Sri M.Venkateswara Rao

- 1 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP

APVS010016202018 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION) AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.Venkateswara Rao,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026

E.A.No.314/2025 in E.P.No.139/2018

Between : Potluri Srinivasa Chakravarthy, S/o P.Rama Koteswara Rao, aged 52 years, r/at Plot No.39, Flat No.D3, Vepa Heights, Kirlampudi Layout, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner/Judgment Debtor

A n d : Garikina Yellaji Rao, S/o late Lakshmayya, aged 68 years, D.No.1-143, Jodugullupalem, Visalakshinagar, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent/Decree Holder

The application is coming for final hearing before me on 23-03-2026 in the presence of Sri.G.Ramu, Advocate for the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor and of Sri.P.Rama Rao & Sri.A.Appa Rao, Advocates for the Respondent/Decree Holder and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.The application is filed under Sections 47 and 151 of C.P.C. praying to dismiss the execution petition on the grounds of material irregularities and questions arising between the parties.

2. The brief averments of the affidavit enclosed to the application is as follows : -

(a)The respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.139/2018 against the petitioner basing on the Lok Adalat award and the execution petition schedule flat was valued about two crore and thus, the attachment is illegal and abuse of process of law. The attachment of the schedule flat was valued as rupees - 2 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP two crore, whereas, the execution petition amount comes to a tune of rupees ten lakh as per Lok Adalat award. As such, the attachment is against the mandate of provisions of Order XXI Rule 64 of C.P.C. and the sufficient portion of the schedule alone is to be sold to satisfy the decree and not the whole of the property of the petitioner/judgment debtor.

(b)After filing the execution proceedings, the respondent filed

E.A.No.29/2025 claiming interest and the same was allowed granting interest at 6% per annum on the Lok Adalat award. The respondent/decree holder is not entitled to interest on the compromised settlement terms entered before the Lok Adalat, as the award was passed on the basis of mutual consent and terms of the parties. The award did not stipulate or include any direction in respect of interest at 6% per annum or any other rate either pre or post award and thus, the claim of the respondent in respect of interest is not sustainable in law and liable to be rejected. The executing Court is bound to enforce the terms of the Lok Adalat award and cannot add or alter or modify the award by imposing any interest. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the execution petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

3.The respondent opposed the application and filed counter. The brief averments of the counter are that :-

The respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act vide C.C.No.214/2018 and the same was settled before Lok

Adalat on 14-07-2018 with terms and conditions and the applicant herein who is the accused in the said complaint issued cheque for rupees ten lakh towards full and final settlement but the said cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement “funds insufficient” vide return memo, dt.25-07-2018. The respondent informed the petitioner about the dishonour of the said cheque but the applicant has been postponing the payment of amount on one pretext or the other and thus, the respondent filed the execution petition. As the - 3 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP applicant avoided the payment of amount as per the Lok Adalat award with deliberate intention, the respondent suffered monetary loss and mental agony and thus, the Court granted interest at 6% per annum and thus, there are no bonafides in the present application. The applicant interpreted Order XXI Rule 64 of C.P.C. against the true intention of the provision. The application is not maintainable either under law or on facts and thus, the application is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

4.Heard both the sides. Perused the record.

5.Now the points arise for consideration are :-

1.Whether the applicant is able to make out the existence of valid grounds as envisaged under Section 47 of C.P.C., so as to dismiss the execution petition, as prayed for ?

2.To what relief ?

Point No.1 :

6.The learned applicant’s counsel argued that the granting of interest over the settled amount in the absence of interest clause in Lok Adalat award is not valid and bringing the schedule flat worth of rupees two crore to sale when the claim of the respondent is about rupees ten lakh is untenable and against the mandate of Order XXI Rule 64 of C.P.C. and thus, the execution petition is to be dismissed under Section 47 of C.P.C. In order to substantiate the issue of granting interest, the applicant relied upon the judgment in the case of 1.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha & Anr. and 2. State of

Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors.

7.Per contra, the learned respondent’s counsel argued that since the applicant committed default in payment of amount and failed to adhere to the - 4 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP terms of compromise resulting the financial loss to the respondent and as such, the respondent moved E.A.No.29/2025 and the same was allowed granting interest at 6% per annum on the settlement amount of ten lakh from the date of award till realization and the applicant has not challenged the same in revision and thus, the contention of the applicant regarding the interest amount is not at all acceptable and tenable. He further argued that the schedule flat is an indivisible one and a part of the same alone cannot be put in auction and the facts of the cited cases are not identical to the facts of the present case on hand and thus, the cited cases render no help to the case of the applicant.

8.In view of the above rival contentions, I have perused the record. The fact remains undisputed that the parties to the execution petition entered an amicable settlement before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed on 14- 07-2018 incorporating the agreed terms and conditions. As seen from the record, the respondent filed E.A.No.29/2025 claiming interest at 24% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization and the said application was allowed in part on merits granting interest at 6% per annum on the settlement amount of rupees ten lakh from the date of award till realization.

The fact remains undisputed that the applicant has not challenged the said order in revision and thus, the same becomes final. In such circumstances, the contention of the applicant regarding the interest amount is not at all acceptable at the present stage.

9.Further, the issue arose in the former case of United India Insurance

Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Sinha & Anr. in respect of issue of Permanent Lok Adalat, whereas, the issue in the latter case of State Of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour

Singh & Ors. in respect of the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. The facts of the cited cases are not identical to the present case on hand. Further, unless the - 5 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP applicant challenged the order in E.A.No.29/2025, dt.23-07-2025, the contention of the applicant is not at all acceptable and tenable at the present stage.

10.The learned applicant’s counsel placed reliance on the cases of 1.

Ambati Narasayya Vs. M.Subba Rao & Anr. and 2. Santhamma Abraham

Vs. Mylapra Service Co-Operative Bank contending the attachment and sale of schedule flat worth of rupees two crore is against the mandate of Order XXI

Rule 64 of C.P.C. and thus, the execution petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The respondent did not dispute the settled law that the portion of the property of the judgment debtor sufficient to satisfy the decree is alone to be brought to sale but not the entire property. In the present case, the execution petition is filed seeking attachment and sale of schedule flat. As per the Amin value, the schedule flat is worth of rupees one crore eighty lakh, whereas, the respondent contends the same is not that much worth and it is worth of rupees one crore. The execution petition is filed seeking attachment and sale of the entire flat and the schedule does not spell out the plinth area of the schedule flat.

11.The execution petition is filed in the year 2018 to recover an amount of rupees ten lakh and as per order in E.A.No.29/2025, the respondent decree holder is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on the settled amount of rupees ten lakh from the date of Lok Adalat award i.e. 14-07-2018. In view of the same, the contention of the applicant that the schedule flat cannot be attached and sold to recover the execution petition amount of rupees ten lakh is not at all acceptable since the respondent is entitled to interest granted as per order in E.A.No.29/2025. Therefore, unless a calculation memo is filed and what is the actual amount due from the applicant is determined and decided, the contention of the applicant is not at all acceptable.

- 6 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP

12.Further, just because the flat is indivisible, the respondent shall not be remedy less and the respondent is entitled to bring such undivided portion of the schedule flat that is sufficient to satisfy the decree to sale when the applicant does not come forward to discharge the award amount.The main execution petition is at the stage of sale notice and the contentions of the applicant regarding the worth of the schedule flat and feasible to bring a part of the flat to sale will be considered in the main execution petition.

13.The grounds under which the present application is founded is not at all valid and justifiable to invoke Section 47 of C.P.C. The executing Court is required to determine all the questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The present application does not spell out the grounds envisaged Section 47 of C.P.C. It is not the case of the applicant that he discharged the amount due to the respondent or satisfaction of the award issue. Therefore, the material placed on record shows the grounds urged in the petition does not fall under the scope and ambit of

Section 47 of C.P.C. and the questions regarding the issue of selling the schedule flat which is more value than the execution petition claim amount is to be decided in the main execution petition and not in the present application under Section 47 of C.P.C.

14.Therefore, having considered the submission of both the sides and the material placed on record, the Court holds that the applicant is not able to establish the existence of valid and justifiable grounds as envisaged under

Section 47 of C.P.C., so as to dismiss the execution petition and the issue of sale of the schedule flat when its worth is much higher than the claim of the respondent needs to be decided in the main execution petition. Thus, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

- 7 - EA 314/2025 in EP 139/2018, Dt: 27-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div.)/VSP

Point No.2 :

15.IN THE RESULT, the application is dismissed.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

- 1 - S.O.P.6/2026, Dt:29-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div)/VSP

APVS010000852026 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION) AT VISAKHAPATNAM

Present :M.Venkateswara Rao,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

S.O.P.No.6 of 2026

Between :

1. Gudipudi Ranga Babu, S/o late G.Venkata Srinivasulu and late Gudipudi Rajya Lakshmi, aged 44 years, r/at 3-83/E/19/309, Eswar Villas Road, Near Karur Vysya Bank, Nizampet, Qutubullapur, Rangareddi District, Telangana, Aadhaar No.4904 1783 4445, Cell No.99664 47336.

2. Narahari Swathi, W/o N.Sridhar, D/o late G.Venkata Srinivasulu and late Gudipudi Rajya Lakshmi, aged 45 years, r/at 16-1-30, Opp. Collectorate, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530 002, Aadhaar No.9476 8903 9961, Cell No.98485 05654.

3. Gudipudi Sesha Bhushan, S/o late G.Venkata Srinivasulu and late Gudipudi Rajya Lakshmi, aged 40 years, r/at D.No.16-1-30/1, C/2, Sita Rama Arcade Maharanipeta Visakhapatnam and Block-C, 703, Risinia Tendrilla, ASR Brundavan Colony, Mallapet Road, Opp.ICICI Bank, Bachupally, Hyderabad-500 090, Aadhaar No.9246 3312 9490, Cell No.96327 38800. … Petitioners

A n d : - N I L - .… Respondent

The petition is coming for final hearing on 22-04-2026 before me in the presence of Sri.B.Srinivasa Reddy & Sri.G.Ananda Rao, Advocates for the Petitioners and of Respondent -NIL- and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.The present S.O.P. is filed seeking issuance of succession certificate in favour of the petitioners in respect of the schedule mentioned shares.

- 2 - S.O.P.6/2026, Dt:29-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div)/VSP

2. The case of the petitioners, as spelled out in the petition, is as follows :-

The petitioners are the children of deceased Gudipudi Venkata

Srinivasulu and Gudipudi Rajya Lakshmi. The petitioner’s mother died on 06- 08-2015 at Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam and the petitioner’s father died on 05-12-2004 at Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner’s mother died intestate and left the petitioners as the legal heirs to succeed her estate, as such, the petitioners are entitled to the estate of the deceased and the schedule share amounts. The petitioners required the succession certificate to get the petition schedule share amounts. Hence, the petitioners moved the present petition seeking issuance of succession certificate in respect of the petition schedule share amounts.

3.At the time of registering the petition, a general notice was issued by way of paper publication calling upon for objections, but none turned up before the Court with any objections.

4.During the enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked.

5.Heard. Perused the record.

6.Now, the points that arise for consideration are :-

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for issuance of succession certificate, as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

Point No.1 :

7.The learned petitioners’ counsel argued that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Gudipudi Venkata Srinivasulu and Gudipudi Rajya - 3 - S.O.P.6/2026, Dt:29-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div)/VSP

Lakshmi and entitled to the schedule shares stand in the name of their deceased mother Rajya Lakshmi and thus, the petitioners are entitled to succession certificate to claim the schedule share amounts from the concerned. He further argued that the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P11 establishes the entitlement of the petitioners to claim the schedule share amounts and thus, the petitioners are entitled to succession certificate as sought for.

8.In view of the above submissions, I have perused the evidence brought on record. The petitioner No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and filed her chief- examination affidavit reiterating the material averments of the petition. Apart from the oral evidence of P.W.1, the petitioners placed reliance on Exs.P1 to

P11 to substantiate their claim. I have gone through Exs.P1 to P11. The contents of Ex.P1 reveal that the mother of the petitioners i.e. G.Rajya

Lakshmi died on 06-08-2015. The contents of Ex.P2 reveal that the father of the petitioners i.e. G.V.Srinivasulu died on 05-12-2004. The contents of Ex.P3 reveal that the petitioners are the children of the deceased Rajya Lakshmi.

The contents of Exs.P4 to P7 aadhaar cards of the deceased Rajya Lakshmi and the petitioners disclose their identity particulars. The oral evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P1 to P3 establishes that the petitioners being the children of the deceased Rajya Lakshmi are entitled to the estate of the deceased since she died intestate.

9.Ex.P8 share certificate discloses the name of the deceased Rajya

Lakshmi as the shareholder. The contents of Ex.P9 discloses that the petitioner No.3 received the letter from the KFIN Technologies Private Limited stating the shares related to the folio CFL146509 moved to IEPF as per MCA circular, dt.15-10-2020 since the dividend for the last seven years were not encashed and he was requested to follow the procedure as narrated in Ex.P9 - 4 - S.O.P.6/2026, Dt:29-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div)/VSP to claim the shares from IEPF Authority. Ex.P11 is the e-mail correspondence sent to the petitioner No.3 acknowledging the request of the petitioner No.3 regarding the shares with folio No.CFL146509 and requested the petitioner

No.1 to provide the list mentioned documents so as to process the claim.

10.The oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P8, P9 and P11 establishes the existence of the shares in the name of the deceased mother of the petitioners. The original share certificate under Ex.P8 discloses the folio

No.CFL146509 and the same is reflected in Exs.P9 and P11 and the same corroborates the oral evidence of P.W.1. There is no material on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P11. The correspondence under Exs.P9 and P11 itself strengthens the case of the petitioners regarding their entitlement to the petition schedule shares. The contents of Ex.P10 disclose the value of shares as on 10-04-2026.

11.Therefore, having considered and weighed the material placed on record and submission of the learned counsel, the Court arrives at the conclusion that the petitioners are able to establish their entitlement to the schedule shares being the legal heirs of their deceased mother Rajya

Lakshmi. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to succession certificate in respect of the schedule shares, so as to claim the same. Hence, the point

No.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2 :

12. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. Issue succession certificate in the name of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in respect of the petition schedule shares. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 shall file the market value of petition schedule shares held by deceased Gudipudi Rajya Lakshmi as on this date and pay necessary Court Fee on the value of the petition schedule shares.

- 5 - S.O.P.6/2026, Dt:29-04-2026 PCJ Court (Sr.Div)/VSP

The office is directed to engross the succession certificate after remittance of

Court Fee. There is no order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

Appendix of evidence

No. of witnesses examined

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

P.W.1 : N.SwathiNone

No. of documents marked

For Petitioners :

Ex.P1 : Death certificate of G.Rajya Lakshmi, dt.21-11-2023.

Ex.P2 : Death certificate of G.Venkata Srinivasulu, dt.16-10-2025.

Ex.P3 : Family member certificate, dt.19-09-2017.

Ex.P4 : Aadhaar card of G.Rajya Lakshmi.

Ex.P5 : Aadhaar card of G.Ranga Babu.

Ex.P6 : Aadhaar card of N.Swathi.

Ex.P7 : Aadhaar card of G.Sesha Bhushan.

Ex.P8 : Share certificate, dt.24-12-2010 in the name of G.Rajya Lakshmi.

Ex.P9 : Net copy of letter addressed to petitioner No.3, dt.07-03-2021.

Ex.P10 :Net copy of valuation certificate of shares, dt.04-08-2025.

Ex.P11 :E-mail communication, dt.18-07-2024.

For Respondent : -NIL-

Sd/- M.VENKATESWARA RAO

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Visakhapatnam.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS 790/2016

Dated 05.12.2024

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

COURT,VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Visakhapatnam

THURSDAY, THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

O.S.790/2018

BETWEEN

Smt. Beri Thatha Rao, son of late Suribabu, aged 40 Years, residing at Sagarnagar, Gudlavanipalem, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

. ........Plaintif AND:

1. G.polireddy, son of late Pydayya, aged 38 Years, Real Estate Business, residing at Gudlavanipalem, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sagar Nagar Youth Welfare Association, represented by its President, Sagarnagar, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

3. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, represented by is Vice Chairman, Siripuram, VUDA Complex, Visakhapatnam.

4. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam.

5. Mehauddin, Son of not know to the plaintif, aged about 55 Years residing at D.No. HIG-2-158 & 159, Sagar Nagar, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

6. Gudla Lakshmana Reddy, Son of Ganga Raju, aged about 38 Years, residing at Gudlavanipale, Ward No.6, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam. (The Defendants 5 and 6 are added as per orders in IA 57/2018 dated 04.06.2019) …….Defendants

This suit is coming on this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri. J.A.Naidu, Advocate for the plaintifs and of D1 to D3 and D5 Exparte, and of Sri Gara Susilla, Advocate for the defendant D4, and D6 (written- statement fled (inperson) and having stood over for consideration, till this day and the court delivered the following:

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS 790/2016

Dated 05.12.2024

J U D G M E N T

Suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants to pass a decree and Judgment in their favour and against the defendants;

a)For the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) towards damages and malicious prosecution along with 12% per annum from the date of fling of the suit till disposal of the suit and subsequent interest as fxed by the court until realization of the decreetal amount.

b)For costs of this suit, and

c)For such other and further relief or reliefs as the court deems ft and proper in the circumstance of this case.

Plaintif is called absent. Costs not paid. No representation.

Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER,

2024.

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFs FOR DEFENDANTS -NIL- - NIL –

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFs FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- -NIL-

VIACJ(SD)/VSP

Date of presentation 08.07.2016 Date of fling : 11.07.2016 Suit Market Value : 4,50,000/-

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

COURT,VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Visakhapatnam

THURSDAY, THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

O.S.790/2018

BETWEEN

Smt. Beri Thatha Rao, son of late Suribabu, aged 40 Years, residing at Sagarnagar, Gudlavanipalem, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

. ........Plaintif AND:

1. G.polireddy, son of late Pydayya, aged 38 Years, Real Estate Business, residing at Gudlavanipalem, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. Sagar Nagar Youth Welfare Association, represented by its President, Sagarnagar, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

3. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, represented by its Vice Chairman, Siripuram, VUDA Complex, Visakhapatnam.

4. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Asilmetta Junction, Visakhapatnam.

5. Mehauddin, Son of not know to the plaintif, aged about 55 Years residing at D.No. HIG-2-158 & 159, Sagar Nagar, Ward No.6, GVMC, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

6. Gudla Lakshmana Reddy, Son of Ganga Raju, aged about 38 Years, residing at Gudlavanipale, Ward No.6, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam. (The Defendants 5 and 6 are added as per orders in IA 57/2018 dated 04.06.2019) …….Defendants

Suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendants to pass a decree and Judgment in their favour and against the defendants;

a)For the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) towards damages and malicious prosecution along with 12% per annum from the date of fling of the suit till disposal of the suit and subsequent interest as fxed by the court until realization of the decreetal amount.

b)For costs of this suit, and

c)For such other and further relief or reliefs as the court deems ft and proper in the circumstance of this case.

Value of the suit for purpose of CF and Jurisdiction is Rs 4,50,000/- and a court fee of Rs 6926/- is paid thereon U/sec 26(c) and Article 1(b and C) A.P.C.F and S.V Act.

This suit is coming on this day for trial before me in the presence of Sri. J.A.Naidu, Advocate for the plaintifs and of D1 to D3 and D5 Exparte, and of Sri Gara Susilla, Advocate for the defendant D4, and D6 (written-statement fled (inperson) and having stood over for consideration, till this day and the court delivered the follo

DECREE

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

2.that there be no order as to costs.

( Copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached )

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE ( SENIOR DIVISION) ,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Memorandum of Costs

For Plaintif For Defendants

No costs memo fled on either side.

VI ACJ(SD)/VSP.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP AS 22/2022

DATED 27.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

COURT,VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Visakhapatnam

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

AS.22/2022

BETWEEN

1.Samireddy Joga Rao, Son of Dappanna, aged 53 Years, Railway Emoployee, Residing at Qr. No.78/C, T-II, Marripalem Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

2.Smt. Samireddy Radhika, W/o Joga Rao, aged 48 Years, housewife, Residing at Qr.No.78/C, T-II Marripalem, Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

. ........Appellant/Defendant

AND:

Bonela Manju Babu, Son of Late Bhima Rao, aged 45 years residing at Door No. 38-38-66/2, Shivanagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

……….RespondentS/PlaintifS

APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 CPC AGAINST THE

DECREE AND JUDGEMENT DT. 19.01.2022 in OS 756/2018, on the

file of leanned IV Additional Jnnion Ciuil Jndee,at VisahhapatnaV

BETWEEN:

Bonela Manju Babu, Son of Late Bhima Rao, aged 45 years residing at Door No. 38-38-66/2, Shivanagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

………. PLAINTIFF

AND:

1.Samireddy Joga Rao, Son of Dappanna, aged 53 Years, Railway Employee, Residing at Qr. No.78/C, T-II, Marripalem Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam. 2.Smt. Samireddy Radhika, W/o Joga Rao, aged 48 Years, housewife, Residing at Qr.No.78/C, T-II Marripalem, Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

………..DefendantS

VIACJ(SD)/VSP AS 22/2022

DATED 27.11.2024

This appeal suit is coming on 27.11.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Radha Krishan Murthy, Advocate for the appellant/defendant and of Sri Killi Kumar Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintif, and having stood over for consideration, till this day and the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred under Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC by the appellant/ Defendant praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 19.01.2022 in

OS 756/2018, on the fle of learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,at

Visakhapatnam by allowing the appeal. The appeal was received by transfer from Honorable VI Addl District Court, Visakhapatnam as per orders of the Honorable Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in Dis No. 1069/15.02.2024.

Appellant is called absent. Costs not paid. No representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the appeal suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIORDIVISION) ,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- - NIL –

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- -NIL-

VI ACJ(SD)/VSP

SUIT MARKET VALUE: RS. 10,37,916/- VIACJ(SD)/VSP AS 22/2022

DATED 27.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

COURT,VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division) Visakhapatnam

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

AS.22/2022

BETWEEN

1.Samireddy Joga Rao, Son of Dappanna, aged 53 Years, Railway Emoployee, Residing at Qr. No.78/C, T-II, Marripalem Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

2.Smt. Samireddy Radhika, W/o Joga Rao, aged 48 Years, housewife, Residing at Qr.No.78/C, T-II Marripalem, Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

. ........Appellant/Defendant

AND:

Bonela Manju Babu, Son of Late Bhima Rao, aged 45 years residing at Door No. 38-38-66/2, Shivanagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

……….RespondentS/PlaintifS

APPEAL PREFERRED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 1 CPC AGAINST THE

DECREE AND JUDGEMENT DT. 19.01.2022 in OS 756/2018, on the

file of leanned IV Additional Jnnion Ciuil Jndee,at VisahhapatnaV

BETWEEN:

Bonela Manju Babu, Son of Late Bhima Rao, aged 45 years residing at Door No. 38-38-66/2, Shivanagar, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

………. PLAINTIFF

AND: 1.Samireddy Joga Rao, Son of Dappanna, aged 53 Years, Railway Employee, Residing at Qr. No.78/C, T-II, Marripalem Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam. 2.Smt. Samireddy Radhika, W/o Joga Rao, aged 48 Years, housewife, Residing at Qr.No.78/C, T-II Marripalem, Railway Quarters, Visakhapatnam.

………..DefendantS

VIACJ(SD)/VSP AS 22/2022

DATED 27.11.2024

This appeal is preferred under Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC by the appellant/ Defendant praying to set aside the decree and judgment dated 19.01.2022 in

OS 756/2018, on the fle of learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Bheemunipatnam, Visaikhapatnam by allowing the appeal. The appeal was received by transfer from Honorable VI Addl District Court, Visakhapatnam as per orders of the Honorable Principal District Judge, Visaikhapatnam in Dis No. 1069/15.02.2024.

Value of the suit for purpose of CF and Jurisdiction is notionally fxed at Rs 10,37,916/- and a court fee of Rs 12,826/-is paid in the trial court under section 49 r/w 20 of Art.1 (b and C) of schedule I of A.P Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

This appeal suit is coming on 27.11.2024 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Radha Krishan Murthy, Advocate for the appellant/defendant and of Sri Killi Kumar Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintif, and having stood over for consideration, till this day and the court delivered the following:

DECREE

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

and

2.that there be no order as to costs.

( Copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached )

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIORDIVISION) ,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MeVonandnV of Costs

Fon Plaintif Fon Defendant

No costs memo fled on either side.

VI ACJ(SD)/VSP.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS.NO.158/2024

DATED 28.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam

THURSDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

O.S.158/2024

BETWEEN

Adari Nooka Venkata Ganeswara Rao, S/o Tulasi Rao, aged 38 Years, residing at D.No. 20-35-3, Gairamma temple street, Kothapalem, Yellamanchili Mandal, Anakapalle District.

........ Plaintif

AND: Adari Sateesh Kumar, S/o Appa Rao aged about 44 Years, residing at HIG-12, Near Water Tank, Simhapuri layout, Vepagunta, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

…… Defendant

This suit is coming on this day 28.11.2024 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Appa Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendant to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for a. For specifc performance of the sale agreement Dt 07.05.2021 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintif after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs and ffty thousand only), failing which the court may be pleased to execute registered sale deed on behalf of the defendant at the expenses of the plaintif. b. In case if the court thinks that it is not possible for specifc performance, order to refund the advance amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and ffty thousand only ) along with interest 24 p.a., from the date of payment till the date of realization. c. For costs of the suit,and d. For such other relief or reliefs as the court may deem ft and proper in the circumstances of the case.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS.NO.158/2024

DATED 28.11.2024

Plaintif is called absent. Process is not fled. No representation. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE,

Senior Division

VISAKHAPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- - NIL –

NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL- -NIL-

VI ACJ(SD)/VSP.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS.NO.158/2024

DATED 28.11.2024

Value of the suit: Rs.30,00,000 /- Date of presentation:03.05.2024 Date of Filing: 09.05.2024

IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao, VI Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Visakhapatnam

THURSDAY, THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

O.S.158/2024

BETWEEN

Adari Nooka Venkata Ganeswara Rao, S/o Tulasi Rao, aged 38 Years, residing at D.No. 20-35-3, Gairamma temple street, Kothapalem, Yellamanchili Mandal, Anakapalle District.

........ Plaintif

AND: Adari Sateesh Kumar, S/o Appa Rao aged about 44 Years, residing at HIG-12, Near Water Tank, Simhapuri layout, Vepagunta, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

…… Defendant

This suit is coming on this day 28.11.2024 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Appa Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

Suit is fled by the plaintif against the defendant to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintif and against the defendant for a. For specifc performance of the sale agreement Dt 07.05.2021 directing the defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintif after receipt of the balance sale consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs and ffty thousand only), failing which the court may be pleased to execute registered sale deed on behalf of the defendant at the expenses of the plaintif. b. In case if the court thinks that it is not possible for specifc performance, order to refund the advance amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs and ffty thousand only ) along with interest 24 p.a., from the date of payment till the date of realization. c. For costs of the suit,and d. For such other relief or reliefs as the court may deem ft and proper in the circumstances of the case.

VIACJ(SD)/VSP OS.NO.158/2024

DATED 28.11.2024

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction value is Rs.30,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs. 32,426/- is paid thereon under section 39 r/w section 20 Article 1(b) and (C) of APCf and SV Act.

This suit is coming on this day 28.11.2024 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Appa Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

DECREE

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

2.that there be no order as to costs.

( Copy of plaint schedule is hereto attached )

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2024

VI ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

No cost memo fled on either side.

VI ACJ(SD)/VSP.