable and bound to rebut the evidence of Pw.1 by documentary evidence. In a case reported in

2006(4) ALT(1) between Gottumukkala Venkata Bala Ramaraju

–vs- Indapalati Apparao wherein the Hon’ble Court held that “once the D.Hr. furnishes the list of properties of J.Dr. with some details, the

J.Dr. must disprove the said plea by placing some material”. In the present case also the D.Hr. furnished some details regarding the properties possessed by the J.Dr. and now it is the bounded duty of the J.Dr. to disprove the same by placing some material before the

Court. The J.Dr. does not choose to place any material before the

Court, but simply denied all the pleas taken by the D.Hr. Therefore, the evidence of J.Dr. does not carrying much weight in the light of the above judgment. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to rely upon the oral testimony of the J.Dr. Therefore, issuance of warrant of arrest against the J.Dr. alone will meet the ends of justice for the purpose of realization of E.P. amount. Hence the point is answered in favour of the D.Hr. and against the J.Dr.

8.In the result, the E.P. is allowed, issue warrant of arrest against the J.Dr. on payment of batta by 28.8.2014.

Typed directly to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 24th day of July, 2014.

Principal Junior Civil

Judge,

Dhone.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the D.Hr. For the J.Dr.

Pw-1 Uppari SrinivasuluRw-1 G.Sreenivasulu 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

-Nil-

PJCJ.

10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHONE.

PRESENT : SRI K.SURI KRISHNA.,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge.

Tuesday, the 21ST day of June, 2016.

O.S.No.469/2015

Minamanuri Chinna Venkata Ramudu, aged about 48 years, S/o M.Chinna Nagappa, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Boinacheruvupalli village, Peapully mandal, Kurnool District. …Plaintiff -Vs-

Dudekula Dasthagiri, aged about 45 years, S/o D.Hussainappa, Hindu, Business, R/o Kommemarri village, Peapully mandal, Kurnool District. …Defendant

This suit coming on 20.6.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.Madhusudhana Reddy and Sri R.Praveen Kumar, advocates for the plaintiff and that of Sri B.Prasad, advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit for the recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,74,192/- along with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant.

2.The averments made in the plaint are briefly stated as follows :-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.1.2012 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, thereby agreeing to repay the borrowed amount on demand to the plaintiff or at his order along with an interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of number of oral demands made by the plaintiff for repayment, on 13.1.2014 the defendant made part payment of Rs.25,000/- towards interest and the same was endorsed on the back side of the promissory note. Subsequently the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant failed to make any payment to discharge the debt due on the above referred 2 promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit seeking a decree for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant along with costs and subsequent interest.

3.The contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement are briefly stated as follows:-

The defendant submitted that, the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other, there were some disputes arose in between them. Further he submitted that, he is an agriculturist and he invested the huge amount for cultivating the lands, due to lack of rains the defendant could not get sufficient crops and got loss from his lands. Further he submitted that, he is ready to pay the suit amount in easily monthly instalments to the plaintiff. Hence, he prays this Court to grant easily monthly instalments.

4.Upon the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled by the court for trial.

1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for?

2)Whether the defendant is entitled to pay the suit amount in monthly instalments or not?

3)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial of the suit, on behalf of the plaintiff he himself examined as Pw-1 and Exs:A1 to A.4 are marked, on behalf of the defendant no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked. After the completion of the trial and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the suit is coming for judgment.

ISSUES No.1 to 3:-

6.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, after having received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 19.1.2012 for his family expenses, executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff for 3 repayment, on 13.1.2014 the defendant made part payment of

Rs.25,000/- towards interest and the same was endorsed on the back side of the promissory note. Subsequently, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant, but the defendant failed to make any payment to the plaintiff which ultimately led to the filing of present suit.

7.In order to prove the execution of Ex:A1 pronote and also the receipt of consideration under the same by the defendant from the plaintiff on that day, the plaintiff examined himself as Pw-1. Pw.1 deposed in his evidence that the defendant after having received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff, executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on that day. This witness deposed without any slightest discrepancy with regard to the facts of the execution of pronote under

Ex:A1. Inspite of the perceive cross-examination done by the learned counsel for the defendant, Pw.1 did not give any slightest room for any major discrepancies or inconsistencies in testifying the facts and, as a whole, the meet of his evidence could not be eroded.

8.The defendant took a plea in the written statement that, the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other, there were some disputes arose in between them. Further he submitted that, he is an agriculturist and he invested the huge amount for cultivating the lands, due to lack of rains the defendant could not get sufficient crops and got loss from his lands. Further he submitted that, he is ready to pay the suit amount in easily monthly instalments to the plaintiff. Hence, he prays this Court to grant monthly instalments. The defendant, for the reasons best known to him, did not choose to examine himself as a witness before the court to speak the contents affirmed by him in the written statement on oath and also failed to adduce any scintilla of either oral or documentary 4 evidence in support of his defence and disavowal of the suit claim.

The defendant also failed to place any convincing explanation for his failure to do so. The defendant seems to have felt complacent by simply suggesting to Pw.1 that, he is an agriculturist by profession and he is ready to pay the suit amount in monthly instalments. In the cross-examination of Pw.1 admitted that, the defendant is an agriculturist and he borrowed the amount for his agricultural needs, and he also stated that he has not ready to take the suit amount in instalments basis. As the defendant without making any slightest effort to place any evidence on his behalf in order to contradict the evidence of Pw.1 on any ground.

9.It is the well settled proposition of law reiterated in a number of judgments from time to time right from the days of the privy council including the judgments of the Supreme Court in ‘Vidyadhar –Vs- Manikya Rao, and another (1999 (3) ALT Supreme

Court page 1) and in ‘Eswari Bai –Vs- Hari Hara Behara (‘1999(2) ALD

Supreme Court (Short Notes) Page 19)’ that ‘the non examination of a party to the suit as a witness without a justifying cause put forth by him for his failure to do so, so as to substantiate his case on oath would strongly give rise to draw an adverse inference u/sec.114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the case set up by him is not true and correct’. This proposition of law is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Here also the defendant failed to put forth any justifiable and reasonable cause for his failure to examine himself as a witness before the court in order to substantiate his case on oath and also to afford an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine him. This failure on the part of the defendant strongly tilts the preponderance of probabilities against the bald contentions taken up by him in the written statement.

5

10.On the synthesis of the above discussion, there is absolutely nothing on record so as to discard, disbelieve and discredit the evidence of Pw.1 on any ground and, in view of the failure of the defendant to place any scintilla of evidence on his behalf, there is no need to give any slightest weight to the bald denial of Ex:A1 made by the defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff has succeeded on the strength of the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex:A1 to prove and establish that the defendant after having received the full consideration under Ex:A1 from Pw-1 executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on 19.1.2012 as affirmed by the plaintiff in his pleadings.

Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.1,74,192/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed directly to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of June, 2016.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined.

For the plaintiffFor the defendant.

Pw-1 M.Chinna Venkata Ramudu -None-

Exhibits marked.

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is suit promissory note. Dt.19.1.2012.

Ex.A2: is the part payment endorsement Dt:13.1.2014.

Ex.A3: office copy of legal notice Dt:9.9.2015.

Ex.A4: is the postal receipt.

For the defendant: -Nil- 6

PJCJ.,DHONE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHONE.

PRESENT:- SRI K. SURI KRISHNA, B.COM.,LL.M.,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE.

Tuesday, the 21st day of June, 2016

O.S.No.219/2015

Unnam Mahesh, aged about 29 years, S/o Venkata Reddy, Hindu, Business, R/o Gowripeta, Bethamcherla village and mandal, Kurnool District.…Plaintiff.

-Vs-

Lakkipogu Narayana, aged about 49 years, S/o Thirumalaiah, Hindu, Business, R/o Konapalli village, post, Bestavaripeta mandal, Prakasham District. …Defendant

This suit coming on 20.6.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gopal Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Bhaskar, advocate for the defendant, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.98,586/- along with costs and subsequent interest from the defendant.

2.The averments made in the plaint are briefly stated as follows :-

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.57,500/- on 24.6.2012 from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, thereby agreeing to repay the borrowed amount on demand to the plaintiff or at his order along with an interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of number of oral demand for repayment, the defendant failed to make any payment to discharge the debt due on the above referred promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit seeking a decree for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant along with costs and subsequent interest.

3.The contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement are briefly stated as follows:- 2

The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint by the plaintiff stated that, the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other. Further he submitted that, there were some disputes arose in between them, keeping the same in mind the plaintiff found the signature of the defendant forged the signature with the help of his followers. Further he submitted that, there is no cash consideration passed under the suit pronote. Hence, he prayed this Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Upon the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were settled by the court for trial.

1) Whether the suit pronote is forged one or not ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?.

5.During the course of trial of the suit, on behalf of the plaintiff, Pws.1 to 3 are examined and got marked Ex.A.1, on behalf of the defendant no evidence is adduced and no documents are marked.

After the completion of the trial and on hearing the arguments on both sides, the suit is coming for judgment.

ISSUES No.1 to 3:-

6.The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant, after having received an amount of Rs.57,500/- on 24.6.2012 for his necessities and executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on the same day and inspite of the repeated demands, the defendant failed to make any payment to the plaintiff which ultimately led to the filing of present suit.

7.In order to prove the execution of Ex:A1 pronote and also the receipt of consideration under the same by the defendant from the plaintiff on that day the plaintiff not only examined himself as

Pw-1 but also adduced the evidence of Pws-2 and 3 who are scribe 3 and attestor of Ex:A1. Pws.1 to 3 deposed in their evidence that the defendant after having received an amount of Rs.57,500/- from the plaintiff, executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on that day. It is also deposed by Pws-2 and 3 that the consideration under Ex:A1 was paid to the defendant by Pw-1 at their instance, and these witnesses deposed without any slightest discrepancy with regard to the facts of the execution of pronote under Ex:A1. Inspite of the perceive cross- examination done by the learned counsel for the defendant, Pws.1 to 3 did not give any slightest room for any major discrepancies or inconsistencies in testifying the facts and, as a whole, the meet of their evidence could not be eroded.

8.The defendant took a plea in the written statement that, the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other.

Further he stated that, there were some disputes arose in between them, keeping the same in mind the plaintiff found the signature of the defendant and forged with the help of his followers. Further he stated that, there is no cash consideration passed under the suit pronote and he prayed this Court to dismiss the suit. The defendant for the reasons best known to him, but he did not choose to examine himself as a witness before the court to speak the contents affirmed by him in the written statement on oath and also failed to adduce any scintilla of either oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence and disavowal of the suit claim. The defendant also failed to place any convincing explanation for his failure to do so. The defendant seems to have felt complacent by simply suggesting to

Pws.1 to 3 that the signature on suit pronote is forged one, as the defendant without making any slightest effort to place any evidence on his behalf in order to contradict the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 on any ground.

4

9.It is the well settled proposition of law reiterated in a number of judgments from time to time right from the days of the privy council including the judgments of the Supreme Court in ‘Vidyadhar –Vs- Manikya Rao, and another (1999 (3) ALT Supreme

Court page 1) and in ‘Eswari Bai –Vs- Hari Hara Behara (‘1999(2) ALD

Supreme Court (Short Notes) Page 19)’ that ‘the non examination of a party to the suit as a witness without a justifying cause put forth by him for his failure to do so, so as to substantiate his case on oath would strongly give rise to draw an adverse inference u/sec.114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the case set up by him is not true and correct’. This proposition of law is squarely applicable to the present case on hand. Here also the defendant failed to put forth any justifiable and reasonable cause for his failure to examine himself as a witness before the court in order to substantiate his case on oath and also to afford an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine him. This failure on the part of the defendant strongly tilts the preponderance of probabilities against the bald contentions taken up by him in the written statement.

10.On the synthesis of the above discussion, there is absolutely nothing on record so as to discard, disbelieve and discredit the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 on any ground and, in view of the failure of the defendant to place any scintilla of evidence on his behalf, there is no need to give any slightest weight to the bald denial of Ex:A1 made by the defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff has succeeded on the strength of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 coupled with

Ex:A1 to prove and establish that the defendant after having received the full consideration under Ex:A1 from Pw-1 executed Ex:A1 in favour of the plaintiff on 24.6.2012 as affirmed by the plaintiff in his 5 pleadings. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff.

11.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.98,586/- with interest at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.57,500/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Typed directly to my dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 21st day of June, 2016.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Dhone.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined. For the plaintiffFor the defendant.

Pw-1 Unnam Mahesh-None-

Pw-2 Boya Lakshmanna

Pw-3 Boyapati Chinna Rao

Exhibits marked For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is suit promissory note. Dt:24.6.2012.

For the defendant: -Nil-

P.J.C.J., DHONE.

MCounsel for D.Hr filed F.S. memo for Rs. 2,00,000/- and the same recorded and the a t t e r

isuit is dismissed in terms of F.S. memo.

s s e t t l e d b e f o r e L o k A d a l a t .