Currently Serving

Sri Karamsetty Ravi

Senior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI, Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 410 court orders on record since 2023. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, EP cases.

410

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/111/2018

State Bank of India vs M.Deva Harsha Reddy

21 Apr 2025

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), PILER

Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025

Present:- Sri K.RAVI, B.Com.,M.L.,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Piler.

* * *

O.S.NO.111 of 2018

Between:

State Bank of India, Piler Branch represented by its Chief Manager.

… Plaintiff

1. M.Deva Harsha Reddy.

2. M.Krishna Reddy. … Defendants

This suit coming before me on 15-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sivakumar Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.Nagabhushanam, Advocate for the defendants and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed on behalf of the plaintiff bank praying to pass a preliminary decree directing the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the suit amount of Rs. 6,06,891/- to the plaintiff bank within the stipulated time.

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

(a). The first defendant is the son of second defendant and they approached the plaintiff bank for education loan for B.Tech course of first defendant at Anna Institute of Science and Technology,

Pennalur, Sriperumbadur and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.4,30,000/- to the first defendant under Account No.31590842590.

The second defendant is the co-applicant for the said loan and the

Page 2 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

defendants 1 and 2 jointly availed the loan on 18-01-2011 by executing agreement for term loan. The defendants 1 and 2 agreed to repay the loan amount with floating rate of interest at 13.25% over base rate with monthly rests and also agreed to pay the interest at the changing rate from time to time as per RBI rates. The defendants 1 and 2 also executed arrangement letter on 18.01.2011 in favour of the plaintiff bank. Both the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the suit amount. The defendants agreed to repay the loan amount in 84 monthly installments, to be commenced one year after the course period of 48 months. The course will be completed by September, 2014 and the repayment of loan amount starts from September, 2015 and the defendants have to repay by September 2022. The defendants failed to repay the installments and became defaulter. As security for the loan, on 18.01.2011 the second defendant created equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deeds for the schedule property. Confirming the above mortgage the second defendant addressed registered letter dt:19.01.2011. As per the ledger maintained by the bank, a sum of Rs.6,06,891/- is due as on 22.02.2018. Hence the suit.

3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the availing of education loan from the plaintiff bank but denied the other allegations made in the plaint and further alleged as follows:

The plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on several printed papers without explaining the terms and conditions of the loan. The schedule mentioned property is the ancestral property of the second defendant and it was joint and not divided among his brothers. The plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands and the alleged loan agreement was time barred one and lack of limitation.

Page 3 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

The plaintiff fabricated loan agreement for limitation purpose. There is no cause of action for the suit. It is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount?

2.To what relief ?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, PW1 is examined and Exs

A1 to A8 are marked.

6. No witnesses are examined and no documents marked on behalf of the defendants.

7.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

Issue No.1:

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that, the first defendant as

principal borrower and second defendant as co-applicant availed

education loan of Rs.4,30,000/- from the plaintiff bank for the B.Tech course of first defendant agreeing to repay the same in 84 monthly installments, to be commenced one year after the course period of 48 months, that the first defendant completed the course by September, 2014 and as per agreed terms, the repayment of loan starts from

September, 2015 and the last date for repayment is September, 2022, but the defendants failed to pay installments and became defaulters, that as security for the said loan the second defendant created equitable mortgage by depositing the original title deeds for the

Page 4 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

schedule mentioned property and confirming the above mortgage, the second defendant addressed a registered letter dt:19-01-2011 and that as per the ledger, the defendants are due Rs.6,06,891-00 to the plaintiff bank.

9. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendants on several printed papers at the time of sanctioning loan, that the alleged loan agreement was time barred one and lack of limitation and the plaintiff fabricated the loan agreement for limitation purpose.

10. To prove its case, the plaintiff bank got examined its Chief

Manager as PW1 and got marked Exs A1 to A8. Ex A1 is agreement of term loan for education loan scheme dt:18.01.2011 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex A2 is the arrangement letter dt:18.01.2011 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, Ex A3 is the agreement for availing interest subsidy

dt:18.01.2011 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff, Ex

A4 is the bonafide certificate dt:28.7.2010 issued by the Principal,

Arigna, Anna Institute of Science and Technology, Pennalur,

Sriperambadur, Chennai, Ex A5 is the letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds dt:19.01.2011 executed by second defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex A6 is the registration copy of registered partition deed bearing document No.352/1986 executed in between M.Sidda Reddy and his family members

dt:9.5.1986, Ex A7 is the registered partition deed dt:29.10.2010

executed in between M.Papi Reddy and his family members including the second defendant and Ex A8 is the loan ledger extract of defendants account. PW 1 in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief

Page 5 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

examination, reiterated the same facts as contained in the plaint. In the cross examination, it was suggested to PW1 that the second defendant did not send registered letter on 19.01.2011 confirming the mortgage and that they obtained the said letter from the second defendant at the time of sanctioning the loan. It was further suggested to PW1 in his cross examination that without following the guidelines of the RBI and Indian Banks Association, the suit was filed. It was also suggested to PW1 in his cross examination that to save limitation, Ex

A5 was created. PW1 denied the said suggestions. Except the above suggestions, nothing wrong is elicited from the cross examination of

PW1 to disprove his evidence.

11. As already stated supra, the defendants categorically admitted in the written statement about the availing of education loan of Rs.4,30,000/- from the plaintiff bank for the education of the first defendant. Ex A1 agreement of term loan, Ex A2 arrangement letter and Ex A3 agreement for availing interest subsidy also show the availing of loan by the defendants from the plaintiff bank. Ex A6 registration copy of registered partition deed dt:09.05.1986 and Ex A7 registered partition dt:29-10-2010 also show that the defendants deposited title deeds as security for the said loan. Ex A5 shows that the second defendant executed letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Ex A8 loan ledger extract shows that the defendants are due Rs. 6,06,891/- as on the date of filing the suit. No suggestion was put to PW1 in his cross examination denying

Exs A1 to A3, A5 to A8. Thus the evidence of PW1 coupled with the admission of defendants about the availing of loan and Exs A1 to A3,

A5 to A8 categorically go to prove that the defendants availed education loan from the plaintiff bank and they were due the suit amount. The defendants having pleaded that the property mortgaged

Page 6 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

is the ancestral property and was joint and that the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant on several printed papers, did not enter into box to examine themselves as witnesses. Hence, the pleadings of the defendants are presumed to be not proved. On the other hand, the plaintiff bank by examining its Chief Manager as PW1 and by marking Exs A1 to A3, A5 to A8 could prove its case. When it is so, it can be held that the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount.

12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that

Ex A5 letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds was not sent by the second defendant by registered post on 19.01.2011 and that the plaintiff bank obtained the said letter at the time of sanctioning loan and that to save limitation, Ex A5 was created.

When the same was suggested to PW1 in his cross examination, he denied the same. Further the said plea was not taken in the written statement which was filed at the initial point of time and for the first time, the same was suggested to PW1 in his cross examination. It is well settled law any amount of evidence without pleading need not be considered. Even if the said plea is considered, admittedly the loan was sanctioned to the defendants on 18.01.2011. As per Ex A5 letter, the title deeds relating to the second defendant i.e. Exs A6 and A7 were deposited with the plaintiff bank on 18.01.2011 itself. The defendants are not denying about the deposit of Exs A6 and A7 documents. Further a perusal of Ex A5 letter reveals that it contains the date 19.01.2011, but on the back of Ex A5 letter a postal receipt was affixed showing payment of amount of Rs.30/- and it further shows that it was sent by registered post on 05.07.2012 to the plaintiff bank by the second defendant. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that any registered letter received by them will be entered in the Inward Register of their bank. In view of the said evidence it is

Page 7 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that the Inward

Register containing the entry of receipt of Ex A5 letter was not filed into Court by the plaintiff bank and the same disproves the case of the plaintiff that they received Ex A5 letter by registered post. Merely because the Inward Register is not filed, it cannot be said that Ex A5 letter was not sent by registered post, when it contains the postal receipt with date 05.07.2012 and postal seals with dates 05.7.2012 and 06.07.2012. When admittedly the defendants deposited Exs A6 and A7 title deeds, then there is every possibility of their executing Ex

A5 letter. Since Ex A5 letter contains the date 19.01.2011, it appears that it was filled up at the time of sanctioning the loan and handed over to the defendants. If really Ex A5 letter is with the plaintiff bank, then there is no need for the second defendant to send the same to the plaintiff bank by registered post on 05.07.2012 and the plaintiff bank would have retained the same with them only and would have mentioned that the 2nd defednant executed the same on 19.1.2011 and handed over the same ot it. Further when the defendants are admitting that the signatures in Ex A5 belong to second defendant, then it is for the defendants to prove that it was not sent by registered post on 05.07.2012 and it was obtained at the time of sanctioning loan. But the defendants failed to prove the same as no witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. Further this being a suit based on equitable mortgage, limitation for filing suit is 12 years from the date when the amount becomes due and not 03 years as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants. Admittedly, the loan amount is payable one year after the completion of 04 years course. As per Ex

A4 certificate the course was commenced in July, 2010 and it will be completed by July, 2014 and the repayment of loan starts one year thereafter i.e. from July, 2015. So, the limitation starts from July, 2015 and the suit is to be filed by July, 2027. Even if the limitation period is

Page 8 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

03 years as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants, the suit is to be filed by July, 2018 but the suit was filed on 06-03-2018 which is within limitation. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the defendants fails. This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2:

13. In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.6,06,891/- with future interest at 12% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on Rs.4,30,000/-. Time for redemptionis six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2025.

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

PILER.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW.1: M.Gopi Kishore.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex A1:Agreement of term loan for education loan scheme dt:18.1.2011 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex A2:Arrangement letter dt:18.1.2011 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex A3 is the agreement for availing interest subsidy dt:18.01.2011

Page 9 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex A4 is the bonafide certificate dt:28.07.2010 issued by the Principal,

Arigna, Anna Institute of Science and Technology, Pennalur,

Sriperambadur, Chennai.

Ex A5:Letter of confirmation for creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds dt:19.1.2011 executed by second defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex A6 :The registration coy of registered partition deed bearing document No.352/1986 executed in between M.Sidda Reddy and his family members dt:9.5.1986.

Ex A7 :Registered partition deed dt:29.10.2010 executed in between

M.Papi Reddy and his family members including the second defendant.

Ex A8:The loan ledger extract of defendants account.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Nil

S.C.J./Piler .

Page 10 of 10

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

Fair Judgment in OS .No.111 of 2018

Dt:21-04-2025

H.M.O.P/56/2024

Vankireddy Sowjanya vs M . Reddy Prasad Reddy

21 Apr 2025

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): Piler

Monday, the Twenty-first (21st) day of April, 2025.

Present: Sri K.Ravi,B.Com.,M.L.,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),Piler,

H.M.O.P.NO.56 of 2024

Between:

Vankireddy Sowjanya, w/o M.Reddy Prasad Reddy, D/o V.Yarram

Reddy, Hindu, aged about 31 years, Housewife, r/at Kurruvandlapalli,

Maddipatlavandla Palli, Kambhamvaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District,

Adhar No.5354 1840 5214, Cell No.630833106.

...Petitioner

And:

M.Reddy Prasad Reddy, s/o Sahadeva Reddy, Hindu, cultivation, aged about 35 years, r/at Kurruvandlapalli, Maddipatlavandlapalli,

Kambhamvaripalli Mandal, Chittoor District, Adhar No.9502 4507 2650,

Cell No.8790265358.

..Respondent

This petition coming before me on 15-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife under section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act praying to pass decree and Judgment by dissolving the marriage dt:23-01-2015 held in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of granting decree of divorce.

Page 2 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

2.The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:

(a). The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 23.01.2015 at the village of the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the petitioner and the respondent put up family at Hyderabad where the respondent was working in Aurobindo Pharma Company and lead happy marital life for a period 06 months. Thereafter, the respondent addicted to bad vices of life and used to come to the house in late hours and whenever the petitioner asked the respondent about his behaviour, he did not give proper reply to her. The petitioner came to know that the respondent was addicted for online betting, playing cards and drinking etc. He did not look after the family affairs properly. The petitioner begotten female child on 22.11.2016 namely

Mokshitha. The respondent borrowed amounts from third parties at higher rate of interest saying that the petitioner and his daughter fell ill and also through credit cards by giving the cell phone number of the petitioner for reference to borrowers and in turn they called the petitioner to pay the amounts borrowed by the respondent. On being informed by the petitioner, the parents of the respondent discharged his debts of Rs.5,00,000/- and even after that the respondent did not change his behavior and continued his habits by playing online games and playing cards. When the petitioner questioned about his behaviour, he used to beat the petitioner and threatened to see her life if she again questioned him in future. The respondent took the gold bangles weighing about 30 grams and pledged the same to others. The respondent did not care about his daughter’s education and he did not provide family necessities.

Page 3 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

(b) As days passed, on the physical and mental torture of the respondent were escalated. Finally, on 10-01-2022, the respondent necked away the petitioner and her child from his house and having no other go she came to her parents house. Later, the petitioner and her father made several mediations but the respondent did not heed the words of the elders due to his adamant nature and also not chosen to take back the petitioner into his conjugal fold. The parents of the petitioner put up separate family and the petitioner used to stay along with her mother at Hyderabad for her daughter’s studies and she is doing private job for her livelihood. All the efforts of the petitioner for persuading the respondent failed due to the adamant and cruel nature of the respondent as he deserted the petitioner since about two years. Hence the petition.

3. The respondent filed counter admitting his relationship with the petitioner but denied the other allegations made in the petition and further alleged as follows:

(a). After birth of female child, the petitioner requested the respondent to bring her mother to their house so that she could be helpful to the petitioner in the day to day family affairs and the mother of the petitioner also look after the female child and the respondent agreed for the same and accordingly, the petitioner brought her mother to the house at Hyderabad. Since the date of joining of mother of petitioner, she used to poison the mind of the petitioner and she made the petitioner to dance to her tunes. Under the influence of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner requested the respondent to purchase the house site plot at Kalikiri in her name and having love and affection , the respondent got purchased house site plot at Kalikiri

Page 4 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

by selling away the house site plot standing in the name of the father of the respondent and also by taking loan from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad to a tune of Rs.11,50,000/- and got registered the house site plot at

Kalikiri in the name of the petitioner. Till this date the respondent has been paying monthly installments of Rs.22,000/- to the said bank and the said loan is still subsisting. The respondent got admitted his daughter in renowned school i.e. Delhi Public School , Hyderabad by paying an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards donation and the respondent has been paying school fees and other fees. Under the influence and at the instigation of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner goaded the respondent to keep all his ancestral properties in the name of the petitioner and as he refused to do so, some misunderstandings arose in between the respondent and the petitioner and the respondent several times managed to pacify the said misunderstandings, but as the petitioner was under the control of her mother, she did not heed the words of the respondent and continued her adamant attitude and not cooperated with the respondent in day to day affairs and also not cooperated with the respondent in cohabitation.

(b). At the instigation of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner secured a job without the willingness of the respondent and taking advantage of the same and as the respondent is physically challenged person, the petitioner totally neglected the respondent and put him to suffer immense mental agony. The respondent held several mediations with the help of his parents and village elders but the petitioner not chosen to live amicably with the respondent and she demanded the mediators to transfer all the properties of the

Page 5 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

respondent into her name and then only she will lead the marital life with the respondent. At the evil instigation of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner got filed the petition with false, baseless and untenable allegations. There are no valid and reasonable grounds to allow the petition. It is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, she got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs P1 to P3. Ex P1 is the wedding card, Ex P2 is the marriage photograph along with CD and Ex P3 is the Xerox copy of the Aadhar card of the petitioner (compared with original).

5.No witnesses are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the respondent.

6.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent was performed on 23-01-2015 and after marriage, they lived happily for 06 months and the petitioner begotten female child, that thereafter the respondent addicted to bad vices like online betting, playing cards and drinking and used to borrow heavy amounts, that the parents of the respondent discharged an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the borrowers, that even thereafter there was no change in the respondent and continued his bad habits and when the petitioner questioned about his behaviour, he used to beat her and threatened to see her end if

Page 6 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

she questioned him in future, that the respondent took the gold bangles and pledged the same and he did not care about his daughter’s education and about the family necessities, that on 10.1.2022, the respondent necked out the petitioner and her child from the house and inspite of mediations made by the elders, he did not heed their words and did not choose to take back the petitioner into his conjugal fold.

9.It is the case of the respondent that they lived happily for a period of 06 months, that after the birth of the child at the request of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner was brought to their house and from the date of arrival of the mother of the petitioner, she poisoned the mind of the petitioner, that on the instigation of mother of the petitioner, the respondent purchased house site plot at Kalikiri in the name of the petitioner by selling away the house site plot standing in the name of the father of the respondent and also by taking loan from HDFC Bank, Hyderabad, that under the influence of the mother of the petitioner, she goaded the respondent to keep all his ancestral properties in the name of the petitioner and as he refused for the same, the petitioner did not cooperate with him in day to day affairs and also in cohabitation, that later the petitioner secured a job without the willingness of the respondent and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner totally neglected the respondent and inspite of mediations, the petitioner not chosen to live with the petitioner amicably.

10.To prove her case, the petitioner got examined herself as

PW 1 and got marked Ex P1 to P3. PW1 in her chief affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination reiterated the same facts as contained in the petition. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged as she was not

Page 7 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent and on the other hand, reported no cross examination on behalf of the respondent.

The respondent though pleaded in the counter that the petitioner under the influence and on the instigation of her mother goaded him to keep all his ancestral properties in his name and when he refused for the same, she did not cooperate in day to day affairs and also not cooperate in cohabitation and that after securing job by the petitioner she totally neglected the respondent and insipite of mediations, she did not choose to live with respondent amicably, did not enter into box to examine himself as a witness. Hence, the said pleadings of the respondent are presumed to be not proved. On the other hand, the petitioner by examining herself as PW1 and by marking Exs P1 to P3 could prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and that he subjected her to cruelty and he deserted her for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. When it is so, this court holds that the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by her and the petition is to be allowed.

11. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent held on 23-01-2015. The office is directed to furnish copy of the decree at free of cost to the parties in view of section 23(4) of the Act.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Civil Judge (Sr.D),

Piler

Page 8 of 8

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt:21-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Petitioner

PW1:Vankireddy Sowjanya.

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Respondent

None Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner

Ex P1:Wedding card. Ex P2 : Marriage photograph along with CD. Ex P3: Xerox copy of the Aadhar card of the petitioner (compared with original)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent NIL

SCJ/Piler

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No.56 of 2024

Dt: 21-04-2025

EP/6/2019

M.Venkateswara Naidu vs Gopal Naik

02 Jan 2026

Page 1 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):

PILER

Present: Sri K,Ravi,B.Com.,M.L.,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Piler.

Friday, the Second (02tnd) day of January, 2026.

H.M.O.P.NO.96 of 2025

Between:

P.Lava Kumar

...Petitioner

And:

M.Lasya …Respondent

This petition coming before me on 19-12-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Smt M.Vani, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Nagabhushanam, Advocate for respondent and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Page 2 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Marriage Act on behalf of the petitioner praying to dissolve the marriage held on 09.08.2024 in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:-

(a)The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 09.08.2024 as per

Hindu rites and customs at S.Convention Hall, Tirupati Road, Piler.

After marriage, nuptials were arranged and the respondent approached the petitioner and told him that she had no interest in the marriage and was not willing to have a relationship with him and promised that she will try to change herself and sought for a period of three months. The respondent never tried to give any kind of respect, regard or love and affection towards the petitioner and she was always ready to pick up a quarrel with him. Later, on the

Page 3 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

demand of the respondent, the petitioner took a property on rent at

Bangalore and also purchased house hold articles and furniture.

Even after putting up a house at Bangalore, there was no change in the respondent and the respondent never took care of him either by talking to him, going out with him or even serving food and was always locked in her room watching web series and not even answering him whenever he tried to get close to her. The respondent never showed any interest to even sit next to him. The respondent never liked to mix her clothes with the clothes of the petitioner when they were put for wash in a washing machine also.

She had clearly stated to him that she desists him and can never move closely with him. As a result, the petitioner was disturbed and under mental agony.

(b)The elders of the petitioner observed the behaviour on the part of the respondent towards the petitioner and reported the same to his parents and when they strongly questioned him, having

Page 4 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

no other option he informed the attitude of the respondent and when they all asked the respondent as to why she is behaving like that, she became very wild and started abusing and humiliating him saying that he had let out her secret and made her wrong in front of his family members and her family members. The parents of the respondent assured the petitioner that they would advice her properly and requested him to drop her at their house and accordingly, on 07.12.2024, the petitioner dropped the respondent at her place. But the respondent never showed any interest to join the matrimonial home. Subsequently, the respondent and her parents started making all kinds of false allegations against the petitioner claiming that he is irresponsible. Thus the petitioner is put to a lot of mental agony/cruelty for no mistake on his part. The respondent remained at the place of her parents and refused to come back to the matrimonial home and clearly stated that she has no interest to join the petitioner and all the efforts made by the petitioner went in vain. The petitioner is put to a lot of mental agony

Page 5 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

and cruelty due to the attitude of the respondent and as a result, his health was greatly affected and he is unable to attend to his day-to- day work due to mental disturbance on account of the behaviour of the respondent. On 09.03.2025, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent and she got issued reply notice on 23.04.2025 with all false allegations. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent and she entered appearance through counsel. But, she did not file any counter and on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent endorsed no counter. Hence the case was posted for enquiry.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, he got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the Wedding Card,

Ex.P.2 is two marriage photographs, Ex.P.3 is the xerox copy of adhar card of the petitioner (compared with original), Ex.P.4 is the

Page 6 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

office copy of the legal notice dated 09.04.2025 and Ex.P.5 is the reply notice dated 23.04.2025. No witnesses are examined and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent.

5.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?”

7.POINT:-

It is the case of the petitioner that his marriage with the respondent was performed on 09.08.2024, that after marriage nuptials were arranged, but the respondent told that she had no interest in the marriage and not willing to have a relationship with the petitioner, that on the demand made by the respondent, the petitioner took a rented house at Bangalore and purchased all house hold articles and furniture, but there was no change in the

Page 7 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

attitude of the respondent, that the respondent never took care of the petitioner and locked herself in a room watching web series and clearly stated that she never move closely with him, that when the said behaviour of the respondent was questioned by the parents of both parties, the respondent became wild and abused the petitioner, that on the request of the father of the respondent, the petitioner dropped the respondent at their house on 07.12.2024, that later the respondent did not join the petitioner and the respondent and her parents started making false allegations against the petitioner and thus the petitioner was subjected to cruelty.

8.To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. In his chief-affidavit, PW.1 reiterated the same facts as contained in the petition. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as the the counsel for the respondent did not cross-examine him and on the other hand reported no cross-examination. Further, the respondent neither filed

Page 8 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

counter nor entered into box to examine herself as a witness. But, the petitioner by examining himself as PW.1 and by marking

Exs.P.1 to P.5 could prove that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty.

When it is so, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by him and the petition is to be allowed. This point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted decree of divorce dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and the respondent held on 09.08.2024. The office is directed to furnish copy of the decree at free of cost to the parties in view of Section 23(4) of the Act.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Ravi/-,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Sr.D), Piler.

Page 9 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner

PW1:P.Lavakumar

Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent

None

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner

Ex P1: Wedding card. Ex P2: Two marriage photographs along with CD. Ex.P3: Xerox copy of aadhaar card of the first petitioner (Compared with original) Ex.P4: Office copy of the legal notice, dated 09-04-2025. Ex.P5: Served copy of reply notice, dated 23-04-2025.

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent

NIL

Sd/-Sri K.R.,/-

ACJ (S.D), CTR,

FAC CJ (S.D),Piler

Page 10 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

EP/6/2019

M.Venkateswara Naidu vs Gopal Naik

02 Jan 2026

Page 1 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):

PILER

Present: Sri K,Ravi,B.Com.,M.L.,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Piler.

Friday, the Second (02tnd) day of January, 2026.

H.M.O.P.NO.96 of 2025

Between:

P.Lava Kumar

...Petitioner

And:

M.Lasya …Respondent

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Page 2 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Marriage Act on behalf of the petitioner praying to dissolve the marriage held on 09.08.2024 in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:-

(a)The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 09.08.2024 as per

Hindu rites and customs at S.Convention Hall, Tirupati Road, Piler.

Page 3 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

demand of the respondent, the petitioner took a property on rent at

Bangalore and also purchased house hold articles and furniture.

She had clearly stated to him that she desists him and can never move closely with him. As a result, the petitioner was disturbed and under mental agony.

(b)The elders of the petitioner observed the behaviour on the part of the respondent towards the petitioner and reported the same to his parents and when they strongly questioned him, having

Page 4 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Page 5 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

4.On behalf of the petitioner, he got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the Wedding Card,

Ex.P.2 is two marriage photographs, Ex.P.3 is the xerox copy of adhar card of the petitioner (compared with original), Ex.P.4 is the

Page 6 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

office copy of the legal notice dated 09.04.2025 and Ex.P.5 is the reply notice dated 23.04.2025. No witnesses are examined and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent.

5.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?”

7.POINT:-

Page 7 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Page 8 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

counter nor entered into box to examine herself as a witness. But, the petitioner by examining himself as PW.1 and by marking

Exs.P.1 to P.5 could prove that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty.

When it is so, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by him and the petition is to be allowed. This point is answered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Ravi/-,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Sr.D), Piler.

Page 9 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner

PW1:P.Lavakumar

Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent

None

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent

NIL

Sd/-Sri K.R.,/-

ACJ (S.D), CTR,

FAC CJ (S.D),Piler

Page 10 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

H.M.O.P/96/2025

P.Lava Kumar vs M.Lasya

02 Jan 2026

Page 1 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION):

PILER

Present: Sri K,Ravi,B.Com.,M.L.,

Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Senior Division), Piler.

Friday, the Second (02tnd) day of January, 2026.

H.M.O.P.NO.96 of 2025

Between:

P.Lava Kumar

...Petitioner

And:

M.Lasya …Respondent

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu

Page 2 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Marriage Act on behalf of the petitioner praying to dissolve the marriage held on 09.08.2024 in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of decree of divorce.

2.The brief averments contained in the petition are as follows:-

(a)The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 09.08.2024 as per

Hindu rites and customs at S.Convention Hall, Tirupati Road, Piler.

Page 3 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

demand of the respondent, the petitioner took a property on rent at

Bangalore and also purchased house hold articles and furniture.

She had clearly stated to him that she desists him and can never move closely with him. As a result, the petitioner was disturbed and under mental agony.

(b)The elders of the petitioner observed the behaviour on the part of the respondent towards the petitioner and reported the same to his parents and when they strongly questioned him, having

Page 4 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Page 5 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

4.On behalf of the petitioner, he got examined himself as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.1 is the Wedding Card,

Ex.P.2 is two marriage photographs, Ex.P.3 is the xerox copy of adhar card of the petitioner (compared with original), Ex.P.4 is the

Page 6 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

office copy of the legal notice dated 09.04.2025 and Ex.P.5 is the reply notice dated 23.04.2025. No witnesses are examined and no documents marked on behalf of the respondent.

5.Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point that arises for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for?”

7.POINT:-

Page 7 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Page 8 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

counter nor entered into box to examine herself as a witness. But, the petitioner by examining himself as PW.1 and by marking

Exs.P.1 to P.5 could prove that the respondent is his legally wedded wife and that the respondent subjected the petitioner to cruelty.

When it is so, the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by him and the petition is to be allowed. This point is answered accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 2nd day of January, 2026.

Sd/- Sri K.Ravi/-,

Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D),

Chittoor, FAC Civil Judge (Sr.D), Piler.

Page 9 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner

PW1:P.Lavakumar

Witnesses examined on behalf of Respondent

None

Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent

NIL

Sd/-Sri K.R.,/-

ACJ (S.D), CTR,

FAC CJ (S.D),Piler

Page 10 of 10

Fair Order in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Fair Order in

H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2025

Dt:02-01-2026

Order Record 391 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/6/2019	M.Venkateswara Naidu vs Gopal Naik	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/96/2025	P.Lava Kumar vs M.Lasya	02 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/114/2023	J.Neelima @ Megha Neelima vs Sreeramula Suresh	19 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/5/2025	Smt.S.M.Shajida Tabassum vs Sri P.Neena Masthan	12 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/15/2023	P.Jayakumar vs P.Sunitha	12 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/19/2022	Managani Ramesh vs G.Vasudha	12 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/109/2023	Kavarakuntla Meena vs Kavarakuntla Prasad	12 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/111/2018	State Bank of India vs M.Deva Harsha Reddy	21 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/41/2025	Sri Pula Rajasekhar Alias P. Sekhar vs Smt. Dayanidhi jhansi	21 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2024	Vankireddy Sowjanya vs M . Reddy Prasad Reddy	21 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/57/2012	Peddayerramareddigari Savitramma vs Peddayerramareddigari Venkatramana Reddy	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/12/2025	Sri Gundupalli Vijaya Simha Reddy vs Vs-Nil-	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/27/2025	T. Thriloka Hanuma vs K.Rupavathi	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/110/2024	Sivarathri Munaiah vs Nil	17 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/9/2020	Yelluri Amar Kumar Reddy vs D.Lokanadha Reddy	15 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/8/2022	Palagiri Rahamthulla vs M.B.Chitty	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/5/2022	N.Prabhu Kumar vs J.Rajendra	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/44/2022	R.Siva Kumar vs R.Sailaja	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
S.O.P/6/2021	Jon Khan vs Post Manager	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/4/2022	A.Siva Reddy vs Dwarampudi Ravi Chandra Reddy	10 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/23/2025	Smt Anipineni Sasikala vs Sri Mukkara Srinadha Naidu	09 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/112/2022	Aramadaka Mallikarjuna Reddy vs Yandapalli Nandini	09 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2025	Sri Pothum Hema Prasad vs Smt Pothum Sravani	07 Apr 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2022	Akula Sarada vs Akula Sankara	07 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/3/2022	Mallela Ramana vs Kotakonda Venkataramana	04 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/4/2020	Chamanchula Venkatesu vs Yellam Surendra	04 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/27/2017	S.Moulana vs G.Sreeramulu	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/54/2009	T.Hassan Ali vs P.Vazeer Khan	03 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
IP/1/2021	Mummathoti Hari Prasad vs Sandra Raveendra	02 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/4/2022	A.Siva Reddy vs Dwarampudi Ravi Chandra Reddy	01 Apr 2025	Order	—
IP/14/2022	Devarinti Nagasubbaiah vs Kamalapuram Kusal Kumar Reddy	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/56/2018	Kosanapalli Ramanaiah vs Kosanapalli Venkata Subbaiah	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/112/2024	P. Reddeppa vs Vs-Nil-	27 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/20/2019	Tekumani Nagaraja vs Takumani Ramya @ Thejeswari	24 Mar 2025	Order	—
SC/33/2021	Sub Inspector of Police, Kalakada PS vs Appalaneni Narendra @ Gundu	21 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/60/2024	Doddipalle Vinod Kumar vs Vs-Nil-	21 Mar 2025	Order	—
IP/12/2018	Shaik Masthan vs Suguna	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
SC/11/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Sodum PS vs S.Sabeena	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/15/2025	Smt. Gulla Leepa Rani vs Sri Balireddy Venugopal Reddy	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/85/2024	A. Shobha Rani vs A.Ananda @A. Ananda Kumar	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
IP/17/2024	Beedagani Nageswar vs Y.Venugopal	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/116/2024	Sri Derangula Ramesh vs Smt Bandi Anitha	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
L.A.O.P/80/2018	Special Deputy Collector (LA) vs K.Reddenna	12 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/9/2011	Thekkala Munirathnam vs Thekkala Krishnaiah	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/89/2024	E Suresh vs P.Sunitha @ E Reddy Rani,	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/118/2021	Musangula Ravi Kumar vs Musangula Madhavi	06 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/9/2012	S.Mallika alias Syed Malika Bee vs M.J.Ujwala Kumari	05 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/114/2013	V.Varadhi vs D.Saraswathi	03 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/90/2024	Koparthi Sapidi Sree Vani @ Vani vs Vsnil	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/124/2022	P.Reddy Prasad vs P.Renuka	03 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2024	Pasupuleti Adinarayana vs Smt Katari Kantha	24 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/86/2024	K.Leelaja vs M.B. Bhaskar	24 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/21/2013	g.Purna Chandra Rao vs Vsnune Ramesh Babu	21 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/13/2025	Sankarapu Sreenivasulu vs Vs-nil-	19 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2025	Sri Ganji Mahesh vs Smt. B.Revathi alias Madhumathi	18 Feb 2025	Order	—
EP/4/2022	V.Ramachandra Reddy vs B.Babu Naik	17 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/1/2025	G.Lakshmi Chandana vs Vs-Nil-	17 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2024	Sibbala Mallika vs Palla Bala Kumar	17 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/123/2018	Asanapuram Sivaiah vs Shaik Masthan Saheb @ Masthan	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/26/2023	G.Naveen Kumar Reddy vs G.Asha Kumari	14 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/34/2017	K.Reddeppa Reddy vs K.Manohar Reddy	12 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2023	K.Balasubramanyam vs N.Sindu	10 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/1/2019	Sagili Vijaya Lakshmi @ Pothireddy Maheswari vs Pothireddy Madhan mohan Reddy	07 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/10/2020	G.Sudheer Babu vs G.Lokeswari	07 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/96/2013	Y.Anand vs D.Salar Saheb	05 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/174/2011	Y.Ramachandra Reddy vs C.Sarojamma	05 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/96/2024	K.Reddy Sudha vs K.Vijay Kumar	04 Feb 2025	Order	—
SC/357/2016	The SI of Police, Rompicherla PS vs Yadamuri Hari	03 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/71/2024	C.Suchithra vs C.Omprakash Reddy	03 Feb 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/74/2024	Smt Dandu Neeraja vs M.Sudhakar	03 Feb 2025	Order	—
OS/21/2023	Avula siddaiah vs Shaik Magbul Basha	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/51/2014	Smt.P.Savithri vs D.S,Kapila Bhai	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/44/2021	Soundarya vs Rajesh @ Talari Rajesh	31 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/78/2015	Samaseni Adinarayana vs Malisetty Dhanalakshmi	30 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/111/2024	Y.Deepthi vs V.Bharath Kumar Reddy	27 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/116/2021	Lokesh Manikanta Aldi vs Appasani Palli Kalyani	27 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/67/2015	L.K.Visweswara Rao vs B.Narasamma	24 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/8/2013	J.Rangaiah vs J.Gnanamma	23 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/64/2018	C.Sreenivasulu vs C.Masthan Vara priya	22 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/106/2024	Bangaru Vinaya Kumari vs Sammiti Mahesh	22 Jan 2025	Order	—
SC/314/2019	The Sub Inspector of Police, Y.V.Palem Ps vs Kotakonda Venkataramana	21 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/118/2023	B.Babu vs B.Sreedevi	21 Jan 2025	Order	—
IP/13/2024	G.Mani vs M.Srinivas	20 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/128/2018	Sidapareddi Raja Reddy vs D.Muthyalu	10 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/100/2023	Thokala Purushotham vs G.Gomathi	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/59/2015	B.C.Purushotham Reddy vs K.Seetharamudu	09 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/109/2024	Ravuri Yamunasree vs Ravuri suresh Kumar	09 Jan 2025	Order	—
EP/5/2019	Akula Bhadraiah vs Chappidi Chegalrayulu	08 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/129/2018	B.Narayana reddy vs B.Umamaheswara Raju	07 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/94/2023	Tupakula Devendra vs Gadidala Bhagyalakshmi	07 Jan 2025	Order	—
IP/1/2014	M.Venkatramana vs G.Saraswathi	06 Jan 2025	Order	—
OP/7/2013	The Spl. Deputy collector, LAO, AVR HNSS Unit-II, vs M.Krishnaiah	30 Dec 2024	Order	—
OS/79/2016	Shaik Khairunnisa Begum and 5 others vs Shaik Hajee	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/295/1996	I.Venkataramana vs I.Narayana	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/99/2024	Bandi Venkataramana vs B.Alivelu	30 Dec 2024	Order	—
EP/4/2012	C.Hemalatha vs J.Sankara Raju	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
OS/81/2017	Rayala Sreeramaiah vs Degala Yerraiah	27 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/105/2024	O.J.Kusuma vs R.S. Dinesh	27 Dec 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/64/2024	Challa Bhaskar vs Vs-Nil-	26 Dec 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/65/2024	Telukutla Harinadha vs Vs-NIL-	26 Dec 2024	Order	—

Showing 100 of 391 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Jan 2026		3
Dec 2025		6
Apr 2025		23
Mar 2025		20
Feb 2025		21
Jan 2025		23
Dec 2024		33
Nov 2024		23
Oct 2024		18
Sep 2024		34
Aug 2024		25
Jul 2024		27

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI handled?

SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI has handled 410 court orders since 2023 at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler. The average disposal rate is 14 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI hear?

Based on available records, SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Where is SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI currently posted?

SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI is posted as Senior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI dispose cases?

SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI disposes approximately 14 cases per month, based on 410 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler.

Since when is SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI serving?

SRI KARAMSETTY RAVI has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler since 2023. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 57%

OS 22%

EP 10%

IP 5%

SC 3%

S 2%

OP 1%

L 0%

Posting History

Nov 2025 — Present

Senior Civil Judge · 9 orders
Nov 2023 — Apr 2025

Senior Civil Judge · 401 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Ziauddin Shaik

Principal Junior Civil Judge

505 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge Piler