Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao

1

FORM No.72 Calendar and Judgment District of Guntur Calendar of cases tried by the I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Guntur

Judgment in Calendar Case No.29/2018 Nature of Offence: Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Date of Judgment 20.03.2020 Offence Report ApprehensiDate of ReleasCommeClosure of Sentence of on of remande on nce-trial or order complainaccusedbail ment of ant trial 22.04.15 22.07.15------08.08.1818.12.19 20.03.2020 Explanation for the delay : The delay is due to non-appearance of accused and non-production of witnesses Complainant: M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Arundelpet, Guntur, Rep.by its authorized office Asst.M.Murali Krishna, S/o Nageswara Rao, age 30 years, R/o Guntur.

Accused : Medepudi Venkata Rama Mohana Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao age 50 years, D.No.5-134, Nehru Nagar, Bopulapadu, Hanuman junction, Krishna District. Finding: Guilty

Sentence : IN THE RESULT, the accused found guilty and convicted U/Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for Six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for another one month and the fine amount, if paid is ordered to be given to the complainant towards compensation U/sec.357 (3) of Cr.P.C after appeal time is over.

The accused is informed that he got the right of appeal and the calender and Judgment is made ready to receive the same by the accused. On perusal of record there is no remand period of the accused as such no order passed for set off Under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

N.B: Sentence is suspended till 20.04.2020. Fine/ compensation amount notpaid by the accused.

Sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Guntur. Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Guntur.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Guntur

Present : Sri M.Bhaskara Rao, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020

C.C.NO.29/2018

Between:

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Arundelpet, Guntur, Rep.by its authorized office Asst.M.Murali Krishna, S/o Nageswara Rao, age 30 years, R/o Guntur.

……..Complainant

Vs.

Medepudi Venkata Rama Mohana Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao age 50 years, D.No.5-134, Nehru Nagar, Bopulapadu, Hanuman junction, Krishna District.

……...Accused

This case is coming on 05.03.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Sarat Babu, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.Srinivasa

Rao, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This complaint is filed by the complainant against the accused under

Sec.138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is a company registered under Indian Company's Act with its registered office at No.123, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai and one of its branch at Arundelpet, Guntur. The complainant provided financial assistance of Rs.25,00,000/- for business purpose to the accused on 30.01.2013 as per terms and conditions of the Trade Finance agreement bearing No.GUNBRTF1301300012. The accused executed all relevant documents in the name of the complainant company. The accused has to 3 repay the loan amount with agreed interest in 60 equal monthly installments of Rs.78,125/- each. But the accused did not pay the above said monthly installments regularly and committed default, inspite of repeated demands made by the complainant's officers. As such upon filing an arbitration case against the accused before the Hon'ble Arbitrator, the accused came to the complainant's office and issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.38,00,000/- bearing No.000249, dt.22.04.2015 drawn on

Indian bank, Narasimharaopet, West Godavari District in favour of complainant towards payment of the complainant's loan account. The complainant presented the said cheque before its banker i.e., City Union

Bank Ltd., Arundelpet, Guntur for collection. But the same was dishonored by the accused banker and returned the same along with memo dt.12.05.2015 with an endorsement “Drawers signature differs”. The complainant banker informed the same to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant personally informed the same to the accused and demanded for payment of the cheque amount, but the accused failed to pay the same.

Thereafter, the complainant got issued a Regd.legal notice dt.08.06.2015 through their advocate demanding the accused for payment of the amount covered by the said cheque. There was no response as to the service of said notice on the accused from the postal department. As can be seen from the Internet copy drawn from India post site dt.13.07.2015, the notice was delivered on 15.06.2015. But the accused did not chose to pay the amount. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished U/Sec.138 of N.I Act.

Thus the accused issued the cheque without keeping the funds in the account of the accused account for payment of legally enforceable debt and thereby committed an offence punishable U/Sec.138 of N.I Act as well as U/Sec.420 of IPC. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned V Additional Junior civil judge, Guntur has taken on file of the complaint against the accused U/Sec.138 of N.I Act and numbered as C.C.136/2017 and issued summons to the accused and after appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of complaint and documents filed and thereafter C.C.No:136/2017 transferred to this court as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Prl.District Judge, Guntur in Dis.No.2172 dt.02.04.2018 and the same is renumbered as C.C.29/2018 and thereafter the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C, for the offence U/Sec.138 of

N.I Act and the allegations made by the complainant against the accused were read over and explained to him and the accused denied the same and 4 claimed to try the offence.

4.During the course of trial, the complainant examined as P.W.1 and

Exs.P1 to P7 are marked on his behalf.

5.After closure of the complainant evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence against the accused has been read over and explained to him and he denied the same and reported for defense evidence and inspite of several opportunities not chosen to adduce any evidence and reported no defense evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the complainant has made out his case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by satisfying all the ingredients of the offence?

POINT:

8.To prove the offence under Sec.138 of NI Act, the following aspects have to be considered:

(1) Whether there is legally enforceable debt between the complainant and accused; (2) Whether the accused has issued cheque in favour of complainant towards discharge of enforceable debt; (3) Whether the cheque has been dishonored when presented for any of the reasons provided U/Sec.138 of N.I Act.

(4) Whether the complainant has issued legal notice within 30 days from the date of dishonor of the cheque; (5) Whether the accused has to pay the amount due under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of legal notice.

9.In order to establish his case the complainant examined himself as

P.W.1 and Ex.P1 to P7 marked who reiterated the averments of compliant in his chief affidavit with regard to he is authorized employee of the 5 complainant company company as such he knows the facts of the case and representing the complainants company. P.W.1 further stated that company provided financial assistance to the accused for business purpose. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement their company has sanctioned a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- to the accused on 30.01.2013 under agreement

No.GUNBRTF1301300012 and the accused executed all relevant document in the name of their company along with the guarantors and in terms of which the accused agreed to repay the loan in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.78,125/- with interest. Subsequently the accused committed willful default in payment of the loan amount and their company asked many times to repay the due amount but the accused did not repay the said amount and postponing the same one pretext and other. Therefore their company filed Arbitration case before the sole arbitrator against the accused and others for recovery of the debt amount. Meanwhile the accused came to their office and issued cheque bearing No.000249 dt.22.04.2015 drawn on Indian Bank,Narasimharaopet, West Godavari for

Rs.38,00,000/- towards part payment of the above said loan to their company. Subsequently the siad cheque was presented by their company for collection through its banker City Union Bank Ltd., Arundelpet at Guntur but the said cheque was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement that “Drawers signature differs” and subsequently informed the same to the accused but the accused failed to pay the said cheque amount.

Subsequently their company got issued Regd.legal notice dt.08.06.2015 demanding the accused for payment of the amount covered by the said cheque and the said notice delivered to the accused on 15.06.2015 but the accused kept quiet. Hence the accused is liable to punished U/Sec.138 of

N.I Act and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1 is the Certificate of the incorporation, Ex.P2 is the Certified copy of authorization, Ex.P3 is the

Original cheque bearing No.000249 dt.22.04.2015, Ex.P4 is the Original memo issued by city union bank ltd., dt.12.05.2015, Ex.P5 is the Office copy of Regd.notice dt.08.06.2015, Ex.P6 is the Proof of delivery of the notice on the accused as per the India post Internet copy dt.13.07.2015 and Ex.P7 is the Computerized account copy.

10.Coming to the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that the company did not give directly authorization to him. He has not filed any board of resolutions with regard to one I.V.Prasad who is the authorized executive of the complainant firm. He is not signatory by the date of complaint as such 6 he does not know the facts of the complaint. They filed the complaint as the accused indebted to the company as the accused obtained business loan from the company. P.W.1 admitted that loan amount is Rs.25,00,000/- and accused paid an amount of Rs.8,83,330/- to the company. He has not filed the documents before the court as filed the same before the arbitrator.

He has not filed arbitration proceeding and case number and its amount

before the court. He has not filed any document to show the enforceable

debt under Ex.P3 cheque amount. The cheque returned under Ex.P4 with an endorsement signature differs. The company obtained post dated cheques from the accused at the time of obtaining loan. There is no bank manager signature on Ex.P4 and endorsement about the return of the cheque as computer generated copy signature not requires. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the complaint is not maintainable as complainant obtained post dated cheques against the guidelines of R.B.I. P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that the complainant did not issue the notice to the accused after dishonour of cheque, with this it is clear that the accused approached the complainant and obtained the loan from the complainant company and the complainant company obtained post dated cheques from the accused at the time of business loan even as per the version of the accused as such it is to be explained by the accused why the complaint is not maintainable for non filing of the loan documents of the accused with the complainant company to show the legally enforceable debt or liability when the accused not chosen to deny the loan transaction with the complainant company and the accused not chosen to deny the arbitration proceedings and when the complainant filed the Ex.P7 account copy showing the accused balance loan amount towards liability under Ex.P3 cheque. It is to be explained by the accused why he did not issue the reply notice to the Ex.P5 notice in support of the contention of the accused when as per Ex.P6 the said notice was delivered on 15.06.2010 but the accused failed to do so.

11. In view of the above, it is settled position of law that the accused need not enter the witness box in support of his case rather he can rely the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or he can make use of the documents filed by the complainant by showing the preponderance of possibilities in order to prove his contention and to rebut the presumption

U/Sec.118 and 139 of NI Act. The accused not entered the witness box but the learned counsel for the accused cross examined the P.W.1.

7

12.In view of the above, the accused contending that he did not receive the Ex.P5 legal notice before the complaint but Ex.P6 clearly shows that the

Ex.P5 legal notice served on the accused on 15.06.2015 but the accused not chosen to give any reply to the complainant company in support of his contention. The accused further contending that the complainant is not properly authorized and no resolution filed as such complaint is not maintainable but the complainant filed the Ex.P2 authorization which clearly shows the as per the terms of provisions of the Board resolutions dt.22.06.2010 authorization given by the authorized executive V.Prasad to

M.Ravindra Babu to represent the company as such mere non filing of the board of resolution not fatal to the case of prosecution. It is further contended by the accused that the complainant not filed the documents to show the legally enforceable debt or liability of the accused and the complainant obtained the post dated cheques from accused against the guidelines of R.B.I and the accused not issued the Ex.P3 cheque to the complainant company towards part payment of loan amount as such the cheque was returned with the endorsement as Drawers signature differs but during cross examination P.W.1 deposed that he has not filed the documents before the court as filed the said documents before the arbitrator. Loan amount is Rs.25,00,000/- and accused paid an amount of

Rs.8,83,330/- to the company. But the accused not chosen to deny the said loan transaction of Rs.25,00,000/- and repayment of Rs.8,83,330/- and the accused even not chosen to deny the arbitration case proceedings against him. Moreover the accused also not chosen to deny the Ex.P7 computarized account copy showing his legally enforceable debt or liability towards his loan transactions to show the preponderance of probabilities if Ex.P3 cheque used by the complainant for any wrongful gain as such the contention of the accused about the complaint is not maintainable for non filing of the documents by the complainant to show the legally enforceable debt or liability of accused is not tenable under law. Further more the accused not denying the handover of the post dated cheques to the complainant company but the accused denying issuance of Ex.P3 cheque to the complainant company towards part payment of loan amount as such the said Ex.P3 cheque dishonoured with endorsement as drawers signature differs but the accused not chosen to give reply notice to the complainant to show the bonafidies in support of his contention but contending as the accused not received the said Ex.P5 legal notice where Ex.P6 clearly shows 8 the serving of Ex.P5 legal notice on 15.06.2015 which clearly shows the contention of the accused is not trustworthy and the accused failed to prove his contention and failed to show the preponderance of probabilities in support of his contention.

13. In view of the above discussion, this court finds that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Sec.139 of NI Act. The accused also failed to prove his contention and show the preponderance of probabilities in support of his contention. On the other hand the evidence of P.W.1 along with Ex.P1 to P7 clearly established that the accused issued Ex.P3 cheque to the complainant towards part payment of the loan amount which is dishnoured with endorsement of Drawers signature differs. Thereby, the accused committed the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act. The complainant able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly the accused is liable for punishment.

14.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly the accused is convicted U/s.255(2) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Guntur When questioned about quantum of sentence, the accused submitted that he is old aged person and he is suffering with B.P and sugar and he is having old aged mother and she depends upon him and he has to look after the welfare of his mother and prays to take lenient view.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence since the offence is an economic offence as such this court is not invoke the provision of Sec.360 Cr.P.C.

Having heard the submission of the accused and in view of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex court from time to tome that no lenient view by taken in the case U/Sec.138 of N.I Act, this court is not inclined to take any lenient view but this court feels that the following sentence would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment 9 for Six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.38,00,000/- (Rupees thirty eight lakhs only) and in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for another one month and the fine amount, if paid is ordered to be given to the complainant towards compensation

U/sec.357 (3) of Cr.P.C after appeal time is over.

The accused is informed that he got the right of appeal and the calender and Judgment is made ready to receive the same by the accused.

On perusal of record there is no remand period of the accused as such no order passed for set off Under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Guntur.*

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Complainant : For accused:

P.W.1 : P.Ravindra babu Nil

Exhibits marked

For Complainant:

Ex.P1 : Certificate of the incorporation

Ex.P2 : Certified copy of authorization

Ex.P3 : Original cheque bearing No.000249 dt.22.04.2015

Ex.P4 : Original memo issued by city union bank ltd., dt.12.05.2015

Ex.P5 : Office copy of Regd.notice dt.08.06.2015

Ex.P6 : Proof of delivery of the notice on the accused as per the India post

Internet copy dt.13.07.2015

Ex.P7 : Computerized account copy.

For accused: Nil

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -cum-

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Guntur.*

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT :

GUNTUR

PRESENT: - Sri M.Bhaskara rao, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday On this the 19th day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 557/2018

Between:

Konda Rama Chandra Reddy S/o Konda Rama Koti Reddy, age 37 years, R/o Reddypalem, Guntur. … Plaintiff. −And -

Tiyyagura Veera Reddy S/o Sankar Reddy, age 33 years, business, R/o Near Poleramma temple Reddypalem, Guntur. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 10.03.2020 in the presence of Sri C.Raghurami Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri

M.V.Subba Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Suit filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.8,11,133/- being the amount of principal and interest due on two promissory notes and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.04.2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note A-marked at Reddypalem on the even date for the said amount in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest 2 @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Again the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.05.2016 for his family expenses and executed B-marked promissory note at Reddypalem on the even date for the said amount in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands of the plaintiff, the defendant did not chose to pay the debts amounts as such the plaintiff constrained to issue legal notice on 19.10.2018 but the defendant failed to respond. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the most of the allegations of the plaint and submitted that he never borrowed any amount at any point of time from the plaintiff and he never executed the alleged suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. There is no necessity to the defendant to borrow money from the plaintiff or from any others. There is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as creditor and debtor in respect of the alleged suit promissory notes. Moreover, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amounts. There are some disputes in the villages and due to that the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and searching ways and means to harass the defendant and in that juncture, the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant and brought into existence of the alleged suit promissory notes with the help of his henchmen with a malafide intention to harass the defendant and to squeeze money from him. No consideration was passed by the plaintiff and not received by the defendant under the alleged suit promissory 3 notes. The defendant further submitted that the defendant did not sign on any alleged suit promissory notes or any other documents in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged suit promissory notes are concocted one and the suit is not maintainable on the basis of the alleged suit promissory notes and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of forgery. The defendant has no connection or association with the plaintiff and in any event the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious.

Hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

04. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit promissory note are true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

05.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on his behalf and the attestor of the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes was examined as P.W.2 and the scribe of the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes was examined as P.W.3 on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

06. Heard plaintiff. Inspite of several opportunities the defendant counsel not come forward to submit his arguments. Hence the defendant arguments treated as heard.

4

ISSUES 1 & 2:

07.In order to establish his case the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked who deposed in his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint with regard to the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him on 12.04.2016 for his family expenses and executed A-marked promissory note at

Reddypalem on the even date for the said amount in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to him or to his order on demand. Again the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from him on 03.05.2016 for his family expenses and executed B-marked promissory note at Reddypalem on the even date for the said amount in his favour and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to him or his order on demand. Inspite of his repeated demands, the defendant did not choose to pay the debts amount. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge of the debts, but the defendant not respond. Hence he filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount along with subsequent interest.

8.Coming to the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that he know the defendant as he is his neighbour. Defendant is doing paint work. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- from him under two promissory notes on 12.04.2016 and 03.05.2016 at 8.00 a.m., to 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 further admitted that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 transactions took place at his house. At the time of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 one

K.Raju, Ch.Prakash Reddy , K.Siva Koteswara Rao, himself and defendant are present. He filed the suit for recovery of an amount Rs.8,00,000/-.

5

He gave the amount to the defendant out of the amount secured by him by bank loan. He can file the documents for bank loan. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 filled with Telugu language. Scribe signed with signature in English. The attestor Raju and Prakash Reddy not his relatives. Prakas signed in

Telugh. P.W.1 further admitted that he has not observed the variation of the signatures in his presence. But the defendant signed the signatures in his presence. Even though cross examined nothing material facts elicited to disbelieve the version of P.W.1 with regard to execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes. The defendant failed to cross examine the P.W.1 about the disputes between the P.W.1 and defendant in support of the contention of the defendant due to disputes between the P.W.1 and defendant, the P.W.1 forged the signatures of defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes.

9.In order to corroborate his evidence, the plaintiff examined the attestor of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes as P.W.2 who deposed in his chief affidavit with regard to he knows the plaintiff and defendant.

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.04.2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at Guntur on the even date for the said amount in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand. The defendant again borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff on 03.05.2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at Guntur on the even date for the said amount in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand. In his 6 presence the above said transactions took place he attested the above said promissory notes and signed his signature on witness column of the above said promissory notes. The above said promissory notes were attested along with him by one Ch.Prakash Reddy and scribed by

K.Shiva Koteswara Rao. The entire transaction took place at the house of the plaintiff.

10.Coming to cross-examination P.W.2 admitted that the plaintiff is his friend and resident of his village. The defendant called him to act as witness. The defendant borrowed on 12.04.2016 and 03.05.2016 and the plaintiff gave the said amount from his savings. He knows the defendant and he is doing mason work along with him. There is no personal disputes between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant put his signature in English. One Prakash Reddy signed in Telugu. The plaintiff gave the amount in cash with denomination of Rs.500/- notes.

The Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 transaction took place at plaintiff's house. one Siva

Koteswara Rao scribed the promissory note. P.W.2 further admitted that

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 writings are appears with different. He does not know about the another case filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff know the defendant as both are residents of his village. Even though cross examined nothing was elicited to disbelieve the version of P.W.2 with regard to execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes.

The evidence of P.W.2 corroborated with evidence of P.W.1 in all material aspects with regard to execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration to defendant under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes.

7

11.In order to corroborate his evidence, the plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory note as P.W.3 who deposed in his chief affidavit with regard to he knows the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.04.2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at

Guntur on the even date for the said amount in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand. The defendant again borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- from plaintiff on 03.05.2016 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note at Guntur on the even date for the said amount in favour of plaintiff and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24 % p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand and in his presence the above said transactions took place and he scribed the above said promissory notes and signed his signature on scribed column of the above said promissory notes. The above said promissory notes were attested by one K.Raju and K.Shiva Koteswara Rao. The entire transaction took place at the house of the plaintiff.

12.Coming to cross-examination P.W.3 admitted that Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 scribed by him. His signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 appears different with his signatures on his chief affidavit. He is doing tailoring and he knows the plaintiff as plaintiff is his customer. He knows the defendant. The defendant borrowed amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.05.2016. P.W.3 admitted that there is over writing on Ex.A2 at execution with consent. The Ex.A1 transaction at the plaintiff house at about 9.00 to 9.30 a.m., the defendant called him for scribing the promissory note. At the time of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 himself, plaintiff and 8 defendant and one Raju, Ch.Prakash Reddy are present. Prakash Reddy acted as attestor. The defendant working as Manson. He cannot say the difference about the signatures of defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and stated that there is difference appearance on signatures on the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The plaintiff gave amount in cash and he cannot say the denomination. P.W.3 admitted that he does not know about the source of amount. Even though cross examined nothing was elicited to disbelieve the version of P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.3 corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in all material aspects with regard to place of transaction and presence of attestors and execution of promissory notes by the defendant and receiving of the consideration amount by the defendant under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes.

13. In order to prove his contention the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 who deposed in his chief affidavit in the same lines of the written statement with regard to he never borrowed any amount at any point of time from the plaintiff and he never executed the alleged suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. There is no necessity to him to borrow money from the plaintiff or from any others. There is no relationship between the plaintiff and him as creditor and debtor in respect of the alleged suit promissory notes. Moreover, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amounts. There are some disputes in the villages and due to that the plaintiff developed grudge against him and searching ways and means to harass him. In that juncture, the plaintiff forged his signature and brought into existence of the alleged suit promissory notes with the help of his henchmen with a malafide intention to harassment him and to squeeze money from him. No 9 consideration was passed by the plaintiff and not received by him under the alleged suit promissory notes. He further stated that he did not sign on any alleged suit promissory notes or any other documents in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged suit promissory notes are concocted one and the suit is not maintainable on the basis of the alleged suit promissory notes and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of forgery. He has no connection or association with the plaintiff. No notice was served to him and in any event the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious.

14.Coming to cross examination D.W.1 admitted that he is resident of

Reddypalem village. Plaintiff is resident of his village. He does not know the plaintiff. D.W.1 stated that the signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 not belongs to him. Even though the defendant denying his signatures on

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes and contending the plaintiff forged his signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 due to disputes of the plaintiff with the defendant but the counsel for the defendant failed to elicit anything with regard to the disputes of the plaintiff and defendant during the cross of P.W.1. Moreover the defendant not chosen to take any steps to show that the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 not belongs to him. The defendant even not chosen to file his contemporary signatures for comparison of the court U/Sec.73 of Evidence Act in support of his contention about the signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes not belongs to him and forged by the plaintiff. On perusal of the signatures of the defendant on his written statement, chief affidavit and vakalath tallies with the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes by comparison of the court U/Sec.73 of Evidence Act.

10

15. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W.3 corroborated in material aspects and clearly established the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes by defendant in favour of the plaintiff and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes to the defendant. The defendant failed to prove his contention of due to disputes between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff forged his signatures on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Hence this court finds that the plaintiff proved the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes are true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on defendant as such the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly Issue No.1 and 2 answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3 :

16. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant for sum of Rs.8,11,133/- with subsequent interest @ 12% pa from the date of filling of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on Principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-. (Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.3,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2020.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

11

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : K.Rama Chandra ReddyD.W.1 : T.Veera Reddy

P.W.2 : K.Raju

P.W.3 : K.Shiva Koteswara Rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : A marked promissory note, dt.12.04.2016

Ex.A2 : B marked promissory note, dt.03.05.2016

Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt, dt.19.10.2018

For Defendant: Nil

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. *

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT :

GUNTUR

PRESENT: - Sri M.Bhaskara rao, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Monday On this the 23rd day of March, 2020

Original Suit No. 648/2016

Between:

Kondamadugula Ratna Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy, age 40 years, business, R/o D.No.4-22-77, 4th lane, Gouthami Nagar, Guntur. … Plaintiff. −And -

Talluri Venkaiah S/o Pitchaiah, employee, D.No.15-96, Vengalayapalem village, Guntur Mandal & District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 16.03.2020 in the presence of Sri S.Subba Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri

N.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the defendant and after perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Suit filed for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being the amount of principal and interest due on promissory note and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

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

The plaintiff submitted that on 15.11.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintiff towards his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a on yearly rests either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Guntur. Inspite of 2 repeated demands of plaintiff both oral and otherwise the defendant did not chose to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory note and the defendant has been dragging matter on one pretext or the other by making empty promises. The plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.18.08.2016 to the defendant through registered post demanding him to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note and the defendant received the same on 19.08.2016 and did not chose to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. The plaintiff could wait with a fond hope that the defendant will discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said suit promissory note but all the attempts made by the plaintiff proved futile. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the most of the allegations of the plaint and submitted that there was no occasion for the defendant to borrow such huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff towards his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on 15.11.2015. Further there is no necessity for the defendant to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff. The defendant further submitted that the plaintiff is a money lender and he does not have license to give loans to the public and he used to give money to the employees in GMC (Guntur Municipal Corporation ) and used to obtain pronotes from the employees in GMC. The defendant further submitted that the suit pronote is a rank forgery and to grab huge amount from the defendant illegally the plaintiff forged the suit pronote and brought it into existence and filed the suit. There are no dates under the signature of the defendant, two attestors and the 3 scribe. The defendant has no acquaintance with the scribe and the attestors and he does not know them at any point of time. The defendant did not receive any kind of legal notice from the plaintiff at any point of time. The defendant reserves his right to send the pronote to the handwriting expert to prove that the signature on suit pronote is a rank forgery. Hence the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

04. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial:

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

05.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked on his behalf. The plaintiff filed the chief affidavit of scribe of the Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2 but subsequently P.W.2 not come forward for confirmation and cross examination as such the evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on his behalf but subsequently D.W.1 not chosen to appear before court for cross examination as such D.W.1 evidence eschewed.

06. Heard plaintiff. Inspite of opportunities the defendant counsel not come forward to submit his arguments. Hence the defendant arguments treated as heard.

4

ISSUES 1 & 2:

07.In order to establish his case the plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked who deposed in his chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint with regard to on 15.11.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him towards his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of him on the even date agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a on yearly rests either to him or to his order on demand at Guntur. Shaik

Mansoor and J.Srinivasa Rao are attestors and J.Samabaiah is the scribe of above said promissory note. Subsequently inspite of his repeated demands both oral and otherwise the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt due to him under the above said promissory note and the defendant dragging the matter on one pretext or the other by making empty promises. He got issued legal notice dt.18.08.2016 to the defendant through registered post demanding him to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note and the defendant received the same on 19.08.2016 and did not chose to discharge the debt due to him under the suit promissory note and all the attempts made by him proved futile as such he filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit amount with subsequent interest.

8.Coming to the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that the defendant is working as a watchman in Municipal corporation. He is having licenses to conduct the money lending business but he has not filed the same before the court. The defendant salary is of Rs.25,000/- 5 to Rs.35,000/- and borrowed amount for family expenses. He has not asked the defendant for borrowing purpose of huge amount. He further stated that news item was published in news paper that he has been lending money to the public at higher rate of interest and harassing the people. He further admitted that he knows one Suneetha who is employee in Guntur Municipal corporation. The said Suneetha also borrowed the amount from him and executed promissory note. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the said at the time of borrowing of amount by Suneetha from him, the defendant signed on white papers in the capacity of surety and by observing signatures of the defendant on the said white papers the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant on

Ex.A1 promissory note, with this it is to be explained by the defendant about the inconsistent plea of surety and forgery with regard to the contention of the defendant in his written statement about the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 promissory note without attributing any reasons about the purpose of forging the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 promissory note by the plaintiff but the defendant failed to explain the same.

9.In order to corroborate his evidence, the plaintiff filed the chief affidavit of the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2 who deposed in the same lines of his chief affidavit with regard to he knows the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.11.2015 towards his family expenses agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Guntur. Sk.Mansoor and

J.Srinivasa Rao are attestors and himself is the scribe of above said 6 promissory note. The entire transaction took place in his presence but the P.W.2 not chosen to appear before the court for confirmation and cross examination as such the evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed.

10. In order to prove his contention the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 who deposed in his chief affidavit in the same lines of the written statement with regard to the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant by forging the suit promissory note to grab huge amount from him. He further stated that the plaintiff has been doing money lending business and recently a case was registered against him and the police authorities filed a criminal case against the plaintiff as he has been conducting money lending business without any kind of license. He has not received any kind of legal notice from the plaintiff. He further stated that the plaintiff never demanded him to pay the amount said to have been received by him. There was no occassion to him to execute any kind of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and to borrow such huge suit amount from the plaintiff for the purpose of alleged family expenses. But the defendant not chosen to enter the witness box for cross examination as such the evidence of D.W.1 is eschewed. Moreover the defendant not taken any steps to prove that the plaintiff forged his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note for wrongful gain. The defendant even not chosen to file his contemporary signatures before the court for comparison U/Sec.73 of Evidence Act to show the bonafidies in support of his contention about the plaintiff forged his signature on Ex.A1 promissory note for wrongful gain. Further more the defendant not chosen to enter the witness box for the purpose of facing cross examination in support of his contention to show the signature on Ex.A1 7 promissory note not belongs to him which clearly shows that the contention of the defendant about the plaintiff forged his signature on

Ex.A1 promissory note is not trustworthy and the defendant failed to prove his contention.

11. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of P.W-1 along with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly established the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 promissory note to the defendant and the defendant failed to prove his contention of forgery for wrongful gain.

Hence this court finds that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on defendant as such the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly Issue No.1 and 2 answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3 :

12. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendant for sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% pa from the date of filling of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on Principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

8

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : K.Ratna ReddyD.W.1 : T.Venkaiah (eschewed)

P.W.2 : J.Sambaiah (eschewed)

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dt.15.11.2015 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice with postal receipt, dt.18.08.2016

Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgments of defendant, dt.19.08.2016

For Defendant: Nil

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR. * 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR

Present: Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, B.A., B.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 19th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 587/2019

Between:

Chittepu Siva Koti Reddy S/o Gopi Reddy, age 40 years, business, R/o D.No.4-22-44, 7th lane, Mutylareddy Nagar,

Guntur.

... Plaintiff

and

Eesa Venkateswarlu S/o Kondaiah, employee,

C/o John Paster house, 2nd line Ankamma Nagar,

Kankaragunta gate, Guntur.

... Defendant

This suit is coming on 11.03.2020 for final hearing before this court in the presence of Sri S.Subba Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant was set-exparte and having stood over for consideration and having perusal the material and other circumstances available on record, till this day this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is suit filed for recovery of Rs.4,29,000/- being principal and interest due on promissory note dt.15.05.2016

2.In brief the averments of the plaint are that :

The plaintiff submitted that on 15.05.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a on annual compound rate either to the plaintiff or to his order 2 on demand at Guntur. Inspite of plaintiff's repeated demands and visits, the defendant did not chose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory note and the defendant has been dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. That at last on legal action proposals of plaintiff, the defendant approached the plaintiff and issued a cheque bearing NO.604897 for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.25.09.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Pattabhipuram branch, Guntur in the name of plaintiff towards part payment of the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory note, making the plaintiff to believe that the said cheque will be honoured on due presentation and on due presentation of the above said cheque by the plaintiff in his banker i.e., Canara bank,

Guntur for encashment to the utmost astonishment of plaintiff, the said cheque dishonoured on 03.10.2016 with an endorsement of “Funds

Insufficient” through the defendant banker and the plaintiff got issued a

Registered statutory legal notice dt.13.12.2016 to the defendant and the defendant received the same on 14.12.2016 and the defendant did not chose to comply the demands of plaintiff and having no other go the plaintiff filed C.C.163/2018 on the file of IV AMM, Guntur U/Sec.138 of N.I

Act against the defendant and the same is pending. The plaintiff further submitted that he could wait all these days with a fond hope that the defendant will discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory note. But all the attempts made by the plaintiff proved futile. The better counsels and best mediations of the plaintiff became futile. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount along with interest. Hence the suit.

3.On 07.11.2019 written statement not filed. Costs not paid. No representation. Defendant called absent. Hence the defendant set 3 exparte.

4.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and

Ex.A.1 is marked.

5.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

POINT:

7.P.W.1- Chittepu Siva Koti Reddy deposed in his chief-affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint with regard to on 15.05.2016 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting his family expenses and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 24% p.a on annual compound rate either to him or to his order on demand at Guntur. D.Guravaiah and B.Srinivasa

Rao are attestors and P.Nageswara Reddy is the scribe of above said promissory note. Inspite of his repeated demands and visits, the defendant did not chose to repay the amount due to P.W.1 under the above said promissory note and the defendant has been dragging the matter on one pretext or the other. That at last on legal action proposals of P.W.1, the defendant approached him and issued a cheque bearing

NO.604897 for Rs.2,00,000/- dt.25.09.2016 drawn on Andhra Bank,

Pattabhipuram branch, Guntur in favour of him towards part payment of 4 the debt due to the P.W.1 under the above said promissory note, making the P.W.1 to believe that the said cheque will be honoured on due presentation and on due presentation of the above said cheque by the plaintiff in his banker i.e., Canara bank, Guntur for encashment to the utmost astonishment of plaintiff, the said cheque dishonoured on 03.10.2016 with an endorsement of “Funds Insufficient” through the defendant banker and the P.W.1 got issued a Registered statutory legal notice dt.13.12.2016 to the defendant and the defendant received the same on 14.12.2016 and the defendant did not chose to comply the demands of P.W.1 and having no other go the P.W.1 filed C.C.163/2018 on the file of IV AMM, Guntur U/Sec.138 of N.I Act against the defendant and the same is pending. The plaintiff further submitted that he could wait all these days with a fond hope that the defendant will discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory note. But all the attempts made by the P.W.1 proved futile. The better counsels and best mediations of the P.W.1 became futile. Hence the P.W.1 constrained to file the present suit against the defendant for recovery of suit amount along with interest.

8.The defendant not chosen to file written statement and contest the matter and the defendant remained exparte. So, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unchallenged and unrebutted. The evidence of PW.1 strengthen the contents of Ex.A.1. Thus, this court has no hesitation to say that the defendant is under obligation to discharge the said suit debt as prayed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of decree as prayed for.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of 5

Rs.4,29,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by this court in Open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

F or Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1 : Chittepu Siva Koti Reddy -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dt.15.05.2016 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/-.

For Defendant: --Nil--.

Sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE , GUNTUR.

Present : Sri. M. Bhaskara Rao, B.A., B.L., I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 20th day of March, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 142/2020

Between:

Chirumamilla Gopi Krishna S/o Rama Rao, age 35 years,

Agriculture, R/o Chebrolu village and Mandal, Guntur District.

… Plaintiff.

- And -

Gudibandi Sunitha W/o Srinivasa Reddy,

O/o Durga Sri Beauty palace A/c, upstairs of Jacky showroom, Main road, Near Swami Vivekananda statue,

Pattabipuram, Guntur.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 12.03.2020 in the presence of Sri B.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and after perusing the material available on record, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,03,000/-, being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 17.03.2019 executed by the

defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/-, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interest and for costs.

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

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.03.2019 for business necessities and executed on the even date a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at

Chebrolu, agreeing to repay the above said amount with interest @ 24% p.a either 2 to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators to repay the above said promissory note debt amount due by the defendant, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or other. The plaintiff vexed with the attitude of the defendant and having no other go, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit. Hence the suit.

3.On 06.03.2020 the defendant called absent. No representation.

Service held sufficient. Hence defendant set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 marked on his behalf and one P.Ravi Sankar scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as P.W.2 on behalf of the plaintiff.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for? ”

POINT:

7.P.W.1- Ch.Gopi Krishna who is plaintiff deposed in his chief- affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint with regard to the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 17.03.2019 for the purpose of business necessities and executed on the even date Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour at

Chebrolu agreeing to repay the above said amount with interest @ 24% p.a either to him or his order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by him personally and through mediators to repay the above said promissory note debt amount due by the defendant, the defendant postponed the same on one pretext or other. P.W.1 vexed with the attitude of the defendant and there is no other go to him, he constrained to file the suit.

3

8.In order to corroborate his evidence the plaintiff examined the scribe of

Ex.A1 promissory note was examined as P.W.2 who deposed in her chief affidavit with regard to the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 17.03.2019 for the purpose of her business necessities at Chebrolu village and executed on the even date promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and agreeing to repay the above said amount with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. He is scribe of the Ex.A1 promissory note and

One P.Nagi Reddy and K.Murali Krishna are the attestors of the Ex.A1 promissory note.

9.The entire case of the plaintiff is on the strength of promissory note under

Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it reveals that on 17.03.2019 the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. Further, the Ex.A1 pronote contains one Revenue stamp on which the defendant subscribed her signature in English and underneath the

Revenue stamp in English language. The defendant failed to appear before court and file her written statement to purtforth her case and to disprove the case of the plaintiff but remained exparte. Needless to state, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the defendant had borrowed the amount and executed the promissory note. Once the execution is established, it has to be presumed under

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that consideration is passed thereunder. But the defendant remained exparte and the testimony of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted and this court finds that no reason to disbelieve the same. The suit is filed within the period of limitation and has been proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. There is no reason to doubt the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A1. The law requires only quality of evidence but not quantum of evidence. Thus, it is held that the plaintiff has proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by defendant. Hence, an adverse inference can safely be drawn against the defendant. Accordingly, the suit is decreed with 4 costs, as the defendant made the plaintiff to file the suit for his lawful right to recover the suit amount.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,03,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.

from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : Ch.Gopi Krishna Exparte.

P.W.2 : P.Ravi Sankar

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Original suit promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.17.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

For Defendant:- Nil -.

sd/- M.Bhaskara Rao,

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.