Smt. M. Siva Parvathi

1J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of February, 2021

O.S.NO.370/2019

Between :

1. Pitta Nagireddy, S/o. Late Kunchayya, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/at. D.No.21-46-14, Siddeswaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.940666025220, Mobile No.8330980773

2. Nandiki Chinna Reddy, S/o. Ramulu, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 29 years, R/at.D.No.21-5-10, near Ramalayam, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44, Aadhar No.655726330509, Mobile No.8074047446

...Plaintiffs

And :

1. Pilli Suribabu, S/o. Apparao, Driver, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/at.D.No.18-32-1/1, Balacheruvu RHC, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam- 44, Aadhar No.817562216991

2. Pilli Mani, W/o. Pilli Suribabu, House wife, Hindu, aged about 32 years, R/at.D.No.18-32-1/1, Balacheruvu RHC, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam- 44, Aadhar No.674369344356

3. Pilli Appalaraju, S/o. Apparao, private employee, Hindu, aged about 37 years, R/at.D.No.22-112-9, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapanam- 44, Aadhar No.633390235714

4. Pilli Aruna, W/o. Pilli Appalaraju, House wife, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/at.D.No.22-112-9, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapanam- 44, Aadhar No.205873488629

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 15.02.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of

Sri B.Prabhakara Rao, Smt. S.B.Ch.Lakshmi, Advocates for the defendants and the defendants 1 to 4 having remained exparte on 26.02.2020 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgage property for realization of the suit amount of Rs.16,74,145-00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five 2J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

only), for subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing suit till the date of realization on the suit amount and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief case of the plaintiffs is that :

The defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property in an extent of 120 Sq. Yards covered under S.No.43/4A1 bearing D.Nos.22- 112-9/2,22-112-9/1withassessmentNos.5201001088160225, 5201001099622125 situated at Pedagantyada Village in Pedagantyada

Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Defendants 1 and 3 are brothers and defendants 2 and 4 are their wives respectively. Defendants approached plaintiffs and borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for their family necessities, by executing registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiffs on 13.06.2016 agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 2% per month. If defendants commit any default in payment of interest for three months, defendants have to pay compound interest. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, defendants did not chose to pay either

principal or interest. Subsequently the plaintiffs got legal notice issued dated

08.12.2017. Defendants received the legal notice and kept quite without paying amount. Hence the plaintiffs constrained to file this suit.

3.This record was kept on bench till 04.30 p.m on 26.02.2020, the defendants were called absent and no representation. Since written statement was not filed by the defendants within the statutory period of ninety days, the defendants were set exparte.

4.To substantiate their claim, the first plaintiff was examined himself as

P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were marked.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiffs. Perused the material available on record.

3J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to suit claimed amount as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.To support the claim of the plaintiffs, first plaintiff himself was examined as

P.W.1, and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original registered mortgage deed, dated 13.06.2016. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 08.12.2017. All the defendants were set exparte on 26.02.2020. The evidence of

P.W.1 was not challenged by the defendants. The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 together with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, proved that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the plaintiffs on 13.06.2016 by executing registered mortgage deed. Later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendants did not chose to pay either the

principal or interest. Hence plaintiffs are entitled for the suit claimed amount

from all the defendants. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

8.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants for an amount ofRs.16,74,145-00 (Rupees

Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only), with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only). The period of redemption is three months.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 17th day of February, 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs :

P.W.1 : Pitta Nagireddy (first plaintiff) 4J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

For Defendants : None

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A.1/ Original registered mortgage deed, dated 13.06.2016;

Ex.A.2/ The office copy of legal notice, dated 08.12.2017;

For Defendants : Nil xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka // TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK

5J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

Date of Presentation: 20.08.2019 Date of Filing: 30.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of February, 2021

O.S.NO.370/2019

Between :

1. Pitta Nagireddy, S/o. Late Kunchayya, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/at. D.No.21-46-14, Siddeswaram, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District, Aadhar No.940666025220, Mobile No.8330980773

2. Nandiki Chinna Reddy, S/o. Ramulu, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 29 years, R/at.D.No.21-5-10, near Ramalayam, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44, Aadhar No.655726330509, Mobile No.8074047446

...Plaintiffs

And :

1. Pilli Suribabu, S/o. Apparao, Driver, Hindu, aged about 35 years, R/at.D.No.18-32-1/1, Balacheruvu RHC, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam- 44, Aadhar No.817562216991

2. Pilli Mani, W/o. Pilli Suribabu, House wife, Hindu, aged about 32 years, R/at.D.No.18-32-1/1, Balacheruvu RHC, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam- 44, Aadhar No.674369344356

3. Pilli Appalaraju, S/o. Apparao, private employee, Hindu, aged about 37 years, R/at.D.No.22-112-9, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapanam- 44, Aadhar No.633390235714

4. Pilli Aruna, W/o. Pilli Appalaraju, House wife, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/at.D.No.22-112-9, Dayal Nagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapanam- 44, Aadhar No.205873488629

...Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a preliminary decree for sale of the mortgage property for realization of the suit amount of Rs.16,74,145-00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only), for subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing suit till the date of realization on the suit amount and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.16,74,145-00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only), and a Court fee of Rs.19,226/- is paid under section 20 Art.1 (b) & (c) of Sch-I of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, by way of challan No.00184840, dated 16.08.2019 of Andhra Bank, Gajuwaka Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This suit is coming on 15.02.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of 6J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

Sri B.Prabhakara Rao, Smt. S.B.Ch.Lakshmi, Advocates for the defendants and the defendants 1 to 4 having remained exparte on 26.02.2020 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order; and

PRELIMINARY DECREE

It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this 19th day of August, 2019 is the sum of Rs.8,00,000-00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), the sum of Rs.8,74,145-00 (Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only) for interest on the said principal, the sum of Rs.NIL, charges and expenses (other than costs of the suit) properly incurred by the plaintiff in respect of the mortgage-security, together with interest thereon, and the sum of Rs.19,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and Four Hundred only) for the institutional costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff, making in all the sum of Rs.16,93,545/- (Rupees

Sixteen Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Five only) (Rs.8,00,000/- + Rs.8,74,145/- + Rs.19,400/-).

2.And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows :-

(i) that the defendants do pay into Court on or before the 17th day of May, 2021 or any later date upto which time for payment may be extended by the

Court on the said sum of Rs.16,74,145-00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Seventy

Four Thousand One Hundred and Forty Five only), with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 30.08.2019 till the date of decree i.e., 17.02.2021 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

(ii) that if the defendants failed to pay the decretal amount into court on or before 17th day of May 2021, the plaintiffs are at liberty to get final decree by way of filing separate application for the sale of the mortgage property shown in the plaint schedule.

(iii) that in case of sale proceeds is not sufficient to discharge the suit mortgage deed, the plaintiffs are at liberty to go against the defendants personal property for the recovery of balance amount.

(iv) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiffs a sum of

Rs.19,400/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand and Four Hundred only) towards institutional costs of the suit.

7J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

3.that on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the

Court may fix of such amount as the Court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under

Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiffs shall bring into Court all documents in their possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendants, or to such person as they appoint, and the plaintiffs shall, if so required, re-convey or re-transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrance created by the plaintiffs or any person under whom they claim and shall, if so required, deliver up to the defendants quiet and peaceful possession of the said property.

4.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the Court for a final decree for the sale of the mortgaged property; and on such application being made, the mortgaged property or a sufficient part thereon shall be directed to be sold; and for the purpose of such sale the plaintiffs shall produce before the Court or such officer as it appoints all documents in their possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

5.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realized by such sale shall be paid into Court and shall be duly applied (after deduction therefrom of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiffs under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed in this suit and in payment of any amount which the Court may adjudge due to the plaintiffs in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11, of Order XXXIV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the balance, if any, shall be paid to the defendants or other persons entitled to receive the same.

6.And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that, if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiffs as aforesaid, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the 8J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.370/2019, dated 17.02.2021

Court from time to time as they may have occasion, and on such application or otherwise the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

7.Time for redemption is three months.

(copy of the suit schedule is attached to the decree)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 17th day of February 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

No costs memo filed No costs memo filed

Rs. Ps.

Stamp on Vakalat: 2-00

Stamp on Plaint : 19,226-00

Stamp on documents: 12-00

Stamp on process: 160-00

Institutional Costs allowed : 19,400-00 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka // TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK

1 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka,

O.S.No.212/2017

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 28th day of June, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.212/2017

Between:

Gondesi Penta Rao, S/o. Late Nooka Raju, Hindu, aged 47 years, Employee in Steel Plant, r/o.D.No.19-6-16, Patha Ayyannapalem, R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada,Visakhapatnam-44. …. Plaintiff And:

Angati Pothu Raju, S/o.Suri, Hindu, aged 54 years, Steel Plant employee, D.No.1-10-3, Peda Narava, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. …. Defendant

This suit is coming up on 21.06.2019 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Someswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of S/ Sri K.N.Durga Prasad, D.Danteswara Rao, Advocates for defendant and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the defendant, being the principal due under suit promissory note, dated 10.01.2016 executed by the defendant, in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief case of the plaintiff is that :

Defendant have approached the plaintiff on 10.01.2016 and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff, for the purpose of his family necessities and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff either on his demand or on his order. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant postponed the same on some reasons. When plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt amount, the defendant have failed to pay either the principal amount or interest to the plaintiff. Hence the suit is filed.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the petition averments. Defendant contended that originally the plaintiff and the 2 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka,

O.S.No.212/2017

defendant are the co-employees of the Steel Plant Visakhapatnam and that the plaintiff used to do finance business among their employees. Apart from running finance business, plaintiff is running kirana as well as rice business at Pedagantyada in his house through his family members. Out of acquaintance, the defendant used to purchase kirana items as well as rice and in that process the defendant indebted Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff by the end of the year 2015. To that effect the plaintiff obtained blank signed promissory note from the defendant towards collateral security and thereafter the defendant paid the entire debt amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. Then the defendant demanded the plaintiff to return back the blank signed promissory note but the plaintiff did not hand over the said promissory note to the defendant and convinced the defendant on pretext that the blank signed promissory note is mixed with some other papers and further promised the defendant to hand over the same whenever the said blank promissory note is traced out. Out of good faith and confidence towards the plaintiff, the defendant kept silent.

4.The defendant further submitted in his written statement that after receiving notice from the Honourable Court, he rushed to the plaintiff and questioned the conduct of plaintiff with regard to his misbehaviour in respect of the transaction took place in between them. Taking advantage of his innocence, illiteracy of the defendant, plaintiff developed malafied intention and hatched a plan to extract money from the defendant by illegal means and methods. The plaintiff filed the suit with the active assistance of the attestors and scribe for his wrongful gain and that the plaintiff committed fraud against the defendant to extract money by illegal means and methods and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief in any manner. The plaintiff did not approach before the Honourable court with clean hands and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief.

Accordingly the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

3 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka,

O.S.No.212/2017

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 was marked. Ex.A.1 is the original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 10.01.2016. One of the attestors of the promissory note was examined as P.W.2. Defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced on his behalf.

6.Heard counsel for the plaintiff. Defendant did not submit arguments though sufficient opportunity has been given.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

(1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on

the defendant ?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as

prayed for ?

(3) To what relief ?

ISSUE NOS.1 & 2:

8.The main contention of the plaintiff is that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.01.2016 and inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the amount, he did not repay the same.

Hence he is liable to pay the promissory note amount.

9.On the other hand, the defendant contended that both the plaintiff and defendant are co-employees of Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam. Suit promissory note is the created by the plaintiff. The defendant is not bound to pay any amount. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

10.It is a primary duty of the plaintiff alone to prove the Ex.A.1, execution transaction. In view of the forged plea document by the defendant, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1. He categorically deposed all the contents of the plaint in toto, that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from him and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note.

Defendant and plaintiff are working in the same department.

4 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka,

O.S.No.212/2017

11.Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the amount. He is bound to pay amount. For corroboration, the plaintiff got examined one of the attestor of Ex.A.1, namely Gambali

Prasada Rao as P.W.2. Now the turn has shifted to the defendant, to adduce the evidence on his side.

12.When the turn has come to the defendants to adduce evidence on their behalf, the defendant filed his chief-affidavit as D.W.1 and deposed his written statement averments. During his cross-examination, D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he borrowed the amount and he is deposing false. Except denial, no convincing or cogent evidence adduced by the defendant to rebut the case of the plaintiff.

13.In view of the creation plea taken by the defendant, he simply denied the execution of passing of consideration under the suit promissory note.

Execution is different from signing the document. Execution means signing the document, written out, read over and understood. It does not consist nearly signature on blank paper. Presumption under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be drawn unless execution of instrument is either admitted or proved. Once execution is denied, it is the person who make claim on the instrument to prove it.

14.As the plaintiff established Ex.A.1 transaction through oral and documentary evidence, presumption U/s.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act operates against the defendants and the defendants should rebut the presumption by adducing positive evidence. The defendants did not take any steps to rebut the presumption. Merely they denied the plaintiff's case, putting suggestions to P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone is not sufficient to prove the case of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiff successfully proved his claim against the defendants personally.

15.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 proves that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 promissory note.

5 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka,

O.S.No.212/2017

However inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the promissory note debt. Hence the claim of the plaintiff is proved. Accordingly, these two issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE NO.3:

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28 th day of June, 2019.

Sd/-M.Siva Parvathi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

P.W.1 : Gondesi Penta Rao D.W.1 : Angati Pothu Raju P.W.2 : Gambali Prasada Rao

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: the original promissory note, dated 10.01.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/-.

For Defendant : NIL.

Sd/-M.Siva Parvathi

JCJ / GWK

1 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka

E.P.NO.15/2019 in DISPUTE NO.152/2016

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Smt.M.Siva Parvathi Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 26 th day of February, 2021

E.P.NO.15 /2019 in DISPUTE NO.152/2016

Between:

M/s. Chalapathi Chit Fund (P) Limited, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Foreman G.Ganesh, Hindu, aged 50 years, having its registered Office at Guntur, having among other branches a branch at Visakhapatnam … Petitioner/ D.Hr And:

1. Mrs. Moningi Swathi, W/o. M.Prem Sai, Hindu, aged 33 years, D.No.1-67, Doki Mohana Rao Complex, Kothapeta, Kotabommali, Srikakulum District

2. Mr. Lalichetti Govinda Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana (Late), Hindu, aged 59 years, W/as: Foreman, E.P.A.P.D.C.L., A.P.Transco, Kota Bommali, Vidyuth Nagar, Srikakulum, R/at.D.No.5-1-16/4, Vidyuth Nagar, Kotabommali, Srikakulum District

3. Mr. Vysyaraju Sudhakar Raju, S/o. V.Lakshmana Raju, Hindu, aged 42 years, I.O.C.Petrol Bunk, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulum, R/at.D.No.8-3-77, Main Road, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulum

4. Mr. Doki Venkata Ramana, S/o. D.Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 60 years, Kothapeta, Kotabommali, Srikakulum DIstrict

5. Mr. Moningi Prem Sai, S/o. Lakshminarayana, Hindu, aged 44 years, D.No.1- 67, Doki Mohana Rao Complex, Kothapeta, Kotabommali, Srikakulum District, Prop.M/s.Akarsh Enterprises, beside Padmavathi Kalyana Mandapam, Peddapadu Road, Srikakulum-532001, presently R/at.Flat No.303, third floor, Maruthi Towers, D.No.31-29-9/11, Sivalayam Street, opp. Steel Plant Main Gate, Vadlapudi, Kurmanapalem, Visakhapatnam … Respondents/ J.Drs

This petition has come up on 22.02.2021 hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Amarnath, Advocate for the petitioner / D.Hr and of Sri J.Srinu, Advocate for the 5th respondent / J.Dr.No.5 and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This execution petition is filed by the Decree Holder against fifth Judgment

Debtors under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of Civil Procedure Code to attach the petition schedule property of fifth Judgment Debtor and sell in the public auction for realization of the award amount together with subsequent interest and costs.

2 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka

E.P.NO.129/2019 in DIS.NO.160/2014

2.The brief averments appended to the petition are that :

The Decree Holder obtained award against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 5. After passing of award, Judgment Debtors failed to pay award amount. Fifth Judgment

Debtor is having immovable property bearing Flat No.303 in Maruthi Towers,

D.No.31-29-9/11, Sivalayam Street, opposite Steel Plant Main Gate, Vadlapudi,

Kurmanapalem, Visakhapatnam District. After passing the award, the Decree Holder met fifth Judgment Debtor requesting him to realize the award amount. Fifth

Judgment Debtor avoiding to pay the award amount and postponing on one pretext or other. Fifth Judgment Debtor is having no other movable or immovable property except petition schedule property. Fifth Judgment Debtor is trying to sell away the petition schedule property to the third parties with an intention to defeat or delay the creditors of fifth Judgment Debtor and leave the jurisdiction of the Honourable court. If it so happens Decree Holder cannot realize the award amount. Hence this petition.

3.Fifth Judgment Debtor filed counter denying the petition averments and also contended that as per the award, the Decree Holder may be proceeded against the first Judgment Debtor then he may be proceeded against fifth Judgment Debtor.

Hence execution petition against fifth Judgment Debtor is not maintainable. First

Judgment Debtor is intentionally avoiding to pay the award amount. Fifth Judgment

Debtor is unable to pay the decretal amount due to financial back drop and his family members depended upon him. First Judgment Debtor is having movable and immovable properties and she is having means to pay award amount. If the property of the fifth Judgment Debtor is attached, his entire family will be on the road. Both the Decree Holder and fifth Judgment Debtor are the residents of

Srikakulum, this court does not have jurisdiction. Hence fifth Judgment Debtor prays the Honourable court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

4.Neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced on either side.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

3 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka

E.P.NO.129/2019 in DIS.NO.160/2014

6. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the Petition schedule property can be attached and sold in public

auction for realization of award amount under Order XXI Rules 54, 64, 66

of C.P.C ?

POINT :

7.The Honourable Deputy Registrar of Chits at Visakhapatnam passed an award in favour of the Decree Holder for an amount of Rs.1,26,410/- (Rupees One Lakh

Twenty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Ten only) together with subsequent interest @ 18% p.a from 02.06.2016 till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and with costs of Rs.5,836/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty Six only) against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 5 jointly and severally. Movable or immovable properties of the Judgment Debtors can be attached and sold for realization of the award amount and the salaries of

Judgment Debtors can be attached or any other mode of execution under Civil

Procedure Code for realization of the award amount. Once award is passed,

Judgment Debtors are under obligation to realize the award amount but the

Judgment Debtors did not realize the award amount.

8.Counsel for the Judgment Debtor contended that execution petition against the fifth Judgment Debtor is not maintainable unless and until this execution petition is proceeded against first Judgment Debtor. It is well settled law that as per Section 128 of Indian Contract Act 1872, “liability of the Surety is Co-extensive with that of

principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by the contract. It is the prerogative

of the Decree Holder whether he would move against the principal borrower first or the surety “. In this case, Decree Holder filed Execution Petition against the fifth

Judgment Debtor as per Section 128 of Indian Contract Act 1872. Execution Petition against the fifth Judgment Debtor is maintainable.

Counsel for the Judgment Debtor also contended that both the Decree Holder and fifth Judgment Debtor are the residents of Srikakulum, hence this court does not have jurisdiction. It is true that both parties may be residents of Srikakulum but the 4 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka

E.P.NO.129/2019 in DIS.NO.160/2014

property is situated within the jurisdiction of the court, as such this court has jurisdiction.

Counsel for the Decree Holder relied upon the following two orders :

(I) Central Bank of India Vs. C.L.Vimla & Ors., 2015 SAR (Civil) 634 Supreme

Court decided on 28.04.2015

In the special leave petition, Honourable Supreme Court held that “as

per Section 128 of Indian Contract Act, 1872, the liability of the surety is co-

extensive with that of the principal debtor unless it is otherwise provided by

the contract, it is prerogative of the creditor alone whether he would move

against the principal debtor first or the surety, to realize the loan amount ”.

(II) Punyamuthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao and another Vs. M/s.Margadarsi

Chit Fund Private Limited and Ors., 2017 (2) CCC 335 (A.P.) decided on

14.03.2017 In this Revision Petition the Honourable High Court held thatas per Section

128 of Indian Contract Act to proceed against principal debtor or any of the

guarantors or against all of them, prerogative of decree holder and execution

petition can be filed in the civil court only with a certificate issued by the

Registrar U/Sec.71.

9.Counsel for the fifth Judgment Debtor relied upon the order passed in

M.A.Raoof V. Vishnu Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad and others, 2015 (5)

ALT 114

In this Revision Petition, the Honourable Court held that Execution Petition against the fourth Judgment Debtor i.e., surety without proceeding against the first

Judgment Debtor i.e., principal borrower is not maintainable under law.

In view of Order Central Bank of India Vs. C.L.Vimla and others filed by the

Decree Holder, order filed by the Judgment Debtor is avail of no use. More over this court placed reliance on the orders filed by the Decree Holder because in the above said two orders, The well settled law U/Sec.128 of Indian Contract Act is discussed.

Facts and circumstances in the case in hand also applicable to orders filed by Decree

Holder.

5 J.C.J.Court, Gajuwaka

E.P.NO.129/2019 in DIS.NO.160/2014

In view of the discussion supra, the fifth Judgment Debtor failed to pay award amount and this court is inclined to allow the petition. This point is answered in favour of the Decree Holder and against the fifth Judgment Debtor.

10.In the result, petition is allowed. Attach petition schedule property on payment of process by the Decree Holder. Call on 19.03.2021.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 26th day of February, 2021.

xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

GAJUWAKA

// TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK

1J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.470/2019, dated 26.02.2021

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Friday, this the 26 th day of February, 2021

O.S.NO.470/2019

Between :

Perumalla Chittbabu, S/o. Late Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 65 years, R/at.Q.No.328/A, B-Type, Sector-2, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Aadhar Card No.902819310383, Phone No.9985860699 ...Plaintif And :

1. Nadigotla Naga Bhushana Rao, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, occupation- Employee, E.No.119043, Senior Chargeman, Coke Oven Department, RINL, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, R/at.Q.No.518/A, Sector-11, Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant Township, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9492251743

2. Smt. Nadigotla Suhasini, W/o. N.Naga Bhushan Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/at.Q.No.518/A, Sector-11, Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant Township, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9492251743

...Defendants

This suit is coming on 25.02.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of S/Sri M.G.W.David Raju, S.Satheesh, Advocates for the Plaintif and of Smt. S.B.Ch.Lakshmi, Advocate for both the defendants and defendants 1 & 2 having remained exparte on 10.03.2020 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants 1 & 2, to recover a sum of Rs.10,86,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Four

Hundred only) being principal and interest due on a suit promissory note, dated 05.11.2016, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief case of the plaintif is that :

The first defendant is the husband of second defendant. Both the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) on 05.11.2016 from the plaintif for the purpose of their domestic expenses and clearance of sundry debts, after receipt of the consideration for the said amount, both the defendants have jointly executed a demand promissory note in 2J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.470/2019, dated 26.02.2021

favour of plaintif at the house of plaintif at Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant,

Visakhapatnam on the even date and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 12% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, first defendant issued a cheque dated 03.10.2019, for an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) drawn on State Bank of India, Steel

Plant Branch, Visakhapatnam towards part payment of the debt amount. The cheque was presented by plaintif for collection and the said cheque was dishonoured on 05.10.2019 with remarks “Exceeds Arrangement”. On 23.10.2019 the plaintif issued a legal notice to the first defendant, but he neither paid any amount nor sent any reply to the plaintif. Hence the plaintif constrained to file this suit.

3.On 10.03.2020, the defendants 1 and 2 was called absent and no representation. Since written statement was not filed within the statutory period of ninety days by the defendants, both the defendants were set exparte.

4.To substantiate his claim, P.W.1 and P.W.2 was examined and Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2 was marked.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintif. Perused the material available on record.

6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:-

Whether the plaintif is entitled to suit claim as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.In support of his claim, P.W.1 the plaintif himself was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 was marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original promissory note, dated 05.11.2016 for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of lawyer’s notice got issued by the plaintif to the defendant, dated 23.10.2019. P.W.2 is the scribe of Ex.A.1 promissory note, examined in chief, re-iterated the contents in his chief affidavit. Both the defendants were set exparte on 10.03.2020. The evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not challenged by the defendants. The unchallenged 3J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.470/2019, dated 26.02.2021

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 together with Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, proved that both the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) from the plaintif and also executed promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, both the defendants did not choose to pay either the principal or interest. Hence plaintif is entitled for the suit claimed amount from both the defendants. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintif and against the defendants 1 and 2.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif against both the defendants for an amount of Rs.10,86,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty

Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only).

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 26th day of February, 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Plaintif :

P.W.1 : Perumalla Chitti Babu (plaintif)

P.W.2 : Mura Maheswara Rao

For Defendants : None

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintif :

Ex.A.1/ Original promissory note, dated 05.11.2016 for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only), executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintif;

Ex.A.2/ Office copy of lawyer’s notice got issued by the plaintif to the defendant,

dated 23.10.2019;

For Defendants : Nil xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka 4J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.470/2019, dated 26.02.2021

Date of Presentation: 30.10.2019 Date of Filing: 04.11.2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Friday, this the 26 th day of February, 2021

O.S.NO.470/2019

Between :

Perumalla Chittbabu, S/o. Late Subbarayudu, Hindu, aged 65 years, R/at.Q.No.328/A, B-Type, Sector-2, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Aadhar Card No.902819310383, Phone No.9985860699 ...Plaintif And :

1. Nadigotla Naga Bhushana Rao, S/o. Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged 47 years, occupation- Employee, E.No.119043, Senior Chargeman, Coke Oven Department, RINL, Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam, R/at.Q.No.518/A, Sector-11, Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant Township, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9492251743

2. Smt. Nadigotla Suhasini, W/o. N.Naga Bhushan Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/at.Q.No.518/A, Sector-11, Ukkunagaram, Steel Plant Township, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9492251743

...Defendants

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants 1 & 2, to recover a sum of Rs.10,86,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) being principal and interest due on a suit promissory note, dated 05.11.2016, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.10,86,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Four Hundred only) and a Court fee of Rs.13,326/- is paid under section 20 Art.1 (b) & (c) of Sch-I of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, by way of challan No.0062408, dated 30.10.2019 of Andhra Bank, Gajuwaka Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This suit is coming on 25.02.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of S/Sri M.G.W.David Raju, S.Satheesh, Advocates for the Plaintif and of Smt. S.B.Ch.Lakshmi, Advocate for both the defendants and defendants 1 & 2 having remained exparte on 10.03.2020 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 defendants 1 & 2 do pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.10,86,400/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand and Four

Hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 04.11.2019 till the date of decree i.e., 26.02.2021 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per 5J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.470/2019, dated 26.02.2021

annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only); and

2. that the defendants 1 & 2 do also pay to the plaintif a sum of

Rs.28,454/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty

Four only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26th day of February 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

Rs. Ps. No costs memo filed

Stamp on Vakalat: 2-00

Stamp on Plaint : 13,326-00

Stamp on process: 126-00

Advocate Fees (claimed): 15,000-00

Costs allowed: 28,454-00 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka // TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK

1J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.358/2019, dated 08.03.2021

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 8 th day of March, 2021

O.S.NO.358/2019

Between :

Gantla Venkata Ramakrishna, S/o. (L) Narasinga Rao, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 28 years, R/at.D.No.25-03-39/1, Chinna Nadupuru, R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44, Adhar No.8685 4493 6966, Phone No.9848686261 ...Plaintif And :

M.Samuel, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employee, Hindu, aged about 51 years, D.No.58-18-15/1, Flat No.401, Sri Lakhsmi Nilayam (apartment) NAD Kotha Road, near Vantillu, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9573715378

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 05.03.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. T.Prasanna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Ravi

Chandar, Advocate for the defendant and defendant having remained exparte on 29.01.2020 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover a sum of

Rs.4,28,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) being principal and interest due on a suit promissory note, dated 28.08.2016, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief case of the plaintiff is that :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) on 28.08.2016 from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family needs and clearance of sundry debts, after receipt of the consideration for the said amount, defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff at the house of plaintiff at Chinna Nadupuru, Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam on the even date and agreed to repay the same together with interest @ 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, 2J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.358/2019, dated 08.03.2021

defendant did not choose to pay the debt amount. On 09.06.2018 the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendant. Defendant received the said notice but he neither paid any amount nor sent any reply to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

3.On 29.01.2020, the defendant was called absent, and no representation.

Since written statement was not filed within the statutory period of ninety days, defendant was set exparte.

4.To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material available on record.

6. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for ?

POINT :

7.In support of his claim, the plaintiff himself was examined as P.W.1 and

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 were marked. Ex.A.1 is the Original promissory note, dated 28.08.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is the office copy of registered lawyers notice, dated 09.06.2018. Ex.A.3 is the original postal acknowledgment card of the defendant. The defendant was set exparte on 29.01.2020. The evidence of P.W.1 was not challenged by the defendant. The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 together with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty

Thousand only) from the plaintiff and also executed promissory note. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to pay either the principal or interest. Hence plaintiff is entitled for the suit claimed amount from the defendant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

3J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.358/2019, dated 08.03.2021

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for an amount of Rs.4,28,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight

Thousand and Five Hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only).

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court, this the 8th day of March, 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined

For Plaintif :

P.W.1 : Gantla Venkata Rama Krishna (plaintiff)

For Defendant : None

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintif :

Ex.A.1/ Original promissory note, dated 28.08.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff;

Ex.A.2/ Office copy of registered lawyers notice, dated 09.06.2018;

Ex.A.3/ Original postal acknowledgment card of the defendant.

For Defendant : Nil xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka // TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK

4J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.358/2019, dated 08.03.2021

Date of Presentation: 20.08.2019 Date of Filing: 26.08.2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present: Smt. M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Monday, this the 8 th day of March, 2021

O.S.NO.358/2019

Between :

Gantla Venkata Ramakrishna, S/o. (L) Narasinga Rao, Private Employee, Hindu, aged 28 years, R/at.D.No.25-03-39/1, Chinna Nadupuru, R.H.Colony, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-44, Adhar No.8685 4493 6966, Phone No.9848686261 ...Plaintif And :

M.Samuel, S/o. Not known to the plaintiff, Visakhapatnam Port Trust Employee, Hindu, aged about 51 years, D.No.58-18-15/1, Flat No.401, Sri Lakhsmi Nilayam (apartment) NAD Kotha Road, near Vantillu, Visakhapatnam, Phone No.9573715378

...Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, to recover a sum of Rs.4,28,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) being principal and interest due on a suit promissory note, dated 28.08.2016, for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.4,28,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) and a Court fee of Rs.6,726/- is paid under section 20 Art.1 (b) & (c) of Sch-I of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act, by way of challan No.003780, dated 20.08.2019 of Andhra Bank, Vinayakanagar Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This suit is coming on 05.03.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. T.Prasanna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri S.Ravi Chandar, Advocate for the defendant and defendant having remained exparte on 29.01.2020 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 defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,28,500/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Five Hundred only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 26.08.2019 till the date of decree i.e., 08.03.2021 and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the 5J.C.J Court, Gwk

O.S.No.358/2019, dated 08.03.2021

date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only); and

2.that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.14,043.50/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Forty Three and Fifty

Paise only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 8th day of March 2021 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi,

Junior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

Rs. Ps.No costs memo filed

Stamp on Vakalat: 2-00

Stamp on Plaint : 6,726-00

Stamp on process: 38-00

Advocate Fees: 7,277-50

Costs allowed: 14,043-50 xx, Sd/- M.Siva Parvathi, Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka // TRUE COPY //

J.C.J, GWK