Sri M. Nageswara Rao

APVS000051562017

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri M.Nageswara Rao, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam

Tuesday, the 24th day of February, 2026

Crl. Appeal No.61/2017

: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam From which Court the Appeal is preferred : C.C.No.77/2011 Number of the Case in the trial court : Crl.A.No. 61/2017 Number of the Appeal : Penta Arjun, S/o Raju, 26 yrs, Driver of Name and Description of the jeep, R/o Tutipala village, Makavarapalem Appellant Mandal, Visakhapatnam District : State of A.P., rep. by its Additional Public Name and Description of the RespondentProsecutor,Visakhapatnam,SHO, Makavarapalem police-station : Accused is convicted under Sec.255 (2) Section of law under which the trial court imposed: Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of 2 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The remand period if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

: Reversed Whether confirmed, modified or reversed. If modified, the modification.

: 12.06.2017 Date of presentation of appeal : 13.06.2017 Date of filing of the appeal : 18.07.2017 Notice by the Court to appear : 18.07.2017 Appellant ordered to appear : 20.02.2026 Date of hearing : 24.02.2026 Date of Judgment

This appeal came up before me on 20.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.A.Naidu and Sri M.Manoj, Advocates for the

Appellant and of Sri M. Khajana Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state/respondent. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record and having considered the same till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/accused who was convicted in C.C.77/2011 by the Judgment dated 11.05.2017 of the learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam (trial court), for the offence

U/sec.304(A) of IPC. The trial court sentenced the accused as follows: “to 3 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

suffer simple imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months. The remand period if any, already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.”

2. Perusal of the record shows that, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Makavarapalem Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr. No.25/2011 against the accused before the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

3. As per the charge sheet, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

3.1) On 17.02.2011 at about 08:30 AM., the deceased by name

Mittapati Pothuraju, S/o Late Chinnavya, who is the father of the PW.1 sat on the CC road at SC colony, after completion of natural calls. At that time the accused started the jeep bearing No. AP 28 T 9110 and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and raised on the deceased. As a result of which the said deceased received severe injures on his head, cheek, legs and over person. Immediately PW1 &

PW3 who are the sons of the deceased shifted and admitted him at Area

Hospital, Narsipatnam by 108 ambulance for treatment and at about 11:00 A.M., he died due to injuries while undergoing treatment. PW.1 came to Makavarapalem police station and gave a report to the police on the same day at about 01:00 Р.М., The investigating officer, S.I. of Police,

Makavarapalem P.S. (PW9) filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC.

4. Basing on the said charge sheet, the Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as 4 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

C.C. 77/2011. During the trial, PW1 to PW9 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.7 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence.

5. After appreciating both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court found guilty of accused for the offence u/s 304-A IPC and convicted the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-

A of IPC and sentenced as above.

6. Aggrieved by the said Calendar and Judgment, the appellant/Accused filed the present appeal on the grounds that the calender and judgment of lower-court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The lower court erred by convicting the Accused and it ought to have acquit the Accused. The

Lower court failed to consider the facts and admissions in cross examination, and convicted the accused basing on the evidence of P.W1 to 9. The lower court has failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution that some witness said the vehicle number as 9110 some of witness said the vehicle number as 2110. The prosecution failed to examine LW-10 who is the doctor who conducted autopsy, but the Lower Court marked the Postmortem as Ex. P6. Though the appellant have produced his defence witness the evidence of DW1 was completely brushed out by the Lower Court. The lower court failed to consider the test identification parade not conducted in this case and identity of accused in the court is not valid. Finally, it is prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court 5 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

against the appellant.

7. Heard both sides. Perused all the material papers.

8. Basing on the contentions of the appellant as per grounds of appeal, the following points arose for determination:

1. Whether the finding of the trial court that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the Calendar and Judgment of the trial court?, if so, to what extent?

9. POINT NO:1:

The learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the accused is innocent, did not commit any offence much less alleged by the prosecution and the accused is not liable for death of the deceased and there is no evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle on the alleged date of incident in rash and negligent manner and due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused only, the accident occurred. As per the case of the prosecution the crime-vehicle jeep ran over the deceased. But as per postmortem report, inquest report and the photographs filed by the prosecution reflects that no crush injuries to the deceased. Only blood oozing from the nose of the deceased is found and another small injury on back side of the head. But none of the witnesses stated about the injuries actually received by the deceased in the alleged accident. The place of accident is also not correctly established by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused examined one independent witness on his behalf and evidence of DW1 is very clear that the accused is not liable for the 6 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

accident and the accused did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The essential ingredients to made out the offence u/s 304-A

IPC is not made out. All the witnesses who are not actual eyewitnesses for the alleged incident and they were not at all present and witnessed the incident. But the witnesses identified the accused because accused is also resident of same village and same street. Therefore there is not evidence to made out the offence u/s 304-A IPC. The trial-court without properly appreciated the evidence convicted the appellant herein. So the accused is also entitled for acquittal.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the witnesses clearly and categorically stated about the manner of accident and they also identified the accused before the court. The deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident only. The trial court rightly evaluated the evidence and convicted the accused. There are no grounds to interfere and prays to dismiss the appeal.

11. This is a case for the offence under section 304-A IPC. The accused was convicted under section 304-A IPC and the prosecution is expected to prove the following ingredients for the offence under section 304-A IPC -

1. The death of the person is in question,

2. that the accused caused such death,

3. that such act of accused was rash or negligent, although it did not amount to culpable homicide.

7 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

12. The gist of the prosecution is that on 17-02-2011, at about 8:30 a.m., the deceased sat in front of his house on the CC Road. At that time, the accused drove the Jeep bearing number AP28T9110 with a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the deceased, resulting the deceased receiving severe injuries on his person.

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam, by 108 ambulance for treatment. While undergoing treatment on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased succumbed to injuries. Based on

Ex.P1 report submitted by PW1, this case has been registered against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P7. Out of nine witnesses, PW1 to

PW5 are direct eyewitnesses, PW6 is the panch witness, PW7 is the photographer, PW8 is the head constable and PW9 is the investigating officer.

13. As can be seen from the evidence of PW1, it is very clear that he is son of the deceased. He deposed during his chief examination that at about three years back at about 08.00 a.m., his father was present on the CC road in the village Tutipeta taking tea. By that time, he was present at his house. At that time, the accused drove his jeep bearing number 9110 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and raised it on the deceased. As a result, the deceased Pothuraju received severe injuries all over his body. Immediately himself and his brother LW2, LW3 to 6 witnessed the same and they called 108 ambulance and shifted the injured to area hospital, Narasipatnam. On the same day, while undergoing treatment, the deceased died at about 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, he presented Ex.P1 report. PW1, who is the defacto complainant in this 8 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

case and the son of deceased, who is cited as direct eyewitness for the incident, submitted Ex.P1 report to the police after the death of the deceased as per the case of prosecution. The alleged incident had been taken place at about 08:30 a.m. and immediately the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Narsipatnam. So, without any delay, PW1 is expected to give intimation to nearest police station about the accident.

But PW1 submitted Ex.P1 report at about 01.00 p.m. on the same day. As per Ex.P1 contents and evidence of PW1, the alleged accident took place at about 08.00 a.m. whereas the deceased sustained injuries and he was shifted to Area Hospital, Narasipatnam immediately in 108 ambulance.

While undergoing treatment at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased died.

14. Even after the death of the deceased, PW1 took three hours time to submit Ex.P1 report. So there is no explanation from the prosecution side with regard to the delay in lodging Ex.P1 report. Even there is no mention in the printed FIR the reasons for delay in lodging

Ex.P1 report. So, in a criminal case, the lodging of FIR to the police is very important. If any delay in lodging FIR or filing a criminal complaint quite often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought.

On account of delay, the report not only gets beruft of advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in introduction of a coloured version, exaggerated account of prosecution story as a result of deliberations and consultations. It is therefore thus essential that the delay in lodging FIR or filing a criminal complaint should be satisfactorily explained. In the case on hand, there is a delay of nearly five hours. There is no proper explanation from the prosecution side. In the absence of proper satisfactory explanation from the prosecution side with regard to the delay, the case of the prosecution becomes highly doubtful.

9 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW1 and contents of Ex.P1 report submitted by PW1 to the police, a keen observation of the contents of

Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1, it reflects that there is no whisper with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused in Ex.P1 report. It is just mentioned that the accused started his jeep and drove the same in speed and ran over the jeep on the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries all over his body. In a case under section 304-A IPC, the rashness and negligent act of the accused is very essential. Rash and negligent are not the same things.

16. Mere negligence cannot be construed to mean rashness.

There are degrees of negligence and rashness, and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence. One must find that the rashness has been of such a degree as such amount to taking hazard, knowing that the said hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby. As per Ex.P1 report contents, the accused started the jeep and drove speedily and the jeep ran over the deceased who sat on CC road. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and contents of charge sheet, the deceased sat on CC road at the time of alleged accident. The speed stated by P.W.1 is not believable because the accused started the vehicle just before the accident occurred.

Therefore, there is no other evidence to support the speed and negligent driving of accused appellant. Immediately after starting the vehicle, there is no possible to pick up speed. So the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire any confidence with regard to the alleged accident caused by the accused in a rash and negligent manner.

17. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is wife of P.W.1 and daughter-in-law of deceased, she deposed that at about 4 years back at 10 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

about 08.00 a.m. the deceased was drinking tea by sitting on CC road in front of her house. By the time she is cleaning in front of the house and also fetching water from public tap. By the time the accused started his jeep bearing number 9110 and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased and the jeep ran over her father-in- law as such her father-in-law received severe injuries all over his body.

Thereafter, her father-in-law was shifted to Area Hospital in Narsipatnam in 108 ambulance. While undergoing treatment on the same day at 10.00 a.m. her father-in-law died while undergoing treatment and the accused was the driver of the jeep at the time of accident.

18. PW3 is another son of deceased, he stated that about three years back on one day morning hours, his father sitting on the road margin in front of their house taking tea. By the time the accused drove the jeep and hit against his father due to which his father received head injury and on his face and received bleeding injuries. Then himself, PW1 and PW2 shifted his father to government hospital at Narsipatnam for treatment. While undergoing treatment his father died on the same day. In the cross-examination he stated it is true the alleged accident occurred while he was present in his house. As such he did not witness the accident directly.

19. PW4, neighbor of the scene of offence, stated that about three years back while he was present at his house, the accused came their street by driving the jeep and hit the deceased who was sitting on the road side in front of his house. The jeep bearing number 9110, the driver drove the jeep in high speed and hit the deceased. As a result the deceased sustained injuries and raised huge cries. Immediately himself,

LW5 and LW6 witnessed the same and neighbors also gathered there 11 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

and on seeing them the accused ran away from the scene of offence.

20. PW5 who is also neighbour of the deceased, stated as direct eyewitness, he deposed that about five years back, one day morning while he was present in front of his house, the accused came to his street by driving the jeep and hit against the deceased who is sitting on the road in front of the house of deceased with the jeep bearing number 2110 driving the same in high speed and hit against the deceased due to which the deceased received injuries and raised huge cries. Immediately himself and LW-5, LW6 witnessed the same and neighbours gathered there. Then the accused ran away from the scene of offence. A perusal of above evidence of PW-2 to PW4, they simply stated that the accused drove the jeep in high speed and dashed against the deceased. As can be seen from the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who are the family members of deceased, they did not state on which part of the body of the deceased the injuries caused due to the accident. As per the evidence of PW1 to

PW5, the deceased sat on the road and the accused drove the jeep in high speed and dashed against the deceased. If that was the case, there would be multiple ruptured severe bleeding injuries would have been received by the deceased. But there is no such type of injuries received by the deceased as per the evidence of all witnesses and inquest report and postmortem report. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW5 in respect of negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused creates a doubt in the mind of the court.

21. All the witnesses cited as eyewitnesses appears to be not directly witnessed the accident. After hearing the cries of deceased, they came out from their houses and saw the deceased with injuries on the road. One of the witnesses, PW3 who is another son of deceased, clearly 12 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

and categorically stated in the cross-examination and admitted that the alleged accident occurred while he was inside the house. As such, he did not witness the accident directly. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is very clear that he did not directly witness the accident. Likewise, PW1, PW2, who are husband and wife, also not directly witnessed the accident. PW4 and PW5, who are neighbors of the scene of offense, also not directly witnessed the accident.

22. Another point to be considered in this case is that none of the witnesses stated on which part of the body the deceased sustained injuries in the alleged accident. If really they witnessed the accident and noticed the injuries on the body of the deceased, they would have stated the injuries on the body of the deceased. But as can be seen from the photographs and the postmortem report, it is very clear that no other bleeding injuries found on the body of the deceased except the injury on the head and blood oozing from the nose. So, taking this fact into consideration, the crime vehicle hit the deceased in high speed is doubtful. Merely because PW1 to PW5 identified the accused by stating that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, it does not mean that the accused committed the offense. The essential ingredients stated above is essential to made out the offence against the accused under section 304-A IPC.

23. But a careful reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW5 in between the lines it is very clear none of the witnesses stated on which part of the body the deceased received injuries in the accident and also the rash and negligent driving of the accused. It is no doubt true that the deceased died due to the head injury as per postmortem report. But there is no evidence the head injury which is reason for the death of the 13 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

deceased as per postmortem report caused by the accused in the alleged accident. None of PW1 to PW5 evidence is silent that the deceased received injuries on the head, but it is also clear from the evidence of

PW3 in the chief examination, the deceased received injury on the head and face. But this type of uncorroborated evidence of PW3 is not a ground to proceed against the accused even there is no evidence the head injury found on the dead body of the deceased which is a cause for the death of the deceased sustained in the accident and even that injury is caused in the accident. There would be a corresponding foreign material appears on the wound of head injury, but the said evidence is silent in the medical evidence.

24. Coming to the investigating officer evidence, after registering the case, he visited the scene of offence and he secured the presence of

PW1 to PW5 and other witnesses and recorded their statements and prepared a rough sketch. As can be seen from the rough sketch, the alleged accident appears to be occurred on the road, but it is also a fact to be noted here that no scene observation report prepared by the investigating agency. In a case like this, the scene observation report is essential to fix the exact place of accident. If considering the rough sketch, the scene of offence is shown on the road. As per the evidence of all the witnesses, the deceased sat on the road in front of his house. Even rough sketch does not disclose the house of deceased and other witnesses. Even it is silent about the vehicle records and the accused driving license particulars. As per the case of prosecution and evidence, the accident occurred about 08.00 or 08:30 a.m., whereas the death of the deceased as per evidence available on record at 10.00 a.m. on the same day while undergoing treatment. It is settled proposition of law the 14 Cr.A.61/2017

IV ADSJ,VSP.

condition of the road and nature of the traffic are also circumstances to be considered in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver.

Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the trial court erred in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

25. POINT NO.2:

In view of my findings in point No.1, the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be sustained. Therefore, the judgment of trial court is to be set aside. This point is answered accordingly.

26. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Narsipatnam vide calendar and Judgment dated 11.05.2017 in C.C.

77/2011. The accused is acquitted u/s.386 (b) (i) Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled after six months. The fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-1, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this 24 h day of February, 2026.

Sd/- M.Nageswara Rao,

IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam Copy to: Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam along with trial court record

APVS000111392023

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Friday, this the 20th day of February, 2026

E.P. 347/2024 in A.A. 262/2023

Between: M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., (formerly known as M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd. As per order dated 09.11.2022 of the Hon’ble Company Law Tribunal Special Bench at Chennai) a Public Ltd., Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956, having its Regd., office at Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 032, having Branches all over India including one such Branch office at Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam represented by its Power of Attorney Holder cum Authorized Signatory, Mr Yalla Balakrishore, S/o M. Sri Raju, Hindu, aged 40 years, working as Recovery Incharge, Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, situate at D.No. 45-40-41, 1st Floor, Main Road, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/D.Hr.,

And:

1. Shaik Ahmed Valli, S/o Sahed, Muslim, aged about 48 years, residing at D.No. 58-1-42/12, NAD Kotha Road Junction, Visakhapatnam – 530 009.

2.M. Nageswara Rao, S/o Rama Rao, Hindu, aged about 45 years, residing at D.No. 58/1, Railway Quarters, Maripalem, Visakhapatnam – 530 018.

3.Shaik Ahmeda, W/o Sk. Ahmed Valli, residing at D.No. 58-421/3, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This petition coming on this day for hearing of DHR before me in the presence of Sri Sk. Madeena Valli and Smt. Fathimunnisha, Advocates for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 1st and 2nd JDRs praying the court to issue notice to 1st and 2nd JDRs to be arrest under Order XXI Rules 37 of CPC and order for the arrest and detention in the Civil prison of 1st and 2nd JDRs under

Order XX1 Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of the award amount.

2

Process not paid. DHR called absent, no representation for DHR till 5 P.M. Sufficient time is given, despite DHR not turned up. Hence, E.P. is dismissed for non presence.

Pronounced by me in open court this the day of 20th day of February, 2026

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV ADJ/VSP.

APVS000111392023

Date of Presentation: Date of filing :

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Srihari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 01st day of February, 2024

E.P. 126/2023 in A.A. 12/2021

Between:

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, representedby its Sr. Recovery Executive & Authorized Signatory cum GPA Holder Maddu Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Venkata Ramana Rao.

….Petitioner/D.Hr., And:

1. K. Suresh Kumar, S/o K.V.V. Satyanarayana, aged about 35 years, Driver cum Business, R/o Door No. 14-27-1/A, Angati Street, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam -01.

2.Ch. Narasimha Raju, S/o Surya Rao, aged about 38 years, Business, R/o Door No. 71-31-1937, Karaka Lova, Gandhi Gram, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 1st J.Dr praying to the court to order to issue show cause notice to the JDRNo.1, under Order 21, Rule 37 and to order for arrest and detention in the Civil Prison of JDR No.1 under Order 21, Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of EP Amount.

A fixed court fee of Rs.1/- is paid on the petition

This petition coming on this day for Rule 37 notice against J.Dr No.1 before me in the presence of Sri S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default; and

2. that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and this court this the day of 01st day of February, 2024.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV ADJ/VSP

APVS000067182024

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Monday, this the 23rd day of February, 2026

E.P. 610/2024 in A.A. 417/2017

Between: M/s Shriram Finance Ltd., (formerly known as M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co., Ltd.) represented by its Chief Business Manager cum Power of Attorney Holder Mr Bonam Gowri Sankar, S/o Sai Satya, situated at Door No: 45-40-41, 1st floor, Surya’s Lakshmi Ramana Plaza, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/D.Hr.,

And:

1. Tanavarapu Shyam Kumar, S/o Paidi Raju, aged about 40 years, D.No. 37-3-46, Gajapathi Nagar, Old ITI Junction, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam – 530 008.

2.Karajada Suryanarayana, S/o K Krishna, aged about 44 years, Door No. 54-17-57, Rajaka Nagar, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam – 530 022.

3.Ramana Auto Financiers, D.No. 24-9-1/4, Ramakoti Mydanam, East Road, Ram Nagar, Vijayawada – 3.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This petition coming on this day for hearing of DHR before me in the presence of Sri Doodi Roja Santhi Sunanda and Sri Vaddi Sunil, Advocates for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 2nd JDR praying the court to issue notice to 2nd JDR to be arrest under Order XXI Rules 37 of CPC and order for the arrest and detention in the Civil prison of 2nd JDR under Order XX1 Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of the award amount.

2

Process not paid. DHR called absent. No representation. Waited till 5pm. EP is dismissed for non payment of process. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this the day of 23th day of February, 2026

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV ADJ/VSP.

APVS000067182024

Date of Presentation: Date of filing :

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Srihari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 01st day of February, 2024

E.P. 126/2023 in A.A. 12/2021

Between:

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, representedby its Sr. Recovery Executive & Authorized Signatory cum GPA Holder Maddu Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Venkata Ramana Rao.

….Petitioner/D.Hr., And:

1. K. Suresh Kumar, S/o K.V.V. Satyanarayana, aged about 35 years, Driver cum Business, R/o Door No. 14-27-1/A, Angati Street, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam -01.

2.Ch. Narasimha Raju, S/o Surya Rao, aged about 38 years, Business, R/o Door No. 71-31-1937, Karaka Lova, Gandhi Gram, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 1st J.Dr praying to the court to order to issue show cause notice to the JDRNo.1, under Order 21, Rule 37 and to order for arrest and detention in the Civil Prison of JDR No.1 under Order 21, Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of EP Amount.

A fixed court fee of Rs.1/- is paid on the petition

This petition coming on this day for Rule 37 notice against J.Dr No.1 before me in the presence of Sri S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default; and

2. that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and this court this the day of 01st day of February, 2024.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV ADJ/VSP

APVS000013702019

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Monday, this the 23rd day of February, 2026

E.P. 46/2019 in A.A. 866/2011

Between: M/s Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Dabagardens Branch. Rep[ by its Senior Credit Executive / Authorised Signatory M. Srinivasa Rao, S/o Govinda Rao, Resident of Visakhapatnam.

...Petitioner/D.Hr.,

And:

1. Srinivasa Engineering Construction Co. Rep by its Managing Partner, Potluri Vishnu Vardhana Rao, S/o Venkata Ramaiah, Flat No. 502, Bhagyaprastha Residency, Rajendra Nagar, Attapur, Hyderabad.

2.Mogalapu Jayaram, S/o Purna Chandra Rao, Hindu, D.No.8-1-84/18, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This petition coming on this day for hearing of DHR before me in the presence of Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr, and of Sri Venkat Jai Krishna Patnaik, Advocate for 2nd JDR, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 2nd JDR praying the court to issue notice to 2nd JDR to be arrest under Order XXI Rules 37 of CPC and order for the arrest and detention in the Civil prison of 2nd JDR under Order XX1 Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of the award amount.

2

Process not paid. DHR called absent. No representation. Waited till 5pm. EP is dismissed for non payment of process. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this the day of 23th day of February, 2026

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV ADJ/VSP.

APVS000013702019

Date of Presentation: Date of filing :

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Srihari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 01st day of February, 2024

E.P. 126/2023 in A.A. 12/2021

Between:

M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam, representedby its Sr. Recovery Executive & Authorized Signatory cum GPA Holder Maddu Venkata Ravi Kumar, S/o Venkata Ramana Rao.

….Petitioner/D.Hr., And:

1. K. Suresh Kumar, S/o K.V.V. Satyanarayana, aged about 35 years, Driver cum Business, R/o Door No. 14-27-1/A, Angati Street, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam -01.

2.Ch. Narasimha Raju, S/o Surya Rao, aged about 38 years, Business, R/o Door No. 71-31-1937, Karaka Lova, Gandhi Gram, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents/J.Drs

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 1st J.Dr praying to the court to order to issue show cause notice to the JDRNo.1, under Order 21, Rule 37 and to order for arrest and detention in the Civil Prison of JDR No.1 under Order 21, Rule 38 r/w Sec.55 of CPC for realization of EP Amount.

A fixed court fee of Rs.1/- is paid on the petition

This petition coming on this day for Rule 37 notice against J.Dr No.1 before me in the presence of Sri S.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

1. that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed for default; and

2. that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and this court this the day of 01st day of February, 2024.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No costs memo is filed on either side.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV ADJ/VSP

APVS000072202025

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M.Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday, this the 24th day of February, 2026

E.P. No.672/2025 in A.A. 1/2017

Between: M/s. Shriram Finance Limited (Formerly known as Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., ) represented by its Chief Business Manager cum Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Bonam Gowri Sankar, S/o Sai Satya situated at Door No. 45-40-41, 1st Floor, Surya’s Lakshmi Ramana Plaza, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. …Petitioner/D.Hr.,

And:

1. Rokkam Seshagiri Babu, S/o Babu Rao, aged about 51 years, D.No. 56-39-5, Gokul Nagar, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam 530008.

2. Joga Satish, S/o Appa Rao, aged about 37 years, Door No. 56-32-1, Thota Veedhi, Golla Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam – 530 008. Presently residing at D.No. 56-37-8/3, 3rd floor, C/o Ganga Thota Veedhi, Golla Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam – 530 008

3. M/s. Rajamundry Auto Consultancy, Visakha A Colony, Seikakulam – 530005.

..Respondents/J.Drs

This petition coming on this day for hearing of D.Hr., before me in the presence of Sri D. Roja Santhi Sunanda, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is an Execution Petition filed by the D.Hr./ Company against the 2nd

J.Dr., praying the court to issue notice to 2nd JDR to be arrest under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC and order for the arrest and detention in the Civil Prison of 2nd JDR under Order 21 Rule 38 r/w Sec. 55 of CPC for the realization of E.P. amount.

2

Process not paid. DHR called absent. No representation. Waited till 5 pm.

EP is dismissed for non payment of process. No costs.

Pronounced by me in open court this the day of 24th day of February, 2026

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

IV Addl. District Judge Visakhapatnam.

No. of Witnesses examined for

No oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- M. Nageswara Rao

. IV ADJ/VSP.