Currently Serving

Smt Kavitha Karnati

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex · Bhadradri Kothagudem · Telangana

Smt Kavitha Karnati, I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem., is posted at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana, India. 210 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, EP cases.

210

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/20/2024

Sabhavath Durga Ram Kumar vs Gudivada Laxmaiah

01 May 2026

Pg.No.1 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 1st day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt. Kavitha Karnati, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No. 20 OF 2024

Between: Sabhavath Durga Ram Kumar S/o late Devadas, Age: 54 years, Occu: Deputy DMHO, R/o H.No.E-42, Madhura Nagar, Yusufguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Gudivada Laxmaiah S/o Bikshmaiah, Age: 56 years, Occu: Government employee, R/o H.No.2-81/3, 3A, Vidyanagar Colony village and Panchayathi, Chunchupally Mandal, Bhadradri- Kothagudem District.

....Defendant.

Claim:- Suit filed for recovery of money.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 01.05.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri J.Gopikrishna, Advocate for defendant. Upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and defendant and having considered, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.28,62,666/- with future interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of suit till the date of realization and for awarding costs and to

Pg.No.2 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem grant any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The plaint averments are as follows:

2.1 The plaintiff and defendant are closely acquainted with each other, due to such acquaintance the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13-07- 2022 at Gajula Rajam Basthi, Kothagudem Town for his family needs.

After receipt of the above said amount, the defendant has duly executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the above said date and place promising to pay the above said amount along with agreed interest @ Rs.2/- per month per Rs.100/- to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

2.2 Inspite of sufficient means the defendant has been evading to pay the above said promissory note amount. The defendant though repeatedly demanded the defendant to pay the above said pronote amount, he has been evading on one pretext or the other. Finally on 25-04-2024 the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant for repayment of the above said pronote amount along with interest, but the defendant did not choose to repay the pronote debt, the plaintiff has lost hope that the defendant would pay the

Pg.No.3 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem above said amount, as such the plaintiff has no other go except to seek the help of the Hon'ble Court. Hence this suit.

3.The defendant has filed written statement by denying the plaint averments. He denied that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13-07-2022 for family necessities by executing a pronote in favour of the plaintiff is specifically. He submitted that the defendant never executed any pronote in favour of plaintiff on 13-07-2022 and never borrowed any amount much less pronote amount from the plaintiff and agreeing the interest @ 24% per annum. He submitted that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount and there was no consideration passed through the alleged pronote dated 13-07-2022.

The suit promissory note is rank forged and fabricated by the plaintiff with the help of his kith and kin. He denied that the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant to pay the promissory note amount. He submitted that the plaintiff is having ample opportunity to issue legal notice prior to filing of the suit. He submitted that the plaintiff filed several suits of promissory note and cheque bounces cases against the innocent persons with an intention to grab the money in easy ways by blackmailing them. He submitted that the plaintiff failed to file any source of income proof that he is capable to give such huge

Pg.No.4 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem amount to the defendant and failed to file any IT returns or any valid money lending license before the court. The claim of interest is not tenable under the provisions of Usurious Loans Act and the cause of action is self invented for the purpose of filing of the suit and the plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs as prayed by him.

Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

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

Issue No.1. Whether the suit promissory note dt.13-07-2022 is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business as defined under the provisions of AP (TA) Money Lending

Act, 1349 Fasli ?

Issue No.3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit claim ?

Issue No.4. To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, in support of plaintiff’s claim, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A-1, the scribe of the suit promissory note by name Devanapalli Ramesh, was

Pg.No.5 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem examined as P.W.2, one of the attestor of suit promissory note by name D.koushik was examined as P.W.3. Inspite of giving several opportunities, the defendant failed to adduce his evidence, thereby the evidence of defendant was closed. Subsequently, no steps taken by the defendant to lead the evidence.

6.On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A-1 :- Original promissory note dt.13-07-2022.

7.On behalf of defendant, no evidence was adduced and no documents were exhibited.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3 :

9.Issues No.1 to 3 are interlinked with each other and are discussed together to avoid repetition.

10.The evidence of P.w.1 is that the defendant borrowed

Rs.20,00,000/- from him on 13.07.2022 at Gajularajam Basthi,

Kothagudem for his family necessities and executed Ex.A.1 in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and thereafter the plaintiff made several oral demands

Pg.No.6 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem but the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. The Plaintiff also examined the scribe of Ex.A.1 as

P.w.2 and one of the attestor as P.w.3 in support of his case and contentions. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 13.07.2022 and executed Ex.A.1 in their presence at

Gajularajam Basthi, Kothagudem. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff by filing his written statement, wherein he contended that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document. In order to prove the same, the defendant did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. Nothing important was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 in favour of defendant case. Mere pleadings without either oral or documentary evidence are not suffice to prove the contentions of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff proves his case by examining

P.Ws.2 and 3 and exhibiting Ex.A.1 promissory note. The evidence of plaintiff shows that the Ex.A-1 is true, valid and

Pg.No.7 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem supported by the consideration. Thus, issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff.

Issue No.4

As issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of

Rs.28,62,666/- (Rupees twenty eight lakhs sixty two thousand six hundred and sixty six only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.20,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Typist,corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of May, 2026.

KAVITHADigitally signed by

KAVITHA KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.06 17:28:38 +0530

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No.8 of 8 O.S.No. 20/2024 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined for Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Sabhavath Durga Ram Kumar P.W.2 : Devanapalli Ramesh P.W.3 : D.Koushik Defendant: -- NIL -- Exhibits marked for Plaintiff: Ex.A-1 :- Promissory note dt.13-07-2022. KAVITHADigitally signed by

KAVITHA KARNATI

Defendant: KARNATIDate: 2026.05.06 -- NIL -- 17:28:50 +0530

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

OS/114/2019

Pussala Kondala Rao vs Boda Basu

01 May 2026

Pg.No.1 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 1st day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt. Kavitha Karnati, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No. 114 OF 2019

Between:

Pusala Kondala Rao S/o Late Nagaiah, Age: 61 years, Occu: Retired Railway employee, R/o H.No.17-1-45, Bollorigudem, Paloncha Town and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. ...…Plaintiff.

And

Boda Basu S/o Tarasingh, Age: 43 years, Occu: Foreman, I Grade in K.T.P.S., R/o Qr.No.F-449, B-Colony, K.T.P.S., Paloncha, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

....Defendant.

Claim:- Suit filed for recovery of money.

This suit coming before me for final hearing on 30.04.2026 in the presence of Sri Thota Malleswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri J.Gopikrishna, Advocate for defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of counsel for plaintiff and defendant and having considered, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,70,000/- with future interest @ 24% P.A. from the

Pg.No.2 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem date of suit till the date of realization and for awarding costs and to grant any other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The plaint averments are as follows:

The defendant is close acquainted with the plaintiff.

Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff on 19-06-2017, for his family necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, promising to repay the same together with agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, the plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of the promissory note amount with up to date interest. But the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. Finally, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant on 08-06-2019 to repay the promissory note amount with accrued interest, but there is no response from him. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant has filed written statement by denying the plaint averments, that he borrowed an amount of

Pg.No.3 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

Rs.2,50,000/- for his family necessities from the plaintiff on 19-06- 2017 and that he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff with a promise to repay the said amount with agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

4.He denied that the plaintiff made several demands on the defendant and the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. He submits that in fact the defendant is an employee in KTPS, Paloncha and used to get sufficient salary of

Rs.1,00,000/- per month and there is no need to borrow such alleged debt from the plaintiff and the signature on the suit promissory note is rank forged, created and fabricated by the plaintiff and his men who are kith and kin and the defendant never saw the face of alleged attestors and scribe and as such, the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration and hence, the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

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

Pg.No.4 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

Issue No.1. Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated by plaintiff as prayed for by defendant ?

Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount together with interest as prayed for by the plaintiff ?

Issue No.3. To what relief ?

6.During the course of trial in support of plaintiff’s claim, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A-1, Gaddam

Adi Babu and L.Nageswara Rao, attestors of suit promissory note were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. In support of defendant’s case, he examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are marked.

7.On behalf of plaintiff:

Ex.A-1 :- Promissory note dt.19-06-2017 was exhibited.

8.On behalf of defendant no documents were exhibited.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

10.Issues No.1 and 2 are discussed together for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition.

Pg.No.5 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

Arguments in Brief:

11.The plaintiff would contend that on 19-06-2017 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him, executed a promissory note in his favour at Paloncha and the defendant failed to repay the promissory note amount along with interest inspite of demands made by the plaintiff and that he filed the present suit.

12.The defendant would contend that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff on 19-06-2017 at Paloncha and that he did not execute promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration and it is rank forged document. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed in the above suit. The suit is devoid of any merits or consideration and prayed to dismiss the suit.

13.Oral evidence in brief:

The plaintiff himself has examined as P.W.1, he deposed by reiterating the contents of plaint, Ex.A-1 was got exhibited on his behalf. In cross-examination he denied that on 19-06-2017 the defendant did not borrow the amount and in collusion with the

Pg.No.6 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem attestors and scribe he forged and fabricated Ex.A-1 promissory note and nothing important was elicited in his cross examination.

14.One Gaddam Adi Babu and one L.Nageswar Rao, attestors of Ex.A-1 promissory note were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, they supported the evidence of P.W.1.

15.The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 by reiterating the contents of his written statement.

16.It is the contention of the defendant that Ex.A-1 was forged document. But no steps have been taken by the defendant to manifest that Ex.A-1 is forged. Hence, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A-1 shows for valid consideration Ex.A-1 was executed and it is true, valid and binding on the defendant. The evidence of plaintiff is unrebutted by the defendant. With the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence Ex.A- 1, the plaintiff has established his case that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 19-06-2017 and he is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for. Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Pg.No.7 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

17.ISSUE NO.3:

As issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

18.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- (Rupees

Three lakhs and Seventy thousand only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of May, 2026. KAVITHADigitally signed by

KAVITHA KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.06 17:27:44 +0530

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

- APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined for

Plaintiff: P.W.1 : Pusala Kondala Rao P.W.2 : Gaddam Adi Babu P.W.3 : L.Nageswara Rao

Defendant: D.W.1 : Boda Dasu

Pg.No.8 of 8 O.S.No. 114/2019 I.Addl.S.C.J, Kothagudem

Exhibits marked for

Plaintiff:

Ex.A-1 :- Promissory note dt.19-06-2017.

Digitally signed Defendant:

KAVITHAby KAVITHA

KARNATI

-- NIL -- Date: 2026.05.06 17:27:54 +0530

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

OS/128/2025

Chamakuri Veeraiah vs Pagilla Yakaiah

04 May 2026

1 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt.Kavitha Karnati, I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

H.M.O.P.No. 148 of 2025

Between:

1.Darla Jhansi @ Petluri Jhansi W/o Darla Ganapathi Durga Prasad D/o Petluri Rambabu, Age: 21 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o H.No.7-107, Muslim Colony, Aswaraopeta village and Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District 507301.

2.Darla Ganapathi Durga Prasad S/o late Durga Rao, Age: 26 years, Occu: Private employee, R/o H.No.6-40, Near Trinadh Theatre, Devarapalli town and Mandal, West Godavari District, Pin: 534313.

…Petitioners No.1 and 2

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 04.05.2026 in the presence of Sri L.V.Durga Rao, Advocate for petitioners; and having heard for consideration, this Court made the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage of the petitioners by a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

2 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

2.The brief averments of the petition are that first petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the second petitioner.

Both the petitioners are Hindus and they belong to 'viswakarma' by caste. The marriage between both petitioners was performed by the either side parents and relations on 22-8-2024 at Sri

Kanakadurgamma Temple, Vijayawada of NTR District.

2.1 After marriage, the first petitioner joined with second petitioner at Vankavarigudem Village in the house of the second petitioner and both of them lived together as a married couple for three months without any disputes. After three months, disputes arose between them. During their wedlock they have no children. Later with the advise of elders on both sides, the petitioners shifted their residence to Aswaraopeta town and lived in a rented house in the last week of November 2024. They stayed there up to January 2025. But they did not change their attitude and continued the same situation. As such in the month of January 2025, the second petitioner left the company of first petitioner and residing with his parents at

Vankavarigudem Village of Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District.

3 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

The first petitioner has been residing with her parents at

Aswaraopeta.

2.2 Thereafter, the parents of both sides advised both parties to lead a happy marital life, but the petitioners are not showing any interest in continuing their marital life. Later, the parents of petitioner approached the elders and relations and they requested them to advise the petitioners. The elders, namely Syed Rafi Ahmad and Tanagala Varalakshmi and Tellam

Durga Rao, all of them conducted a panchayat at Aswaraopeta

Village and advised the second petitioner and the first petitioner to lead a happy marital life, but both the petitioners stood in the same attitude.

2.3 The petitioners have been living separately since

January 2025. All the efforts made by the elders were not fruitful. Hence, both the petitioners came to the conclusion that they cannot live together under one roof as wife and husband.

Ultimately, on the advice of elders, the first petitioner and the second petitioner decided to separate by way of obtaining a dissolution of their marriage through legal process, keeping their age and better future life in view. Hence, the petitioners are 4 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

filing this petition with mutual consent for divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2.4 It is submitted that the second petitioner agreed to pay Rs: 3,30,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand only) to the petitioner No.1 towards her past, present and future maintenance i.e. permanent alimony. The first petitioner agreed to receive the said amount at the time of giving evidence in this

OP. The above settlement made in the presence of either side parents and elders. The first petitioner and the second petitioner have no right to file civil, criminal, or maintenance cases, etc., against each other in the future. Hence, the petition for divorce by way of mutual consent.

3.The petitioners examined themselves as PW-1 and PW-2 and got exhibited Ex.P-1 and P-2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and perused the material on record.

5 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

4.Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners

No.1 and 2 are entitled for dissolution of their marriage, which was solemnized on 22.08.2024 by way of mutual consent?

5.This petition is filed to dissolve the marriage between petitioners No.1 and 2 to grant divorce by mutual consent. The petitioners No.1 and 2 examined themselves as Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P-1 and P-2. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 shows that, they have supported their version as averred in their petition for grant of mutual divorce. The petitioners got marked

Ex.P-1 and P-2, which are the wedding card of petitioners, Dt:

22.08.2024, marriage photographs 3 in number. The evidence of both petitioners shows that, they are not willing for reunion and expressed their intention to take divorce by mutual consent and moreover, they are living separately from January, 2025, even on the advise of the elders also they are not willing to live together. Both parties decided to obtain divorce by mutual consent. From the circumstances of the case, it appears that there are no chances for their reunion. Hence, this court finds that it is a fit case where the petition can be allowed by dissolving the marriage between the parties by mutual consent.

6 of 6HMOP. 148 of 2025

I.A.S.C.J, KOTHAGUDEM

6.In the result, this petition is allowed, dissolving the marriage between the Petitioners, dated.22.08.2024, by granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent. No costs.

Typed directly on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by KAVITHA

KAVITHA

KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.07 11:08:01 +0530 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners:

P.W.1: Darla Jhansi @ Petluri Jhansi

P.W.2: Darla Ganapathi Durga Prasad.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Petitioners: Ex.P1:Wedding card of petitioners, dt.22-08-2024.

Ex.P2:Wedding photographs (3) in number.

Digitally signed by KAVITHA

KAVITHA

KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.07 11:08:10 +0530 I Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

OS/118/2025

Kodati Laxmi vs Siripalli Mallikarjun

05 May 2026

Pg.No.1 of 5 O.S.No. 118 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 5th day of May, 2026.

Present :- Smt.Kavitha Karnati, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No. 118 of 2025

Between:-

Kodati Laxmi W/o Pedda Dasu, Age: 45 years, Occu: Tailoring Business, R/o H.No.30-2-131, Prashanth Colony, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…… Plaintiff

And

Siripalli Mallikarjun S/o Kumara Swamy, Age: 43 years, Occu: Lecturer (Polytechnic) Employee in Government Polytechnic College, Khajipuram, Madhira, O/o Government Polytechnic College, Metallurgy Department, Madhira village and Mandal, Khammam District, R/o H.No.8-4-64, Oddugudem, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 05.05.2026 in the presence of Sri Shaik Mohammad Khasim, Advocate for the plaintiff and that the defendant remained ex-parte; and having heard for consideration, this court made the following:

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

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff under section 26, order-7,

Rule-1 and 2 of code of civil procedure, against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.13,74,400/- with interest and costs.

Pg.No.2 of 5 O.S.No. 118 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

2.The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant is closely acquainted with the plaintiff, out of such close acquaintance the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs 8,00,000/- for his family necessities from the plaintiff on 13-11-2022 and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at the residence of plaintiff i.e., Prashanth Colony, Paloncha town promising to repay the same together with an agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff is running a tailoring business and gave an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- to the defendant by way of cash under a promissory note. She has also obtained amounts from other persons. The plaintiff is not an income tax assessee.

2.1 Thereafter, the plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of the promissory note amount with up to date interest but the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. Finally, on 09-06-2024 the defendant approached the plaintiff and got issued a cheque in favour of the plaintiff vide cheque bearing No.128657 for sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Thereafter, the plaintiff presented the said cheque in her account of

Union Bank of India, Paloncha branch, the same was returned with a memo dated: 22-08-2024 stating that “REFER TO DRAWER”.

Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on

Pg.No.3 of 5 O.S.No. 118 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem 18-09-2024 under Negotiable Instrument Act of Section 138, but there is no response from the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant before the III AddI., JFCM,

Kothagudem vide STC-NI. No. 232/2024 and the same is pending.

Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of money. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of service of summons on defendant, he failed to appear before the court, no representation on his behalf. Hence, he was set exparte on 28.04.2026.

4.During trial, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW-1 and got exhibited as Ex.A-1.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

6.Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for my determination is “whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for”?

8.P O I N T:

The plaintiff herself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of plaint, further PW-1 got exhibited Ex.A-1 on her behalf.

Pg.No.4 of 5 O.S.No. 118 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

Ex.A-1 is promissory note. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. It is established from the evidence of

PW-1 that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff, executed Ex.A-1 in his favour promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Hence this court holds that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. The point is answered accordingly.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.13,74,400/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs seventy four thousand and four hundred only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.8,00,000/-.

Typed directly on my dictation, by Kumari M. Anusha, Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.Digitally signed KAVITHAby KAVITHA

KARNATI

Date: 2026.05.07

11:12:08 +0530 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

Pg.No.5 of 5 O.S.No. 118 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiff On behalf of Defendant

PW-1Kodati Laxmi:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

SI.No. Date of Description of Document

Document Ex.A-113.11.2022Original Promissory note

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL :: Digitally signed by KAVITHA

KAVITHA

KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.07 11:12:17 +0530 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

OS/128/2025

Chamakuri Veeraiah vs Pagilla Yakaiah

04 May 2026

Pg.No.1 of 4 O.S.No. 128 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 4th day of May, 2026.

Present :- Smt.Kavitha Karnati, I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No. 128 of 2025

Between:-

Chamakuri Veeraiah S/o Nagaiah, Age: 63 years, Occu: Employee, R/o H.No.30-2-34, Prashanthi Nagar Colony, Paloncha Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…… Plaintiff

And

Pagilla Yakaiah S/o Lalaiah, Age: 36 years, Occu: Employee in Genco, R/o Qr.No.G-106, KTPP Genco Colony, Ghelpur, Ghanpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. ….Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04.05.2026 in the presence of Sri A.Ramprasada Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and that the defendant remained ex-parte; and having heard for consideration, this court made the following:

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

The suit has been filed by the plaintiff under section 26, order-7,

Rule-1 and 2 of code of civil procedure, against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.22,80,000/- with interest and costs.

Pg.No.2 of 4 O.S.No. 128 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

2.The brief averments of plaint are that the defendant is close acquainted with the plaintiff. Out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed Rs. 15,00,000/- for his family necessities from the plaintiff on 10-09-2023 and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day at the residence of plaintiff i.e.,

Prashanthinagar Colony, Paloncha town, promising to repay the same together with agreed interest @ 24% per annum, either to plaintiff or to his order on demand.

2.1 Thereafter, the plaintiff made several oral demands on the defendant for repayment of the promissory note amount with up to date interest but the defendant did not choose to repay the promissory note amount. Finally, the plaintiff orally demanded the defendant on 01-11-2025 to repay the promissory note amount with interest. But there is no response from him. Vexed with the attitude of the defendant and filed the present suit for recovery of money.

Hence this suit.

3.Inspite of service of summons on defendant, he failed to appear before the court, no vakalat was filed and no representation on his behalf. Hence, he was set exparte on 23.04.2016.

Pg.No.3 of 4 O.S.No. 128 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

4.During trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and got exhibited as Ex.A-1.

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff.

6.Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for my determination is “whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants as prayed for”?

8.P O I N T:

The plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and reiterated the contents of plaint, further PW-1 got exhibited Ex.A-1 on his behalf.

Ex.A-1 is promissory note. The evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. It is established from the evidence of

PW-1 that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the plaintiff, executed Ex.A-1 in his favour promising to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Hence this court holds that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. The point is answered accordingly.

Pg.No.4 of 4 O.S.No. 128 of 2025 I.A.S.C.J, Kothagudem

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.22,80,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs and eighty thousand only) and subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thenceforth at the rate of 6% per annum till realization on the principal sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

Typed directly on my dictation, by Kumari M. Anusha, Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4 th day of May, 2026. KAVITHADigitally signed by

KAVITHA KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.07 11:07:16 +0530 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

On behalf of Plaintiff On behalf of Defendant

PW-1Chamakuri Veeraiah:: NONE ::

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

SI.No. Date of Description of Document

Document Ex.A-110.09.2023Original Promissory note

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::Digitally signed by KAVITHA

KAVITHA

KARNATI

KARNATIDate: 2026.05.07 11:07:26 +0530 I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

Order Record 194 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/118/2025	Kodati Laxmi vs Siripalli Mallikarjun	05 May 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/128/2025	Chamakuri Veeraiah vs Pagilla Yakaiah	04 May 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/128/2025	Chamakuri Veeraiah vs Pagilla Yakaiah	04 May 2026	Order	—
OS/20/2024	Sabhavath Durga Ram Kumar vs Gudivada Laxmaiah	01 May 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/114/2019	Pussala Kondala Rao vs Boda Basu	01 May 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/336/2022	PS BURGAMPAHAD vs MODHUGU VENKATESWARLU	30 Apr 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/12/2026	Jupalli Swathi alias Batta Swathi vs Jupalli Kiran Kumar	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/82/2022	Motepalli Vijay kumar vs Motepalli Radha tulasi	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/37/2025	Potu Venkata Ramesh vs Yedulapuram Sharada	28 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/90/2022	Gorre Sambaiah vs Krupade Kishore	28 Apr 2026	Lok Adalat Award	—
EP/20/2020	Chippa Satya Prasad vs Chippa Pavan Kumar	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/106/2022	Erra Ram Shankar vs Paddam Bhadramma	27 Apr 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/16/2026	KANDUKURI RAMA KRISHNA vs Nil	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2024	Maloth Prasanth vs Maloth Sindhu	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2026	Challagundla Sujatha vs Challagundia Ramesh	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2026	Kakati Sahithi Alias Golkonda Sahithi vs Kakati Rambabu	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/40/2022	DADABATHULA VENKATA KRISHNA vs SOMISETTY LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO	22 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/22/2025	Thanniru Yesu vs Mamidi Sujatha	10 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/88/2025	Chittimineni Sandhya vs Chitimineni Ram Nagesh	04 Apr 2026	Lok Adalat Award	—
OS/100264/2012	Paladugula Satyavathi vs Belli Babu Rao	31 Mar 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/8/2026	Maduri Sailaja vs Maduri Mahesh	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/6/2026	Daara Veerabhadram vs Daara alias Gundamalla Sagarika	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2026	Ulloju Sudheer vs NIL	30 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/100050/2017	Mukka Yellabai vs MUKKA SUPRIYA AND 6 OTHERS	13 Mar 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/190/2024	Erothu Meena Kumari vs Tathineni Krishna Mohan	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/210/2023	Mallavarapu Anil Kumar vs Mallavarapu Sandhya	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2023	Lolla Surya Datta Niranjan vs Lolla Malathi Ratna Mounika	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/4/2026	Rangu Satyanarayana vs Kundavarapu Krishna Kumari	10 Mar 2026	Lok Adalat Award	—
OS/22/2025	SBI REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER VISLAVATH SHIVA vs Maloth Vijay Kumar	10 Mar 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/130/2025	Union bank of india, rep by its chief manager vs Bommideni Aswandeep	10 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/164/2025	Gadidha Venkana Babu vs Gadidha Manasa alias Kesupaka Manasa	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/154/2025	Poduthuri Sandhya alias Miryala Sandhya vs Poduthuri Bala Krishna	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/22/2023	Saraswathi Anuradha vs Dachepalli Srinivas Reddy	16 Feb 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/100192/2017	LAKKIREDDY RAVI vs LAVUDIYA MURALI KRISHNA	16 Feb 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/100068/2016	Reddirthi Hanumantharao vs Reddirthi Babu Rao-D1	09 Feb 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/61/2023	PS Dammapeta vs Nakka Srinu	09 Feb 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/44/2024	Kambampati Srinivas Rao vs Bheemapaka Adinarayana	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/82/2025	Chevula Shankaraiah vs Sunnam Narasimha Rao	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/132/2025	Nelakurthi Vidya Chaitanya vs NIL	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/134/2025	Voggu Ajay Kumar vs Voggu Sri Naga Jyothi	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/144/2025	Noru Jyoshna Alias Urukonda Jyoshna vs NIL	06 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/6/2026	Syed Habeeb Hussain vs Gaddam Santosh Kumar	02 Feb 2026	Lok Adalat Award	—
OS/113/2024	Vijaya Bank, Kothagudem rep.by B.M. vs Bommedi Bharathi	30 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/10/2024	Murahari Lakshmi vs Gudidasu Naveen	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/98/2025	Vaddepalli Sravani Alias Katukuri Sravani vs NIL	30 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/49/2024	Kopparapu Laxman Kumar vs Ganteti Krishna	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/114/2025	Madipalli Ram Mohan Rao vs Veerla Pushpa Latha	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/76/2025	Akireddy Rambabu vs Yeddy Shambulingam	27 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/84/2025	Gudivada Revanth Kumar vs DAVA VENKATESWARLU	27 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/124/2019	AILNALA .VEERAIAH vs S.VENKATESH	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/92/2025	Pallapothu Laxman Ayyappa vs Pallapothu Likhitha Alias Repaka Likhitha	27 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/256/2021	PS Kothagudem II Town vs Rudrarapu Karthik	23 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/64/2025	Bank of Baroda rep. by Senior Manager, Santi Suresh vs M/s. Sri Ganesh Fancy rep. by Ganapathi Ram Chowdary	22 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/114/2025	Madipalli Ram Mohan Rao vs Veerla Pushpa Latha	22 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/146/2025	Danda Jayalakshmi vs Akkineni Jawaharlal Nehru	22 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/64/2025	Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt Ltd Kothagudem Branch vs Md Fareed Imtiaz	20 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/60/2024	Sangi Raghu vs Lingampalli Chandrakala	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/61/2025	Penumacha Ravi Kumar Raju vs Nandamoori Srinivas Rao	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/8/2025	State Bank of India rep. by K. Praveen Babu vs Sk.Imran Pasha	09 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/94/2025	Janapriya Filling Station Yellandu Sathish Lal vs Rapelli Rajanna	09 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/82/2025	Somavarapupeta Saritha Alias Yadari Saritha vs Nil	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2025	Theegaram Murali Alias Mogili vs Theegaram Aruna	09 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/38/2025	Kasipaka Urmila vs Kasipaka Arun Kumar	08 Jan 2026	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/78/2025	Eelapati Anusha Alias Kusa Anusha vs Kusa Dayakar	08 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/80/2024	Mooda Kalavathi vs E. Sunitha	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/122/2025	Sambari alias Vadde Deepthi vs Sambari Sravan Kumar alias Sravan	07 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/44/2024	Dasari Ravikanth vs Dasari Lahari alias Srikala	06 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/45/2025	Soyam Leela Krishna vs Bojjadla Rama alias Rama Devi	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/54/2025	Vasireddy Satyanarayana vs Nadigatla Mary	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/24/2025	Rayala Sambasiva Rao vs Rayala Satyavathi	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/150/2025	Bingi Ravi vs Bingi Ganga Bhavani	05 Jan 2026	Order	—
OS/100100/2016	Gowrisetti Bramaramba and 4 others vs The Singareni Merchants Association, Yellandu rep	31 Dec 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/100228/2014	VUTHUNURI NARESH KUMAR. vs KHAJA NARASIMHA RAO.	31 Dec 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
EP/28/2025	Pammi Alivelu Mangamma vs N Vijaya	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
SC/67/2024	SHO Dammapeta vs Yatla Manga Rao	30 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2025	Pinikesi Sateesh Reddy vs Pinikesi Nisishani	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/36/2025	Kasarla Laxman vs Nil	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/204/2024	Sunil Pasi vs Sujatha Pasi	23 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/78/2025	Gandu Satyanarana vs Gummadi Muthaiah	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/102/2022	Malampati Kiran Kumar vs Katta Venkatanarayana	18 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/161/2019	JAMMULA SEETHARAMI REDDY vs DORAGA SRILATHA	17 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/96/2024	Bhukya Bitcha vs Bobbili Mothaiah	16 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/2/2022	Mathangi Padmavathi vs Mathangi Gataiah	10 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/76/2025	Medarametia Triveni vs Medarametla Durga Prasad	10 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/186/2024	Gubbala Ramakrishna vs Gubbala Prabha	10 Dec 2025	Order	—
EP/100086/2018	Dwarakadas Maniyar vs Mandalapu Babu Rao	08 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/120/2025	Reddy Eswari vs Reddy Venkata Ramana	08 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/24/2024	Vubbapalli Jyothsna vs Vubbapalli shyam Prasad	05 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/68/2024	Ramisetti Naga Laxmi vs Kancharla Venkateswarlu	04 Dec 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/138/2025	Kota Venkateswarlu vs Kota Dhanamma Alias Murikipudi Dhanamma	03 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/198/2023	Bathula Shivamanikanta vs Bathula Harika @Pasini Trivija	03 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/208/2024	Bommidi Ramakanth vs Bommidi Chaintanya	03 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/54/2022	Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas bank vs Bonthu Bhushanam	02 Dec 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/80/2025	More Laxmi Prasanna Alias Kakati Laxmi Prasanna vs More Sravan	02 Dec 2025	Order	—
OS/4/2025	State Bank of India rep. by Azmeera bangaraiah vs Kothapally Sateesh	28 Nov 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
SC/146/2021	PS Julurpad vs Orsu Naresh	28 Nov 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
OS/140/2024	Logani Sreenivas vs Logani Rambabu	27 Nov 2025	JUDGEMENT	—
H.M.O.P/62/2025	Gaddikoppula Babu vs Gaddikoppula Pramila	27 Nov 2025	Order	—
OS/32/2025	Banda Sakku Sakkubai vs The Chairman and Managing Director of SCCL	26 Nov 2025	Lok Adalat Award	—
OS/108/2025	Dabbeda Swathi vs Ellandula Nageswara Rao	26 Nov 2025	JUDGEMENT	—

Showing 100 of 194 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		5
Apr 2026		14
Mar 2026		14
Feb 2026		13
Jan 2026		29
Dec 2025		23
Nov 2025		18
Oct 2025		15
Sep 2025		25
Aug 2025		18
Jul 2025		19
Jun 2025		17

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt Kavitha Karnati handled?

Smt Kavitha Karnati has handled 210 court orders since 2025 at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt Kavitha Karnati hear?

Based on available records, Smt Kavitha Karnati primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt Kavitha Karnati currently posted?

Smt Kavitha Karnati is posted as I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem. at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt Kavitha Karnati available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt Kavitha Karnati are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt Kavitha Karnati dispose cases?

Smt Kavitha Karnati disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 210 orders handled over their tenure at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt Kavitha Karnati serving?

Smt Kavitha Karnati has been serving at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 40%

OS 35%

EP 14%

SC 11%

Posting History

Apr 2025 — Present

I Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem. · 210 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.G.Prema Latha

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri K...

27 orders

S.Sarita

Fast Track Special Court for expeditious disposal...

41 orders

Ms. Nerella Venkata Hyma Pujitha

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magis...

17 orders

K Sai Sri

I Additional Junior Civil Judge - Cum- I Additiona...

215 orders

Sri V.Vinay Kumar

III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class...

382 orders

Mr. Bathala Ravi Kumar

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Additiona...

935 orders

Sri. K. Kiran Kumar

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Session...

336 orders

← View all judges at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex