Currently Serving

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula

Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula · Kadapa · Andhra Pradesh

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula, is posted at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,690 court orders on record since 2024. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,690

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/31/2023 Acquitted

SHO Simhadripuram PS vs Mopuru Vinay Kumar Reddy and 3 others

28 Feb 2025

C.C.No.31 of 20231 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PULIVENDULA.

Present: M.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula.

Friday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.31/2023

Between:

State through the SubInspector of Police, Simhadripuram PS. … Complainant.

Versus

1. Mopuru Vinay Kumar Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, aged about 32 years, Resident of D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R Colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

2. Mopuru Narayana Reddy, aged about 68 years, S/o Konda Reddy, resident of D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

3. Mopuru Lakshmi Devi, W/o Narayana Reddy, Resident D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

4. Mopuru Mounika, W/o Y.V. Mourya Vardhan Reddy, D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal. …. Accused No.1 to 4.

oo0oo

This case is coming before me on 25.02.2025 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G.Parameswar

Advocate for Accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SubInspector of Police, Simhadripuram Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.62/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 13.03.2020 the parents of PW.1 solemnized her marriage with

A1 as per Hindu rites and customs. As per the demand of A1 to A3, the parents of PW.1 presented 65 thulas of Gold, 3 lakhs cash towards dowry. After the marriage they had lead marital life at Proddatur town with her husband,

C.C.No.31 of 20232 JMFC,PULIVENDULA father inlaw and motherinlaw. At the time of marriage, the inlaws of PW.1 informed that her husband studied B.Tech. In fact her husband did not study

B.Tech. After the marriage P.W.1 came to know about not completion of B.Tech by her husband. After two months of marriage pregnancy was confirmed to

P.W1 and went to check up to Gotham Hospital, Proddatur and Doctor advised to take bed rest not to travel. But her husband A1, fatherinlaw and mother inlaw forcibly sent P.W.1 to her parental house. Due to which Ummu water was leak. Then immediately P.W.1 had visited Gotham hospital Proddatur town on 09.11.2020 and after scizarin the doctor informed that due to consuming of excess of ummu water baby was dead. For getting abortion her husband and in laws are responsible but they are blaming P.W.1 and harassing by physically and mentally and humiliated that they are unnecessarily married P.W.1 that they will marry with other they will get huge dowry and also demanded to get

additional cash and gold from her parents otherwise they did not allow her into

the house to lead marital life. Further her sisterinlaw/A4 instigated A1 to A3 with false allegations and used to beat PW.1. A1 to A4 harassed PW.1 for

additional dowry by physically, mentally and humiliated that they are

unnecessarily married PW.1. On 15.9.2022 PW.1 husband was kicked with legs, beaten with hands and pressed her neck. On 14.10.2022 PW.1 had visited the police station and preferred complaint with a request to take necessary action against her husband/A1.

Basing on the strength of report of PW.1, L.W.6/D.Sunil Kumar Reddy registered the same as Cr.No.62/2022 U/sec. 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act of Simhadripuram P.S. During the course of investigation on 20.10.2022 LW.6/SI of police served 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice to A1 to A3. Thus, the accused are liable to be punished U/Sec.498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of

D.P. Act. Hence, the charge.

C.C.No.31 of 20233 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under section 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of D.P.Act, against the accused A1 to A4.

4. On appearance of accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed under sections 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and the contents of charges read over and explained to accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW4 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses i.e., LW.4 & LW.6.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused No.1 to 4 denied and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under

section 498A r/w 34 IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?”

POINT:

9. In this case, the PW1 is the Defacto Complainant. She deposed that on 13.3.2020 her marriage was performed with A1 and they lived happily for some time. She further deposed that later some disputes arose between them and on the advice of elders she went to police station and on the instructions of the police she gave written report against the accused. She further deposed that

C.C.No.31 of 20234 JMFC,PULIVENDULA police never examined her. PWs.2 & 3 who are parents of PW.1 deposed on the same lines of PW.1. PW.4 who is independent witness deposed in his evidence that he do not know anything about the case and police never examined him.

PWs.1 to 4 did not support the case of prosecution and they resailed from their previous version. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and they did not depose anything against the accused and they resailed from their previous version.

10. After going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and also the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Defense Counsel for accused, this Court observed that the PW1 is the

Complainant in this case. As seen from the evidence of the PWs.1 to 4, they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused that they were harassed PW.1 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry. PWs.1 to 4 never deposed anything in support of prosecution case and turned hostile.

PWs.1 to 4 were cross examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor nothing was elicited from her for the case of the Prosecution. This is a major lacuna in this case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses i.e., LW.4 and LW.6/investigating officer as PW.1 to PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution.

11. As stated above, on considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire evidence of Prosecution witnesses did not support to convict the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the Court determined the Point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.

C.C.No.31 of 20235 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

12.In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P.Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437A of Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/ M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for) Prosecution Defence PW1: B.Sreeja@Mopuru Sreeja PW2: B.Prasad Narasimha ReddyNone PW3: B.Varalakshmi Rama Mohan Reddy PW4: Vennapusa Ram Mohan Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1:Signature of P.w.1 on report dated 14.10.2022. Nil Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.w.3 Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.c. statement of P.W.4.

Material Objects marked for Prosecution Defence NilNil

Sd/ M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

C.C.No.31 of 20236 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR CASE No.31/2023

1. Date of Offence: Prior to 14.10.2022

2. Date of Complaint or report: 14.10.2022

3. Date of apprehension of the accuse : 20.10.2022

4. Date of release on bail : 20.10.2022

5. Date of commencement of trial: 25.02.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 25.02.2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 28.02.2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: COMPLAINANT: The SubInspector of Police,Simhadripuram P.S in Cr.No.62/2022. ACCUSED:

1. Mopuru Vinay Kumar Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy, aged about 32 years, Resident of D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R Colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

2. Mopuru Narayana Reddy, aged about 68 years, S/o Konda Reddy, resident of D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

3. Mopuru Lakshmi Devi, W/o Narayana Reddy, Resident D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

4. Mopuru Mounika, W/o Y.V. Mourya Vardhan Reddy, D.No. 3/896A, Y.S.R colony, Proddatur town and mandal.

Offence : Harassment, Demand of additional dowry.

Section of Law : Under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act

Finding of Court : Accused are found not guilty

Sentence/ Order : In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under sections 498A r/w 34 IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of

D.P.Act and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437A of Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled.

Sd/ M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble IAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

C.C.No.31 of 20237 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

CC/709/2019 Acquitted

S.H.O Vempalli P.S vs M. Inoddin khan

28 Feb 2025

C.C.No.709 of 20191 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PULIVENDULA.

Present:- M.CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pulivendula.

Friday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

C.C.No.709/2019

Between:

State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli PS. … Complainant.

Versus

Mahal Inoddin Khan, aged about 38 years, Muslim, Business, S/o Rahamthulla Khan, D.No.9/88-3-4, Vali Allah Masjid street, Mashanampeta, Kadiri town, Anathapuram District.…. Accused.

-oo0oo-

This case is coming before me on 28.02.2025 for hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Obul Reddy

Advocate for Accused, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli U/G Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.212/2019 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

About 4 years ago PW.2 and LW.3/Patan Pyari performed the marriage of PW.1 with the accused and they provided five thulas gold jewels towards dowry. After the marriage of PW.1 and accused lived amicably for about some days, blessed with a daughter. After that the accused left P.W.1 in the house of PW.2 and LW.3 went to Dubai for employment. Later PW.1 also went to Dubai for 3 months and returned to PW.2 and LW.3. Later the accused stayed at Dubai for about one year, returned to Vempalli, stayed with PW.1 at the house of PW.2 and LW.3 instead of taking PW.1 to Kadiri. The accused

C.C.No.709 of 20192 JMFC,PULIVENDULA addicted to consumption of alcohol, failed attending works, started subjecting

PW.1 both mentally and physically for trivial issues, telling that at the time of their marriage her parents provided less dowry of 5 thulas of gold jewels only, demanded additional dowry. PW.1 replied the accused that as her parents, they did not provide any additional dowry to him. Thus, the accused left PW.1 at

Vempalli and went to Kadiri. Later PW.2 provided an Auto worth Rs.2,00,000/- towards additional dowry to the accused. The accused took the Auto to Kadiri and left PW.1 at the house of PW.2. As there is no change in the attitude of accused, PW.1 preferred a report in Vempalli U/G PS on 23.11.2019 at 4.00

PM. Basing on the report of PW.1, L.W.7/ K.Madhusudhan Varma registered the same as Cr.No.212/2019 U/sec. 498-A IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act of

Vempalli P.S.

During the course of investigation L.W.7/K.Madhusudhan Varma,

Vempalli U/G P.S examined P.Ws.1 and 2 recorded their detailed statements, seized marriage photos and invitation, marriage certificate, joint photo of P.W.1 and accused on 23-11-2019. On 24.11.2019 LW.17 visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch. On 09.12.2019 L.W.17 served notice to accused u/sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. Thus, the accused is liable to be punished U/s 498(A) IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act. Hence the charge.

3. The case was taken on file for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act, against the accused.

4. On appearance of accused , copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. He was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and charges were framed under sections 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of

D.P.Act and the contents of charges read over and explained to accused in

Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

C.C.No.709 of 20193 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

5.On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The learned APP gave up the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied and reported no defence evidence, hence defence evidence closed.

7.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act ?”

POINT:

9. In this case, the PW1 is the Defacto Complainant. She deposed that about nine years back her marriage with the accused and they blessed with a daughter. She further deposed that in the year 2019 some disputes arose between herself and the accused and on the advice of elders she went to police station, the police obtained her signature on some written papers, but she do not know its contents. PW.2 who is father of PW.1 deposed on the same lines of PW.1. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and they did not depose anything against the accused and they resailed from their previous version.

10. The investigating officer was examined as PW.3. He deposed that on 23.11.2019 at about 4.00 PM while LW.7/K.Madhusudhan Varma present in the police station, PW.1 came and presented a report, basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.212/2019 U/sec.498(A) of IPC and Sec.3 & 4 of DP

Act and issued Ex.P5 FIR. During the course of investigation LW.7 seized wedding card and photo along with photostat copy of marriage certificate under

C.C.No.709 of 20194 JMFC,PULIVENDULA cover of police proceedings (Ex.P7). He further deposed on on 9.12.2019 LW.7 served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused. He further deposed that on 18.12.2019 he took up investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by LW.7 and found it on correct lines and filed charge sheet.

11. After going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record and also the arguments of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and Defense Counsel for accused, this Court observed that the PW1 is the Complainant in this case. As seen from the evidence of the PWs.1 & 2, they did not depose any incriminating material against the Accused that they were harassed PW.1 physically and mentally for want of additional dowry.

PWs.1 & 2 never deposed anything in support of prosecution case and turned hostile. PWs.1 & 2 were cross examined by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor nothing was elicited from them for the case of the Prosecution. This is a major lacuna in this case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses as PW.1 & PW.2 did not support the case of prosecution.

12. Except the evidence of investigation officer, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW.3/investigating officer. It is not safe to convict the accused only on the basis of sole testimony of PW.3. The prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence against the accused.

13. As stated above, on considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire evidence of Prosecution witnesses did not support to convict the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the Court determined the Point holding that the Prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the Accused for the accusation levelled against him beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Point is determined against the Prosecution.

C.C.No.709 of 20195 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

14.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M. Chandrasekhara Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

(Witnesses examined for) Prosecution Defence PW1: Mahal Ammaji PW2:Patan Valli-None- PW3: E.Thirupal Naik

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 23.11.2019 -Nil- Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4: Report dated 23.11.2019 Ex.P5: F.I.R Ex.P6: Rough sketch Ex.P7: Police proceedings.

Material Objects marked for Prosecution Defence NilNil

Sd/- M. Chandrasekhara Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

C.C.No.709 of 20196 JMFC,PULIVENDULA

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR CASE No.709/2019

1. Date of Offence: 23.11.2019

2. Date of Complaint or report: 23.11.2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accuse : 09.12.2019

4. Date of release on bail : 09.12.2019

5. Date of commencement of trial: 10.02.2025

6. Date of close of trial: 19.02.2025

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 28.02.2025

8. Explanation of delay if any: -- COMPLAINANT: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli U/G P.S in Cr.No.212/2019. ACCUSED: Mahal Inoddin Khan, aged about 38 years, Muslim , Business, S/o Rahamthulla Khan, D.No.9/88-3-4, Vali Allah Masjid street, Mashanampeta, kadiri twon , Anathapuram District.

Offence : Under Section 498-A IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/ Order : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of D.P.Act and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of judgment as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter they shall stands cancelled.

Sd/- M. Chandrasekhara Reddy

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa. for Prohibition & Excise, Kurnool.

OS/116/2021

Union Bank of India Pulivendula Branch vs Chinthakayala Kanthamma and 3 others

26 Nov 2025

1

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

PULIVENDULA

Present : Sri.M.Chandrasekhara Reddy ,

Civil Judge (Junior Division),Pulivendula.

Wednesday, the 26th day of November 2025

O.S.No.116 of 2021

Between: -

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andra Bank whose assets have bee acquired

by the Union Bank of India vide Gazette Notification No.GSR 154 (E) dated

04.03.2020 being effective from 01.04.2020), a Government of India under

the Banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking Act, 1980)

carrying on business all over India, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan

Bhavan Marg, Narimnan Point, Mumbai - 400 002 having branches all over

India and one of its branch at Pulivendula town, Pulivendula Mandal, Kadapa

District, represented by its Senior Branch Manager.

… Plaintiff

And

1) Chinthakayala Kanthamma, W/o Suryanarayana, aged about 55 years,

Hindu, Agriculture, residing in D.No.1-9, Ambakapalli village, Lingala Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District. Aadhar number: 3683 3737 3728.

2) Chavva Babu Reddy, S/o Prathap Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu,

agriculturist, residing at Dondlavagu Village & Post, Lingala Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District.

3) M/S D.S.R.Rural Farmers Ware House, Dondlavagu represented by its

Managing partner, Devireddy Sriatha, w/o Sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 45

years, Hindu, Kapu, Dondlavagu village and post, Lingala Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District. Presently residing in Plot No.601, Hill Top Avenue, Survey

No.11/31, Kanamet village, Serlingampalli, Hyderabad – 500081.

4) Devireddy Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Ramasubba Reddy, aged about 50 years,

Hindu, Kapu, Agriculture, resident of Dondlavagu village and post, Lingala

Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Presently residing in Plot No.601, Hill Top

Avenue, Survey No.11/31, Kanamet village, Serlingampalli, Hyderabad –

500081.

… Defendants

* * *

This suit coming on this day i.e. on 31.10.2025 before me for hearing

in the presence of Sri S.Karunakara Reddy,Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Defendants No.1 to 4 are having remained exparte respectively and the

matter having stood over for consideration on today, this Court delivered the

following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,58,788/- from the defendant, with subsequent interest and for other appropriate reliefs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The defendant No.1 made an application to the plaintiff bank for sanction of personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 15.06.2018. Then, the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the same day i.e. on 15.06.2018 under loan and the defendant executed a deed of agreement cum hypothecation dated 15.06.2018 for the said amount, with interest of 8.70% per annum. The defendants 2 to 4 are the co-obligants for the loan of the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 kept primary security of Bengalgram of 132 bags weighing 81.25 quintals (each bag 65

Kgs.) which is kept with the ware house of the defendant No.3. The defendants No.2 to 4 signed on the composite agreement dt.15.06.2018. Inspite of several demands, the defendants 1 to 4 failed to discharge the loan amount due to the plaintiff bank within the stipulated time as agreed upon. Hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount.

3.Defendants No.1 to 4 remained exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said Bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs. A1 to A5. Ex.A1 is the letter of sanction dated 15.06.2018 issued by the plaintiff bank and duly signed by the defendants No.1 to 4. Ex.A2 is the demand promissory note dated 15.06.2018 executed by the defendants No.1 to 4 jointly in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A3 is the Original composite agreement( For Agriculture) dated 15.06.2018 executed by the defendant No.1 coupled with covenants of the co-obligents duly signed by the

3

defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A4 is the receipt No. 584 dated 14.06.2018 issued by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.A5 is the copy of transaction inquiry maintained by the bank dated 20.04.2021.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit

amount from defendants as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant being the borrower is liable to pay the outstanding debt amount of Rs.2,58,788/- as on 20-04-2021 with subsequent interest. To substantiate the same, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank is examined as P.W.1. His evidence is just replica of the pleadings. Ex.A1 is the letter of sanction dated 15.06.2018 issued by the plaintiff bank and duly signed by the defendant No.1 to 4. Ex.A2 is the demand promissory note dated 15.06.2018 executed by the defendant No.1 to 4 jointly in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A3 is the Original composite agreement( For

Agriculture) dated 15.06.2018 executed by the defendant No.1 coupled with covenants of the co obligents duly signed by the defendant No.2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff bank. Ex.A4 is the receipt No. 584 dated 14.06.2018 issued by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.A5 is the copy of transaction inquiry maintained by the bank dated 20.04.2021. On the same day by agreeing to repay the same with interest of 8.70% per annum with a terms and conditions. His evidence further shows that the defendant did not repay the loan amount and hence, the plaintiff bank is constrained to file the suit for recovery of outstanding of Rs.2,58,788/- with future

4

interest at the rate of contract, as disclosed in the account statement of the defendant.

Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the authenticity of Ex.A1 to A5 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendants, the court finds no reason to discard the same.

9.In such circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of

Rs.2,58,788/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Ex.A5-Statement of account generated from the system of plaintiff. Apparently, the suit is filed with in the period of limitation. Since the defendants did not pay the loan amount and did not even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding their1 liability, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendants and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendants.

Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,58,788/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty eight thousand seven hundred and eighty eight only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of suit till the date of realization on adjudged sum of Rs.2,58,788/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty eight thousand seven hundred and eighty eight only).

Typed by me and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26 th day of

November, 2025.

Sd/- M. Chandra Sekhar Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

5 FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW.1: Komma Venkata Subbaiah NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTFF:

Ex.A1 : Letter of sanction dated 15.06.2018, issued by the plaintiff bank and duly

signed by the defendant No.1 to 4.

Ex.A2 : Demand Promissory note dated 15.06.2018 executed by the defendants 1

to 4 jointly in favour of the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A3 : Original Composite Agreement (for Agriculture) dated 15.06.2018 executed

by the defendant No.1 coupled with covenants of the Co-obligents duly signed by

the defendants 2 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

Ex.A4 : Receipt No.584, dated 14.06.2018 issued by the defendant No.3 in favour

of Defendant No.1 in token of keeping the stock of Bengal gram (125 bags).

Ex.A5 : Transaction inquiry maintained by the Bank dated 20.04.2021.

FOR Defendants: NIL

Id/- M.C.S.R.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

OS/239/2021

Nagi setty Sreenivasulu vs Sayyed Mabasha

27 Feb 2025

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

Present: Sri M.Chandrasekhara Reddy,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pulivendula.

Thursday, this the 27th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.239 of 2021

Between:-

Nagisetty Sreenivasulu, S/o Rayudu, aged about 54 years, Indian, Hindu, cultivation, residing at D.No. 4-1, Peddadevara gattu street, RTC Bus stand back side, Vempalli town and mandal, YSR Kadapa district. … Plaintiff AND Sayyad Mabasha, S/o Masthan Valli, aged about 46 years, Indian, Muslim, Business, residing at D.o. 9/39-2-A1, Bharath Nagar, Back side of Tirumala Theater, Vempalli village and mandal, YSR Kadapa district.

… Defendant

*** * * * ***

This suit came on 27.02.2025for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Obul Reddy and Smt S.Sasi Rekha, Advocates for Plaintiffand defendant having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,64,370/-due under a promissory note dated 08.01.2019 executed by the defendant for Rs.2,14,000/- with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

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

On 08.01.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,14,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Inspite of several oral demands the defendant failed to pay any amount. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked the original promissory note 08.01.2019 for

Rs.2,14,000/- as Ex.A1.

5.Heard the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for ?

7. P O I N T:

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW1 by filing his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff exhibited the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in his favour for Rs.2,14,000/-as Ex.A1. Admittedly, the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff has proved his case by examining himself as

PW1 and got marked the suit promissory note as Ex.A1. The evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with subsequent interest as prayed for.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,64,370/- (Rupees Three Lakhs sixty four Thousands three hundred and seventy only) to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit to the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 3 the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,14,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs fourteen thousands only).

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW1: Nagisetty SreenivasuluExparte .

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dated 08.01.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,14,000/-.

For defendant:

NIL.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

OS/296/2023

Chinnaramappa gari Lakshmi Narayana Reddy vs Chinnaramappa gari Aswarthanarayana Reddy

28 Feb 2025

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

Present: Sri M.Chandrasekhara Reddy,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pulivendula.

Friday, this the 28th day of February, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.296 of 2023

Between:-

Chinnaramappagari Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, S/o. Chinnaramappa, aged about 54 years, Caste by Kapu, resident of Guriujala Village, Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. … Plaintiff AND

Chinnappagari Aswarthanarayana Reddy, S/o Chinnappagari Musal Reddy, aged about 54 years, Govt Teacher, Zilla Parishad Pradhamika Pathasala, Vimala Faruk Nagar, Rudram Peta, Ananthapuram, Residence of Bhairapuram Village, Kottacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

… Defendant

*** * * * ***

This suit came on 28.02.2025for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N. Lakshmi Narasimha and Sri N. Harinatha Reddy, Advocates for Plaintiffand defendant having remained exparte, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,400/- due under a promissory note dated 01-12-2020 executed by the defendant for Rs.55,000/- with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

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

On 01-12-2020 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.55,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Inspite of several oral demands, the defendant failed to pay any amount. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte.

4.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked the original promissory note 01-12-2020 as

Ex.A1.

5.Heard the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for ?

7. P O I N T:

To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW1 by filing his chief-examination affidavit reiterating the averments of the plaint. The plaintiff exhibited the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in his favour for Rs.55,000/- as Ex.A1. Admittedly, the defendant remained exparte. The plaintiff has proved his case by examining himself as

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.94,400/-(Rupees Ninety Four Thousand four hundred only) to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the suit to the date of decree and thereafter with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date 3 of realization on the principal amount of Rs.55,000/-(Rupees Fifty Five

Thousands only).

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For plaintiff: For defendant:

PW1: Devasoth Praveen Kumar NaikExparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dated 02.01.2022 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,80,000/-

For defendant:

NIL.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

Order Record 1,670 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/116/2021	Union Bank of India Pulivendula Branch vs Chinthakayala Kanthamma and 3 others	26 Nov 2025	Judgement	—
OS/14/2025	Yalugoti Rama Mohan Reddy vs Narala Sreenivasa Reddy	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	Ex-parte Judgement
OS/188/2021	P. Naga Bhushana Reddy vs Donthu Subramanyam	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	Dismissed
OS/206/2025	Andharpragathi Gramneena Bank rep by its manager vs K Chinna venkata Ramulu	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	Ex-parte Judgement
OS/215/2024	State Bank of India vs Dumpa Rama Subbamma	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	Ex-parte Judgement
OS/265/2022	Guda Ramachandra Reddy vs Chittiboina Gowri and 2 others	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/265/2024	State Bank of India vs Bhumi Gangamma	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/289/2024	state bank of india , balapanur vs Vskakarala sarala	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/294/2024	State Bank of India Balapanur vs Kakarla Venkata Ranga Reddy	31 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
EP/18/2024	Bhuchupalli Nagamaheswar Reddy vs Kudumula Nagarjuna Reddy	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/21/2025	Maraka jayachandra vs Chittiboina Gangaraju	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/108/2024	Gandu Obulesu vs Gandu Venkataiah	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/171/2024	State Bank of India vs Ubbara Venkata Subbamma	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/237/2024	State Bank of India vs Kona Syamasundar Reddy	30 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/23/2025	State Bank of India represented by its branch manager Araveti Surendra vs Dubbala Kanthamma	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/85/2025	Gajjala Prasadu Reddy vs Nallamekala Gangaiah	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/165/2024	State Bank of India vs Kakarla Keerthana	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/209/2024	State Bank of India vs Yarrammagari Ramulamma	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/220/2024	State Bank of India vs Mallela Padmanabha Reddy	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/285/2024	State Bank of India, Balapanur vs Ubbara Prema Sai Reddy	29 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/32/2025	State Bank of India, Parnapalli represented by its branch manager, Araveti Raveendra vs Maddineni Suseela	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/56/2023	Veluru Srinivasa Reddy vs Kopparthi Annarapu Jaya Simha Reddy	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/140/2023	KottluruChennakesavulu vs Madya Venkataramana	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/205/2024	State Bank of India vs Bangi Bala Kullayamma	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/274/2024	State Bank of India vs Anke Gangarjuna	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/277/2024	State Bank of India vs Kondreddy Adhinarayana Reddy	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/301/2024	Sirigireddy Ravi Sankar Reddy vs Bachu Sreenivasa Reddy	28 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/54/2016	Teluru Doraswamy, vs Pagidikalva Sathya Venakta Raja	27 Oct 2025	Order	—
OS/202/2024	State Bank of India vs Abbavaram Bhupal Reddy	27 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/258/2024	State Bank of India vs Kommu Thulasamma	27 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/262/2024	State Bank of India vs Chavva Raghunatha Reddy	27 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/278/2024	State Bank of India vs Janagani Jaya Kumar	27 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
EP/51/2024	Thonduru Masthan Babu vs Dara Annamma and 1 other	24 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/58/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank represented by its Branch Manager Perusomula Dinesh vs Pennapati Varalakshmi and another	17 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/60/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank represented by its branch manager Perusomula DineshVempalli vs Avula Bayamma and another	17 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/337/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Chagalamarri Sreekanth and 1 other	17 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/66/2025	Palagiri Venganna vs Palagiri Venkata Ramana Uraf Palagiri Venkta Giri and 3 others	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/210/2021	Kudumula Naga Rajini vs Kudumula Ramanjaneyamma and 1 other	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/228/2022	Thoka Lakshmi vs Ganganapalli Kadhar Basha	16 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/137/2023	Moramreddy Ramanatha Reddy vs Chittiboina Gangadhar his L.R.s and Chittiboina Gowri 2 others	15 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/140/2019	Vennapusa Anjankumar reddy vs Vennapusa Ankireddy and another	15 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/312/2024	Shaik Munni vs Shaik Irshad	15 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/43/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank represented by its Branch managerNagipogu Jayachandra vs Siddamreddy Chandra Sekhar Reddy	14 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/146/2022	Siripireddy Gangulamma vs Suray Sriharsha	14 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/27/2019	Udayagiri Hussain Peeara and 2 others vs Kajabee andd 4 others	13 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/44/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank represented by its brancha manger, by Nagipogu Jayachandra vs Yerragudi Eswar REddy died his Legal heris yeeragudi Venkata Lakshumma and 3 other	13 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/147/2016	Kadiri Narayana REddy vs Annavaram Veera Lakshmamma	13 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/310/2024	Sayyad Darbar Basha vs Shaik Chinna Khasim alis Rampam	13 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/13/2024	Vutti Gangaiah vs Janjyala Subbarayudu	09 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/88/2025	Devireddy Sreenivasula Reddy vs Mekala Sreenivasulu	09 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
EP/3/2023	Shaik Khadar Valli vs Basineni Nagarjuna	08 Oct 2025	Order	—
OS/69/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Thonduru Branch vs Vurumindi Reddamma	08 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
OS/149/2022	Sriripiredy Gangulamma vs Suray Sriharsha	08 Oct 2025	Judgement	—
EP/27/2024	Tirumalasetty madhusudhan vs Chinnigalla Subhasini	27 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
EP/5/2020	P Mallamma vs D Pedda Hussain Sab	26 Sep 2025	Order	—
OS/24/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank represented by its Branch ManagerKarnam Sreedhar vs Vsmaduru Vani and another	26 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
EP/36/2024	Gujjula Venkata Prasda vs Bukke Gane Naik	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
OS/14/2017	Boggiti Prakasam vs Boggiti Syam Kishore	25 Sep 2025	Order	—
OS/40/2025	Konduru Chinna Kesava vs Vsbatthala Prasad	24 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/90/2020	T.Mastan Babu vs N.BalaGurappa	24 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/22/2019	Lingala yasodamma vs Bandi Ramasura Reddy and 2 others	22 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/106/2022	State Bank of India vs Indukuri Subbamma and 2 others	22 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/286/2023	Devagudi Suresh vs Devagudi Uma Devi	22 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
OS/22/2025	Maraka Jayachandra vs Chittiboina Gangaraju	19 Sep 2025	Judgement	—
EP/31/2018	Juturu Gangi Reddy vs Komma Sreenivasa Reddy	16 Sep 2025	Order	—
EP/10/2025	Reddy Viswanatham vs Ballikura Sreenivasa Rao,	15 Sep 2025	Order	—
EP/58/2014	Thagineni Jayamma vs Cherukuru Basha JDR No.1	15 Sep 2025	Order	—
OS/95/2025	Cheemala Venkatrami Reddy vs Thupakula Venkata Reddy	18 Jul 2025	Judgement	Compromised
EP/26/2009	Vennapusa Somi Reddy vs The DistrictSocial Welfare officer	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/61/2025	Andhra Pragathi Grameena bank represented by its branch manager perusomula Dinesh vs Mude Surendra naik	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/76/2025	Patan Sameera vs Jangam Vijaya Raju	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/100/2025	Ganganapalli Raziya Banu vs Ganganapalli Valli	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/113/2024	Chakali Prasad Rao vs Sirigireddy Anki Reddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/114/2021	Narra Venkata Sreenivasa Reddy vs Pinupolu Rama Chandra Rao	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/172/2021	Patan Madar Bee and 3 others vs Patan Kumal Bee and 4 others	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/172/2023	Bandi Nageswar Reddy vs Jinka Hari Krishna	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/221/2019	Y V Nagi reddy vs C Muni Reddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
OS/277/2023	Kora Viswanatha Reddy vs Pochimireddy Narayana Reddy and 3 others	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/2/2020	SHO Vempalli P.S vs V Gangadhar	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/31/2024	SHO Pulivendula Ug PS vs Kollgundla Deva Raju	05 Jul 2025	Judgement	—
CC/31/2024	SHO Pulivendula Ug PS vs Kollgundla Deva Raju	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/41/2025	Andhra Pradesh vs Jalla Vamshi Krishna Reddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/44/2021	Sanivarapu Gangi Reddy vs Pathakota Ramadevi	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/88/2023	SHO Vempalli PS vs Sudha Rajasekhar REddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/90/2025	SHO pulivendula PS vs Moode Karunakar Naik	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/102/2025	SHO Lingala PS vs Ramireddy Devanatha Reddy and 5 others	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/113/2025	SHO Vempalli U/G PS vs Syed Baba Fakruddin	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/115/2025	SHO Vempalli U/G PS vs Chinthakunta Kasireddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/117/2025	SHO Vempalli U/G PS vs Malleboyina Mallikarjuna	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/118/2025	SHO Vempalli U/G PS vs Meenavath Ranganayakulu and 1 other	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/119/2025	SHO Vempalli PS vs Bukkw Viswanadha Naika and 1 other	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/122/2025	SHO Vempalli U/G PS vs Netapalli Masthan Valli and 1 other	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/169/2023	SHO Lingala PS vs Chavva Venkateswara Reddy and 4 others	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/173/2023	SHO Simhadripuram PS vs Kodumurthy Viswanath and 1 other	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/187/2023	SHO Lingala PS vs Sake Surendra and 11 others	05 Jul 2025	Judgement	—
CC/228/2021	SHO Vemula P.S vs Singam Rajashekar Reddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/229/2020	SHO Vemula P.S vs Rangannagari Dhanajayya	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/300/2020	Andhra Pradesh vs Vsbyalla lakshmi narayana	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/417/2025	SHO, Vemula PS vs Poreddy Narayana Reddy	05 Jul 2025	Other	—
CC/418/2025	SHO, Vemula PS vs Polomaina Naresh	05 Jul 2025	Other	—

Showing 100 of 1,670 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Nov 2025		1
Oct 2025		52
Sep 2025		14
Jul 2025		506
Jun 2025		59
May 2025		43
Apr 2025		80
Feb 2025		85
Dec 2024		216
Nov 2024		8
Oct 2024		93
Sep 2024		334

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy handled?

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy has handled 1690 court orders since 2024 at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula. The average disposal rate is 68 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula.

Where is Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy currently posted?

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy available online?

Yes. 17 judgments by Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy dispose cases?

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy disposes approximately 68 cases per month, based on 1690 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula.

Since when is Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy serving?

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy has been serving at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 73%

OS 19%

EP 4%

PRC 2%

MC 1%

DVC 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Sep 2025 — Present

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula · 67 orders
Apr 2025 — Jul 2025

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula · 688 orders
Feb 2025 — Mar 2025

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula · 85 orders
Jul 2024 — Dec 2024

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula · 784 orders
May 2024 — Jun 2024

Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula · 66 orders

Outcomes on Record

Dismissed 3

Ex-parte Judgement 3

Acquitted 2

Terminated 1

Abated 1

Dismissed For Default 1

Committed To Sessions 1

Closed 1

Compromised 1

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge Pulivendula

Sri M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PULIVENDULA.

C.C.No.31/2023

­oo0oo­

J U D G M E N T

section 498­A r/w 34 IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?”

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

Exhibits marked for

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR CASE No.31/2023

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PULIVENDULA.

C.C.No.709/2019

-oo0oo-

J U D G M E N T

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

Appendix of Evidence

Exhibits marked for

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

CALENDAR CASE No.709/2019

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

PULIVENDULA.

1

PULIVENDULA

Present : Sri.M.Chandrasekhara Reddy ,

Wednesday, the 26th day of November 2025

Between: -

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andra Bank whose assets have bee acquired

by the Union Bank of India vide Gazette Notification No.GSR 154 (E) dated

04.03.2020 being effective from 01.04.2020), a Government of India under

the Banking companies (Acquisition and transfer of undertaking Act, 1980)

carrying on business all over India, having its Head Office at 239, Vidhan

Bhavan Marg, Narimnan Point, Mumbai - 400 002 having branches all over

India and one of its branch at Pulivendula town, Pulivendula Mandal, Kadapa

District, represented by its Senior Branch Manager.

… Plaintiff

Hindu, Agriculture, residing in D.No.1-9, Ambakapalli village, Lingala Mandal,

YSR Kadapa District. Aadhar number: 3683 3737 3728.

agriculturist, residing at Dondlavagu Village & Post, Lingala Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District.

Managing partner, Devireddy Sriatha, w/o Sanjeeva Reddy, aged about 45

years, Hindu, Kapu, Dondlavagu village and post, Lingala Mandal, YSR

Kadapa District. Presently residing in Plot No.601, Hill Top Avenue, Survey

No.11/31, Kanamet village, Serlingampalli, Hyderabad – 500081.

Hindu, Kapu, Agriculture, resident of Dondlavagu village and post, Lingala

Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Presently residing in Plot No.601, Hill Top

Avenue, Survey No.11/31, Kanamet village, Serlingampalli, Hyderabad –

500081.

… Defendants

* * *

This suit coming on this day i.e. on 31.10.2025 before me for hearing

in the presence of Sri S.Karunakara Reddy,Advocate for the Plaintiff and

Defendants No.1 to 4 are having remained exparte respectively and the

matter having stood over for consideration on today, this Court delivered the

following:-

2

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

3

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit

4

November, 2025.

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

5

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

oo0oo

section 498A r/w 34 IPC and sec. 3 and 4 of D.P.Act ?”

*** * * * ***

*** * * * ***