Sri M.srihari

1 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Alapati Giridhar

Principal District Judge

Monday, the 15th day of April, 2024.

E.P.No.496/2023 in A.A.No.318/2019

Between:

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, MRP Branch, represented by its Authorized Signatory/Jr.Manager, N.Jaya Sreedhar, Son of Mahalakshmaiah, Aged 40 years, resident of Visakhapatnam. ….Decree Holder

And

1. Erugula Lova Kumar, S/o.Samba Murthy, aged 38 years, residing at Door No.2-51-12, Plot No.303, Padmavathi Estates, Sector-11, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mortha Rajamma, D/o. Nandika Yanganna, aged 54 yeas, residing at Door No.36-94-266/12, Ambedkar Estate, Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

3. Shaik Hussain, S/o. Md.Moula, Muslim, aged 49 years, residing at Door No.9-9-93/1, Mangapuram Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

… Judgment Debtors

The Execution Petition has come up today i.e., 15.04.2024 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri P.Krupavaram, Advocate for the DHR and of Sri

Kondala Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for 2nd JDR, and Sri B.Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd JDrand the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1. The Execution Petition is filed U/O.XXI Rules-48 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) praying the Court to order attachment of salaries of the 2nd and 3rd JDrs for realization of the Decretal amount.

2 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

I – Brief pleadings of the Decree Holder:

2. The Authorized Signatory of the DHr filed affidavit in support of the

Execution Petition, he pleaded that on 21.03.2020 an Award in AA.No.318/2019 was passed by the sole Arbitrator for Rs.4,63,309/- with interest and costs in favour of the DHr, that they filed U/O-XXI Rule-48 CPC to attach the salary of the 2nd and 3rd JDrs who are the Government employees and their salaries are in the hands of their respective garnishees. Further pleased that the 2nd and 3rd JDrs have sufficient means to pay the above Award amount but they are intentionally avoiding to pay the decretal amount, thus prayed to order attachment of the salary of the 2nd and 3rd JDrs for realization of EP amount of Rs.5,30,492/-.

II – Brief pleadings of the 2 nd & 3 rd Judgment Debtors in the Counters:

3. The 2nd JDr filed Counter denying the material averments of the Petition, pleaded that she has no knowledge about the Arbitration Proceedings held in

AA.No.318/2019 and no notice was served to the 2nd JDr thus the Award if any passed against the 2nd JDr is not valid, binding and unenforceable under law. Further the 2nd JDr pleaded that the amount if any payable to the DHr Company, it is only the 1st JDr, but not the 2nd JDr, that the 2nd JDr never availed any loan from the DHr, as such, the 2nd JDr is not liable to pay any amount much less the EP amount. That the 1st JDr has means and he is liable to pay amount to the DHr Company, the above

EP is filed against the 2nd JDr is only to grab money, she is an employee working as

Safaiwala, Garrison Engineer, Naval Depot, Visakhapatnam, that she is sole bread winner of her entire family, if attachment is ordered, she and her entire family 3 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

members will suffer irreparable loss. Further pleaded that there are no tenable grounds and EP is not maintainable, prays to dismiss the EP with exemplary costs.

4. The 3rd JDr filed counter denying the material averments in the Petition, he also denied the allegations that he stood as Co-obligant and executed documents along with the 2nd JDr for the purpose of discharging the business expansion loan of the 1st JDR, that the 1st JDr committed default in payment of installments, passing of the Award on 21.03.2020 by the Sole Arbitrator, the JDrs not paying amount and their liability to pay the Award amount. Further the 3rd JDr pleaded that the EP is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as it is not executable against the 3rd

JDR, that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are not followed, that the loan Agreement is forged one. Further he pleaded that he never executed any Agreement for the loan of the 1st JDr, that he does not know the 1st and 2nd JDrs, that the signatures of the 3rd JDR on the alleged Agreement and other documents are forged and mentioned false address with an intention to avoid serve of notice on the 3rd JDr, that there is no demand notice for payment of installment and no notice of invocation of arbitration is served, that the DHr and other JDrs i.e., 1st and 2nd JDrs colluded and played fraud to make loss to the 3rd JDr and intentionally noted the false address, mentioning the false address in the forged documents and obtained

Award. Further pleaded that the 3rd JDr is residing at Door No.1-17-34/1, Adarsh

Nagar, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam, that in order to conceal the factum of forgery, furnished false address and obtaining Award, the EP is not executable under law.

4 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

5. The 3rd JDr further specifically pleaded that he signed on an Agreement dt.09.08.2017 at the instance of the principal borrower for car loan, that the DHr and the 1st JDr colluded together and obtained the Award and filed an EP.No.226/2021 and recovered the amount from his salary, that the signatures of the 3rd JDr are forged in this agreement and obtained Award in this case, thus the EP is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed, prayed to dismiss the EP with exemplary costs.

6. During the course of enquiry, both parties did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence.

7. Heard both the Counsels. The Court perused the material record.

III – Point :

Whether there are sufficient grounds to order attachment of salary of the 2 nd and 3 rd JDrs for realization of the EP amount?

IV - In re Point :

8. The Court perused the Award, at Para-4 it is mentioned that notice was served on the 2nd Respondent, whereas notices sent to R1 and R3 returned as ‘No such addressee/Left’. The learned Arbitrator treated the notices as deemed service referring to Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, sending the notices to the last residential address. The Award reveals that the notice to the 2nd

Respondent/JDR served personally, called absent and she remained ex parte. Thus the plea of 2nd & 3rd JDr that no notice is served on them is factually incorrect.

5 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

9. The plea of the 2nd JDr is that the 1st JDr has means but the DHr colluded and filed the EP against the 2nd JDr only but the record reveals that the EP is filed not only against the 2nd JDr but also against the 3rd JDr. Further the 2nd JDr though pleaded that the 1st JDr has means to pay the Award amount but did not mention his income/assets particulars. The 2nd JDr further pleaded collusion and fraud, generally these are all to be agitated before the Arbitrator, further the 2nd JDr did not adduce evidence to prove his plea of collusion and fraud, thus these are all without merits in the circumstances of the case.

10. The plea of the 3rd JDr that his signatures are forged is to be agitated generally in the Arbitral proceedings and his contest if any to be exhausted as per law before the Arbitrator. Generally this Court cannot go beyond the Award/Decree unless proved that the Award/Decree is obtained by fraud, but in this case, except bare pleading no evidence is adduced in support of his plea..

11. Further the material on record reveals, that the 3rd JDr in Counter admitted about filing of earlier EP.No.226/2021 and attaching of his salary and recovery of

EP amount, the Counsel for the DHr submitted that the address in the

EP.No.226/2021 is also the same, also passed the order to the Counsel for the

3rd JDr, which he did not dispute, thus it reveals the address mentioned for the 3rd

JDr in this EP also the same as in EP No.226/2021. The Arbitrator referred to documents and marked as Exs.A1 to A11 and passed the Award. Further the 3rd JDr though pleaded forgery of his signatures and sending of summons to the fake 6 PDJ Court VSP

E.P.No.496/2023 in AA.No.318/2019

address, but he did not adduce any evidence in this regard to substantiate his contention and further fake address issue is demolished by the DHr as stated supra.

12. The other contention of the 3rd JDr is that his signatures are forged by the

DHr in collusion with other JDrs, generally these contentions to be agitated in the

Arbitration Proceedings, the Court is Executing Court cannot go beyond the

Award/Decree.

13. The Court, considering material on record, plea of the DHr inclined to hold that the 2nd and 3rd JDrs failed to prove that the 1st JDr made part payments of the loan amount, thus the DHr has right to proceed against the JDrs 1 to 3 for recovery of the Award amount. Thus, the Court inclined to allow the Execution

Petition to proceed further overruling the objections in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the DHr.

14. In the result, the objections of the 2nd and 3rd JDrs are overruled. Issue

Rule-48 Warrant against the Garnishee of the 2nd and 3rd JDrs for attachment of salary on payment of process by 21.06.2024.

Dictated to the Stenographer-I and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court on this the 15 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/-Alapati Giridhar

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL -

Sd/-Alapati Giridhar

PDJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present:M. Sri Hari IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2024

O.S.No.165/2022

Between: Smt Gudla Dhana Lakshmi, W/o. G. Venkata Satya Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, Resident of D.No.54-12-54/15, Bhanu Nagar, Near Govt. Krishna College, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam. … Plaintif And :

1. Smt Duvvi Venu, W/o. D. Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 53 years, Resident of D.No.9-9-39/7, Near China Polamamba Temple, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

2. Smt Duvvi Swathi, W/o. Chalamalasetty Kranthi, Hindu, aged about 27 years, Working as General Assistant, Engineering Department, DRM Office, Resident of D.No.9-9-39/7, Near China Polamamba Temple Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam.

...Defendants

This suit came up before me on 12.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.C.Chandra Sekhar and Sri S. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Advocates for the plaintif and of Sri P. Sasank, the learned Advocate for the defendants 1 and 2. Upon perusing the evidence on record and having considered the same till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The plaintif filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dt.13-03-2022 directing the 1st defendant to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the Plaintif in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance sale consideration alternatively for repayment of advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) paid by the plaintif to the defendants and for the costs of the suit.

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

2.1) The first Defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property measuring to an extent of 123 Sq. yards of vacant land which was devolved to her through her father Chellaboyina Suryanarayana and his sons

Chelliboyina Narayana Rao and Chellaboyina Satyanarayana Rao by way of gift settlement deed dated 16.03.2006. The 2nd defendant is only the daughter of 2

OS.No.165/2022

IV ADJC/VSP the 1st defendant and both are living as joint family and residing together under one roof. The 2nd defendant is only custodian and care taker of the 1st defendant and she is only legal heir of the 1st defendant. It is averred, the defendants have proposed to sell the plaint schedule property for their personal expenses thereby the plaintif agreed to purchase the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.60,54,000/- (Rupees Sixty lakhs fifty four thousand only). The plaintif had accordingly paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) by way of cheque No.950918, dated 13.03.2022 drawn on State Bank of India,

Maddilapalem branch, Visakhapatnam and another cheque bearing No.950919

dated 13.03.2022 drawn on State Bank of India, Maddilapalem branch,

Visakhapatnam for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) to the defendants at the time of execution of sale agreement. The 1st defendant acknowledged the receipt of the said amount and promised to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintif thereby conveyed the property. Accordingly, the first defendant had executed an agreement to sell on 13-03-2022 agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property in an extent of 123 Sq Yds in Survey No. 47/2A 9A, Sivajipalem village which was devolved to her through her deceased father and brothers by way of gift settlement deed. The 1st defendant constructed

Ground +2 floored building with Pent house and the Municipality assessed the

Property Tax. On 13-03-2022 the defendants requested the plaintif to arrange

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for their urgent needs thereby the plaintif paid the said amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cash to the 1st defendant in the presence of 2nd defendant, her husband, one elder K.S.V.

Gupta. Subsequently, on 23-03-2022, the plaintif paid amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) towards part payment of the said sale consideration by way of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs only) was paid by way of cheque No.614905, State Bank Of India, Saligrampuram branch, Visakhapatnam

dated 29-03-2022 issued in favour of the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant

3

OS.No.165/2022

IV ADJC/VSP acknowledged the receipt of the said amount. Thus the plaintif paid a sum of

Rs. 40,00,000/-(Rupees Forty Lakhs only) to the defendants towards part payment of the sale consideration. Both the defendants are promised to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintif.

2.2) It is further averred that the plaintif has been always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and get the plaint schedule property conveyed in her favour, but the defendants have been postponing the performance of their part of the obligation on one pretext or the other. Despite many demands and requests made by the plaintif, the defendants did not come forward to register the sale deed and as such the plaintif personally and through elders requested the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintif in terms of the sale agreement. But the defendants are postponing the same, it is reliably learnt that the defendants are trying to alienate the plaint schedule property to third parties at higher price and to get unlawful gain by breaching the agreement to sell which was executed in favour of the plaintif.

2.3) It is further averred that the 1st defendant got issued a lawyer’s notice dated 15.04.2022 to the plaintif with false and frivolous allegations for which the plaintif got issued befitted reply on 28.04.2022, having received the said notice, the defendants did not give any reply. Hence, the suit.

3.The suit has been resisted by the 1st defendant by filing his written statement by denying the material averments in the plaint. The 2nd defendant filed his adoption memo, adopting the written statement of 1st defendant. It is pleaded, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of vacant site which is shown as plaint schedule property. The 1st defendant became sick due to breast cancer and underwent surgery in September, 2020 and she attending for periodical kimo therapy and further she became sick and not in a position to think of.

4

OS.No.165/2022

IV ADJC/VSP 3.1) It is pleaded, the plaintif approached the 2nd Defendant as well as son-in- law and prescribed the 1st Defendant and obtained signature in a wrongful method, while obtaining the signature of 1st defendant, the plaintif paid an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) by way of cash. It is pleaded, the plaint schedule property is under hypothecation with the Syndicate

Bank and the 1st Defendant has to pay outstanding amounts to the said Bank against the plaint schedule property. It is pleaded, the 1st defendant is also not having any knowledge about the signatures obtaining by the Plaintif while executing sale agreement which resulted the 1st defendant is became mentally depressed. It is pleaded, the plaint Schedule Property is more than

Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) worth and the 1st defendant is not at all interested to sell away the property. It is pleaded, the 1st defendant is ready to refund the amounts given by the plaintif, but the plaintif has no right to claim the specific performance. Accordingly, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

4.While the matter coming up for framing of issues. Both parties requested this court to refer the matter to mediation center for settlement.

Accordingly, the matter has been sent to the mediation center, Visakhapatnam.

Smt C. Umadevi trained mediator was appointed to conduct mediation between the parties. Accordingly, a mediation was conducted and it was materialized and mediation agreement was arrived at between the parties. After completion of mediation process, the mediation agreement has been sent to this court. The terms of agreement have been read over and explained to both parties, for which they admitted them to be true and correct.

5.The terms of mediation agreement dated 27.03.2024 reads as follows:

1) The Defendants will pay an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only)- by way of Demand draft 202787, dated 11.03.2024, S.B.1 Srinagar Branch for an amount of Rs20,00,000/- 5

OS.No.165/2022

IV ADJC/VSP (Rupees twenty Lakhs only), and Demand draft-202811 dated 27.03.2024, S.B.I, Srinagar Branch for an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty Lakhs only) Visakhapatnam and the same will be received by the plaintif Smt.Gudla Dhana Lakshmi towards full and final settlement of cancellation of the Sale agreement dated 13.03.2022.

2) That the both Parties hereby agree to mutually release and relinquish their respective rights and obligations under the Sale agreement dated 13-03-2022 entered by Plaintif and defendants.

3) That pursuant to the agreement dated 13-03-2022 is hereby cancelled and rescinded as the advance amount was received by plaintif and that no party shall be under any obligation there under.

6.So it is clear from the terms of agreement the defendants agreed to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) to the plaintif towards full and final settlement of the suit claim and the plaintif agreed the same and received two demand drafts towards full and final settlement of the cancellation of Sale agreement dated 13.03.2022. It is also clear from the mediation agreement, both parties agreed to relinquish their respective rights over sale agreement dated 13.03.2022. So, by virtue of mediation agreement between the parties the agreement of sale dated 13.03.2022 is cancelled and the plaintif received the advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees forty lakhs only) paid by him towards full and final settlement of the suit claim. Therefore, this court inclined to pass a decree in terms of mediation agreement.

7.In the result, the decree is passed in terms of the mediation agreement dated 27.03.2024, in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.

Dictated to the Sr. Superintendent (discharging duties as Stenographer),

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this 15th day of April, 2024. Sd/-M.Srihri IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

-– NIL-- IV ADJ/VSP.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : M.SRIHARI VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, FAC: V Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 22nd day of July,2021

E.P.No.11/2016 in O.S.NO.1522/2007

Between:

Sri Sarisa Ravisekhar S/o. Late Swaminadham, Christian, aged 43 years, R/o. D.No. 13-2-1/A, Anthony Nagar, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ….Petitioner/Decree holder

And:

1. Koyya Venkateswara rao S/o. Yerrnna, Hindu, aged about – years, working as Dy.Thahasildar, Thahasildar Office, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Koyya Jaya W/o. Venkateswara rao, Hindu, aged about – years, R/o. Flat No. 302, Vijaya Jyothi Arcade, Near NH-5, Visalakhshinagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents/Judgment debtors

This petition is coming on 22.07.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Jagadeeswara rao, Advocate for the Petitioner/Decree holder and the Respondent/Judgment debtor remained exparte and upon hearing and considering the material on record this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC praying this court to order to attach the salary of the 1st Judgment debtor for realisation of decretal amount subject to section 60 CPC.

2

2.In support of the petition, the petitioner/DHR filed his affidavit stating that:

that he filed the suit for recovery of amount from the respondents for a sum of Rs.3,31,220/-(Rupees Three Lakh thirty one thousand two hundred and twenty only) being the balance of principal and interest due on the promissory note dt.30.01.2015. It is stated, this Court was pleased to pass a decree in favour of the the petitioner 20.03.2010 directing the defendant to pay the suit amount with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- till realisation with costs. Subsequently after passing of decree, the judgment debtors did not discharge the amount covered under the Decree. Therefore, this petitioner filed this petition for realisation of decretal amount with interest from the attachable portion of the salary of the 1st Judgment debtor.

3. 1st respondent/Judgment debtor remained exparte

4. Heard the counsel for petitioner/Decree holder virtually through blue jeans.

5.As can be seen from the record, the Decree holder filed this petition for attachment of the salary of 1st Judgment debtor who is working as

Deputy Thahsildar for realisation of decretal amount. This Court issued Rule 48 attachment against the salary of the 1st Judgment debtor subject to section 60 CPC. The Judgment debtor No.1 remained exparte. Subsequently, the Drawing & Disbursing Officer of 1st Judgment debtor did not comply the 3 directions of this Court by attaching the salary of 1st Judgment debtor and as such, EA. 17/19 was filed by the Decree holder under Order 21 Rule 46-A of CPC for attachment of salary of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer of the 1st Judgment debtor. On 12.09.2019, the representative of the the Drawing & Disbursing Officer was present and gave an undertaking that he would communicate the attachment warrant to the the Drawing & Disbursing

Officer under whom the 1st Judgment debtor presently working as the 1st

Judgment debtor was transferred by then. On 30.09.2019, one B.Ravi

Kumar, HDT, Tahasildar Office, Yelamanchili was present and filed a memo stating that a letter was addressed to the District Supply officer,

Visakhapatnam under whom the 1st Judgment debtor is working presently and intimated the above attachment of the salary of the 1st Judgment debtor. This Court closed the said petition on 30.09.2019 itself, but sofar, the warrant has not been complied with by the Drawing & Disbursing

Officer of 1st Judgment debtor. Later again on 2.2.2021, this Court got issued a notice to the Thahsildar, Yelamanchili, for his appearance for non- compliance of his undertaking. On 15.03.2021, the Tahasildar, Yelamanchili along with the 1st Judgment debtor was present before this Court and the 1st

Judgment debtor himself addressed a letter to this Court stating that he is presently working as Dy. Thahsildar in District Supply office(Rural)

Visakhapatnam and from March,2021 onwards, the amount would be deducted from his salary and would be sent to the Court. But for the reasons best known to the 1st Judgment debtor, he failed to comply the orders of this Court nor appeared before this Court to contest the petition.

Either the Thahsildar, Yelamanchili or the District Supply officer(rural) 4

Visakhapatnam, did not comply with the order of this court by attaching the salary of the 1st Judgment debtor. It clearly shows the laches on the part of the Drawing & Disbursing Officer of the 1st Judgment debtor.

At this stage, it is pertinent to refer hereunder the provisions of sub rule 3 of Rule 48 of Order 21 of Civil Procedure code :

Order 21 Rule 48(3): Every order made under this rule, unless it is returned in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) shall, without further notice or other process, bind the appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company, as the case may be, while the judgment-debtor is within the local limits to which this Code for the time being extends and while he is beyond those limits, if he is in receipt of any salary or allowances payable out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State or the funds of a railway company or local authority or corporation or Government company in India; and the appropriate Government or the railway company or local authority or corporation a Government company, as the case may be, shall be liable for any sum paid in contravention of this ruler.

Explanation.-In this rule, "appropriate Government" means,-

(i) as respects any person in the service of the Central Government, or any servant of a railway administration or of a cantonment authority or of the port authority of a major port, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central Act, or any servant of a Government company in which any part of the share capital is held by the Central Government or by more than one State Governments or partly by the Central Government and partly by one or more State GovernmentandtheCentralGovernment;

(ii) as respects any other servant of the Government, or a servant of any other local or other authority, or any servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Provincial or State Act, or a servant of any other Government company, the State Government.

7.As per sub rule 3 of Rule 48 of Order 21 of CPC, the appropriate

Government is liable for the laches of its the Drawing & Disbursing Officer.

5

Since the Drawing & Disbursing Officer i.e. the Thahsildar, Yelamanchili did not comply the orders of this Court by attaching the salary of the 1st

Judgment debtor, this Court inclined to attach the schedule properties lying within the precincts of the District Supply office at Visakhapatnam (Rural) subject to section 60 CPC, as the appropriate Government is responsible for the acts of its drawing and disbursing officer. The decree was obtained by the Decree holder way back on 20.03.2010. So far the Decree Holder could not able to realise the decretal amount. As there is no option to this Court expect to attach the movables available within the precincts of the District

Supply office(rural) at Visakhapatnam.

8.In the result, issue Movables attachment warrant for attachment of movables available within the precincts of the District Supply office(Rural) at

Visakhapatnam to the extent of E.P. amount subject to Section 60 CPC, on payment of process by 23.08.2021.

Dictated to Stenographer(Gr.1), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this

th2 22nd day of July,2021.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:V ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VII ASCJ

FAC V ASCJ/VSP 6

Fair Copy 1 IV ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.466/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APVS000032852026Present: Sri M.Sri Hari, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P. No.466/2026

e.Courts Crl.M.P. No.1038/2026

(Cr.No.86/2026 of Arilova P.S)

Between :

Onumu Sai @ Resu Sai, S/o Sankar, aged 19 years, Arilova TIC Point, Visakhapatnam City. Aadhar No.5950 1378 3852. … Petitioner / A2

And

The State represented by the Public Prosecutor (SHO, Arilova Police Station).

…Respondent / Complainant

This petition coming on this day i.e., on 14.05.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. T.Patvathi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner /

A2 and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for State / respondent / Complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS (Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. old) to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

2.The petitioner is Accused No.2 in Cr. No.86/2026 of Arilova Police Station,

Visakhapatnam. The offence levelled against the petitioner is under Sections109(1) of BNS.

3.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution that on 01.04.2026 at about 1.00 p.m., the defacto complainant lodged report with police alleging that about six

Fair Copy 2 IV ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.466/2026

months back one John Sai and Tarun quarrlled with his son Bhargav and since then they bore grudge against his son and planning to kill his son. While so, on 31.03.2026 at about 11.30 p.m., when his son went to Arilova last bus stop to attend natural calls, the accused persons with an intention to kill his son beat him and A1 stabbed his son with a knife, as a result of which, his son sustained bleeding injury.

The nearby persons rescued him and later he was shifted to hospital for treatment.

Basing on a report, a case was registered.

4.The prosecution opposed to grant bail.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner / A2 submits that the petitioner A/2 has been in judicial custody since 02.04.2026, there are no specific overtact attributed against the petitioner / A2. The material part of the investigation was already completed. The injured was also discharged from the hospital. Therefore, he sought to release the petitioner on bail.

7.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that there are specific overtacts against A1 alone and the present petitioner shared common intention with A1. The material witnesses were already examined.

8.Perused the record. As can be seen from the record, the petitioner / A2 has been in Judicial custody since 02.04.2026. As many as five material witnesses were examined by the Investigating Officer. It seems the presence of the petitioner / A2 is not required for any custodial interrogation. Therefore, I feel that the investigation might at the faged. Hence, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner / A2.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed by granting bail to the petitioner / A2. The petitioner / A2 shall be released on bail on his execution of self bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Fair Copy 3 IV ADSJ Court, Visakhapatnam

Crl.M.P.No.466/2026

9. 1) The petitioner / A2 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquaint with the facts of the case show as dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police officer or tamper with the evidence.

9.2) The petitioner / A2 shall appear before the SHO, Arilova PS., on every

Monday and Saturday between 05-00 P.M., to 07-00 PM., for a period of one month or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Sri Hari

IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Copies to the :

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

2. The counsel for the petitioner / accused.

3. The Station House Officer, Arilova Police Station.

// True Copy //

Chief Administrative Officer,

XII Additional District & Sessions Court,

Visakhapatnam.

1

APVS000029132026

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

VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: M. Sri Hari IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2026

Crl.M.P.Bail No.981/2026

Cr.No.251/2024 of II Town P.S.

Between Mori Ganesh, S/o Rambabu, aged 30 years, R/o. D.No.7- 34, Poothikameta village, Tamminagala Post, Chinthapalli Mandal, ASR District.

… Petitioner/A2 And: The State rep. by its Spl.Public Prosecutor, S.Ho.II Town PS.Visakhapatnam. … Respondent/Complainant

This petition came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of K.Usha Kiran, the learned Advocate for the petitioner/A2 and of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and having considered the matter till this day, this Court made the following:

ORDER

1.This bail application filed by the petitioner/Accused A2 under

Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C) to enlarge the petitioner/Accused A2 on bail.

2.The petitioner is A2 in Cr.No.251/2024 of II Town Police Station,

Visakhapatnam. The offences leveled against the petitioner are under

Section 109 of BNS.

3.Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that:

2

On 04.10.2024 at about 1.00 pm, the police conducted the vehicle checking near the Sangam Sarath Traffic Signal as they received reliable information with regard to hash oil/ganj oil in the car bearing No. AP 16 BC 5656. At about 1.00 pm, they noticed the above-said suspected four- wheeler, and they tried to stop the said vehicle to apprehend the accused.

The complainant kept his motorcycle across the car to stop the vehicle. In the meantime, the inspector and his staff went to the car and inquired with regard to the identity of the persons who were traveling in the said car. Then the persons, without getting down from the car, proceeded with the car in a rash and negligent manner by dashing the motorcycle of the de facto complainant; however, they could escape. The motorcycle was damaged, hence the case.

4.The prosecution opposed to grant bail.

5.Heard both sides.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case and he did not commit any offense; he was produced before this court under PT warrant and he is involved in another case of the NDPC Act. He argued that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and if he is not released, much hardship to his family members will occur, so he ought to seek the release on bail.

7.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed to grant the bail.

8.As can be seen from the record, the petitioner/accused has been in judicial custody since 02.02.2026; the material part of the investigation might be completed now. The petitioner was also granted bail in the NDPC case by the Honorable High Court. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the considered view that a material part of the investigation might be completed and the investigation at the fag end; therefore, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with some conditions.

3

9. In the result,this petition is allowed, enlarging the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail on his executing a self-bond for a sum of

Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand rupees only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

1. The petitioner/A2 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigation.

2. The petitioner/A2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the evidence or intimate or induce any witnesses.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 11th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-M.Sri Hari

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam. Copies to:

1. The II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, for information

2. The counsel for the petitioner/Accused A2.

3. The Station House Officer,II Town Police Station,Visakhapatnam City, for information