Sri Konkada Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka) · Vizianagaram · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Konkada Ramesh, Civil Judge (Junior Division), is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, India. 9,686 court orders on record since 2022. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

9,686

Total Orders

Judgments

312

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/125/2018

Arisetty Ashok Gupta vs Srigakolapu Narasinga rao

11 Apr 2025

O.S. No.125/20181Dated.11.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SALUR.

Present: Sri K.Ramesh,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

O.S. No. 125 OF 2018

Between: Arisetty Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 58 years, Business, R/o. Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiff. And:

1.Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao (Died)

2.Srigakolapu Triveni, W/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 60 years, Housewife, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3.Srigakolapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4.Srigakolapu Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 30 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

5.Srigakolapu Vara Prasada Rao @ Bujji, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 27 years, R/o. Sri Venu Gopalaswamy vari temple street, Salur. (The amendment is carried out as per order in I.A.149/2022, Dt.11.07.2023) … Defendants.

The Suit is coming on 07.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri L. Ekadanteswara Rao, Advocate for Plaintiffand of Sri G. Rama Krishna and G. Kiran Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.1 and 3 and Defendants No. 2, 4 and 5 are set exparte and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, for recovery of money, basing on promissory note executed by the deceased 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao, together with interest and costs, from the estate of (late) 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao, lying in the hands of the

Defendants 2 to 5.

O.S. No.125/20182Dated.11.04.2025

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

On 30.11.2010 the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff at Saluru village and executed the a demand promissory note on the same date for the said amount in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of attestor and scribe of the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same to either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The plaintiff demand the defendant No.1 to repay the debt covered under promissory note and the defendant No.1 on 24.12.2012 paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the plaintiff towards the principal and interest and also on 04.12.2015 the defendant No.1 paid a sum of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff towards principal and interest and made endorsements on the back side of the suit promissory note. But subsequently the defendant No.1 did not repay the amount covered under the said promissory note inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 admitted his liability but postponed the same on some other pretext or other. So, the plaintiff got issued legal notice and the defendant No.1 received notice but did not give any reply and the plaintiff constrained to file a suit against the defendant No.1.

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: -

The defendant No.1 filed the written statement by denying all the material averments made in the plaint and contended that, there are business relations between the plaintiff and the defendant and in that connection the difference arose between the plaintiff and defendant in the matter purchasing the goods, on that the plaintiff grew wild and created the suit promissory note with the help of the persons who are under his thumb and influence. The defendant is not the scribe the suit promissory note and he do not know the attestors of the suit promissory note and the suit promissory note is a rank forged document created by the plaintiff with a intention to somehow harass and trouble the defendant and the interest claimed by the plaintiff is not correct and the defendant is not liable to pay the principal and interest and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

O.S. No.125/20183Dated.11.04.2025

4.Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined

PW.2 and marked Ex.A1 to A5. During the pendency of the suit 1st defendant died and Plaintiff filed I.A. 149/2022 to add the LR’s of the deceased 1st defendant and the same is allowed, defendants No. 2 to 5 are added. Summons to the defendants

No. 2 to 5 served sufficiently and defendant No.3 represented through his counsel and reported no additional counter. But defendants No. 2, 4 and 5 were called absent and no representation, hence defendant No. 2, 4 and 5 were set ex-parte.

On the other hand the defendant No. 3 reported no defendants side evidence.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 as well as the content of Ex. A1 to A3 promissory note and part payment endorsements establishes that, the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.11.2010 and executed the suit promissory note ie., Ex.A1 and also paid part payments under Ex.A2 and A3 and failed to pay the debt due under promissory note and 1st defendant is died during the pendency of the suit and estate of 1st defendant are in the hands of defendant No.2 to 5. Ex.A4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 sent to the defendant and

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

Hence, the suit may be decreed.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submitted that the 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and defendants are no way liable for the debt and the plaintiff filed false case against the defendant

No.1 and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the entire record.

9.ISSUES No.1 and 2: -

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.11.2010 and on the same days the defendant No.1 executed

O.S. No.125/20184Dated.11.04.2025

the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) in his favour, duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and later the 1st defendant paid an amount of

Rs.4,000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

10.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and his evidence goes to show that on 30.11.2010 the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.20,000/- for the purpose his necessities and executed the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) in favour of the PW.1 duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to PW.1 or to his order on demand in the presence of attester and scribe, and after repeated demands the 1st defendant paid a part payment under Ex.A2 and A3 but later he has not repay the debt due under Ex.A1.

In support of his case the plaintiff got examined PW.2 who is the attestor of Ex.A1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 and PW.2 supported the version of PW.1 in all material aspects and deposed that the 1st defendant scribe the suit promissory notes with his own handwriting and after filing of the suit by the plaintiff the 1st defendant is died by leaving the 2nd to 5th defendants.

11.Even though, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 cross examined the

PW.1 and PW.2 at length but nothing was elicited to shake the credence of the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 except putting suggestions that 1st defendant never executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 to A3 is falsely created with the help of attestor. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are consistent regarding execution of Ex.A1 and part payment under Ex.A2 and A3 and no material inconsistencies were elicited to shake the credence of the testimony of PW.1 and PW.2. Thus, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiff, with his evidence supported by PW.2, and Ex.A1 to A5 has discharged his burden and established that the 1st defendant executed Ex.A1 and also made part payments under Ex.A2 and A3 in his favour.

12.Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved,

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court

O.S. No.125/20185Dated.11.04.2025

to presume that such negotiable instrument was supportedwith consideration.

However, such presumption is a rebuttable one. The defendant can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross examining the witnesses of plaintiff.

13. Though, the deceased defendant No.1 took plea in his written statement that the he never executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are created admittedly the defendant

No.2 to 5 are did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on record to establish the Ex.A1 is not executed by the defendant No.1. Further, after the death of 1st defendant also the defendant No.2 to 5 did not take any steps to prove that

Ex.A1 to A3 are fabricated by the plaintiff. The testimony of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5 proves that the said deceased 1st defendant borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff in the presence of attestor. Further, the defendant No.2 to 5 also did not adduce any evidence to show that they are not enjoying the estate of the deceased 1st defendant. The defendants failed to adduce any cogent and relevant evidence to prove their contention and failed to rebut the evidence of plaintiff.Hence, the court holds that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with

Ex.A1 to A3 proves that, the 1st defendant is borrowed Rs.20,000/- from PW.1 and executed the suit promissory note (Ex.A1 ) and part payment under Ex.A2 and A3 and failed discharge the debt due under Ex.A1 and this court holds that Ex.A1 /suit promissory notes dated 30.11.2010 is true, valid and supported with consideration.

Hence, this court holds that, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the estate of the 1st defendant I.e Sigakolapu Narasinga Rao which is laying in the hands of the defendant No. 2 to 5. Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against to the defendants.

14.ISSUE NO.3: -

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants No. 2 to 5 to pay an amount of Rs.53,000/- (Rupees fifty three thousand only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till

O.S. No.125/20186Dated.11.04.2025

the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from the estate of deceased 1st defendant ie., Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao which is in the hands of defendants No. 2 to 5.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW.1 : Arisetty Ashok Kumar GuptaNone PW.2 : Meesala Ravindra.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1 : Original promissory note dated 30.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Payment endorsement dated 24.12.2012 for Rs.4,000/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex. A1.

Ex.A3 : Payment endorsement dated 04.12.2012 for Rs.500/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex.A1.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 sent to the defendant.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

For Defendants:- N I L

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

OS/125/2018

Arisetty Ashok Gupta vs Srigakolapu Narasinga rao

11 Apr 2025

O.S. No.125/20181Dated.11.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SALUR.

Present: Sri K.Ramesh,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

O.S. No. 125 OF 2018

Between: Arisetty Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 58 years, Business, R/o. Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiff. And:

1.Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao (Died)

2.Srigakolapu Triveni, W/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 60 years, Housewife, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3.Srigakolapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4.Srigakolapu Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 30 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, for recovery of money, basing on promissory note executed by the deceased 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao, together with interest and costs, from the estate of (late) 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao, lying in the hands of the

Defendants 2 to 5.

O.S. No.125/20182Dated.11.04.2025

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: -

O.S. No.125/20183Dated.11.04.2025

4.Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined

On the other hand the defendant No. 3 reported no defendants side evidence.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 as well as the content of Ex. A1 to A3 promissory note and part payment endorsements establishes that, the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

Hence, the suit may be decreed.

No.1 and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the entire record.

9.ISSUES No.1 and 2: -

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.11.2010 and on the same days the defendant No.1 executed

O.S. No.125/20184Dated.11.04.2025

the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) in his favour, duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and later the 1st defendant paid an amount of

Rs.4,000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

10.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and his evidence goes to show that on 30.11.2010 the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

11.Even though, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 cross examined the

12.Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved,

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court

O.S. No.125/20185Dated.11.04.2025

to presume that such negotiable instrument was supportedwith consideration.

13. Though, the deceased defendant No.1 took plea in his written statement that the he never executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are created admittedly the defendant

14.ISSUE NO.3: -

O.S. No.125/20186Dated.11.04.2025

the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from the estate of deceased 1st defendant ie., Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao which is in the hands of defendants No. 2 to 5.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW.1 : Arisetty Ashok Kumar GuptaNone PW.2 : Meesala Ravindra.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1 : Original promissory note dated 30.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Payment endorsement dated 24.12.2012 for Rs.4,000/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex. A1.

Ex.A3 : Payment endorsement dated 04.12.2012 for Rs.500/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex.A1.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 sent to the defendant.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

For Defendants:- N I L

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

OS/125/2018

Arisetty Ashok Gupta vs Srigakolapu Narasinga rao

11 Apr 2025

O.S. No.125/20181Dated.11.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SALUR.

Present: Sri K.Ramesh,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

O.S. No. 125 OF 2018

Between: Arisetty Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 58 years, Business, R/o. Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiff. And:

1.Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao (Died)

2.Srigakolapu Triveni, W/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 60 years, Housewife, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3.Srigakolapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4.Srigakolapu Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 30 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, for recovery of money, basing on promissory note executed by the deceased 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao, together with interest and costs, from the estate of (late) 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao, lying in the hands of the

Defendants 2 to 5.

O.S. No.125/20182Dated.11.04.2025

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: -

O.S. No.125/20183Dated.11.04.2025

4.Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined

On the other hand the defendant No. 3 reported no defendants side evidence.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 as well as the content of Ex. A1 to A3 promissory note and part payment endorsements establishes that, the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

Hence, the suit may be decreed.

No.1 and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the entire record.

9.ISSUES No.1 and 2: -

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.11.2010 and on the same days the defendant No.1 executed

O.S. No.125/20184Dated.11.04.2025

the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) in his favour, duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and later the 1st defendant paid an amount of

Rs.4,000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

10.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and his evidence goes to show that on 30.11.2010 the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

11.Even though, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 cross examined the

12.Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved,

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court

O.S. No.125/20185Dated.11.04.2025

to presume that such negotiable instrument was supportedwith consideration.

13. Though, the deceased defendant No.1 took plea in his written statement that the he never executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are created admittedly the defendant

14.ISSUE NO.3: -

O.S. No.125/20186Dated.11.04.2025

the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from the estate of deceased 1st defendant ie., Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao which is in the hands of defendants No. 2 to 5.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW.1 : Arisetty Ashok Kumar GuptaNone PW.2 : Meesala Ravindra.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1 : Original promissory note dated 30.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Payment endorsement dated 24.12.2012 for Rs.4,000/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex. A1.

Ex.A3 : Payment endorsement dated 04.12.2012 for Rs.500/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex.A1.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 sent to the defendant.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

For Defendants:- N I L

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

OS/125/2018

Arisetty Ashok Gupta vs Srigakolapu Narasinga rao

11 Apr 2025

O.S. No.125/20181Dated.11.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SALUR.

Present: Sri K.Ramesh,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

O.S. No. 125 OF 2018

Between: Arisetty Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 58 years, Business, R/o. Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiff. And:

1.Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao (Died)

2.Srigakolapu Triveni, W/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 60 years, Housewife, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3.Srigakolapu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 35 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

4.Srigakolapu Sankara Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, aged 30 years, R/o. Mosuru village, Pachipenta Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

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

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff, for recovery of money, basing on promissory note executed by the deceased 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao, together with interest and costs, from the estate of (late) 1st defendant by name Srigakolapu Narasinga Rao, lying in the hands of the

Defendants 2 to 5.

O.S. No.125/20182Dated.11.04.2025

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: -

O.S. No.125/20183Dated.11.04.2025

4.Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged one?

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got examined

On the other hand the defendant No. 3 reported no defendants side evidence.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 as well as the content of Ex. A1 to A3 promissory note and part payment endorsements establishes that, the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

Hence, the suit may be decreed.

No.1 and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the entire record.

9.ISSUES No.1 and 2: -

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.11.2010 and on the same days the defendant No.1 executed

O.S. No.125/20184Dated.11.04.2025

the suit promissory note (Ex. A1) in his favour, duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and later the 1st defendant paid an amount of

Rs.4,000/- and Rs.500/- to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and A2. Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that 1st defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff.

10.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW.1 and his evidence goes to show that on 30.11.2010 the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of

11.Even though, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 cross examined the

12.Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved,

Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court

O.S. No.125/20185Dated.11.04.2025

to presume that such negotiable instrument was supportedwith consideration.

13. Though, the deceased defendant No.1 took plea in his written statement that the he never executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 to A3 are created admittedly the defendant

14.ISSUE NO.3: -

O.S. No.125/20186Dated.11.04.2025

the date of realization, on the principal amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) from the estate of deceased 1st defendant ie., Srigakolapu

Narasinga Rao which is in the hands of defendants No. 2 to 5.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW.1 : Arisetty Ashok Kumar GuptaNone PW.2 : Meesala Ravindra.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex. A1 : Original promissory note dated 30.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.20,000/-.

Ex.A2 : Payment endorsement dated 24.12.2012 for Rs.4,000/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex. A1.

Ex.A3 : Payment endorsement dated 04.12.2012 for Rs.500/- made by the defendant on the back side of the Ex.A1.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the legal notice dated 20.11.2018 sent to the defendant.

Ex.A5 : Postal acknowledgment received from the defendant dated 26.11.2018.

For Defendants:- N I L

Sd/- K. Ramesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

OS/89/2020

Anapu Lakshmu Naidu vs Jarajapu Pydithalli

11 Apr 2025

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: SALUR.

Present: Sri K.Ramesh,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Salur.

Friday, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

O.S. No. 89/ 2020

Between:- Anapu Lakshmu Naidu, S/o. Appala Swamy, aged 39 years, resident of Sivarampuram village, Salur mandal, Vizianagaram District. …Plaintiff

And :-

1. Jarajapu Pydithalli, W/o. Late Venkati, aged 45 years, resident of Sivarampuram village, Salur Mandal, Viziangaram District.

2. Jarajapu Srinu, S/o. Late Venkati, aged 33 years, resident of Sivarampuram village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District. … Defendants.

This suit is coming on 09.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V.H.K.Sarma and Y. Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri K.

Sanyasi Rao, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against defendants No.1 and 2 for recovery of

Rs.1,89,900/- (Rupees one lakh eighty nine thousand nine hundred only) being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 03.09.2019 agreeing to repay

the same with interest @ 24% p.a. executed by late Jajarapu Venkati in favour of plaintiff, from the assets of the deceased Jajarapu Venkati (late) which are in the hands of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and for costs and subsequent interest.

2.The succinct facts leading to the filing of the plaint and written statement which are is as follows : That the Plaintiff, Sri Anapu Lakshmu Naidu states in the plaint that 1st defendant is the wife and 2nd defendant is the son of One Jarajapu Venkati. That the

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

2 plaintiff lent an amount Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) to One

Jarajapu Venkati on 03.09.2019 for his family expenses and other debts and after receiving the said consideration the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum to plaintiff or to his order at Sivarampuram village, Salur Mandalam, Vizianagaram

District. The plaintiff demanded said Jarajap Venkati to pay back the amount, but he postponed the same on one pretext or the other and subsequently Jarajapu Venkati died leaving the defendants as Class-I legal heirs. Then plaintiff demanded the defendants to repay the debt under the promissory note but they postponed the same either on some pretext or other. On 17.09.2020 the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants to pay the debt covered under the promissory note and the same was received by them but they did not gave any reply nor pay the amount.

Hence the plaint.

3.Refuting the averments of the plaint, the defendant No.2 filed written statement which is adopted by the defendants No.1 and interalia maintains that the father of the 2nd defendant ie., Jarajapu Venkati had suffered from Cancer since 2018 and he is admitted as an outpatient in Pinakini Hospital, Visakhapatnam till the date of his death and during that period he had not in a position to move freely without the systems of anybody. The plaintiff is habit of giving money to others in the village and obtaining signatures in empty promissory notes and later he is the habit of filing the suits against them by filing it with his henchmen. So the execution of the suit promissory note by his father is a myth and it was created and concocted with henchmen of the plaintiff and got filed the suit after his death only for wrongful gain. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above factual score the following debatable issues that germen for consideration :

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true,valid, supported by consideration and executed by Jarajapu Venkati (deceased)

and therefore, binding on the defendants 1 and 2 ?

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

3) To what relief?

5.Issue No. 1 and 2 :

That the plaintiff, Sri Anapu Lakshmu Naidu filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated by and large all the averments made in the plaint and in order to buttress his contention got himself examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 and got Ex.A.1 to A-3 marked. The defendant in order to butress his contention got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.B-1 on his behalf.

On the aforementioned evidential backdrop, it is the larger contention of the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, Sri Y.Srinivasarao garu that when the defendant was badly tied up with the finance, P.W.1 extended his helping hand by parting with the amount covered under Ex.A.1 enabling them to tide over from the financial exigencies, however the defendant have no amount of goodness and made P.W.1 to land in litigation. The testimonial assertions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are attempted hard to be assailed, however, no significant material worth the name forth-came from the side of the defendant. There is no serious challenge in the cross- examination with respect to the signature of the defendant. Thus, the presumption as contemplated u/s 118 of N.I. Act operates in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Therefore, the suit liability has to be fastened against the defendants.

6.Resisting the arguments, it is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that Ex.A.1 to A-3 are devoid of cash consideration and the defendant never borrowed the amount covered under Ex.A.1. P.W.1 and the attostors on

Ex.A.1 put up a collective front and brought into existence Ex.A.1 in order to obtain pecuniary advantage. At the time of the Ex.A-1 mentioned transaction date the deceased Jayati Venkati is undergoing cancer Treatment at Hospital of

Viskhapatnam and he is not in a stage of moving on his own. DW-1 retariated the same by Ex.B-1. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

7.In order to appreciate the debatable issues, now at this juncture, I am obliged to advert to the material forth came from the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the recitals of Ex.A.1 to A-3 and D.W.1 and recitals of Ex.B-1.

8.Whether P.W.1 withstood the test of cross-examination without loosing credibility?

In this context, I think it apt to reproduce the cross-examination of P.W.1.

P.W.1 testifies during cross examination that " The transactions covered under

Ex.A.1 was taken place at Rama Mandiram of Sivarampuram village. At the

time of transaction of Ex.A.1 four persons were present ie., Myself,

Vasanthala Papinaidu, Jarajapu Kothayya Madem Narayna who is the scribe

of Ex.A.1 The payment of consideration covered under ExA.1 ”

9.Whether the testimony of P.W.2 furnishes ample corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1?

In this backdrop, I may restate the cross-examination of P.W.2. P.W.2 states during cross-examination that “The transaction covered under Ex.A.1 was taken

place at Rama Mandiram of Sivarampuram village. At the time of transaction 4

persons were present along with me. I am the scribe for the Ex.A.1

promissory note”

The credibility or the believability of the witness is a main stay or the strand, on which the case of the party would crown the success. In the case on hand, PW.1 and 2 are tested in the cross-examination, however their evidence remained unshakey and instills confidence.

10.Whether the elementary facts of the case as presented inspires the invocation of legal presumption under section 118 of N I Act?

There is no serious challenge in the cross-examination of PW1 with respect to the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2. D.W.1 also candidly admits in the cross-examination that Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 bears his signatures. In such a case, the presumption contemplated under section 118 of N I Act gets activated in

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

5 favour of the plaintiff. The presumption contemplated under section 118 of N I Act is one of the law which obliges the court to presume, inter alia that the negotiable instrument was made for consideration and the defendants need not adduce evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by consideration, however he has to establish his case by preponderance of probabilities. It is the defendant who knows how to prove this case. However he failed to substantiate his defence by producing some bankable proof.

11.Whether the contention with regard to Ex.A.1 transaction screened by the DW.1 inspires confidence or not?

DW.1 to prove their contention filed his chief affidavit stating that the Ex.A.1 is created forged document and his father during his lifetime never borrowed money from PW-1 and during the Ex.A.1 mentioned date of transaction his father was undergoing treatment for cancer at Pinakini Hospital, Visakhapatnam and not in a position to move on his own. Be it may be.

In this backdrop, I may restate the cross-examination of Dw-1 and he stated during cross-examination that “I have not filed any documentary proof to show

that at the time of Ex.A.1 mentioned transaction date my father was admitted

in the hospital at Pinakini, Visakahapatnam”. If really it is the fact that the father of Dw-1 was admitted in hospital he would have filed any proof to reveal their genunity. Inspite of any documentary proof the Court cannot simply rely upon the oral evidence adduced by the defendant.

In the ultimate analysis, I am of the opinion the deceased Jayathi Venkati executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of PW1 and the defendants are making efforts to avoid the debt.

12.Issue No.3 : To What relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the Defendants No.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.1,89,600/- (Rupees one lakh eighty nine thousand six hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the

O.S. No.89/2020Dated: 11.04.2025

6 suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) from the estate of deceased - Jajarapu Venkati which is in the hands of defendants No. 1 and 2.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for :-

Plaintiff:

PW.1 : Anapu Laxmunaidu.

PW.2 : Madem Narayana

Defendants:

DW.1 : Jarajapu Srinu.

Exhibits marked for :-

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Dt.03.09.2019 - Original suit promissory note for Rs.1,50,000/- executed by the one Jajarapu Venkati in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 : Dt.17.09.2020 – Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A3 : Dt. 25.09.2020 – Reply notice.

Defendants :-

Ex.B1 : Dt. 25.09.2020 – Reply notice.

Sd/- K. Ramesh

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

SALUR.

Order Record 3,147 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/24/2024	Induri Srinivasa Rao vs Panasa Thrinadha	11 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/22/2021	Uppala Sandeep vs Ganta Chandra Sekhara Rao	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/32/2024	Karri Krishnaveni, vs Dundi Ganesh Nani Babu	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/76/2024	Puppala Srinivasa Rao vs Konada Narsinga Rao and 2 others	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/89/2020	Anapu Lakshmu Naidu vs Jarajapu Pydithalli	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/125/2018	Arisetty Ashok Gupta vs Srigakolapu Narasinga rao	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/141/2024	Patheda Santhosh vs Patheda Vijaya Lakshmi	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/179/2023	Bantu Appa Rao vs Bandaru Sankara Rao	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/429/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Kanakala Syam Sundara Rao	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/563/2024	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH represented SHO, Salur Town P.S. vs Devendar Khillo	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/783/2021	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Kanakala Syam Sundar	11 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
EP/40/2023	Mudadla Krishna Murty vs Kandi Sujatha	10 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/118/2024	Gottapu Sankara Rao vs Kuridi Trinadha	10 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/148/2021	Vangapandu Appala Naidu vs Bomminayana Nirmala	10 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/124/2021	Kota Pentayya vs Kota Appanna	09 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
STC/26/2022	Balabolu Ravi Venkata Prasada Rao vs Gannamani Venkata Rama Rao	08 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/111/2024	Yeluduthi Radha vs Meesala Vijaya Lakshmi	07 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/171/2023	Balabolu Ravi Venkata Prasada Rao vs Bandaru Rama Ramesh Babu	07 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/110/2024	Chintada Satyanarayana vs Kanaram Srinivasa Rao	04 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
OS/158/2024	Kunisetty Vijaya Kishore vs Akyana Sandeep alias Hari	04 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
EP/23/2024	Talluri Raji vs Kirasana Chinalatchyya	03 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/31/2022	Ennikala Lakshmana @ Lakshmana Dora vs Telika Jagananna Dora	03 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/319/2024	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Gajaganta Suresh	02 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1093/2023	Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Barla Srinu	02 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
EP/12/2020	Ravipati Uday Bhaskara Rao vs Kilaru Satyam	01 Apr 2025	Order	—
EP/14/2023	Jada Chinnayya vs Jada Ramanamm and 2 others	01 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/359/2023	SEB, Bobbili vs Patnana Seetharam	01 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
CC/1069/2023	Proh and Excise sub-Inspector,salur vs Jarajapu Ramesh	01 Apr 2025	Judgment	—
EP/34/2019	Katjiki Lakshmanarao vs Chongali Suryanaayana	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/15/2025	Surtha Appalaraju vs Vaddi Santosh	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
OS/23/2022	Gandham Suryanarayana vs Manapuram Ramya Kumari	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
OS/92/2019	Karrimajji Sankara Rao vs S.kandulavenkata Jagadeswara rao	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/26/2015	S.H.O, Salur Town P.S vs Garikapati Siva and five others	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/70/2024	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Puvvala Ramulamma @ Ramu	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/296/2024	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Devupalli Vinod Kumar and 2 others	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/716/2023	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Gunana Ramu	21 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/100/2024	Sub-Inspector of police,salur town. vs Simboyina Krishna	20 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/297/2023	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Gujjala Narayanarao	20 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/516/2023	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Amujuri Ganesh	20 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
DVC/7/2022	Nadiminti @ Abothula Lakshmi vs Abothula Ganga Anila Kumar	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
MC/4/2022	Nadiminti @ Abopthula Lakshmi vs Abothula Ganga Anil Kumar	20 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/5/2018	Athyam Bangarraju vs Vangapandu Bhima Naidu	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/22/2024	Jalagadugula Saraswathi vs Jalagadugula Mangamma	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/83/2024	Maddila Nagalaskhmi vs Balivada Rama Rao and another	13 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/18/2021	Kanuru Rama Rao vs Kaki Pandu Ranga	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/180/2023	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Chandapuram Simhachalam	13 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
CC/895/2023	Sub-Inspector of police,Pachipenta P.S vs Gadi Simhachalam @ Ramakrishana	13 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
EP/2/2019	Gummala Satya Bharathi vs Muvvala Latchayya	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/4/2023	Palavalasa Rama Rao vs Badangi Suseela	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/9/2020	Naramsetti Padma Raju vs Naramsetti Padma Raju	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/21/2024	A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Makkuva Branch vs Sambangi Simhachalam	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
EP/43/2016	A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank,Pachipenta vs Peturi Bangar Raju and 1 other	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/7/2025	Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank vs Mellika Mallayya	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/14/2025	Jonnada Usha Kiranmai vs Vaddi Santhosh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/77/2020	Gubbala Satyanarayana vs Vuttikuti Parameswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/133/2024	Marri Jagadeeswara Rao vs Yasarla Papi Naidu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/147/2023	Sripathi Kondala Rao vs Tirukkovalluru Padmaja @ Padmini	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/149/2022	Naira Lakshmi vs Pujari Bangarraju and 2 others	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/157/2024	Lomisi China Ramulappadu vs Gorle Nagamani	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/5/2015	Gadi Kannamnaidu vs Jagarapu Ramesh	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/9/2022	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Balaga Sridhar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/28/2024	Sub-Inspector ofpolice,salur rural vs Barla Appalanaidu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/31/2020	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Doddi Laxmana Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/36/2020	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Penta Thirupathi Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/37/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Mandala Bodamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/39/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Pasumurthy Koteswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/40/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Gadi Nagamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/46/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Salur. vs Kota Seetharam	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/52/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Salur. vs Mugada Vinay Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/57/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Salur. vs Gudla Bhaskara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/65/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Bondapalli Srinivasa Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/72/2024	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Gopalasetti Jagadeeswararao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/75/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Manchala Srinivasa Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/76/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Gadi Madhavi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/83/2024	Sub-INspector of police ,Makkuva P.S vs Murapaka Venkata Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/91/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Pasumarthi Koteswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/99/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH repted., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Pasagada Thowdu alias Thavitayya	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/100/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Bobbili Rajeswari	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/101/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Pasumurthi Sujatha	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/102/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH repted., Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Salur. vs Bantu Eswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/103/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Puvvala Laxmanarao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/111/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd.k, Station House Officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Naremseeti Maheswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/117/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta. vs Maddu Ramakrishna	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/125/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Yakkemsetti Dhanunjaya Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/126/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Silla Venkata Ramana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/127/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Bogi Gowrisankara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/128/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH repted., Station House officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Chukka Jagadeeswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/129/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House officer, Makkuva Police Station, Makkuva. vs Varanasi Srinivasa Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/130/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH retpd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Siripuram Srinivasa Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/131/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Kottala Adinarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/132/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Gedda Butcham Naidu	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/133/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Rayala Thirupathirao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/134/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Sisthu Kurma Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/135/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Chokkapu Satyanarayana	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/136/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Potnuru Thirupathi Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/137/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Battula Swathi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/138/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Ramabhadrapuram P.S. vs Nagireddi Siva alias Eswara Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/139/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH repted., Station House Officer, Salur Rural Police Station, Salur. vs Chodipalli Ravindra	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/140/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Salur. vs Varanasi Laxamana Rao	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/141/2025	THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reptd., Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Salur. vs Mugada Appalanarasamma	08 Mar 2025	Order	—

Showing 100 of 3,147 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		112
Mar 2025		1,608
Feb 2025		88
Jan 2025		140
Dec 2024		2,272
Nov 2024		181
Oct 2024		114
Sep 2024		1,848
Aug 2024		78
Jul 2024		273
Jun 2024		651
May 2024		156

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Konkada Ramesh handled?

Sri Konkada Ramesh has handled 9686 court orders since 2022 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 312 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Konkada Ramesh hear?

Based on available records, Sri Konkada Ramesh primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka).

Where is Sri Konkada Ramesh currently posted?

Sri Konkada Ramesh is posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka), Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Konkada Ramesh available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by Sri Konkada Ramesh are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Konkada Ramesh dispose cases?

Sri Konkada Ramesh disposes approximately 312 cases per month, based on 9686 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka).

Since when is Sri Konkada Ramesh serving?

Sri Konkada Ramesh has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka) since 2022.

Case Types

STC 41%

CC 40%

OS 12%

EP 2%

DVC 2%

MC 2%

PRC 1%

FDP 0%

Posting History

Nov 2024 — Apr 2025

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 1,089 orders
Nov 2023 — Apr 2025

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 2,571 orders
May 2023 — Apr 2025

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 2,813 orders
Sep 2022 — Apr 2025

Civil Judge (Junior Division) · 3,213 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri G.Harsha Vardhan

Civil Judge (Junior Division)

1,537 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Salur (Taluka)