Smt. M. Indira Priyadarsini

OS No.870/2020 1 PJCJC-GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, the 4 th day of July, 2023.

O.S NO.870 OF 2020.

Between:

ChaitanyaGodavariGrameenaBank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Lauchester Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff.

And

1. Pujari Poleramma, W/o. Kondalu, aged about 38 years, R/o. Door No.70-13-1455, 1st Line, 3rd Cross Road, Sai Baba Colony, Ponnuru Road, Guntur.

2. Nallabothula Lakshmi, W/o. Venkateswarlu, aged about 43 years, R/o. Door No.19-16-133, 1st Line, Sai Baba Colony, Ponnuru Road, Guntur. … Defendants No.1 and 2.

This suit has come before me on 03.07.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Gunturu Seshu Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants No.1 and 2 set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit for passing of decree in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants No.1 and 2 personally, jointly and severally for the suit amount of Rs.50,050/- (Rupees fifty thousand fifty only) and for subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounding quarterly on the suit amount from 10.09.2020 till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows.

That the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank seeking to grant loan for the purpose of plastic flower items business and the 2nd defendant come forward to stood as co-obligant/guarantor to 1st

OS No.870/2020 2 PJCJC-GNT

defendant assuring due repayment of the loan and to bear the liabilities thereon and that the plaintiff bank accordingly sanctioned a loan of

Rs.50,000/- to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of their business opened a loan account bearing

No.770360100014046 in connection with the said loan and that in order to utilize the said loan the 1st defendant complied with the loan formalities by execution of demand promissory note on 07.08.2017 for

Rs.50,000/- besides execution of composite agreement agreeing to repay the same together with interest @12% per annum with monthly debiting to the account and quarterly compounding and to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments and the 2nd defendant also executed the necessary documents on even date along with 1st defendant including covenants of the co-obligant, Deed of Guarantee under taking to repay all liabilities jointly and severally under the Agreement payable by the 1st defendant to plaintiff bank in respect of the loan together with interest thereon and all the costs and expenses in terms of the loan and also agreed to make good the bank, on demand all costs and expenses sustained by the plaintiff bank by reason of non-repayment. The plaintiff bank further averred that the 1st defendant agreed to repay the borrowed amount together with 2% additional Penal interest on the outstanding balance in the account and in case of default in repayment, the plaintiff bank can recall the entire loan amount and thus the 2nd defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount under the loan amount statement filed herewith and the plaintiff prays that the Hon’ble Court may treat them as part and parcel of the plaintiff and further both the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount under the loan account together with interest, costs, expenses and other incidental charges. The plaintiff bank further averred that the

OS No.870/2020 3 PJCJC-GNT

defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt due to the plaintiff bank under loan account and that the 1st defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount and installments regularly and the amount payable by her became over due and both the defendants never chosen to repay the said amount in spite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank officers/managers.

ii) The plaintiff bank further averred that the plaintiff bank issued a registered notice dt.14.10.2019 to the defendants demanding to pay the loan amount immediately on receipt of the notice, 1st defendant received the said notice and kept quite without any reply and without any payment and that as a final resort, the plaintiff bank got issued a registered legal notice dt.09.03.2020 to the defendants demanding the defendants to repay the amount due under the above loan amount and the 1st defendant failed to receive inspite of intimation by postal authorities and 2nd defendant received the said notice and kept quite and thus, both the defendants are liable to pay the borrowed amount under the loan account with interest, costs and charges. The plaintiff bank further averred that as per the copy of statement of loan account filed herewith there is an amount of Rs.50,000/- is due and payable in the account as on 09.09.2020, which account is being maintained in the ordinary course of business and which is having its sanctity as per

Banker’s Book of Evidence Act and the defendants are liable to pay future interest @12% from 10.09.2020 onwards till the date of payment and that the suit transaction is commercial transaction and the account is not liable to reopen under Act 45/1987 (Andhra Pradesh Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987) or the subsequent amendments made to it and interest charged is in accordance with the agreement and both the defendants are liable to pay the said rate of interest and are not

OS No.870/2020 4 PJCJC-GNT

entitled to scale down the interest under any of the debt laws and the interest charged is just, fair and equitable and in accordance with the terms and conditions of loan and the suit is filed within the period of limitation and that as per the terms and conditions of the loan both defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount with subsequent interest costs and charges and hence, the plaintiff bank was constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount from the defendants. Hence, the suit.

3.Substitute service of Summons ordered against the defendants

No.1 and 2, they did not appeared before the Court on given date of hearing, hence this Court made them set exparte on 28.06.2023 and posted the matter plaintiff’s exparte evidence.

4.In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff bank examined its

Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. Ex.A1 is the

Loan Application submitted by the 1st defendant, dt.07.08.2017, Ex.A2: is the Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.07.08.2017, Ex.A3 is the

Composite Agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank along with Covenants of Co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant, dt.07.08.2017, Ex.A4 is the Deed of Guarantee of the defendant No.2, dt.07.08.2017, Ex.A5 is the Office copy of registered notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants, dt.14.10.2019, Ex.A6 is the Postal

Acknowledgment of defendant No.1, Ex.A7 is the Office copy of registered legal notice issued to the defendants, dt.09.03.2020, Ex.A8 is the Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.2 and 1st defendant returned notice, Ex.A9 is the Statement of loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank, dt.09.09.2020 and Ex.A10 is the Authorization/power of attorney to file the case, dt.29.04.2019.

OS No.870/2020 5 PJCJC-GNT

5. Heard arguments on behalf of plaintiff counsel.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit

claim from the defendant as prayed for?

7.POINT :

i)The Chief Manager of plaintiff bank examined as P.W.1 and in his chief affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim of plaintiff bank, he had produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A10.

Ex.A10 is the authorization given to P.W.1 to give evidence in the Court as P.W.1. The 1st defendant applied for loan with the plaintiff under Ex.A1 for which the 1st defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same together with interest under Ex.A2 and he had also executed composite agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank along with covenants of co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant in Ex.A3. The 2nd defendant is co-obligant/guarantor for defendant No.1 and he had executed deed of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A4. Subsequently, the 1st defendant failed to repay the amounts and became defaulter in paying the installments, finally the plaintiff bank issue legal notice to both the defendants in Ex.A5 and

Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgment of defendant No.1 and Ex.A7 is the registered legal notice issued to defendant No.2 under acknowledgments under Ex.A8. The statement of account in Ex.A9 maintained by plaintiff bank, dt.09.09.2020 the amount of Rs.50,050/- is due and payable in the account.

ii) From Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, it is established that the defendant No.1 got issued loan from the plaintiff bank and defendant No.2 is guarantor, subsequently, defendant No.1 failed to repay the same as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement and when the defendants No.1 and 2

OS No.870/2020 6 PJCJC-GNT

failed to repay the installments due to the plaintiff bank, as such the plaintiff constrained to file the above suit.

iii) A plain reading of sworn affidavit of P.W.1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by plaintiff, reveal that the defendants

No.1 availed the loan from plaintiff bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly and though the substitute service of summons i.e., paper publication issued against the defendants No.1 and 2, they failed to attend before the Hon’ble Court on the given date of their appearance. Hence, they made set exparte by this Hon’ble Court on 28.06.2023.

iv) In view of the above discussion, it appears that the defendants

No.1 and 2 have no defence to rebut the evidence of P.W.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged and un-rebutted. Since, the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the defendant No.1, she too having liability to pay the suit claim along with defendant No.1. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff Bank and against the defendants No.1 and 2 personally, jointly and severally with costs for Rs.50,050/- (Rupees fifty thousand fifty only), with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs.50,050/- (Rupees fifty thousand fifty only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS No.870/2020 7 PJCJC-GNT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Mylavarapu Durga Shanmukha Sai Pavan Kumar.

For Defendant: - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Defendant : - Nil –

Ex.A1:- Loan Application submitted by the 1st defendant, dt.07.08.2017. Ex.A2:- Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.07.08.2017. Ex.A3:- Composite Agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank along with Covenants of Co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant, dt.07.08.2017. Ex.A4:- Deed of Guarantee of the defendant No.2, dt.07.08.2017. Ex.A5:- Office copy of registered notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants, dt.14.10.2019. Ex.A6:- Postal Acknowledgment of defendant No.1. Ex.A7:- Office copy of registered legal notice issued to the defendants, dt.09.03.2020. Ex.A8:- Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.2 and 1st defendant returned notice. Ex.A9:- Statement of loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank, dt.09.09.2020. Ex.A10:- Authorization/power of attorney to file the case, dt.29.04.2019.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

OS No.950/2020 1 PJCJC-GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, the 4 th day of July, 2023.

O.S NO.950 OF 2020.

Between:

ChaitanyaGodavariGrameenaBank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Lauchester Road, Guntur. … Plaintiff.

And

1. Shaik Ibraheem, S/o. China Fareed, aged about 41 years, R/o. Door No.19-18-21, 4th Line, L.R Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur City.

2. Shaik Basheera, S/o. China Fareed, aged about 38 years, R/o. Door No.19-18-21, 4th Line, L.R Colony, Sangadigunta, Guntur City. … Defendants No.1 and 2.

This suit has come before me on 03.07.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri Gunturu Seshu Mohan, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants No.1 and 2 set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This Suit for passing of decree in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants No.1 and 2 personally, jointly and severally for the suit amount of Rs.60,743/- (Rupees sixty thousand seven hundred fourty three only) and for subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum compounding quarterly on the suit amount from 08.03.2020 till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows.

That the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff bank seeking to grant loan for the purpose of plastic flower items business and the 2nd defendant come forward to stood as co-obligant/guarantor to 1st

OS No.950/2020 2 PJCJC-GNT

defendant assuring due repayment of the loan and to bear the liabilities thereon and that the plaintiff bank accordingly sanctioned a loan of

Rs.50,000/- to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff bank in the ordinary course of their business opened a loan account bearing

No.770630100010952 in connection with the said loan and that in order to utilize the said loan the 1st defendant complied with the loan formalities by execution of demand promissory note on 28.04.2017 for

Rs.50,000/- besides execution of composite agreement agreeing to repay the same together with interest @12% per annum with monthly debiting to the account and quarterly compounding and to be repaid in 60 equated monthly installments and the 2nd defendant also executed the necessary documents on even date along with 1st defendant including covenants of the co-obligant, Deed of Guarantee under taking to repay all liabilities jointly and severally under the Agreement payable by the 1st defendant to plaintiff bank in respect of the loan together with interest thereon and all the costs and expenses in terms of the loan and also agreed to make good the bank, on demand all costs and expenses sustained by the plaintiff bank by reason of non-repayment. The plaintiff bank further averred that the 1st defendant agreed to repay the borrowed amount together with 2% additional Penal interest on the outstanding balance in the account and in case of default in repayment, the plaintiff bank can recall the entire loan amount and thus the 2nd defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount under the loan amount statement filed herewith and the plaintiff prays that the Hon’ble Court may treat them as part and parcel of the plaintiff and further both the defendants are liable to pay the outstanding amount under the loan account together with interest, costs, expenses and other incidental charges. The plaintiff bank further averred that the

OS No.950/2020 3 PJCJC-GNT

defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the debt due to the plaintiff bank under loan account and that the 1st defendant failed to repay the borrowed amount and installments regularly and the amount payable by her became over due and both the defendants never chosen to repay the said amount in spite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank officers/managers.

ii) The plaintiff bank further averred that the plaintiff bank issued a registered notice dt.14.10.2019 to the defendants demanding to pay the loan amount immediately on receipt of the notice, 1st defendant received the said notice and kept quite without any reply and without any payment and that as a final resort, the plaintiff bank got issued a registered legal notice dt.10.12.2019 to the defendants demanding the defendants to repay the amount due under the above loan amount and the 1st defendant failed to receive inspite of intimation by postal authorities and 2nd defendant received the said notice and kept quite and thus, both the defendants are liable to pay the borrowed amount under the loan account with interest, costs and charges. The plaintiff bank further averred that as per the copy of statement of loan account filed herewith there is an amount of Rs.60,743/- is due and payable in the account as on 17.03.2020, which account is being maintained in the ordinary course of business and which is having its sanctity as per

Banker’s Book of Evidence Act and the defendants are liable to pay future interest @12% from 18.03.2020 onwards till the date of payment and that the suit transaction is commercial transaction and the account is not liable to reopen under Act 45/1987 (Andhra Pradesh Agricultural indebtedness (Relief) Act, 1987) or the subsequent amendments made to it and interest charged is in accordance with the agreement and both the defendants are liable to pay the said rate of interest and are not

OS No.950/2020 4 PJCJC-GNT

entitled to scale down the interest under any of the debt laws and the interest charged is just, fair and equitable and in accordance with the terms and conditions of loan and the suit is filed within the period of limitation and that as per the terms and conditions of the loan both defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount with subsequent interest costs and charges and hence, the plaintiff bank was constrained to file the suit for recovery of loan amount from the defendants. Hence, the suit.

3.Substitute service of Summons ordered against the defendants

No.1 and 2, they did not appeared before the Court on given date of hearing, hence this Court made them set exparte on 28.06.2023 and posted the matter plaintiff’s exparte evidence.

4.In order to substantiate its case, the plaintiff bank examined its

Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A1 is the

Loan Application submitted by the 1st defendant, dt.23.03.2017, Ex.A2 is the Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.23.03.2017, Ex.A3 is the

Composite Agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank along with Covenants of Co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant, dt.23.03.2017, Ex.A4 is the Office copy of registered notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants, dt.14.10.2019, Ex.A5 is the Returned notices of defendants, Ex.A6 is the Office copy of registered legal notice issued to the defendants, dt.10.12.2019, Ex.A7 is the Returned notices of defendants, Ex.A8 is the Statement of loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank, dt.23.03.2020 and Ex.A9 is the Authorization/power of attorney to file the case, dt.29.04.2019.

5. Heard arguments on behalf of plaintiff counsel.

OS No.950/2020 5 PJCJC-GNT

6. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit

claim from the defendant as prayed for?

7.POINT :

i)The Chief Manager of plaintiff bank examined as P.W.1 and in his chief affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim of plaintiff bank, he had produced Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. Ex.A9 is the authorization given to P.W.1 to give evidence in the Court as P.W.1.

The 1st defendant applied for loan with the plaintiff under Ex.A1 for which the 1st defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same together with interest under

Ex.A2 and he had also executed composite agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank along with covenants of co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant in Ex.A3. The 2nd defendant is co-obligant/guarantor for defendant No.1. Subsequently, the 1st defendant failed to repay the amounts and became defaulter in paying the installments, finally the plaintiff bank issue legal notice to both the defendants in Ex.A4 and

Ex.A5 is the returned notices of defendants No.1 and 2 and Ex.A6 is the registered legal notice issued to defendants No.1 and 2 and Ex.A7 is the returned notices of defendants No.1 and 2. The statement of account in

Ex.A8 maintained by plaintiff bank, dt.23.03.2020 the amount of

Rs.60,743/- is due and payable in the account.

ii) From Ex.A1 to Ex.A9, it is established that the defendant No.1 got issued loan from the plaintiff bank and defendant No.2 is guarantor, subsequently, defendant No.1 failed to repay the same as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement and when the defendants No.1 and 2 failed to repay the installments due to the plaintiff bank, as such the plaintiff constrained to file the above suit.

OS No.950/2020 6 PJCJC-GNT

iii) A plain reading of sworn affidavit of P.W.1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by plaintiff, reveal that the defendants

No.1 availed the loan from plaintiff bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly and though the substitute service of summons i.e., paper publication issued against the defendants No.1 and 2, they failed to attend before the Hon’ble Court on the given date of their appearance. Hence, they made set exparte by this Hon’ble Court on 28.06.2023.

iv) In view of the above discussion, it appears that the defendants

No.1 and 2 have no defence to rebut the evidence of P.W.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 is unchallenged and un-rebutted. Since, the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the loan obtained by the defendant No.1, she too having liability to pay the suit claim along with defendant No.1. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

8.In the result, suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff Bank and against the defendants No.1 and 2 personally, jointly and severally with costs for Rs.60,743/- (Rupees sixty thousand seven hundred forty three only), with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs.60,743/- (Rupees sixty thousand seven hundred forty three only).

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 4th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS No.950/2020 7 PJCJC-GNT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 : Mylavarapu Durga Shanmukha Sai Pavan Kumar.

For Defendant: - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Defendant : - Nil –

Ex.A1:- Loan Application submitted by the 1st defendant, dt.23.03.2017. Ex.A2:- Demand promissory note for Rs.50,000/- executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank, dt.23.03.2017. Ex.A3:- Composite Agreement executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff bank along with Covenants of Co-obligant executed by 2nd defendant, dt.23.03.2017. Ex.A4:- Office copy of registered notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendants, dt.14.10.2019. Ex.A5:- Returned notices of defendants. Ex.A6:- Office copy of registered legal notice issued to the defendants, dt.10.12.2019. Ex.A7:- Returned notices of defendants. Ex.A8:- Statement of loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank, dt.23.03.2020. Ex.A9:- Authorization/power of attorney to file the case, dt.29.04.2019.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Friday, the 30 th day of September, 2022.

O.S NO. 702 OF 2022.

Between:

State Bank of India, SMEC, Guntur Represented by its Chief Manager, Tavva Guravaiah, S/o. Ramanadha, Hindu, aged 58 years, having its office at SBI, SMEC, Arundelpet,Guntur. ...Plaintif

And

Veernapu Mahesh, S/o. Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 35 years, R/o. 8-62- 33 (old) 43-14-1041 (New), Gaddipadu , Kakani road, Guntur . … Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 28.09.2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.R.H.Prasad Advocate for plaintif, and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Suit is filed for passing a decree in favour of the plaintif bank and against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,820/- to grant subsequent interest as per terms and conditions of loan agreement executed by the defendant from the date of suit till the date of realization, and for costs.

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

The defendant approached the plaintif bank for Cash Credit

Collateral Free Loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- on 11.04.2018 and the plaintif bank sanctioned the credit facilites to the defendant on 11.04.2018 and the defendant undertook to repay the amount with interest @ 11.05% per annum calculated on daily balance of loan amount at monthly rests and also undertook to hypothecate the stock in business as security for 2 due repayment of loan amount and the defendant signed on the sanction of credit facilities and in token of receipt of amount the defendant executed letter of arrangement and arrangement of loan cum hypothecation and hypothecating the stock in trade as security for due repayment of loan amount and the defendant made part payments and the last payment was made on 15-01-2022 and an account number 37536635199 was opened in the name of defendant all the transactions are entered into it and as per the account of defendant owe an amount of Rs. 83,962/- on 22-03-2022 and that due to Covid, at defendant’s application dt. 23-09-2020 the plaintif sanctioned an amount of

Rs.35,000/- on 23-09-2020 for his business purpose as loan under GECL and the defendant agreed to repay the amount in monthly installments with interest @ 7.40% per annum with monthly rests as per the terms and conditions of documents namely letter of arrangement and supplementary agreement of loan cum hypothecation executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif and an account No. 39681485479 is opened and defendant became due an amount of Rs. 36,858/- as on 22-03-2022 and since the defendant failed to repay the amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintif including through registered notice dt. 25-3-2022 . Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount due to it. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons ordered against the defendant through Court were served on him. The defendant did not appeared before the Court, hence this Court made him set exparte on 05-09-2022 and posted the matter for exparte evidence of plaintif’s.

4.In order to substantiate its case, the plaintif bank examined its

Branch Manager as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Ex.A1 is the 3 loan application dt. 06-01-2018, Ex.A2 is the letter of arrangement dt.

11-04-2018, Ex.A3 is the agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt.11-04-2018 , Ex.A4 is the letter of arrangement dt. 23-09-2020, Ex.A5 is the agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt. 23-09-2020, Ex.A6 is the registered notice issued to the defendant dt. 25-03-2022, Ex.A7 is the account copy bearing account No. 37536635199 dt. 22-03-2022 and

Ex.A8 is the account copy bearing account No.39681485479

dt. 22-03-2022.

5.Heard arguments on behalf of plaintif counsel.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for?

7.POINT:

The Branch Manager of plaintif bank examined as Pw1 and in his chief affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim of the plaintif bank, Pw1 got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

Ex.A1 is the loan application submitted by the defendant dt. 06-01-2018 request the plaintif bank to sanction loan to her and accordingly the bank authorities arranged the loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- dt. 11-04- 2018 under Ex.A2 and the defendant also executed agreement of loan -cum- hypothecation dt. 11-04-2018 which is Ex.A3, wherein the defendant agreed the terms and conditions in it. Subsequently, on 23- 09-2020 on letter of arrangement the plaintif bank authorities on request of the defendant sanctioned loan for Rs. 35,000/- and defendant agreed with rate of interest therein it is marked as Ex.A4. Ex.A5 is the supplemental agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt. 20-06-2020 wherein the defendant undertake to repay the amount with interest as per the terms and conditions of the bank and subsequently the 4 defendant failed to repay the amount. When the defendant failed to repay the loan amounts the plaintif also got issued registered legal notice in Ex.A6 to the defendant dt. 25-03-2022. Under Ex.A7 statement of account No. 37536635199 which is defendant’s loan account generated from the computer from 23-09-2020 to 22-03-2022 wherein closer balance shown as Rs. 36,858/-. Ex.A8 is statement of defendant’s loan account vide loan account number 39681485479 generated from the computer from 23-09-2020 to 22-03-2022 wherein closer balance shown as Rs. 35,000/-.

8.Upon perusal of the documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 establish that the defendant got issued loan from the plaintif bank and subsequently she failed to repay the same as per the statement of accounts in Ex.A7 and

Ex.A8, stipulated in the agreements under Ex.A2 to Ex.A5 when the defendant failed to repay the installments due to the plaintif bank the plaintif got issued registered legal notice to the defendant in Ex.A6 and after receiving the notice also the defendant failed to pay the agreed loan amount as such the plaintif constrained to file the above suit.

9.A plain reading of sworn affidavit of Pw1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by Pw1, reveal that the defendant availed the loan from plaintif bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly and though summons received by her from the court, she did not attended to the court as such she was set exparte by this Honourable court . It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of Pw.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus, the evidence of Pw1 is unchallenged and un-rebutted. Thus, the point is answered in favour of plaintif.

5

10.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintif Bank and against the defendant with costs for Rs.1,20,820/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand and eight hundred and twenty only) with subsequent interest at @ 7.40% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs. 1,20,820/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand eight hundred and twenty only).

Typed to my dictation by typist corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this is the 30th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW.1 : Tavva Guravaiah - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:- Loan application dt. 6-1-2018. Ex.A2:-Letter of arrangement dt. 11-4-2018. Ex.A3:- Agreement of loan cum hypothecation dt. 11-04-2018. Ex.A4:-Letter of arrangement dt. 23-9-2020 Ex.A5:- Arrangement of loan cum hypothecation dt. 23-09-2020. Ex.A6:-Registered notice issued to the defendant dt. 25-03-2022. Ex.A7:-Account copy 37536635199. Ex.A8:-Account copy 39681485479

Defendant : - Nil –

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Thursday, the 29 th day of September, 2022.

O.S NO. 1025/2022

Between:

Arudra Prarisudda rao, S/o. Chintaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/o.D. No. 5-67, Chinakondrupadu village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur

District. ..... Plaintiff

And

Kuntigorla Apparao, S/o.Peddanna, Hindu, aged about 43 years, R/o. D.No. 6-60D, Chinakondrupadu village, Prathipadu Mandal, Guntur

District. ..... Defendant

This suit has come before me on 26.09.2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Sai Vara Prasad Advocate for plaintiff, and defendant was set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,45,868/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a four promissory notes dt. 14-12-2020, 14-12-2020, 14-12-2020, 14-12-2020 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/-,Rs. 1,00,000/-,Rs. 1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 14-12-2020 for his family necessities and evidencing the same and for the convenience of easy repayment on the same date i.e. 14-12-2020 the defendant executed 4 separate promissory notes for

Rs. 1,00,000/- each i.e. A,B, C, D marked promissory notes in favour of 2 the plaintiff at Chinakondrupadu village, Prathipadu mandal, Guntur

District and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Subsequently the defendant did not choose to pay either interest or discharge the principle amount to the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff made several requests and demands to the defendant to discharge the four promissory notes debt along with interest, but the defendant did not choose to repay the same and has been postponing the same on one pretext or other, and that the plaintiff approached the defendant several times both personally and through mediators seeking the repayment of the debt due under the four promissory notes but in vain. It is further averred that recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendant is going to sell away his property with an intention to avoid payments to the plaintiff and leave jurisdiction limits of this Honourable court after screen away his property and that if the defendant succeeds in his attempts the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

Therefore the plaintiff constrained to file this suit seeking for recovery of the debt due under the A,B,C,D marked promissory notes which were executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons ordered against the defendant through Court were served on him. The defendant did not appeared before the Court, hence this Court made him set exparte on 29-08-2022 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s exparte evidence.

4.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined Pw.2 and Pw.3 on his behalf and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. Ex.A1 is the ‘A’ marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A2 is the ‘B’ 3 marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A3 is the ‘C’ marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A4 is the ‘D’ marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the records.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest as prayed for?

7.POINT:

Upon going through the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4, the plaintiff availed provisions of Order 18

Rule 4 [2] CPC, entered into witness box upon oath and examined himself as P.W.1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by P.W.1 upon oath reiterated the averments made in his plaint as true and correct.

P.W.1 in his sworn affidavit deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 14-12-2020 from him for defendant’s family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes on the same date for the said sum in his favor. The plaintiff also examined the attestor of

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 as Pw.2 and the scribe of Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 as Pw.3 the Pw.2 and Pw.3 were supported the case of plaintiff in all aspects. Though inspite ofrepeated demands made by the plaintiff, personally, through mediators the defendant failed to repay the amounts and that Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. Though the defendant received summons he failed to attend

before the Hon’ble Court on the given date of his appearance. Hence, he

is set exparte by this Hon’ble Court on 29-08-2022.

4

8.It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of P.Ws.1 to Pws.3. A plain reading of evidence of P.W.1 to Pw.3 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 which are documentary proof relied upon by plaintiff, establishes that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and to that effect, he executed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 promissory notes, which clearly shows all the ingredients as required under Section 3 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also establish that subsequently, inspite of demands made by plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the amount, but the defendant failed to appear before this Hon’ble Court and to contest his case and he is set exparte. Therefore, this Court opines that the evidence of P.W.1 to Pw.3 become un-challenged and un-rebutted.

The suit is filed within limitation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that P.W.1 proved the suit claim as prayed for, therefore, he is entitled to the suit amount with interest. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.5,45,868/- (Rupees five lakhs forty five thousand eight hundred and sixty eight only) with subsequent interest at @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on total principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this is the 29th day of September, 2022.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GUNTUR.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW.1: Arudra parisudda Rao

For Defendant: Nil.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:-A marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,00,000/- dt. 14-12-2020.

Ex.A2:- B marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A3:- C marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A4:- D marked original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

For Defendants : Nil.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

OS No.590/2022 1 PJCJC-GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : GUNTUR.

Present: Smt M.Indira Priyadarsini

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Tuesday, the 4 th day of July, 2023.

O.S NO.590 OF 2022.

Between:

Seelam Venkata Kishore, S/o. Siva Sankara Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 34 years, Private Employee, R/o. Door No.9-390, Yarrabalem Post, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ...Plaintif

And

Mamillapalli Ravi Babu, S/o. Dasu, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Government Employee, O/o. Superintendent, Joint Director of Agriculture, Collectorate Compound, Guntur, R/o. Door No.4- 17-91/13, 2nd Line, Velangini Nagar, Guntur. … Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 03.07.2023 for hearing in the presence of Sri V. Venkata Subba Reddy and Sri P. Naga Srinivasa Rao, Advocates for plaintif, and defendant set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.1,06,333/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand three hundred and thirty three only) and for subsequent interest on it @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of the realization and for costs of the suit.

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

That the plaintif has acquaintance with the defendant since long time, due to the said acquaintance, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 22.12.2021 from the plaintif herein for the purpose of

OS No.590/2022 2 PJCJC-GNT

his family expenses and in evidence thereof, the defendant executed a demand promissory note at Yarrabalem village on the even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same together with interest @24% per annum either to the plaintif or to his order on demand and subsequently, the plaintif made several demands to the defendant personally and through mediators to repay the above said promissory note debt and though inpsite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to repay the said promissory note debt and having no other alternative, the plaintif got issued a registered legal notice dt.12.03.2022 to the defendant demanding him to discharge the debt due under the promissory note and having come to know the contents of said notice,t he defendant got it returned with an endorsement “left without intimation” on 15.03.2022 by managing the postal authorities and kept quiet without discharging the debt due under the above said promissory note and the defendant though, having capacity to repay the promissory note debt, did not pay any amount to the plaintif till this date and that the defendant is not an agriculturist and hence, the provisions of Act IV of 1938, Act 7 of 1977 and Act 45 of 1987 are not applicable to the suit debt. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons ordered against the defendant through Court were served on him, he appeared through his counsel. Though sufficient opportunity have been given to him, he failed to file the written statement, since expiry of statutory period of filing of written statement, this Court set him exparte on 28.06.2023 and posted the matter for plaintif’s for exparte evidence.

4.The plaintif himself examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in

OS No.590/2022 3 PJCJC-GNT

plaintif favour for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.22.12.2021, Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintif to the defendant along with postal receipt dt.12.03.2022 and Ex.A3 is the returned legal notice, dt.15.03.2022.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintif and perused the records.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest as prayed for?

7.POINT:

i) Upon going through the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintif availed provisions of Order 18

Rule 4 [2] CPC, entered into witness box upon oath and examined himself as P.W.1. A plain reading of sworn affidavit filed by P.W.1 upon oath reiterated the averments made in his plaint as true and correct.

P.W.1 in his sworn affidavit deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 22.12.2021 from him for his family expenses and agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and executed Ex.A1 promissory note on the same date for the said sum in his favor. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to repay the amount under Ex.A1 subsequently the plaintif got issued registered legal notice along with postal receipt dt.12.03.2022 under Ex.A2 to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount due under the promissory note and the said legal notice was returned, dt.15.03.2022 under Ex.A3. Though the summons issued by the Hon’ble Court, the defendant appeared before the Court through his counsel but he failed to file written statement though sufficient

OS No.590/2022 4 PJCJC-GNT

opportunity have been availed by him. Since, statutory period of filing of written statement is lapsed, this Court, made him exparte.

ii) It appears that the defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of P.W.1. A plain reading of evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 which is documentary proof relied upon by P.W.1, establishes that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintif and to that efect, he executed Ex.A1 promissory note, which clearly shows all the ingredients as required under Section 3 of Negotiable

Instruments Act. It is also establish that subsequently, inspite of demands made by plaintif, the defendant failed to pay the amount, but the defendant failed to appear before this Hon’ble Court and to contest his case. Hence, he is set exparte.

iii) Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.1 become un-challenged and un-rebutted and P.W.1 proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note, therefore, the plaintif is entitled to the suit claim. The suit is filed within limitation. Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintif and against the defendant for the suit amount of Rs.1,06,333/- (Rupees one lakh six thousand three hundred and thirty three only) with subsequent interest at @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on total principal amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 4th day of July, 2023.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

OS No.590/2022 5 PJCJC-GNT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1 : Seelam Venkata Kishore. - None –

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Defendant : - Nil –

Ex.A1:- Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in plaintif favour for Rs.1,00,000/- dt.22.12.2021.

Ex.A2:- Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintif to the defendant along with postal receipt dt.12.03.2022

Ex.A3:- Returned legal notice, dt.15.03.2022.

Sd/- M. Indira Priyadarsini,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GUNTUR.

// True Copy //

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur.