Sri.M.R.Saravana Kumar, B.Sc.,B.L.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI M. R. Saravana Kumar, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2013

O.S.No.917/2010

Between:

Kosuru Rusha Sri d/o Subrahmanyam, Hindu, 14 years, being minor represented by her Junior Maternal grand mother Sajja Pushpalatha, w/o Venkata Rao, 54 years, Durga Agraharam, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …Plaintiff.

And

1. Anju Maheswari w/o Gopal Maheswari @ Gopal, 44 years, Hindu, under relative's protection, Srinivasa Towers, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

2. Devarapalli Gagarin s/o Anjaiah, Christian, 50 years, Lorry Mechanic, Dr.No:30-20/1-21, 3rd floor, Iswarya Towers, Kotilingam St., Seetharampuram, Vijayawada. …Defendants.

This suit is coming on 4.3.2013 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri BJL David, Advocate for plaintiff firm and of Sri P. Raja Sekhar,

Advocate for the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant remained exparte., and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, this

Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, subordinates, servants, followers and relatives etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule premises in an extent of 41.625 square yards in undivided and unspecified joint right of 1/20th share in an extent of 832.5 square yards sitauted in R.S.No:160/1A, Muncipal ward

No:27/1, New municipal ward No:23, old assessment number 24436/18,

New assessment No:195537, Dr.No:30-20/1-21, Kotilingam Street,

Seetarampuram, Vijayawada, Krishna District and for costs of the suit.

2 The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The plaintiff is absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same described in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff purchased the property under registered sale deed

dated 24.2.2010. The 1st defendant become greedy with a fraudulent

intention to grab the plaint schedule property and to have wrongful gain instigated the 2nd defendant who is nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. The defendants spreading roamers since 2 days prior to filing of this petition that they will cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff by dispossessing them.

The plaintiff submitted that the first defendant in collusion with the 2nd defendant on 15.7.2010 in the evening hours sent the 2nd defendant alongwith unruly elements and rowdies to the plaint schedule property to dispossess the inmates of the plaint schedule property and with an intention to forcibly occupy the same. The men of the 2nd defendant have made efforts to dispossess the inmates of the plaint schedule property. But, at the intervention of the neighbours the efforts were prevented. The 2nd defendant and their men left the premises giving a threat. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants are highly influenced persons. The plaintiff submitted that the defendants are nothing to do with the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaint schedule property from the enjoyment of the plaintiff.

3. The 2nd defendant filed the written statement denied the averments made in the plaint. The 2nd defendant submitted that the plaintiff suppressed all the true facts. 2nd defendant stated that he never tried to dispossess the inmates of the plaint schedule property and there is 3 no collusion between the 1st defendant and 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant submitted that the father of the plaintiff by name Kosuru

Subrahmanyam is litigant and he is the person behind the suit. The 1st defendant and her husband colluded with the father of the plaintiff and got executed the sale deed dated 24.2.2010 with a malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs. 1st defendant remained exparte.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 and P.W.2 are examined. Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3 are marked. On behalf of the defendants D.W.1 to D.W.3 are examined Ex.B1 is marked.

6. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.

Issue No.1: -

7. The plaintiff is minor represented by her next friend filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction against Defendants 1 and 2. It is alleged in the plaint that on 15.7.2010 the 2nd defendant alongwith unruly elements came to the plaint schedule premises to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. It is also stated that the defendants high handedly influenced the police persons. The plaintiff's family members are summoned to the police station on the same day and the police extended threat to the plaintiff and her family members. The 2nd defendant in his 4 written statement stated that no such incident has happened and he has not made any threats. The averments made in the plaint are false. He further contended that the father of the plaintiff being litigant person got executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is hit by binami transaction.

8. On behalf of the plaintiff her next friend is examined as P.W.1. In the chief examination affidavit P.W.1 reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.2 is examined. P.W.2 deposed in his chief examination affidavit that the plaint schedule property purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 24.2.2010 and further stated that the 2nd defendant alongwith some unruly elements made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff.

9. In the cross examination P.W.1 deposed that she is maternal grand mother of the plaintiff. She further deposed that she did not know the boundaries of the plaint schedule property. But, the flat is in Ishwarya apartments. She did not know the 2nd defendant. She did not know the transactions. But, she know that one Kosuru Subrahmanyam acquired it.

P.W.1 deposed that she is not binami to Kosuru Subrahmanyam. In the cross examination of P.W.2, he deposed that he is doing real estate business. At the request of one Sajja Pushpalatha he gave evidence. He gave instructions for preparation of his chief examination affidavit. It was suggested to P.W.2 at the instance of Kosuru Subrahmanyam he is deposing false statement. It was put to P.W.2 that why the suit is filed by the plaintiff, for which he answered that there was quarrel took place in the first floor and at that time he was personally present.

5

10. The 2nd defendant examined as D.W.1. In his chief examination affidavit he stated about the sale transaction. But, in the subsequent portion of para 3 he allege that the 1st defendant by name Gopal Maheswari borrowed an amount of Rs.33,00,000/- from 2nd defendant and there was a negotiation for which the 1st defendant agreed to execute sale deed for the plaint schedule property and possession was also delivered.

11. In the cross examination, D.W.1 deposed the memo of understanding is not a registered instrument and basing on the said document no suit is filed. D.W.1 further admitted that the plaintiff purchased the property described in Ex.B1 from the 1st defendant under a registered sale deed. D.W.1 denied the suggestion that they have made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff and her family members from the plaint schedule property.

12. D.W.2 and D.W.3 are the persons who examined by the 2nd defendant to speak about the memo of understanding and the circumstances under which it came into existence. In the cross examination of D.W.2, he deposed that he have acquaintance with the 2nd defendant for the past 10 years and the remaining portion of the cross examination are suggestions were denied by D.W.2. It was suggested to

D.W.2 that the memo of understanding was fabricated for the purpose of the suit was denied. D.W.3 in his cross examination deposed that he is resident of Aishwarya apartments. He did not sign on the memo of understanding marked as Ex.B1.

13. The plaintiff filed the suit to restrain the defendants from causing any disturbance or interference by the defendants to the plaintiff's peaceful 6 possession and enjoyment by filing the suit simplicitor for the relief of equitable remedy of permanent injunction. P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed in their evidence that the 2nd defendant alongwith some body came and caused an effort to dispossess the plaintiff and her family members from the plaint schedule property. The 2nd defendant in his written statement did not state that there is a memo of understanding between him and 1st defendant with regard to the plaint schedule property or the 1st defendant delivered the plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant. In the evidence of D.W.1,

D.W.2 and D.W.3 they repeatedly deposed about the memo of understanding and delivery of the property to the 2nd defendant. This evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 with regard to the memo of understanding i.e.

Ex.B1 cannot be looked into for the reason that any amount of evidence without plea cannot be taken into consideration.

14. Even in the memo of understanding there is a clause that the 1st defendant has to execute agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd defendant and then execute regular registered sale deed. But, no such incidents have been occurred. Since the defendants did not depose any evidence in that direction.

15. The plaintiff and P.W.2 categorically deposed that the defendants have made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. The evidence placed by the 2nd defendant alongwith his witness shows that there is a dispute with regard to the plaint schedule property. 2nd defendant claiming interest in the property. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the evidence of defendants clearly shows that the 2nd defendant would have been made interference with the plaint schedule property since the 2nd defendant has stated that he intended to purchase the plaint schedule property and there was memo of 7 understanding. But, the 1st defendant sold the property to the plaintiff where the 2nd defendant is aggrieved by such transaction.

16. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff established that the title is with the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 24.2.2010 clearly shows that the first defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 probablize that the 2nd defendant made an interference in the enjoyment and possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property acquired the property under valid registered sale deed is entitled to protect her possession from any 3rd party who have no title to the property. The 2nd defendant did not place any material to show that they are in possession of the property. The plaintiffs by producing the original sale deed and examining the two witness on her behalf established that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is the absolute owner and they are in possession the defendant without any right and reason cannot disturb the possession and shall not be permitted to disturb the possession of the plaint schedule property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

ISSUE No:2

17. IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs and D1, D2 are restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the Plaint schedule property in the possession of the plaintiff.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of April, 2013.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :FOR DEFENDANT : PW1:Sajja Pushpalatha DW1Devarapalli Gagarin PW2:T. Rama Krishna DW2 M. Veerbahmachary DW3P. Yugandhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1CC of registered Ex.B1: Memo of understanding sale deed dt. 24.2.2010 Ex.A2: Municipal tax receipt Ex.A3: Electricity bill

PSCJ/VJA

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI M.R. SARAVANA KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Wednesday, this the 17th day of April, 2013

O.S.No.671/2011

Between: State Bank of India, Stressed Assets recovery branch, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada. Represented by its Chief Manager, Vijayawada. …Plaintiff.

And

1. Sabbisetty Manasa d/o Venkata Murali Krishna, 24 years, Hindu, r/o Dr.No:41-1/2-5A, Matadavari St., Dwaraka Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada.

2. Sabbisetty Venkata Murali Krishna s/o Seshavataram, Hindu, 49 years, r/o Dr.No:41-1/2-5A, Mantadavari St., Dwaraka Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. …Defendants.

This suit is coming for final hearing on 4.3.2013 in the presence of Sri.

TVN Vasudeva Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff bank, and of Sri. I. Pranava Prakash advocate for the defendants and the matter is having stood over till this day for consideration and on perusal of entire case material on record, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Suit for recovery of Rs.1,46,931/- being the principal and interest due under the original loan agreement and demand promissory note executed by both the defendants for Rs.1,00,000/- on 12.9.2005 in favour of the plaintiff bank repayable with interest @ 13.25% p.a. (part payment of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,200/- made on 19.4.2010 by the defendants to the plaintiff bank) and for costs.

2. Brief averments of the plaint as follows:

The plaintiff is State Bank of India having stressed assets recovery branch.

The defendants are residents of Vijayawada. The 1st defendant is daughter of the 2nd defendant. They approached the plaintiff bank branch at Labbipet, Vijayawada for

SBI Educational loan under SBI Education Loan scheme. On 5.9.2005 the loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendants availed and utilized the 2 loan amount. On 12.9.2005 the defendants 1 and 2 executed an agreement for term loan in SBI Education loan scheme in favour of the plaintiff bank for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendants agreed to repay the same in 84 equated monthly installments @ Rs.1,686/- per month together with interest @ 10.5% p.a. with monthly rests. The repayment begins after completion of education and commences from 1.8.2008. The rate of interest varies from time to time as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and now the present interest is 13.25% p.a. with monthly rests.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendants paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- on 26.7.2006 and on 19.4.2010 they paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.1,200/- by way of cash towards the loan account and acknowledged their liability. The plaintiff bank opened and maintained an account No:30015015699 in the name of 1st defendant in their books of accounts. An amount of Rs.1,00,600/- with interest is due in the said account for recovery with future interest and costs.

The plaintiff also submitted that the defendants committed default in payment of loan amount as per the terms and conditions. The plaintiff bank issued notice

dated 18.1.2011. But, the defendants failed to give any reply. Hence, the plaintiff filed

the suit for recovery of principal and interest. The suit is filed for recovery of

Rs.1,46,931/-.

3. The defendants in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaint. The defendants submitted that the persons who signed on the plaint is not competent to sign on the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff bank. The suit is time barred.

The loan is educational loan. The rate of interest mentioned is penal. The defendants submitted that they paid the amounts regularly. They totally paid Rs.15,400/- to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff has to charge interest only @ 1% p.a.. The 1st defendant did not got any job. So, the defendants are entitled to pay installments with interest @ 1% p.a. The defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

3

4. Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff bank its employee examined as P.W.1. Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 are marked. On behalf of the defendants DW.1 and D.W.2 are examined.

Ex.B1 bunch of counter foils are marked.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.

ISSUE No:1

7.The plaintiff is nationalized bank filed the suit for recovery of the balance amount under the education loan scheme from the defendants 1 and 2. The defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement have denied the averments made in the plaint and have taken various defenses. On behalf of the plaintiff bank its Assistant

Manager is examined as P.W.1. He reiterated all the averments made in the plaint.

The loan application of the individual is marked as Ex.A1. Agreement for education loan dateed 12.9.2005 is marked as Ex.A3 and the loan account copy is marked as

Ex.A7. In the cross examination of P.W.1, Ex.B1 is marked. Ex.B1 is bunch of counter foils for payment of money towards the loan account by the defendants.

These counter foils are reflected in the account copy produced by the plaintiff marked as Ex.A7. P.W.1 further deposed in the cross examination that the loan amount was sent to the educational institution directly. An amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 13.9.2005, Rs.33,000/- on 26.7.2006 and another amount of Rs.34,000/-was paid on 17.8.2007. Totally an amount of Rs.97,000/- was paid to the institute where the 1st defendant prosecuted her studies.

8. The 1st defendant is examined as D.W.1. She reiterated the averments made in the written statement. In the cross examination D.W.1 deposed that she availed the loan facility from State Bank of India for education of B.Sc., Bio technology and she completed her studies in the year 2008. She completed her studies in Institute of Medical sciences at Guntur. The signatures on Ex.A1, Ex.A2 4 and Ex.A3 belongs to her. D.W.1 also admitted prior to filing of this suit, the plaintiff bank issued notice and she failed to issue reply to that notice. D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff bank paid the fees. She further admitted that as per the terms of loan agreement, after completion of studies she has to pay the loan amount in 84 EMIs @ Rs.1,686/-. D.W.1 deposed that she did not issue any notice to the plaintiff bank for obtaining her signatures without disclosing the contents in the forms. D.W.1 further deposed that she did not made any payment during her studies to discharge the loan. D.W.1 admitted that the amount paid by her is credited in the account copy.

She further deposed except the amount shown in Account copy she did not pay any amount towards the loan amount.

9. The 2nd defendant is examined as D.W.2 and he stated the contents of written statement in his chief examination affidavit. D.W.2 in the cross examination deposed that the loan was availed for the education of the 1st defendant who studied in southern institute of medical sciences in Guntur. D.W.2 admitted that the plaintiff paid all the fees. He further admitted his signatures on Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. D.W.2 admitted that they paid Rs.15,400/- towards the loan account. They borrowed

Rs.1,00,000/-for education purpose. D.W.2 further admitted that D.W.1 completed her education in the year 2008.

10. The admissions made by D1 and D2 in their cross examinations established that the defendants 1 and 2 applied to the plaintiff bank to avail loan for education purpose and the said amount was paid to the defendants and it is further admitted that except the amount what is described in ex.A7 no other amount is paid by the defendants to the plaintiff bank. These admissions clearly establish that the defendants are liable to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff is the authorized person to represent the plaintif bank under the banking act. The other defenses taken by the defendants in the written statement are not establish or placed any eviedence on their behalf except contending that the suit is not maintainable. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount.

5 ISSUE No:2

11. IN THE RESULT, suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,46,931/- with future interest there on @ 9% P.A. from the date of suit till the date of realization. D1 and D2 are jointly and severally and personally liable to pay the decretal amount.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 17th day of April, 2013.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1: T. Radha Krishna D.W.1: Sabbisetty Manasa D.W.2: Sabbisetty Venkata Murali Krishna

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.A1: Loan application dated 29.8.2005 Ex.B1: Bunch of counterfoils Ex.A2: Loan sanction letter dated 5.9.2005 Ex.A3: Agreement for educational loan dt.12.9.2005 Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dt. 18.1.2011 Ex.A5: Postal acknowledgment of D1 Ex.A6: Postal acknowledgment of D2 Ex.A7: True copy of suit loan account.

PSCJ::VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI M.R. Saravana Kumar, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this the 24th day of April, 2013

O.S.No.1284/2011

Between: Shaik Yasmin w/o Sayad Munaaf, 31 years, Islam, r/o Dr.No:8-12-80, Bade Saheb St., Wynchipet, Vijayawada. …Plaintiff.

And

1. Shaik Mahaboob s/o Silar, Muslim, 51 years,

2. Shaik Marthamma w/o Mahaboob, Muslim, 41 years, Both are residents of Dr.No:8-12-45,

Bade Saheb St., Wynchipet, Vijayawada. ...Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.2,59,200/- being the principal and interest due under pronote executed by defendants on 4.9.2010 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for consideration on this day in the presence of Sri. U. R.P. Srinivas, advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.

S. Srinivas advocate for 1st defendant and Sri. J.V.R.L. Narasimha Rao, advocate for the 2nd defendant and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

P.W.2 to P.W.4 not present. Plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo.

Plaintiff stated suit is settled out of court. Suit is dismissed as settled out of court without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of

April, 2013.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1: Shaik Yasmin NONE P.W.2: Gajja Venkata Lakshmi P.W.3: Kalapala Ravi Kumar P.W.4: Ch. Ravi Kumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Ex.A1: Promissory note Ex.B1: Pass book

PSCJ/VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI M.R. Saravana Kumar, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Wednesday, this the 24th day of April, 2013

O.S.No.1606/2012

Between:

G. Koteswara Rao s/o Raghava Rao, Hindu, 61 years, Flat No:24, Chaitanya Apartment, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. …Plaintiff.

And

P. Ramesh Babu s/o Subrahmanyam, Hindu, 55 years, Civil Contractor, H.No:2-125/1, Srinagar colony, Near Veternary Hospital, Gannavaram. …Defendant.

Suit for recovery of Rs.3,44,500/- being the principal and interest due under pronote executed by defendant on 21.11.2009 in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for consideration on this day in the presence of Sri. D. Anjaneya Prasad advocate for the plaintiff and of

Sri. B. David Ratna Kumar, advocate for the defendant and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Suit is advanced to 24.4.2013 as per orders in IA 862/2013/

Plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo as settled out of court. Suit is dismissed as settled out of court without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of

April, 2013.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

PSCJ/VJA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI M.R. Saravana Kumar, B.Sc., B.L.,

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2013

O.S.No.313/2011

Between:

Gundapu Gangadhara Rao s/o Manikyala Rao, 42 years, Hindu, Doctor, r/o Hyderabad.…Plaintiff.

And

Anumolu Siva Kumar s/o Papa Rao, 40 years, Hindu, Business, Sri. Venkateswara Kanakadurga Automobiles, dr.No:27-23-158, Gopalreddy Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada. …Defendant.

Suit to eject the defendant from the plaint schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff; for arrears of rents from August, 2008 to December, 2010 totalling

Rs.3,09,000/- and future damages from January, 2011 to till eviction of the suit at Rs.22,000/- per month and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for consideration and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Again called at 3.00 P.M. Plaintiff not present. No representation till 3.00 P.M. suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23rd day of

April, 2013.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

PSCJ/VJA