Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota

APAN070000852020

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS , HINDUPUR.

Present: Smt. Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota,

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur.

Tuesday, the 28 th day of April, 2026

C.C. No.26 of 2020

Between: The State Represented by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town PS.

...Complainant

And:-

Smt Mala Rani, Aged 39 years, W/o Late Ramu, Palani Nagar, Hindupur Town. …Accused.

This case is coming on 27.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Rizvan Khan, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town Police

Station, has filed the charge sheet against the Accused in Crime

No.173/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P.

Excise Act and Sec.8(b) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

That on 28.10.2019 at about 09:00 AM, on credible information, LW.1 – Head Constable, LW.2 – Woman Constable and

Constables (LWs.3 and 4) proceeded to the house of the accused 2 situated at Palani Nagar, Hindupur Town and found that the accused was carrying a plastic bag. On seeing the police, the accused attempted to run away, but she was apprehended by the police. On enquiry, the accused disclosed her identity particulars and confessed that she was illegally transporting liquor from Karnataka State. Thereupon, LW.1 –

Head Constable searched the said plastic bag and found 13 Bangalore

Whisky 90 ml packets and 33 Haywards Cheers Whisky 90 ml packets belonging to Karnataka State. On further enquiry, the accused failed to produce any valid licence or permit to possess the same. Thereafter,

LW.1 – Head Constable arrested the accused and seized the contraband by collecting one sample packet from each brand for chemical analysis under the cover of police proceedings.

ii) Basing on the Police proceedings, LW.1 – Head Constable registered a case in Crime No.173 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act and Section 8(b) of the A.P.

Prohibition Act, issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused and released her on station bail. On 18.11.2019, he forwarded the sample packets to the Chemical Examiner, who issued a report opining that the samples were Indian Made Liquor. Subsequently, the investigation was handed over to LW.5 – Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police, who after receipt of the RFSL report, filed the charge sheet against the Accused.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section

Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and summons were issued against the

Accused.

4.After appearance of Accused before the Court, copies of all documents were furnished to her as contemplated under Section 207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

3

5. On consideration of entire material on record, the Accused is examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, a charge under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act is framed against her, explained the substance of accusation to the Accused in Telugu, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited five witnesses, among them, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of L.Ws.2, 4 and 5 as their evidence is covered through P.Ws.1 and 2.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused is examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the available incriminating material on record, Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused through the consistent and reliable evidence of PWs.1 and 2, which establishes the possession and seizure of contraband liquor without any valid licence. It is further contended that Ex.P3–RFSL Report corroborates the prosecution case by confirming that the seized substance is Indian Made

Liquor. He submits that minor discrepancies in the testimony of official witnesses do not go to the root of the case. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2363 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9710/2023), wherein it is held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of official witnesses, if their evidence is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy. Hence, it is 4 prayed that the accused be convicted under Section 34(a) of the A.P.

Excise Act.

10. Per contra, the Learned Defence Counsel would contend that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, as the entire evidence rests only on official witnesses without any independent corroboration, creating doubt about the alleged seizure. It is argued that material contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, particularly regarding the sealed tag and the accused’s signature, cast serious doubt on the proper sealing and safe custody of the contraband.

Further, the alleged confession before police is inadmissible under

Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. In view of these deficiencies, it is submitted that the prosecution case is doubtful and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.

11. Now the Point of determination is :

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

12.POINT:

To prove the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the Accused herein was transporting, exporting, importing, manufacturing, collecting or possessing any intoxicants in contravention of A.P. Excise Act or any license or permit granted or issued under this Act.

13. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2, who are police officials. PW.1 deposed that on 28.10.2019, he along with LW.1 and other staff proceeded to the house of the accused at

Palani Nagar, Hindupur Town, where the accused was found carrying a 5 plastic bag. On seeing the police, she attempted to run away but was apprehended. On search of the bag, 33 Haywards Cheers Whisky packets and 13 Bangalore Whisky packets of 90 ml each were allegedly found. The contraband was seized, samples were drawn, and the accused was arrested and brought to the police station. In the cross- examination, PW.1 admitted that a rough sketch of the scene of offence was filed and that it bears the signature of LW.5. He further admitted that all the witnesses in the case are official witnesses. He stated that at the time of seizure, the property was sealed with a tag, but he does not remember the seal tag number and is not aware whether the signature of the accused was obtained on the sealed tag. He denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge of the facts of the case or that the case was foisted for statistical purposes.

14.PW.2, Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Hindupur II Town PS, deposed that on 28.10.2019 at about 8:45 A.M., on credible information, he along with other staff proceeded to the house of the accused at Palani

Nagar, Hindupur Town and found the accused carrying a plastic bag. He stated that on seeing the police, the accused attempted to run away, but on his instructions, P.W.1 and others apprehended the accused and produced her before him. On enquiry, the accused disclosed her identity and confessed that she was illegally transporting liquor from Karnataka

State. He further deposed that pursuant to such confession, he searched the bag and found 33 Haywards Cheers Whisky packets of 90 ml each and 13 Bangalore Whisky packets of 90 ml each belonging to Karnataka

State, and that the accused failed to produce any valid licence. He stated that he arrested the accused and seized the contraband under cover of

Ex.P1 – police proceedings by drawing one sample packet from each brand, and after completing all formalities, brought the accused to the police station along with the case property. He further stated that based 6 on Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime No.173/2019 under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act through Ex.P2 – FIR, issued notice under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and released the accused on station bail after obtaining sureties. He also deposed that he sent the sample packets to

RFSL for chemical analysis and subsequently handed over the investigation to LW.5 – A.S.I., who, after receipt of the RFSL report, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

15.During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he does not know the sealed tag number, though he stated that the contraband was seized and sealed, and the accused’s signature was obtained on the sealed tag as reflected in Ex.P3 (RFSL Report). However, when confronted with Ex.P3, he was unable to identify or confirm the portion relating to the accused’s signature on the sealed tag. It is also noted that all the witnesses in this case are official witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he is unaware of the facts of the case, that the case was filed for statistical purposes, or that the accused is innocent.

16.On careful appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this

Court finds that the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of official witnesses, namely PWs.1 and 2. Though conviction can be based on such evidence, it must be of sterling quality, free from material contradictions and capable of inspiring confidence. In the present case, both PWs.1 and 2 have spoken about the alleged seizure of contraband liquor from the possession of the accused. However, certain material omissions and inconsistencies are noticed in their evidence.

17.It is pertinent to note that both PWs.1 and 2, in their cross- examination, admitted that they do not know the sealed tag number affixed to the seized property. Further, PW.1 expressed ignorance as to whether the signature of the accused was obtained on the sealed tag, 7 while PW.2, though stating that such signature was obtained, failed to identify the same in Ex.P3 – RFSL Report when confronted. These discrepancies create a doubt regarding the proper sealing of the contraband and the identity of the sample packets sent for chemical examination.

18.Further, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to the alleged seizure, though the incident is stated to have occurred in a residential locality. The non-examination of independent witnesses, without any plausible explanation, casts a shadow of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the evidence of official witnesses requires closer scrutiny.

19.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2363 of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9710/2023), wherein it is held that the conviction can be based on the testimony of official witnesses alone, provided their evidence is found to be reliable and inspires confidence, and that non-examination of independent witnesses is not always fatal to the prosecution case. There is no dispute with regard to the said legal proposition.

20.However, in the present case, as discussed above, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 does not inspire such confidence due to material discrepancies relating to the sealing of the contraband and the identification of the sample packets. The failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody and the inconsistencies regarding the sealed tag and the accused’s signature create a reasonable doubt about the genuineness of the seizure. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above decision does not advance the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8

21.It is also to be noted that the alleged confession made by the accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence in view of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and the prosecution cannot derive any benefit from such confession. Therefore, the recovery of contraband must be proved independently and beyond reasonable doubt.

22.Though Ex.P3 – RFSL Report indicates that the sample contains Indian Made Liquor, in the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding the proper seizure, sealing and safe custody of the contraband, the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. In cases involving seizure of contraband, strict proof of sealing, safe custody and proper transmission of samples to the laboratory is essential and any break in this chain creates serious doubt about the prosecution case.

23.In view of the above discussed discrepancies and lapses, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious possession of contraband liquor in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Excise

Act. Hence, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

24. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of of A.P. Excise Act and she is acquitted under section 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds executed by Accused and her sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced before the Court. Hence, no order is passed with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1 : M.Anil Kumar Reddy. --NONE-- P.W.2 : D.Nagaraju.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 : Police proceedings, dated 28.10.2019.

Ex.P2 : First Information Report.

Ex.P3 : RFSL Report.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF ANANTHAPURAMU

CALENDAR OF CASE TRIED BY THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS AT HINDUPUR

Date of Date of Appre-Date of Date of Date of Date of offencereport or hension of released on commenceclose of sentence complaintaccusedbail-ment of trialof trialJudgment 1234567 28.10.201928.10.201928.10.201941-A Cr.P.C. 20.04.202620.04.202628.04.2026 notice Explanation of delay and remarks:- On 30.10.2023 accused is examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. During the course of trial, PW.1 and PW.2 are examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.3. On 21.04.2026, the accused is examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides. Judgment pronounced on 28.04.2026. Hence, the delay. JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NUMBER 26/2020 IN CRIME NUMBER 17332/2019 OF HINDUPUR II TOWN POLICE STATION, ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HINDUPUR.

COMPLAINANTASST.SUB-INSPECTOROFPOLICE,

HINDUPURIITOWNPOLICESTATION.

NameoftheFather’sNameReligioSex/AgeCallingVillage Mandal Accusedn Smt Mala Rani, Aged 39 years, W/o Late Ramu, Palani Nagar, Hindupur Town.

OFFENCEUnder Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act

FINDINGAccused is found not guilty.

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of of A.P. Excise Act and she is acquitted under section

SENTENCE

248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds executed by Accused and her sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/sec.437-A of Criminal Procedure Code. No property is produced before the Court. Hence, no order is passed with regard to property.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota,

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

HINDUPUR.

11

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindupur.

APAN070016192023

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

HINDUPUR

Present : Smt. Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindupur.

Wednesday, the 29 th day of April, 2026.

O.S. No. 386 of 2023.

Between:-

Smt Akkulamma W/o Eragam Reddy, Aged 50 years, R/o D.No.21/6/184, Teachers colony, Hindupur Town, Sri Sathya Sai District.

….. Plaintiff.

And

1.Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Late D.Narasimhappa, Aged 55 years, R/o D.No.2/301, Konapuram, Moda, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

2.N.Gangadhara S/o Late D.Narasimhappa, Aged 35 years, R/o D.No.2/301, Konapuram, Moda, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District.

3.N.Kumar S/o Late D.Narasimhappa, Aged 35 years, R/o D.No.2/301, Konapuram, Moda, Parigi Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. .…. Defendants.

This Suit coming on 14-11-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.Murali, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants remained set ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1. This suit is filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.5,10,790/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only), being the principal and interest due on the ‘A’ to ‘C’ marked promissory 2 notes dated 10.09.2020, 28.09.2020 and 10.10.2020 respectively, executed by the deceased D.Narasimhappa in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- each together with costs of the suit, out of the estate of

Late D.Narasimhappa lying in the hands of the defendants.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

That one D. Narasimhappa, husband of the 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, was the Kartha of their Hindu undivided joint family. During his lifetime, he borrowed amounts from the plaintiff on different occasions for legal and family necessities and executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On 10.09.2020, he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and executed ‘A’ marked promissory note, on 28.09.2020, he borrowed another sum and executed ‘B’ marked promissory note and on 10.10.2020, he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and executed the ‘C’ marked promissory note.

ii) The plaintiff further submits that the said D.Narasimhappa died without discharging the amounts due under the aforesaid promissory notes. After his death, defendants 1 to 3, being his legal representatives, succeeded to his estate and are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff submits that the debts incurred by the deceased were for legal and family necessities and are binding on the defendants, who are liable to discharge the same as legal representatives of the deceased.

iii) The plaintiff further submits that, after the death of D.

Narasimhappa, he demanded the defendants to repay the suit debt and though the defendants admitted their liability, they have been postponing payment on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff issued a legal notice

dated 05.08.2023 calling upon the defendants to discharge the debt

covered under the suit promissory notes, but the defendants failed to 3 comply. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the said amounts.

3.Despite service of summons, the defendants were called absent and no representation on their behalf. Hence, they were set ex- parte on 18.06.2024.

4.During the trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments contended in the plaint. Exs.A1 to A4 are marked which include the Original ‘A’ to ‘C’ marked promissory notes

dated 10.09.2020, 28.09.2020 and 10.10.2020 respectively and Office

copy of legal notice dated 05.08.2023.

5.The plaintiff also examined the attestor of Exs.A1 to A3-

Promissory notes as PW.2, who testified that the transactions based on

Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes took place in his presence and that the deceased D.Narasimhappa borrowed the aforementioned amount of money from the plaintiff and executed Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is; “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?”

8.As noted above, the plaintiff herself was examined as PW.1.

In her chief affidavit, she deposed that on 10.09.2020, the deceased

D.Narasimhappa borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her and executed the ‘A’ marked promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum on demand. She further stated that on 28.09.2020, the 4 deceased borrowed another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed the ‘B’ marked promissory note and again on 10.10.2020, he borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/- and executed the ‘C’ marked promissory note on similar terms. Despite repeated demands made by PW.1 during the lifetime of the deceased and thereafter to the defendants, neither the deceased nor the defendants repaid any portion of the principal or interest. The defendants, being the legal representatives of the deceased, failed to discharge the said debt.

9.PW.2, who is the attestor of Exs.A1 to A3-Promissory notes, supported the testimony of PW.1. In his chief affidavit, PW.2 deposed that the deceased D.Narasimhappa borrowed the amounts covered under

Exs.A1 to A3 on 10.09.2020, 28.09.2020 and 10.10.2020 respectively and executed the said promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff in his presence. PW.2 also corroborated that the defendants are the legal heirs of the deceased and that the estate of the deceased devolved upon them.

10.To disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendants did not choose to enter the witness box and remained ex-parte. Therefore, there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendants. The evidence of

PW.1 and PW.2, both oral and documentary, remains unchallenged. The plaintiff relied upon Exs.A1 to A4, wherein Exs.A1 to A3 are the original promissory notes and Ex.A4 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 05.08.2023. The execution of Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes is duly proved through the consistent testimony of PW.1 and the corroborative evidence of PW.2. Once the execution of the promissory notes is established, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the plaintiff that the promissory notes were supported by consideration and duly executed.

There is no material on record to disbelieve the same.

5

11.It is evident from the record that the deceased

D.Narasimhappa failed to discharge the debt covered under Exs.A1 to A3 during his lifetime. After his demise, the defendants, being his legal representatives and having succeeded to his estate, are liable to discharge the said debt to the extent of the estate inherited by them.

Since the defendants neither contested the suit nor cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remains unrebutted and uncontroverted. Accordingly, the plaintiff has successfully proved her claim.

12.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.5,10,790/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ten Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety only) to the plaintiff out of the estate of deceased

D.Narasimhappa, lying in the hands of defendants with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with a subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on total principal amounts of

Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1:- Akkulamma.NONE

PW.2:- K.Sainath.

6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1 Original ‘A’ marked promissory note executed by Late D.Narasimhappa for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff, dated 10.10.2020.

Ex.A.2 Original ‘B’ marked promissory note executed by Late D.Narasimhappa for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff, dated 28.09.2020.

Ex.A.3 Original ‘C’ marked promissory note executed by Late D.Narasimhappa for Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff, dated 10.09.2020.

Ex.A.4 Office copy of Legal notice, dated 05.08.2023.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

- Nil -

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Hindupur.

APAN070015022022

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

HINDUPUR

Present : Smt. Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindupur.

Wednesday, the 29 th day of April, 2026.

O.S. No. 526 of 2022.

Between:-

Y.Venkata Reddy S/o Y.Sandi Reddy, Doing Business, D.No.3/80A, Gangdevipalli Village, Muddanur Mandal, Cuddapha District, A.P.

….. Plaintiff.

And

P.Muralidhar Sastri S/o P.Narayana Sastri, Aged 50 years, Doing Business, D.No.5-5-4, Nanepaa Nagar, Hindupur Town, Sri Sathya Sai District. A.P. .…. Defendant.

This Suit coming on 28-04-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Siva Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant remained set Ex-parte, and the matter having stood over for consideration this day, this Court delivered the following :-

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

1. This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty-Four Thousand only), being the principal and interest due under the suit promissory note dated 05.11.2019, alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, together with costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

That the defendant, being acquainted with the plaintiff, approached him and requested a hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for his 2 business purpose. The defendant promised to execute a promissory note for the said amount agreeing to repay the same with simple interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Due to that acquaintance, the plaintiff agreed to lend the amount. Accordingly, on 05.11.2019, in the presence of witnesses, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff at his residence bearing D.No.5-5-4, Naneppa Nagar, Hindupur.

On the same day, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the said amount within a period of two years from the date of execution.

ii) It is further submitted that, despite repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay either the principal or the interest amount covered under the suit promissory note. Having been vexed by the conduct of the defendant in evading repayment and having no other alternative, the plaintiff was constrained to file the present suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant appeared through his counsel, but failed to file his written statement within the statutory period stipulated under the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, he was set ex-parte on 18.06.2024.

4.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff.

Perused the entire record.

5.Now the point for determination is that :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of entire

suit amount from defendant, as prayed for ?”

6.During the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the averments contained in the plaint. Ex.A1 is marked, which is the Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

dated 05.11.2019.

3

7.POINT:

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- under the suit promissory note dated 05.11.2019, together with subsequent interest. In order to substantiate the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and filed his proof affidavit, which has been received as his chief-examination. The said chief- examination is in line with the averments made in the plaint. The evidence of PW.1, coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 – Suit promissory note, goes to show that on 05.11.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff for his business necessities and on the same day executed Ex.A1-Suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the said debt amount.

8.Since the evidence of PW.1 and the contents of Ex.A1 have remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendant, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff, by adducing cogent evidence, has successfully established that

Ex.A1 – Suit promissory note is true, valid and binding upon the defendant. The suit is also found to have been filed within the period of limitation. Though the defendant appeared through counsel, he failed to file his written statement within the statutory period to rebut the case of the plaintiff and was set ex parte. In such circumstances, an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant, and it can be safely held that the claim of the plaintiff stands uncontroverted. Accordingly, this

Court holds that the plaintiff has proved the suit claim and is entitled to recover the suit amount. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

4

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty-Four Thousand Only) to the plaintiff with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter with a subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) under suit promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W.1:- Y.Venkata Reddy.NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A.1 Pronote, dated 05.11.2019.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division),

Hindupur.

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

Present: Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota, Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hindupur

Tuesday this the 28th day of April, 2026.

O.S.No.332 of 2019

Between:

Nese Adeppa…Plaintiff

AND V.Lakshminarayana… Defendant

Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

This case is coming on 28.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.Rajasekhar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Nagappa, Advocate for the Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Despite conditional order, plaintiff has not appeared before this court, file kept on bench till 5.00 PM. None appeared for plaintiff. This matter is coming for trial since 05.01.2023. Despite direction to plaintiff to appear personally to proceed with the case, plaintiff has not turned up. It appears that the plaintiff has lost interest in prosecuting their case.

Hence suit is dismissed for default of plaintiff. No order as to costs

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hindupur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota.

AJCJ/HDP

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), HINDUPUR

Present: Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Kota, Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindupur

E.P. No.30 of 2021

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Hindpur Vs Yarrappagari Ramesh S/O Y. Venkatesulu

Date : 06-05-2026

Business : D.Hr counsel present and filed FS memo stating that entire EP amount was received by D.Hr from J.Dr. Memo is recorded. Hence, in view of the same, this E.P. is terminated.

Sd/- Smt Lalitha Lakshmi Harika Jota.

Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hindupur.