Sri L.jagadeesh Kumar

1 Fair.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: REPALLE

Present: Sri. L. Jagadeesh Kumar,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

FAC. Addl. Junior Judge, Repalle.

Monday, this the 6 th day of November, 2023.

M.C No.05 of 2017

Between:

1. Dasari Naga Lakshmi, W/o.Dasari Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 33 years, House-wife, D/o.Yemineni Peraiah, R/o.D.No.7-8, Adavuladeevi village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Dasari Krishna Priya, D/o.Dasari Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 9 years, Student.

3. Dasari Sindhu, D/o.Dasari Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, Aged about 12 years, Student. (3rd petitioner is added as per the orders in Crl.M.P No.835/2020

dt. 26.11.2021).

(Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian 1st petitioner i.e., Dasari Naga Lakshmi, R/o.D.No.7-8, Adavuladeevi village, Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District. …Petitioners.

AND

Dasari Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Dasari Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Agriculture, R/o.D.No.1-5, Guddikayalanka village, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District.

…Respondent.

This petition is coming on 27.10.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S. Munipalli, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri.A.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 125 of Cr.P.C requesting this Court to grant monthly allowance of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the 1st petitioner and monthly allowance of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) each to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners from the date of this petition and for costs of the petition.

(The 3rd petitioner is added as per the orders in Crl.M.P.No.835/2020 dated 26.11.2021).

2 Fair.

02.The case of the Petitioners is that the 1st petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner joined the respondent at

Guddikayalanka village to lead matrimonial life. During their matrimonial life, they are blessed with two daughters by name Sindhu and Krishna Priya, who are shown

as 3rd and 2nd petitioners respectively in this petition. 3rd petitioner is the elder

daughter and 2nd petitioner is the younger daughter.

Initially, the 3rd petitioner is under the shelter of the respondent but later the respondent left the 3rd petitioner at 1st petitioner.

The respondent, his parents and his relatives Meka Venkateswara Rao, his wife Lakshmi and others used to create troubles and beat the 1st petitioner many times. However, the 1st petitioner kept quiet to lead the family life in a peaceful manner. But ultimately, the petitioners were driven out from the house of the respondent. The petitioners reached the house of the parents of the 1st petitioner.

The parents of the 1st petitioner are very poor and old aged persons. The petitioners have no means to lead their day to day life. The 1st petitioner also lodged a report before Adavuladeevi P.S on 13.12.2016 for the offence U/sec.498-A of IPC.

On the other hand, the respondent got means to maintain petitioners. He has wetland of Ac.0.50 cents and valuable house sites at Guddikayalanka village. The said wetland yields three crops per year. The respondent earns huge income from that land. The respondent already filed HMOP No.78/2016 before the Court of Senior

Civil Judge, Repalle.

Under the above circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present petition.

03.The Respondent filed his counter. He admitted the marriage between him and the 1st petitioner and their giving birth to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

3 Fair.

It is contended by the respondent that they lived happily at Guddikayalanka village after their marriage. He denied the allegations mentioned in the petition. He further contended that after the birth of their 2nd daughter, the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home along with their 2nd daughter Krishna Priya, without any reasonable grounds and went to the house of her parents at Adavuladeevi village and refused to join the respondent even though the respondent sent a mediator.

It is further contended by the respondent that in fact the 1st petitioner used to harass the respondent, without any cause and the respondent is an innocent person. The 1st petitioner used to behave highhandedly towards the respondent.

It is further contended by the respondent that the 1st petitioner has sufficient means to maintain herself and the 2nd petitioner. She has two she buffaloes and she is doing milk business and earning sufficient income. She also does tailoring work and earns Rs.400/- per day. She is an able bodied person and attends agricultural works also. She has Ac.0.50 cents of prawn culture and earning good income on that also. On the other hand, the respondent has no movable or immovable properties.

Under the above circumstances, the respondent requested to dismiss this petition.

04.The 1st petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and no documents are marked.

P.W2 is examined on behalf of the 1st petitioner. The respondent himself examined as R.W1 and got marked Ex.R1. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.2 and 3 are examined.

05. Heard both parties and perused the record.

06. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for maintenance of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five thousand only] to the 1 st petitioner and Rs.4,000/-(Rupees Four thousand only) each to the 2 nd and 3 rd petitioners per month, as prayed for?

P O I N T:

4 Fair.

07. (a)In order to claim maintenance from the respondent U/Sec.125 of

Cr.P.C, it is for the petitioner to establish that the respondent neglected the petitioners to maintain or refused to maintain the petitioners and the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves.

As seen from the rival contentions of both the parties, there is no dispute with regard to the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent and their giving birth to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners.

(The 1st petitioner is, hereafter, referred to as petitioner for easy narration of the facts).

In this legal back drop, as seen from the averments of the petition, it is averred by the petitioner that the respondent, his parents and relatives Meka

Venkateswara Rao and his wife created several troubles and beat the petitioner many times and ultimately the petitioners were driven out from the house of the respondent. Except these general allegations, there are no specific allegations pleaded by the petitioner in her petition. The petitioner even failed to mention in her petition that what are the nature of troubles that are created by the respondent and the reasons for the creation of those troubles and beating her.

(b)The petitioner got examined herself as PW1. She deposed in her chief examination that after the marriage, she joined the respondent at his house at

Guddikayalanka Village and led happy marital life for a period of fourteen years and during their wedlock, they are blessed with two female children. After six years of their marriage, the respondent sold away an extent of Ac.00-50 cents, which was in the name of the petitioner and purchased a house site at Vijayawada in the name of the father of the respondent. For all these fourteen years, the father-in-law of the petitioner used to beat her and she filed a case against the respondent and his parents. In the year 2016, the respondent disputed with his father and the petitioner and the respondent went to the house of her parents and they lived there for four months. Thereafter, the respondent put up their family in a separate rented house and they lived for four months in the said house. During the said period, she 5 Fair.

used to ask the respondent for sale of the agricultural land, which in the name of the petitioner and on that the respondent used to beat the petitioner and used to not provide food to the petitioner and her children and harassed her mentally and physically. Thereafter, the respondent went away to the house of his parents by leaving the petitioner alone and did not come back. Then, the petitioner went to the house of her in-laws and asked the respondent to come to her but the respondent and his parents beat her. Then she went to the police station to lodge a report but with the intervention of elders, she did not lodge any report against the respondent.

(c)The petitioner got examined her father on her behalf as PW2. PW2 deposed

before this court that after the birth of the 2nd child, the respondent and his mother

used to demand the petitioner to sell the land given to the petitioner and they also sold away the said land. PW2 further deposed that after the birth of the 2nd female child, the respondent started harassing the petitioner alleging that she gave birth to a female child and he would marry again. Few days later, the respondent came to his house with family and saw them and went away and thereafter, he beat the petitioner and dropped the petitioner and her two children at his house and left.

Then they placed the issue before elders. The respondent promised to take the petitioner back to his home but he did not. Later they filed a report before

Adavuladeevi police but the respondent did not turn up and applied for divorce.

(d)As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, whatever the petitioner deposed

before this court in her chief-examination, she has not pleaded those averments in

her petition.

The common element in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is that the respondent sold away an extent of Ac.00-50 cents which is in the name of the petitioner. But it is not even pleaded by the petitioner in her petition that the selling of the land by the respondent is at least one of the grounds for the marital discord. The petitioner deposed in her evidence that she and respondent led happy marital life for a period of fourteen years and the respondent sold away the land, which was in the name of 6 Fair.

the petitioner, after six years of their marriage. Therefore, according to the evidence of the petitioner herself, there were no disputes between them even after the respondent sold away the land. Moreover, the petitioner deposed that for all these fourteen years, it was the father of the respondent, who used to beat her but not the respondent. Even according to her, the respondent also disputed with his father and left the house along with the petitioner and came down to the house of the parents of the petitioner and lived there for a period of four months and later put up a separate family. There the marital discord started to take place. The petitioner deposed in her chief-examination that during the period of their separate stay, she used to ask the respondent for sale of the agricultural land, which is in her name for which the respondent used to beat her even without providing food to her and her children and harassed her both physically and mentally. According to the petitioner, she deposed that the land in her name was sold away by the respondent six years after their marriage and purchased a site at Vijayawada in the name of the father of the respondent. When once the said site was already disposed off by the respondent after six years of their marriage and there were no disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondent, the version of the petitioner that disputes arose after eight years with regard to the said land is not believable and convincing. Moreover, all these things are not pleaded by the petitioner in her petition. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that they were driven out by the respondent and his family has no basis on record.

As seen from the evidence of PW2, he deposed that after the birth of the 2nd female child, the respondent started harassing the petitioner alleging that she gave birth to a female child and he would marry again. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent harassed her for giving birth to a female child and he would marry again. Even it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent dropped the petitioner and her two children at her house and left. The petitioner neither pleaded in her petition nor deposed in her evidence that the respondent dropped her and her two children at the house of her parents and went away.

7 Fair.

Therefore, the evidence of PW2 throws entirely a different version from the case of the petitioner.

The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not based on any pleadings and contradicting with each other in every material aspect and does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court. Even the evidence of PW1 alone is self contradictory in material aspects and not supported by pleadings and thereby does not inspire confidence in the mind of the court.

(e) On the other hand it is the contention of the respondent that after ten years of his marriage with the petitioner, on one day, when he returned from his agricultural works, he could not find the petitioner in the house and he came to know through his elder daughter Sindhu that the petitioner left for the house of her parents. One week thereafter, he took elders to the house of the parents of the petitioner to bring her back but she bluntly refused to join him alleging that he was an impotent.

However, the respondent again went to the petitioner along with elders to request her to join him but the petitioner was firm in her decision of not to join him and stated that the younger daughter would reside with her whereas the elder daughter would reside with the respondent. When the elders intervened, she was even ready to put her signatures on any paper including coming to the court, if necessary.

Then a document was prepared with the conditions that both parties shall take divorce and the elder daughter has to reside with the respondent and the younger daughter has to reside with the petitioner. As per the document, he filed divorce

O.P but after one year the petitioner started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- to give consent for divorce.

The respondent got examined his father on his behalf as RW2. RW2 deposed

before this court that the petitioner and the respondent lived cordially for ten years

and on one day, the petitioner left the matrimonial house along with her younger daughter. Later, she was not willing to join the respondent. After four days, himself, his village elders by name Yaragalla Veeraiah, Yaragalla Srinivasa Rao,

Vusirikayala Bhavannarayana and Dasari Muni Subba Rao went to the house of the 8 Fair.

petitioner. The petitioner bluntly refused to join the respondent. Later, again they went to the village of the petitioner along with village elders and the matter was placed before the President but the petitioner was firm in her decision in not joining the respondent and exhibited her readiness even to give divorce to the respondent.

Then in the presence of the elders, an agreement was written and the respondent has to give 50 yards of house site each to the two children and the petitioner would cooperate for divorce without claiming any maintenance and not to interfere with the affairs of the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent applied for divorce but the petitioner turned her plate and started demanding Rs.5,00,000/- to give divorce.

The respondent got examined RW3 on his behalf. RW3 is one of the village elders, who is said to have been went along with respondent to the petitioner during negotiations. RW3 deposed before this court that he knows both the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner went to the house of her parents due to some disputes. At request of the respondent and his father, he, Dasari Muni Subba Rao,

Yaragandla Veeraiah, Yaragandla Srinivasa Rao, the respondent and his family members went to the village of the petitioner i.e., Adavuladeevi. There was a negotiation in the presence of elders of both the villages and at that time the petitioner bluntly said that she would not lead conjugal life with the respondent and she would give divorce to him. The parents of the petitioners and the Sarpanch of the village also admonished the petitioner but the petitioner was firm in her decision to give divorce to the respondent.

RW3 further deposed that, twenty days thereafter, again negotiations were held at the house of Sarpanch of Adavuladeevi village but there was no change in the decision of the petitioner and the petitioner even went to the extent of slapping her mother when she questioned about the plight of children. Having no other go, divorce papers were prepared by the elders and the petitioner signed on those papers before the Sarpanch, village elders and villagers. He also signed as a witness in that document. As per that document, the respondent applied for divorce before the court but the petitioner turned her plate and took a different plea

before the court as if the document was obtained from her by force.

9 Fair.

As seen from the evidence of RWs 1 to 3, it is the petitioner, who left the matrimonial home. Even if the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 is not considered by this court being, interested witnesses, the evidence of RW3 clearly supports the case of the respondent. There is also no dispute with regard to the execution of the document for divorce by the petitioner but according to the petitioner it was obtained from her by playing fraud with her. She suggested the same to the respondent/RW1 in his cross-examination and the same is denied by him. RW3 categorically deposed before this court that the execution of the document by the petitioner had taken place in the presence of Sarpanch, village elders and several villagers nearly 50 in number. Therefore, the possibility of obtaining the document from the petitioner by playing fraud is bleak and the said version of the petitioner is not believable.

During the course of cross-examination of RWs 1 and 2, it is suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner to them that the petitioner is willing to join the respondent along with her children, for which RW1 deposed that it is sufficient for him if his daughter is sent to him as per the settlement of the elders and RW2 deposed that all his negotiations through elders already proved in vain. By simply putting suggestions in the manner stated supra, the petitioner cannot impress upon this court that she is actually willing to join the respondent after nearly seven years of her separation from the respondent.

From the evidence available on record, the petitioner herself left the matrimonial home without any reasonable grounds and she is unable to establish that the respondent neglected or refused to maintain the petitioners. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Sec.125 of Cr.P.C are not fulfilled to consider awarding of maintenance to the 1st petitioner. Hence, the 1st petitioner is not entitled for maintenance from the respondent. However, the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, who were minors as on the date of filing the petition and unable to maintain themselves, are entitled for the maintenance.

10 Fair.

08.Coming to the quantum of maintenance, both parties have filed their respective affidavits of Assets and Liabilities. It is the case of the petitioner in her petition that the respondent got Ac.00-50 cents of wetland and valuable house sites at Guddikayalanka village. The said wetland yields three crops per year and the respondent gets huge income. There is absolutely no proof for the same that the respondent got Ac.00-50 cents of wetland. Even in the affidavit of Assets and

Liabilities filed by the petitioner, under the Heading of information provided by the deponent with respect to the income, assets and liabilities of other spouse, the petitioner mentioned as if there are no Assets and Liabilities for the respondent.

On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has two she buffaloes, doing milk business, doing tailoring work, doing agricultural operations and that she also has Ac.00-50 cents of prawn culture and getting good income from the above sources. There is no proof for the same. The respondent mentioned in his affidavit of Assets and Liabilities that the petitioner is an Animator in Dwacra group and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He also mentioned that the petitioner has own house at Adavuladeevi village and also has wetland of an extent of Ac.01-00 cents at Adavuladeevi village and earning income of

Rs.60,000/- per annum on that land and also she has a Honda Activa two wheeler worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and she has bank balance also. Except the oral contention of the respondent, there is no proof for those contentions. The petitioner deposed in her cross-examination that the ‘Activa’ two wheeler belongs to her brother.

This Court already concluded that the 1st petitioner is not entitled for maintenance. Coming to the maintenance in respect of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, they were minors as on the date of filing of the Maintenance Case. There is no evidence on record let in by the respondent to show that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are able to maintain themselves. It is the case of the petitioner that as on the date of filing of the M.C., the elder daughter (3rd petitioner) was residing with the respondent but later the respondent left the 3rd petitioner also at the house of the 1st petitioner on 10.02.2017. However, the petition to implead the 3rd petitioner in the M.C was only filed on 11.11.2020. Being the father of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, 11 Fair.

the onus is on the respondent to maintain his children. The respondent mentioned in his affidavit that he is only a daily labour and has shown his income as Rs.6,000/- per month from his coolie works. He also mentioned that he has to maintain his old aged parents. It is brought on record that the marriage of 3rd petitioner was performed on 09.06.2022 but there is no evidence about her age as on that date and she is able to maintain herself.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that if a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month each is awarded to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners till their majority, it would meet the ends of justice.

09. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The claim of the 1st petitioner is dismissed. The 2nd petitioner is awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of the petition i.e., from 10.01.2017 onwards till she attained the majority. The 3rd petitioner is awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of filing of the petition to implead her in this petition i.e., from 11.11.2020 onwards till she attained majority. The arrears of maintenance shall be paid by the respondent to the 1st petitioner, being the natural guardian of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, within three months from the date of this Order. The future maintenance, if any shall be paid by the respondent on or before 10th day of every succeeding month either to the 1st petitioner directly or to her bank account, as the case may be.

Typed to my dictation to the typist directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 06th day of November, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondent:

P.W1: Dasari Naga Lakshmi. R.W1: Dasari Venkateswara Rao.

P.W2: Yemineni Venkateswaramma. R.W2: Dasari Naga Malleswara Rao.

12 Fair.

R.W3: Vusirikaya Bhavannarayana.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners:

Nil.

For Respondent:

Ex.R1: Marriage photos and C.D of 3rd petitioner Dasari Sindhuri.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Repalle.

1 Fair

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: REPALLE

Present: Sri L. Jagadeesh Kumar

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Tuesday, this the 14 th day of November, 2023.

Calendar Case No.131 of 2015

Crime No.01 of 2015 of Bhattiprolu P.S

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Bhattiprolu Police Station.…Complainant.

AND

1. Kanaparthi Yesu Marimma @ Manimma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, Mala, Allamudi village.

2. Kanaparthi Venakteswara Rao, S/o Balaji, 40 years, Mala, Allamudi village.

3. Vanja Mohana Rao, S/o Lasar, 52 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.

4. Vanja Merimma, W/o Mohana Rao, 45 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.

5. Vanja Ravi Kumar, S/o Mohana Rao, 28 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal. … Accused A1 to A5.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 10.11.2023 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri M.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for A1 to A5 and the matter is having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhattiprolu Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 01/2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of P.W1, which is marked as Ex.P1 before this Court. The contents of Ex.P1 statement read that A1 is the niece of P.W1 and the marriage of the daughter of A1 was performed about seven months prior to the date of Ex.P1 and P.W1 was not invited for the marriage, thereby, neither P.W1 nor her husband attended the marriage.

While things stood thus, on 06.01.2015 at about 10 am while P.W1 was 2 Fair returning from a shop, A1 happened to come across PW1 and abused P.W1 in utmost filthy language. However, P.W1 left that place quietly as she was not even unable to understand as to why A1 was abusing her.

On 07.01.2015 during night time while P.W1 and her husband were sleeping in their house, A1, her husband (A2), her son (A5), the parents of A5 i.e.,

A3 and A4 came to the house of P.W1 at about 11 p.m and knocked the door. The husband of P.W1 i.e., P.W2 opened the doors. Then A2, A3 and A5 beat P.W2 on his head with a stick, as a result of which, P.W2 sustained a bleeding injury on the left side of his forehead. When P.W2 raised his hue and cry, P.W1 came out of the house and noticed that P.W1 was holding his head. When P.W1 went to P.W2, A1 and A4 beat P.W1 with a stick on her left thigh, as a result of which, P.W1 sustained an abrasion on her left thigh. Later, they beat P.W1 with hands and legs. As the neighbours were sleeping at that time none responded to the cries of

P.Ws.1 and 2. P.Ws.1 and 2 escaped from the clutches of A1 to A5 and rushed into their house. Then A1 to A5 left that place by uttering some filthy language.

As it was late night, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Community Health Centre, Repalle on the following day. Police recorded the statement of P.W1 at the Community

Health Centre, Repalle.

Ex.P1, the statement of P.W1 along with the hospital intimation Ex.P5 were received by P.W7 the then Head Constable, Bhattiprolu police station on 10.01.2015 at about 9 a.m. He registered the same as Ex.P6 FIR in Cr.No.01/15 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. P.W7 took up investigation, proceeded to the Community Health Centre (CHC), Repalle, secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 at CHC, Repalle, examined them and recorded their statements.

He also visited the scene of offence, examined the same and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch. He secured the presence of P.W5 and L.W5/Petla Subhadramma at the scene of offence, examined them and recorded their statements.

On 12.01.2015 P.W7 served Section 41-A of Cr.P.C notice on the accused 1 to 5. He also obtained the wound certificates of P.Ws.1 and 2. L.W10/Sri 3 Fair

R.Ravindra Reddy, the then Sub-Inspector of police, Bhattiprolu police station verified the investigation done by P.W7 and filed charge sheet against A1 to A5.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC against accused A1 to A5. After appearance of the accused A1 to A5, copies of documents are furnished to them in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. Accused A1 to A5 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge has been framed against A1 to A5 for the offence under section 324 read with 34 of IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P7.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A1 to A5 are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to drive home the guilt of the

accused A1 to A5 beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC?

9. POINT:

(a)In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has let in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. P.W1 is the De-facto Complainant, who set the law into motion. P.W2 is the husband of P.W1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the son and daughter of

P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W5 is said to have been an eye witness to the incident. P.W6 is the Medical Officer. P.W7 is the Investigating Officer.

P.Ws.3 and 4 are the son and daughter of P.Ws.1 and 2 and they are not eye witnesses to the incident and they came from Hyderabad after coming to 4 Fair know about the incident in question. Therefore, their evidence about the incident is only a hearsay one. Though, P.W5 is said to have been an eye witness, he deposed before this Court that he does not know anything about this case and even police never examined him in concerned with this case.

The only evidence available on record in respect of the incident is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

(b)It is the evidence of P.W1 that she arranged the marriage of the daughter of A1 by negotiating with the family of bridegroom but she was not even invited for the marriage. However, she kept quiet. Later, on one day i.e. on 06.01.2015 at about 10 am, while she was bringing vegetables from a shop, A1 and A4, who were going to their field, happened to come across P.W1. Then A1 abused P.W1 in filthy language by uttering that they expected some arrangement of money from P.W1 for the marriage of the daughter of A1. However, P.W1 moved from that place quietly.

On 07.01.2015 while P.Ws.1 and 2 were sleeping in their house, A2, A3 and

A5 knocked the doors of their house at about 11 p.m. Then P.W2 went outside to see who were knocking the doors while P.W1 was sleeping. She woke-up on hearing some hue and cry and rushed outside. By the time she came outside, blood was oozing from the injury on the head of P.W2. Then P.W1 started crying by caught hold of P.W2. Then A1 and A4 came there and beat P.W1 with a stick on her left thigh. Both A1 and A4 gave blows on her chest. Though, P.W1 raised her hue and cry, none came to their rescue at that time. After some time, P.W1 could able to manage and rise and also managed to bring her husband/P.W2 into the house, who was suffering from bleeding injuries. On the following day, in the morning time, P.W1 took P.W2 to Community Health Centre, Repalle for treatment. Police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W1.

(c)It is the evidence of P.W2 that at about six to seven years ago, while he was sleeping at his house at about 11:30 p.m, A1 to A5 came to his house and 5 Fair beat him with a stick and left his house. He sustained an injury above his left eyebrow. Later, the neighboring people came to him. On the following day, in the morning, he and P.W1 went to Bhattiprolu police station and the Sub-Inspector of police sent him to the Government hospital along with a constable. The doctor stitched his injury. At about 4 p.m, they were referred to the Community Health

Centre, Repalle. Police did not examine him.

(d) As already discussed supra, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone is available on record for scrutiny. They are no other than wife and husband. As per Ex.P1 statement of P.W1, it is nowhere mentioned by P.W1 as to what was the motive for the alleged incident in question. She simply mentioned that she was not invited for the marriage of the daughter of A1 which was performed about seven months ago prior to Ex.P1.

A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.P1 to

P7 documents; there are several lacunae in the case of the prosecution. There are also some material contradictions between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.

P.W1 deposed that on hearing the hue and cry, she rushed outside of her house and while she was crying by caught hold of P.W2, A1 and A4 came there and beat her with a stick on her left thigh. After some time she could manage to rise and also managed to bring her husband into the house, who was suffering from bleeding injuries. But P.W2 did not make any whisper in his evidence of the rushing of P.W1 to him and about the beating of P.W1 by A1 and A4. According to

P.W2, A1 to A5 beat him with a stick and left their house. His evidence is absolutely silent of the presence of P.W1 at any point of time at the time of the alleged incident.

Further, according to P.W1, though she raised her hue and cry none came to the scene of offence. P.W1 gave an explanation in Ex.P1 statement that as the neighbours were sleeping, none responded to their hue and cry. According to

P.W2, after A1 to A5 beat him and left his house, the neighboring people came to him. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite contradicting with each other in 6 Fair respect of the responding of neighboring people.

According to P.W2, on the following day of the incident, first they went to

Bhattiprolu police station and the Sub-Inspector of Police sent him to the

Government Hospital, Bhattiprolu along with a constable. The doctor stitched his injury. At about 4 p.m, they were referred to Community Health Centre, Repalle.

Whereas, according to P.W1, in her Ex.P1 statement as well as in her evidence, on the following day of the incident, they went to CHC, Repalle directly and admitted there. There police recorded her statement. There is a material contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 even in respect of their going to the hospital.

As seen from Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates, P.W6 the Medical Officer seems to have examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at about 5:30 p.m. According to P.W2, they were referred by the Government Hospital, Bhattiprolu to CHC, Repalle at about 4 p.m. In this context, the evidence of P.W2 appears to be quite probable as Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates disclose that P.W6 examined P.Ws.1 and 2 at about 5:30 p.m. But there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that

P.Ws.1 and 2 were treated initially at Bhattiprolu Government Hospital. P.W7 categorically deposed before this Court that PWs.1 and 2 did not come to police station directly after the incident and they went to the hospital. If the evidence of P.W1 that both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Community Health Centre, Repalle in the morning of the following day itself with injuries, the non-examination of

P.Ws.1 and 2 by the Medical Officer till 5:30 p.m in the evening seems to be not probable. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W1, P.W2 sustained bleeding injury on his head and blood was oozing from his injury. Under those circumstances, any prudent man would rush to hospital even at midnight but it had not happened so in this case, which factum is also not inspiring confidence over the evidence of P.W1.

According to P.W2, he was not even examined by police. However, he deposed before this court in his cross-examination that he only sustained one 7 Fair injury on his forehead above his left eyebrow and that too it was stitched at

Government Hospital, Bhattiprolu. But as per Ex.P4 wound certificate of P.W2 there are three other injuries also mentioned by P.W6, apart from a laceration of 5 cm x 1 cm on left of forehead, which are 2.5 cm x 1 cm abrasion near left side of abdomen, 10 cm x 8 cm swelling on right lateral thigh with abrasion of 5 cm x 1 cm over lying it. Even P.W2 had not deposed the above injuries before this

Court. Any stitching of injury is also not noted in Ex.P4 wound certificate of P.W2.

Therefore, the evidence of P.W2 and Ex.P4 wound certificate are quite contradicting with each other.

According to P.W1, in her Ex.P1 statement, A1 and A4 beat her on her left thigh with a stick and later beat with hands and legs. P.W1 also deposed in her evidence that A1 and A4 beat her with a stick on her left thigh. She specifically deposed before this Court that later A1 and A4 gave blows on her chest, which she did not make mention of the same in her Ex.P1 statement. As seen from

Ex.P3 wound certificate, apart from a 10 cm x 4 cm bruising injury on left thigh, five other injuries are also mentioned viz., 15 cm x 10 cm bruising on left shoulder, 10 cm x 6 cm swelling on right shoulder, 10 cm x 10 cm swelling above right elbow, pain in the right waist and 4 cm x 2 cm swelling above right parietal bone. P.W1 even did not make any whisper of those injuries either in her Ex.P1 statement or in her chief examination. Therefore, the evidence of P.W1 and

Ex.P3 wound certificate are not in tandem with each other in respect of the alleged injuries.

Further, as seen from Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates, P.W6/the Medical

Officer is said to have examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on 08.01.2015 at about 5:30 p.m.

As per Ex.P1, the statement of P.W1 was recorded on 08.01.2015 at about 6:30 p.m. Ex.P1 statement was registered by P.W7 as a First Information Report on 10.01.2015 at 9 a.m. So, till then there was no possibility of emerging any crime number in this case but surprisingly it is mentioned in Exs.P3 and P4 wound certificates as if P.Ws.1 and 2 were sent with Crime No.01/2015 under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. When the FIR was registered on 10.01.2015 at 9 am, it is quite 8 Fair improbable that P.Ws.1 and 2 were sent with Cr.No.1/2015 on 08.01.2015. There is no explanation from the prosecution in this regard.

Further, as seen from the record, P.W7 visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch. As seen from Ex.P7 rough sketch, there are merely two houses near the house of P.W1 on the East and North. There is a Church at the North-East corner of the house of P.W1. Ex.P7 rough sketch does not disclose the existence of any street light near the alleged scene of offence. There are only fields after crossing the house of P.W1 at the scene of offence. There are no many houses at the scene of offence except two houses and a Church as stated supra.

The time of alleged offence was at about 11 p.m, which was a dark night. P.Ws.1 and 2 were aged 60 and 62 years respectively even by then. According to the version of P.Ws.1 and 2, they woke up from sleeping. Therefore, the probability of identifying the persons in that thick darkness is also bleak.

(e)P.W.1 to P.W4 are cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused. It is the contention of the accused that P.W1 arranged the marriage alliance of the daughter of A1 even without any request from A1 and when A1 informed P.W1 that she was not in a position to perform the marriage of her daughter for want of money, P.W1 made a proposal that if A1 gives her land to P.W1, she would bear all the expenses of the marriage for which A1 did not agree, thereby P.W1 developed grouse against A1 and even did not attend the marriage of the daughter of A1 and this case is also the outcome of that development of grouse in the mind of A1.

P.W1 also admitted in her cross-examination that she arranged the marriage alliance for the daughter of A1 but according to P.W1, it was only at the request of A1. P.W3, who is the son of P.Ws.1 and 2, also admitted that his mother P.W1 arranged the marriage alliance for the daughter of A1. P.W1 also admitted that she was not in talking terms with A3 to A5 also after the marriage.

P.W3 deposed in his cross examination that there were petty issues between his parents and the accused and there have been no talking terms between his 9 Fair family and the family of A1 even right from his childhood.

As seen from the record, the marriage of the daughter of A1 was performed even seven months prior to Ex.P1. There is no whisper of any altercations or quarrels between the accused and P.Ws.1 and 2 after the marriage till Ex.P1. The only incident P.W1 referred in her Ex.P1 statement as well as in her chief examination is that on the previous day of the incident, A1 happened to come across P.W1 in the village and abused P.W1. Except that there seems to be no strong motive for the accused to attack on P.Ws.1 and 2 in the midnight. Even the version of P.W1 as per Ex.P1 that A1 alone come across P.W1 on the previous day is not corroborating with her evidence as P.W1 deposed in her chief examination that A1 and A4 happened to come across her on the previous day of the incident. Therefore, abusing of PW1 by A1 seems to be the created version by P.W1 to lay a platform for the incident on 07.01.2015.

Under the above facts and circumstances, there are several lacunae in the case of the prosecution which shower several doubts about the actual occurrence. Men may lie and lie but not the circumstances. All the circumstances on record disclose the improbability of the things happened but not the probability. Needless to mention that, it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but in the present case on hand; this Court can safely conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

10. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A5 shall be in force for a period of six months in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of November, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

10 Fair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant: For Accused:

PW1: Petla Suguna. Nil PW2: Petla Deekshithulu. PW3: Petla Kishore Babu. PW4: Govathoti Sailaja. PW5: Nalari Yesu Dasu. PW6: Dr. K. Praveen. PW7: A. Janardhana Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Complaint:For Accused: Ex.P1: Statement of P.W1. Nil. Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W5. Ex.P3: Wound certificate of P.W1. Ex.P4: Wound certificate of P.W2. Ex.P5: Hospital Intimation. Ex.P6: Original FIR. Ex.P7: Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: Nil.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

11 Fair

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

C.C No.131/2015

Date of Date ofDate of Date ofDate of reportDate ofrelease ofDate of sentence commencemclose of offenceof complainantapprehensiontheor order ent of trialtrial accused 07.01.15 10.01.1520.08.15- 06.06.2210.11.2314.11.23

Explanation for Delay:- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused A1 to A5 on 20.08.2015. On 11.05.2022 accused A1 to A5 was examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C and posted for trial. The trial was commencing from 06.06.2022 PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents were marked, on 10.11.2023, accused A1 to A5 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence and defence evidence was closed and on the same day, heard arguments on both sides. On 14.11.2023, Judgment

pronounced. Hence the delay.

Complainant: State:- Sub-Inspector of police, Bhattiprolu Police Station.

Description particulars of Accused:

1. Kanaparthi Yesu Marimma @ Manimma, W/o Venkateswara Rao, 35 years, Mala, Allamudi village.

2. Kanaparthi Venakteswara Rao, S/o Balaji, 40 years, Mala, Allamudi village.

3. Vanja Mohana Rao, S/o Lasar, 52 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.

4. Vanja Merimma, W/o Mohana Rao, 45 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.

5. Vanja Ravi Kumar, S/o Mohana Rao, 28 years, Mala, Oleru Venkata Raju Nagar village, Bhattiprolu Mandal.

Offence U/Sec: 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

12 Fair

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A5 shall be in force for a period of six months in compliance with Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C from the date of this judgment.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Copy submitted:- The Hon'ble Chief Judl. Magistrate, Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: REPALLE

Present: Sri L. Jagadeesh Kumar.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Monday, this the 6 th day of November, 2023.

Calendar Case No.47 of 2018

Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

Between:

Julakanti Bujjibabu, S/o. Barna Basu, aged about 47 years, Business, R/o. Door No.6-10-151, J.L.B.College Road, Near Rama Krishna School, Repalle Town & Mandal, Guntur District. …Complainant.

And

Gokanakonda Paula Jennifer, W/o. Sugnana Simha, aged about 50 years, Properties, R/o.Door No.11-15-75/2, Repalle, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District. …Accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 13.10.2023 in the presence of Sri. Borra Venkateswara Rao and Smt. P.Leelavathi, Advocates for Complainant and of Sri. A.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate for the Accused and the matter having stood for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

1.This Private Complaint is filed under section 190 & 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Complainant against the accused for the offence under section 138 to 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The case of the Complainant is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- [Rupees Ten lakhs only] from him on 02.01.2016 for the purpose of her family expenses by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the Complainant or his order on demand and got executed a promissory note in favour of the

Complainant on the even date at Repalle.

Subsequently, the Complainant demanded the accused several times for discharge of the debt covered by the above promissory note with interest but the accused postponed the same for some reason or the other.

Finally, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.000023 on 28.07.2017 to the Complainant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) towards part payment of the above said promissory note debt drawn on HDFC Bank, Repalle. The Complainant presented the said cheque before the Central Bank of India, Repalle in his account for collection on the same day. The said cheque was forwarded by the

Central Bank of India, Repalle Branch to its branch at Benz circle,

Vijayawada. The Central Bank of India, Vijayawada branch returned the cheque with a cheque return memo dated 01.08.2017 with endorsement “account closed” to the Central Bank of India, Repalle Branch. The

Central Bank of India, Repalle branch returned the cheque along with the cheque return memo to the Complainant on 07.08.2017.

Subsequently, the Complainant got issued a registered legal notice on 11.08.2017 to the accused with a demand to pay the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of the notice. The accused received the said notice on 12.08.2017 and requested the Complainant to re-present the cheque before the Bank by giving an assurance that she would arrange sufficient funds in her account. Believing the words of the accused, the Complainant re- presented the cheque in his account on 07.10.2017 at Central Bank of

India, Repalle Branch. The Central Bank of India, Repalle Branch sent the cheque for collection to its branch at Benz circle, Vijayawada but the said cheque was returned by the Vijayawada branch with a cheque return memo on 11.10.2017 with an endorsement “Account closed”. The

Central Bank of India, Repalle Branch returned the above cheque with a cheque return memo of the Central Bank of India, Benz circle,

Vijayawada branch along with it’s return memo to the Complainant on 17.10.2017.

Subsequently, the Complainant got issued a registered legal notice to the accused on 21.10.2017 through his counsel with a demand to pay the cheque amount of Rs.6,00,000/- within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The accused received the said notice on 23.10.2017.

It is the allegation of the Complainant that the accused issued the above said cheque with a malafide intention to cheat the Complainant even though she closed her account. It is the duty and obligation of the accused to maintain her account good whenever the cheque is issued by her for discharge of a legally valid debt but she did not do so and thereby committed an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.This Court has taken cognizance of the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act against the accused and summons is served on her. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the Complainant are furnished to her in compliance with section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. Accusation for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been read over and explained to her in Telugu language for which she pleaded not guilty and claimed the case to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the Complainant examined himself as

P.W.1 on his behalf and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.

6.On closure of the evidence on behalf of the Complainant, accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material available in the evidence of PW1, for which the accused initially reported defence but later reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Complainant is able to drive home the guilt of

the accused for the offence punishable under section 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act or not?

P O I N T:

9. In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Complainant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents.

Ex.P1 is the original promissory note dated 02.01.2016 for a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/- said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the Complainant. Ex.P2 is the cheque bearing No.000023 dated 28.07.2017 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Repalle Branch for a sum of

Rs.6,00,000/- said to have been issued by the accused to the

Complainant. Ex.P3 is the counter foil dated 28.07.2017 for presentation of the cheque before Central Bank of India, Repalle Branch. Ex.P4 is the cheque return endorsement memo dated 01.08.2017 issued by the

Central Bank of India, Benz circle branch with endorsement ‘account closed’. Ex.P5 is the cheque return memo dated 07.08.2017 issued by the Central Bank of India, Repalle branch. Ex.P6 is the office copy of legal notice dated 11.08.2017 issued by the Complainant to the accused.

Ex.P7 is the postal receipt dated 11.08.2017. Ex.P8 is the postal track consignment dated 19.08.2017 issued by the Sub Post Master, Railpet,

Repalle. Ex.P9 is the counter foil dated 07.10.2017 for presentation of the cheque second time before Central Bank of India, Repalle branch. Ex.P10 is the cheque return endorsement memo dated 11.10.2017 issued by the

Central Bank of India, Benz circle branch with endorsement ‘account closed’. Ex.P11 is the cheque return memo dated 17.10.2017 issued by the Central Bank of India, Repalle branch. Ex.P12 is the office copy of legal notice dated 21.10.2017 issued by the Complainant to the accused.

Ex.P13 is the postal acknowledgment dated 23.10.2017.

10.As seen from Exs.P1 to P13 documents, they disclose that Ex.P2 cheque was presented before the bank on two occasions. For the first time, it was presented by the Complainant/P.W1 on 28.07.2017 and it was returned on 01.08.2017 on the ground that ‘Account closed’. The same was intimated to the Complainant on 07.08.2017 under Ex.P5 cheque return memo issued by Central Bank of India, Repalle branch.

After that P.W1 issued Ex.P6 legal notice to the accused on 11.08.2017 and the same was received by the accused on 12.08.2017. The accused has to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice by the accused. If the date of receipt of notice by the accused is excluded, the 15 days time was lapsed on 27.08.2017 and the cause of action had arisen in this case from 28.08.2017 onwards. The Complainant has to file the Complaint within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of NI Act. If the date on which the cause of action arose was excluded to calculate the one month time, the Complainant had to file the present Complaint not later than 27.09.2017.

But in the present case on hand, the Complainant/P.W1 did not present any Complaint against the accused within the stipulated time after the cause of action arose on the first legal notice. Instead of that he again presented the Ex.P2 cheque before the bank under Ex.P9 counter foil on 07.10.2017 and the same was returned by the bank with endorsement of ‘Account closed’ on 11.10.2017. The same was intimated to the Complainant/P.W1 on 17.10.2017 by the Central Bank of

India, Repalle Branch under Ex.P11. Again the Complainant/P.W1 issued a legal notice to the accused on 21.10.2017 under Ex.P12 and the same was received by the accused on 23.10.2017. The accused has to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of receipt of the notice by the accused. If the date of receipt of notice by the accused is excluded, the 15 days time was lapsed on 07.11.2017 and the cause of action had arisen in this case from 08.11.2017 onwards on the second legal notice. The

Complainant/P.W1 lodged the present complaint on 03.11.2017 even

before the cause of action arose on the second legal notice.

11.The Complainant/P.W1 is cross-examined at length. Though it is contended by the accused that actually the elder sister of P.W1 lent small amount to the accused and obtained blank promissory notes and blank cheques from the accused and by utilizing them P.W1 foisted this false case against the accused, the crux of the cross-examination of P.W1 by the accused is that as P.W1 failed to file the Complaint against the accused within the period of limitation based on the first legal notice which was issued when the cheque was returned with the endorsement of ‘account closed’, the Complaint was barred by limitation and is not maintainable. It is contended by the accused that the Complainant failed to file the Complaint based on the cause of action arose on the first legal notice and in order to overcome that lacuna, the Complainant again presented the cheque before the bank to save the period of limitation. It is also contended by the accused that the complaint filed based on the second return of cheque is also not maintainable as the same was filed prematurely even without the cause of action has arisen.

12.From the cross-examination of P.W1, the accused is contending that the present complaint is not maintainable on two grounds. One is the

Complainant has not filed any complaint when once the cheque was returned on the ground of ‘account closed’. It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that when once the account was closed, there was no meaning for the Complainant to present the cheque once again

before the bank. It is only to save the period of limitation, the

Complainant deliberately again presented the cheque before the bank. In support of the contention of the accused, he relied upon the orders of the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 23.02.2022 in

Criminal O.P No.17294 of 2016 and Crl.M.P Nos. 8273 and 8274

of 2016 between D.V.Vanitha Vs. M.Samiyappan.

As seen from the said orders of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, His

Lordship opined that there is no logic or reason for representing the cheque again, when the cheque was returned for the reason ‘account closed’.Once account is closed, there is no question of re-opening the account to facilitate payment in the same account.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Complainant relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

Criminal Appeal Nos.26-27 of 2019 between M/s. Sicagen India

Limited vs Mahendra Vadineni dated 08.01.2019 to impress upon this court that the Complaint filed based on the second statutory notice is not barred. The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

2013 (1) SCC 177 MSR Leathers vs. S.Palaniappan and another

was referred in Sicagen India Limited case. It is held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in MSR Leathers Vs S.

Palaniappan and anotherthat a prosecution based on a second or successive default in payment of the cheque amount should not be impermissible simply because no prosecution based on the first default which was followed by statutory notice and a failure to pay had not been launched.

It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the accused that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in MSR

Leathers vs. S.Palaniappan and another was based on different facts. It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that in that case the cheque was returned ‘for insufficient funds’ but not ‘account closed’ and therefore, the judgment of MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and another does not applicable to the present facts of the case.

In the light of the above argument of the learned counsel for the accused, as seen from the order of the Hon’ble Madras High Court, the

Hon’ble Madras High Court also referred the Judgment of MSR Leathers

Vs. S. Palaniappan and another and concluded that the said judgment dealt with the case where the cheque was returned for the reason ‘not arranged funds for’ but the case before the Hon’ble Madras High Court is the case where the cheque was returned for the reason ‘account closed’.

In view of the above rival contentions of both the parties, it is a fact that the judgments relied upon by the Complainant are the outcome of the facts which are different from the facts on hand, whereas the order relied upon by the accused is the outcome of the facts similar to the present case on hand.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the Complainant that the accused requested the Complainant to re-present the cheque again in the bank by giving an assurance that he would arrange sufficient funds in her account. The same is mentioned by the Complainant in Ex.P12 legal notice also. Admittedly, the accused has not given any reply legal notice to the first legal notice issued by the Complainant. There is no possibility

for the accused to arrange funds in a closed account. Once the cheque

was returned on the ground of ‘account closed’, there is nothing for the

Complainant to wait for the accused would arrange funds in the said account. There is no rationale behind the argument of the learned counsel for the Complainant that the Complainant believed the words of the accused that she would arrange funds in a closed account. It is clearly appearing on the face of the record that the Complainant, having failed to file the Complaint within the period of limitation based on the first cause of action, deliberately presented the Ex.P2 cheque once again, which was already returned on the ground of account closed, to find a place in the eye of Law for his Complaint. Had the Ex.P2 cheque was returned for the reason other than ‘account closed’ or ‘signature differs’, definitely, there would have been a case for the Complainant even though the Complaint is filed based on the second cause of action, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in MSR

Leathers Vs. S.Palaniappan and another. But in the present case on hand, the Complaint filed by the Complainant based on the second cause of action is barred by the period of limitation and it has no legs to stand in the eye of Law.

13.It is the further case of the Complainant that a premature

Complaint is a Complaint in the eye of law and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Narsing Dass Tapadia

Vs.Goverdhan Dass Partani and another to impress upon this court that a premature Complaint can either await maturity or be returned to the Complainant for filing later, but the Complaint cannot be dismissed for the reason that it was presented at an earlier date and it also does not confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed.

In the present case on hand, the Complainant presented the

Complaint based on the second legal notice issued to the accused. It was served on the accused on 23.10.2017 under Ex.P13 postal acknowledgment and the cause of action arose from 08.11.2017 on wards but he presented the Complaint on hand on 03.11.2017 itself, even before the cause of action arose. Therefore, the present Complaint is a premature one. This court has registered the case on 19.01.2018 i.e., after the Complaint became matured. However, there is no serious fight against this aspect from the accused also and the only fight is in respect of the maintainability of the Complaint based on second cause of action even though the cheque was returned on the ground of ‘account closed’ on the first presentation itself.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that this Complaint is barred by limitation and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. Consequently, the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2023.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Complainant: PW1: Julakanti Bujjibabu. Accused: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Complaint: Ex.P1: Original Promissory note dt. 02.01.2016 executed by the accused.

Ex.P2: Cheque issued by the accused dt. 28.07.2021 drawn on HDFC Bank Repalle branch.

Ex.P3: Counter foil dt. 28.07.2017 of Central Bank of India, Repalle.

Ex.P4: Cheque return memo issued by Central Bank of India, Repalle

Dated 01.08.2017.

Ex.P5: Another Cheque memo dt. 07.08.2017 issued by Central Bank of India, Repalle.

Ex.P6: Office copyof legal notice dt. 11.08.2017 issued by complainant Through his counsel.

Ex.P7: Receipt dt. 11.08.2017.

Ex.P8: Track consignment issued by Sub-Postmaster, Repalle.

Ex.P9: Counter foil dt. 07.10.2017.

Ex.P10: Cheque return memo dt. 11.10.2017.

Ex.P11: Cheque return memo dt. 17.10.2017.

Ex.P12: Office copy of legal notice dt. 21.10.2017.

Ex.P13: Postal acknowledgment dt. 23.10.2017.

Accused: Nil.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

TRIED BY THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: REPALLE

C.C. No.47 of 2018

Date of Date ofDate ofDate ofDate of Date ofDate ofrelease of report ofcommenceclose ofsentence or offenceapprehensionthe complainantment of trialtrialorder accused 07.08.1703.11.17- - 09.12.2122.06.2306.11.23

Explanation for Delay:- The copies of case documents are furnished to the accused on 04.03.2021, the accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C, on 05.11.2021 and posted for trial. The trial is commencing from 09.12.2021 PW.1 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 documents are marked, and prosecution evidence was closed, on 30.06.2022 accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and reported no defence evidence. Heard arguments of both sides on 13.10.2023. On 06.11.2023 Judgment pronounced. Hence the delay. __________________________________________________________ Complainant. Julakanti Bujjibabu, S/o. Barna Basu, aged about 47 years, Business, R/o. Door No.6-10-151, J.L.B.College Road, Near Rama Krishna School, Repalle Town & Mandal, Guntur District.

Accused. Gokanakonda Paula Jennifer, W/o. Sugnana Simha, aged about 50 years, Properties, R/o.Door No.11-15-75/2, Repalle, Repalle Mandal, Guntur District.

Offence U/Sec: Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Finding of the Court : Found guilty

Sentence or Order:

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Consequently, the accused is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: REPALLE

Present: Sri. L. Jagadeesh Kumar, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Repalle.

Thursday, this the 11th day of August, 2022

Crl. MP 453 of 2019 in M.C No.35 of 2019

Between :

Pulipati Suvarna Kumari W/o.Suresh Babu D/o.Bhaskara Rao, aged about 27 years, Presently residing at Anandapuram Village, Nagaram Mandal, untur District. … Petitioner

AND

Pulipati Suresh Babu S/o.Saloman, aged about 31 years, R/o.Doppalapudi Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. … Respondent.

This petition is coming on 29.07.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri.

K.Kamala Devi, Advocate for the Respondent and the matter having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed to grant Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty thousand only] per month towards interim maintenance to the Petitioner till disposal of the Maintenance Case.

02.The case of the Petitioner is that her marriage with the Respondent was performed on 22/06/2017 under Christian rites and customs. At the time of marriage the mother of the Petitioner presented cash of

Rs.4,00,000/- [Rupees Four lakhs only], seven sovereigns of gold ornaments, household articles worth of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One lakh and Fifty thousand only] and Ac.02.50 cents of house site situated at Repalle to the

Respondent and his parents as per their demand and performed the marriage by spending an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- [Rupees Two lakhs only].

Immediately after the marriage the Petitioner joined the Respondent and his family members for leading marital life. The Respondent and his family members looked after the Petitioner well for about few days. After that the 2

Respondent left the Petitioner in the house of his parents and went to Jammu & Kasmir where he works in Army. Thereafter, the in laws and relatives of the Petitioner looked after her well but later the mother of the Respondent, his brother and his relatives started harassing the Petitioner both physically and mentally to bring additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- apart from the household articles like AC, Fridge etc. Though the Petitioner expressed the inability of her mother to provide any more dowry, the mother of the

Respondent and her relative Bharathamma left the Petitioner at her house and warned her that they shall not allow the Petitioner to matrimonial home unless she brings additional dowry. The Petitioner informed the same to the

Respondent through phone but the Respondent supported his mother and also demanded the Petitioner to bring additional dowry, otherwise, he will marry another girl. After negotiations, on 17/01/2018, the Respondent came to the house of the mother of the Petitioner and took back the Petitioner to his house but the mother, brother and relatives of the Respondent abused the Petitioner in filthy language and not allowed her to enter into the house and again left the Petitioner in the house of her mother on the same day night.

On the following day, the mother of the Petitioner along with elders took the Petitioner to the house of the Respondent. Then the Respondent and his family members made galata and questioned the Petitioner and her mother as to ‘why came to their house without taking additional dowry’ and abused the Petitioner and her mother, elders and relatives and did not allow the Petitioner into their house.

It is further submitted by the Petitioner that after some days i.e., in the month of March, 2018, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondent came to his house on leave. Then she went to the house of the Respondent but the Respondent and his mother did not allow the Petitioner to enter into the house. Again on 04.04.2018 the mother and maternal aunt of the

Petitioner and elders by names Kondepudi Suresh, Dova and Suguna took 3 the Petitioner to the house of the Respondent. But the Respondent and his family members abused them and beat them and necked out from their house. Having no other go, on 09.04.2018 the Petitioner lodged a report

before Nagaram police station and the same was registered as a case in

Crime No.78/2018 for the offence under sections 498-A, 323 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code. She also lodged another complaint before Protection Officer in

DVC on 24.07.2019 and both the cases are pending.

It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Respondent is working in

Indian Army and earning Rs.50,000/- per month towards salary apart from that he possessed landed property in his village and earning Rs.30,000/- per month towards rents and others and therefore, he got sufficient means to maintain the Petitioner.

The Respondent filed his counter. Except the factum of marriage, he denied the other allegations. He contended that right from the beginning of the marriage, the behaviour of the Petitioner is adament and she is unable to mingle with the parents of the Respondent. She ofen used to pickup petty quarrels with the Respondent for want of separate family by leaving the parents of the Respondent to their fate. When the Respondent did not accept the same, the Petitioner used to behave very cruelly. She used to give avasive replies to the Respondent. She never cared the parents of the

Respondent at any point of time. She used to tease and taunt the parents of the Respondent and the Petitioner has shown hell to the Respondent in his marital life. She used to behave upon her whims and fancies. She used to demand for money for her luxury needs. She used to spent the money as per her shims and fancies. When the Respondent questioned the same, the

Petitioner used to shout on the Respondent and used to proclaim that her marriage is not done according to her will and wish and she married the

Respondent only for the sake of her parents.

4

It is further contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner lead the marital life only for a few months as he went to Army after few days of marriage and came back after three months due to the complaint lodged by the Petitioner to his Commanding Officer and thereby he came down to settle the matter at Welfare Association and later he stayed in his house.

During his stay, the Petitioner had shown hell to the Respondent and she maintained a surcharged atmosphere in the house and harassed the

Respondent in several aspects and used to go to her parental home without intimation to the Respondent and later upon several requests, she used to come to the matrimonial home. The root cause for the torture by the

Petitioner is that he did not accept the demand of the Petitioner to put up separate family at the house of her parents and she had not even given conjugal happiness also to the Respondent on the pretext that the

Respondent was not at all meeting her luxury needs. She used to degrade the Respondent in front of his parents and elders by comparing his income with others.

It is further contended by the Respondent that after nine days of the marriage he went to his duty and returned in the month of March, 2018 and the Petitioner has filed her case on 09/04/2018 which clearly establishes the torture of the Petitioner. She stayed with the Respondent for a period of few months and within that short period the Petitioner harassed the Respondent for separate family, more money and for luxury needs.

It is further contended by the Respondent that the Petitioner is working as a private employee whereas he is suffering from ailments for which he is undergoing treatment and unable to go to his work. He further denied that he is earning Rs.50,000/- per month and having movable and immovable properties. As the Respondent is not at all working any where due to the mental torture and filing of several cases against him, there is no income at all to him and he himself has been living along with his old aged parents. He is suffering from aliments and he is unable to meet his medical needs and he 5 is in deep financial crisis. Therefore, he is unable to maintain the Petitioner separately and requested this Court to dismiss this petition.

04.Heard both parties and perused the record.

05. Now the point for consideration is

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- [Rupees Twenty thousand only] per month as prayed for?

P O I N T

06.As seen from the averments of both the petition and counter, it is crystal clear that both the Petitioner and Respondent are making allegations against each other. It is the case of the Petitioner that unable to bear the harassment of the Respondent and his family members, she also lodged a report before police and considering the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.78/2018 for the offence under sections 498-A, 323 r/w.34 of IPC.

She also lodged another complaint before the Protection Officer for the said

Domestic Violence against the Respondent and his family members. Unless, a full fledged trial is held, the truth or otherwise of the allegations, would come to light. Prima facie case, the Petitioner is able to show reasons for her staying away from the Respondent. Therefore, being husband of the

Petitioner, the Respondent is liable to pay interim monthly allowance.

07.Coming to the quantum of interim monthly allowance, it is an admitted fact that the Respondent is working in Army. Though it is contended by the

Respondent that he is not at all working any where due to the mental torture and filing of several cases by the Petitioner against him, there is no proof filed by him that he was discharged from Army. Further, he contended that he is suffering from several ailments and thereby in deep financial crisis, but he failed to even mention what is the nature of ailments he has been suffering from. No medical evidence is being produced. Further, he also contended that the Petitioner is working as a private employee and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month but he failed even to mention the name of the organization in which the Petitioner is working. There is no documentary 6 proof filed by either of the parties to show the possession of immovable properties by the other spouse. From the averments of the counter, it can be safely concluded that the Respondent is working in Indian Army. Being the husband of the Petitioner, the onus is on the Respondent to provide maintenance pending disposal of the present MC.

08.In the result, this Petition is allowed in part by awarding interim monthly allowance of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees ten thousand only] per month towards the maintenance of the Petitioner from the date of the Petition i.e., from 02/12/2019 on wards.

The arrears of interim Maintenance shall be paid by the

Respondent within three months from the date of this Order.

The future maintenance shall be paid by the Respondent on or

before 10th of every succeeding month either directly to the Petitioner or to

her bank account, as the case may be.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of August, 2022.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

REPALLE.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner : For Respondent :

- N O N E -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioner : For Respondent :

- N I L -

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

REPALLE.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

REPALLE

PRESENT: Sri L. Jagadeesh Kumar,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), REPALLE.

Wednesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2024.

O.S.393/2023

Between:

Kota Seetharamanjaneyulu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 62 years, Hindu, R/o Door No.11-16-147/2, 9th ward, Repalle.

...Plaintiff.

And

Kota Venkateswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 64 years, Hindu, R/o Door No.11-16-147/2, 9th ward, Repalle.

…Defendant.

This case is coming before me on 23.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ayub Khan, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex- parte, and upon perusing the material on record this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a preliminary decree in respect of the schedule property to bring the same to sale in case the

Defendant fails to discharge the suit amount of Rs.13,46,566/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs forty six thousand five hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest and costs; and for such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.The facts set out in the plaint are that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand only) from the plaintiff on 22.12.2011 for development of his business and other purpose by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand and executed a simple registered mortgage deed in favour of the

Plaintiff towards security.

Subsequently, the defendant failed to discharge the above said mortgage debt on some pretext or the other in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff both personally and through mediators.

Thereafter, the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 12.08.2022 demanding him to discharge the debt covered under the mortgage deed but the defendant, having received the said notice kept quiet. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit.

03. Though the defendant has made his appearance before this Court through his counsel, he did not choose to contest the suit by way of filing any Written

Statement. Hence, the defendant is set ex-parte.

04. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff. Perused the record.

06. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree for recovery of the suit amount, as prayed for?

07. P O I N T:-

In support of his case, the plaintiff besides examining himself as PW1, got marked Ex.A1 original Registered Mortgage Deed dt.22.12.2011, Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice dt.12.08.2022 and Ex.A3 postal receipt dt.13.08.2022. The Plaintiff has reiterated the averments of his plaint in his chief examination. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 clearly supports the case of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, as already stated supra, the Defendant has not chosen to challenge the case of the Plaintiff even though he made his appearance before this Court by engaging an Advocate, for the reasons best known to him.

As the unchallenged evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 documents clearly supports the case of the Plaintiff, this Court has no hesitation to answer the point in favour of the Plaintiff.

08.In the result, this suit is decreed preliminarily with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of

Rs.13,46,566/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs forty six thousand five hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% p.a from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and fifty thousand only).

The period of redemption is three months from the date of this judgment. If the defendant fails to pay the said amount within the period of redemption, the plaintiff is at liberty to bring the mortgaged property of the defendant to sale and realize the said amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-II, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- L.Jagadeesh Kumar

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant: P.W.1: Kota Seetharamanjaneyulu. Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Registered Mortgage deed dt. 22.12.2011 executed by the defendant In favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dt. 12.08.2022. Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment dt. 13.08.2022.

For Defendant: Nil Sd/- L.Jagadeesh Kumar

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

//True Copy//

PCJ(JD), Repalle

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)::

REPALLE

PRESENT: Sri L. Jagadeesh Kumar,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), REPALLE.

Wednesday, this the 24 th day of April, 2024.

O.S.393/2023

Between:

Kota Seetharamanjaneyulu, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 62 years, Hindu, R/o Door No.11-16-147/2, 9th ward, Repalle.

...Plaintiff.

And

Kota Venkateswara Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 64 years, Hindu, R/o Door No.11-16-147/2, 9th ward, Repalle.

…Defendant.

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a preliminary decree in respect of the schedule property to bring the same to sale in case the Defendant fails to discharge the suit amount of Rs.13,46,566/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs forty six thousand five hundred and sixty six only) with subsequent interest and costs; and for such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Plaint Presented on: 04.11.2023 Plaint numbered on: 15.11.2023

CAUSE OF ACTION: Cause of action for the suit arose on 22.12.2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his business development and other purpose and executed the mortgage deed towards the security of the debt covered under the mortgage, subsequently when the plaintiff made several demands for discharge of the suit debt but the defendant failed to discharge the debt, thereafter when the plaintiff got a registered notice issued on 12.08.2022 to the defendant and the defendant received the said notice and kept quiet at Repalle within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court where the suit mortgage deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:

Principal amount under the suit mortgage deed

dt.22.12.2011Rs.3,50,000/-

Interest thereon @ 24% per annum from 22.12.2011 to 03.11.2023Rs.9,96,566/- _______________ Total Rs.13,46,566/- _______________

On which a Court fee of Rs.15,926/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act. Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs. 13,46,566/-.

This case is coming before me on 23.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ayub Khan, Advocate for Plaintiff and the Defendant having remained ex-parte for consideration till this day, this court Doth Order and Preliminary Decreed as follows:

1. It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this 3rd day of November, 2023, is the sum of Rs.13,46,566/- for principal and interest on the said

principal amount, the sum of Rs.-- for costs, charges and expenses (other

than the costs of the suit) properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgage security, together with interest thereon, and the sum of Rs.26,946/- for the costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.13,73,512/-.

2. (i) And it is hereby ordered, declared and decreed as follows:

That the defendant do pay into court on or before 24th day of July, 2024, the said sum of Rs.13,73,512/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs seventy three thousand five hundred and twelve only) with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakh fifty thousand only).

(ii) That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix, or such amount as the court may adjudge in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of First schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned and all such documents shall be handed over to the defendant or to such person he appoints and the plaintiff shall if so required re-convey or retransfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear off free from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so, required deliver up to the defendant quiet and peaceable possession of the said property.

3. And it is further ordered and decreed that in default of payment as aforesaid the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property or a sufficient part there of shall be directed to be sold and for purpose of such sale, the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

4. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied for after deduction the freeform of the expenses of the sale in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under rule 11 of order XXXIV of the First schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the balance, if any shall be paid to the defendant or other person entitled to receive the same.

5. And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of the mortgage and is not barred by law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

(Plaint schedule is hereto attached).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this the 24th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- L.Jagadeesh Kumar

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Repalle.

TABLE OF COSTS

S.NoFor plaintiffFor defendant.

01Stamp on Vakalat2-00 2-00 02Stamp on Plaint fees 5,826-00-- 03Process Charges 70-00-- 04Advocate fees 21,048-00--

Total 26,946-00 2-00

P.C.J (J.D),

Repalle.