Sri M Venkateswara Rao

- 1 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL

AT HANUMAKONDA

Present: Sri M. Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 251 of 2022

(Old O.S.No.614 of 2017)

BETWEEN:

Ura Yugender Reddy, S/o Mohan Reddy, Age: 41 years, Occu: Business,

R/o H.No.15-2-93, Rangampet, Warangal District.

… Plaintiff

And

Pabbathireddy Sampath Reddy, S/o Dharma Reddy, Age: 41 years, R/o

C/o Nallamallareddy Junior College, Divya Nagar, Kachivani Singaram,

Gatkesar, Ranga Reddy District.

… Defendant

This suit coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

M.Kishan Kumar Goud, learned Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri

P.Maheedhar Rao, Advocate for Defendant; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,59,333/- with future interest @ 2% per month, basing on promissory note.

- 2 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

2. The case of the Plaintiff briefly as follows:

i.Out of acquaintance, on 06.04.2014, the defendant approached the plaintiff with a request to arrange

Rs.5,00,000/- for his family and personal requirements and on the request of the defendant, plaintiff advanced

Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant as hand loan and after receiving the said amount, defendant executing

Ex.A1/demand promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount within short span of time as and when demanded by the plaintiff along with interest @ 2% per month.

ii.Thereafter, when the plaintiff demanded for repayment of the loan amount, the defendant postponed the matter with one or other pretext and even after his persistent demands and issuing legal notice on 06.03.2017 for repayment of the loan amount with interest, the defendant received the legal notice, but neither paid the amount due nor replied the legal notice, hence the present suit for recovery of the principal amount of

Rs.500,000/- covered under suit promissory note with accrued interest @ 2% per month from 06.04.2014 to - 3 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl 04.04.2017 i.e., Rs.3,59,333/-, totaling Rs.8,59,333/- along with future interest. Hence, the suit.

3.After receiving summons, the defendant filed written statement. The averments of the written statement filed by defendant in brief are that:

i.The contents of para No.3 of the plaint did not speak the contents of the plaint, but it shows that the contents of the legal notice are cut and pasted in the plaint and the same has to be corrected by amending the plaint.

ii.In fact, the defendant neither know the plaintiff nor there is any acquaintance among them and the plaintiff failed to mentioned the date, time and place of execution of the promissory note and moreover, the defendant is a Principal of most popular education institution under the name and style of “Nalla Malla Reddy Junior College, Narapally at

Hyderabad”, which is one of the sister institution of “Nalla

Malla Reddy Educational Institutions”, whereas the plaintiff worked under the defendant as an employee and in fact, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to him, as himself is a white collar person and he never - 4 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl approached the plaintiff either on 06.04.2014 or any other date to lend money from the plaintiff and not executed any demand promissory not in favour of plaintiff and all the allegations made in the plaint are false and baseless.

iii.It is further contended by the defendant that, plaintiff failed to mention the names of witness in whose presence defendant borrowed the amount and only with an intention to harass the defendant mentally and physically, plaintiff filed the suit by forging his signature and fraudulently claiming the suit amount and further, he has not received any legal notice as contended by the plaintiff.

iv.It is further contended by the defendant that, the interest claimed by the plaintiff is excessive and incorrect and when he denies the execution of promissory note itself, the question of interest does not arise at all and there are over- writings and corrections in the alleged promissory note and it seems to be written with different type of ink pens and he reserves his right to send the same to the Handwriting Expert for comparing his signature and writing and ink used on the alleged promissory note with the admitted writing and - 5 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl signature of the defendant and further, there is no cause of action to file the suit and the cause of action shown in the plaint is created for the purpose of filing the suit and finally, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are framed:

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.06.04.2014 is

true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed?

3. To what relief?

5.During trial, on his behalf, plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Further, plaintiff examined one

Pindi Raju, who is said to 2nd attestor to Ex.A1/demand promissory note.

Defendant failed to cross-examine PW2. Hence, cross-examination of

PW2 was treated as nil.

6.On behalf of defendant, none were examined and no documents are marked to prove his case.

7.Heard the arguments of plaintiff and the arguments on behalf of defendant are treated as heard, since there is no representation on his behalf in spite of granting sufficient time. Perused the record.

- 6 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

8. Issues No.1 and 2:As the issues No.1 and 2 are interrelated, they are taken up together.

The contention of the plaintiff is that on 06.04.2014, the defendant obtained a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his family and personal necessities by executing Ex.A1/demand promissory note in his favor agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month whenever plaintiff demands and thereafter, failed to repay the amount even after several demands and issuing legal notice, as such, plaintiff filed the present suit.

9.On the other hand, the contention of the defendant as per written statement is that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory note in favour of plaintiff and in fact, the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to him, as himself is a white collar person and plaintiff filed the suit by forging his signature and fraudulently claiming the suit amount and when he denies the very execution of promissory note itself, the question of interest does not arise at all and there are over-writings and corrections in the alleged promissory note and it seems to be written with different type of ink pens and he reserves his right to send the same to the Handwriting

Expert for comparing his signature and writing and ink used on the - 7 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl alleged promissory note with the admitted writing and signature of the defendant and therefore, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

10.Now, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his claim. In support of the contention of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

PW1. PW1 deposed in his evidence that on 06.04.2014, the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- for his family and personal necessities as hand loan and after receiving the said amount, defendant executing

Ex.A1/demand promissory note in favor of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month whenever plaintiff demands and thereafter, failed to repay the amount even after several demands and issuing legal notice and therefore, he is entitled for suit amount.

11.In support of his above evidence, plaintiff as PW1 marked

Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dated 06.04.2014 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 06.03.2017, Ex.A3 is the postal receipt, dt.06.03.2017 and Ex.A4 is the postal acknowledgment card.

12.On careful examination of Ex.A1/promissory note, it clearly reveals that on 06.04.2014, defendant borrowed an amount of - 8 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

Rs.5,00,000/- and having received the said amount, executed the said promissory note.

13.The learned counsel for defendant cross-examined PW1 at length and in depth touching various points, but nothing was elicited to discredit the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1/promissory note. The evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 even after test of cross-examination is categorically establishing the contention of the plaintiff that on 06.04.2014, the defendant obtained a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his family and personal necessities by executing Ex.A1/demand promissory note in his favor agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month whenever plaintiff demands and thereafter, failed to repay the amount even after several demands and issuing legal notice.

14.Further, the evidence of PW2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW2, who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1/promissory note.

PW2 also deposed that on 06.04.2014, defendant borrowed

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1/promissory note and that it was attested by him and another attestor. The defendant did not choose to cross-examine PW2 and therefore, cross-examination of PW2 was treated as nil on 08.08.2023. So far, defendant did not apply for cross-examination of PW2. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 - 9 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 is initially proving the claim of the plaintiff that on 06.04.2014, the defendant obtained a hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for his family and personal necessities by executing Ex.A1/demand promissory note in his favor agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest @ 2% per month whenever plaintiff demands and thereafter, failed to repay the amount even after several demands and issuing legal notice.

15.Now, the burden is on the defendant to prove his contention.

But, in this case, the defendant did not choose to adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A4. Therefore, the contention of defendant is remained not proved. On the other hand, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Exs.A1 to A4 are proving the claim of the plaintiff.

16.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

- 10 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

17. Issue No.3:

In view of finding on issues No.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed as prayed for. Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

18. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.8,59,333/- (Rupees Eight lakh and Fifty Nine thousand Three hundred and Thirty Three only) along with interest @ Rs.24% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till date of realization, on Rs.5,00,000/-.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7 th day of November, 2023.

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW.1Ura Yugender Reddy

PW.2Pindi Raju

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

None.

- 11 - Judgment, dt.07.11.2023 in OS No.251 of 2022 (Old OS No.614 of 2017). SCJ, Wgl

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original promissory note, dated 06.04.2014.

Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice, dated 06.03.2017.

Ex.A3Postal receipt, dated 06.03.2017.

Ex.A4Postal acknowledgment card.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

NIL

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

-1- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: WARANGAL

PRESENT: Sri M.Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

Thursday, this the 9th day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 16 of 2023

Between:- Akula Ravi, S/o Venkatadri, Age: 38 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.16- 3-695/1, Ekashila Nagar, Fort Road, Warangal.

… Plaintiff

AND

1. Koyyada Prabakar, S/o Narasiah, Age: 56 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.16-4-1274, Under Bridge Road, Shiva Nagar, Warangal.

2. Koyyada Uma, W/o Prabakar, Age: 43 years, Occu: Housewife & Business, R/o H.No.16-4-1274, Under Bridge Road, Shiva Nagar, Warangal.

…Defendants

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Veerabhadraiah, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants No.1 and 2 are remained ex-parte; upon hearing the learned Counsel for Plaintiff, considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.39,49,326/- by the plaintiff against the persons and properties of Defendants No.1 and 2 -2- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL holding them liable to pay jointly and severally along with future interest @ 24% p.a., basing on Registered Mortgage Deed, dated 07.09.2018.

2.Averments of the plaint in brief are that:

i.The Plaintiff and Defendants No.1 and 2 are known persons to each other and Defendant No.1 is the husband of Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 represented to the Plaintiff stating that she being the absolute owner gifted her house property bearing M.No.16-4-1274, measuring 180.42 Sq.Yards, situated at Under Bridge Road, Shivanagar,

Warangal to her husband/Defendant No.1 through Registered Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.10823/2014, dt.04.12.2014 and both the Defendants

No.1 and 2 representing their business and family needs and requirements, requested the Plaintiff to advance loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by offering their aforesaid house property as security to the Plaintiff and the

Plaintiff out of his acquaintance with the Defendants No.1 and 2, accepted their request and expressed his readiness to advance the money to the Defendants and accordingly, on 07.09.2018, the

Defendants No.1 and 2 borrowed the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash from the Plaintiff by mortgaging their aforesaid house property by executing a Simple Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.5540/2018, -3- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL dt.07.09.2018 in favour of Plaintiff acknowledging the receipt of said amount and also delivered the original Registered Gift Deed, dt.04.12.2014 to the Plaintiff and the Defendants promised to pay interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month on the borrowed amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 5th day of every month regularly to the

Plaintiff till the principal amount is repaid within a period of 24 months by redeeming the aforesaid Registered Mortgage.

ii.It is further averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that the

Defendants paid interest as agreed up to December, 2018 only and thereafter committed default and did not pay the monthly interest from 05.01.2019 and postponed the same on one pretext or the other and in the meanwhile, the agreed period of 24 months was also expired by 07.09.2020 and even then, the defendants failed to repay the due amount and later also, even after several demands, the defendants did not pay the due amount and then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dt.30.12.2022 and the Defendants duly received the same on 03.01.2023, but neither complied the demand made therein nor paid any amount and gave any reply and after expiry of stipulated period, on 18.01.2023 the

Defendants got issued a reply with false and incorrect averments and denied their liability.

-4- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL iii.It is further averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that the as on date, the Defendants are liable to pay the principal amount of

Rs.20,00,000/- along with agreed interest @ 2% per month i.e., 24% per annum from 05.01.2019 to 27.01.2023 (I.e., 4 years & 22 days) of

Rs.19,49,326/-, totaling Rs.39,49,326/-. Hence, the suit.

3.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the

Defendants No.1 and 2. As per the report of the Process Server, the summons were served on Defendant No.1 as otherwise served on wife and on Defendant No.2 as personally served. But, on 05.09.2023, both the Defendants called absent, no representation on their behalf and waited till 5.00 p.m., and since the service of summons held sufficiently,

Defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte and thus, the defendants No.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiff.

6.Perused the material available on record.

-5- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL

7.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount from the defendants, as prayed for?”

8.P O I N T :

The evidence of P.W.1 is that, himself and Defendants No.1 and 2 are known persons to each other and that Defendant No.1 is the husband of Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.2 represented to the

Plaintiff stating that she being the absolute owner gifted her house property bearing M.No.16-4-1274, measuring 180.42 Sq.Yards, situated at Under Bridge Road, Shivanagar, Warangal to her husband/Defendant

No.1 through Registered Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.10823/2014, dt.04.12.2014 and that both the Defendants No.1 and 2 representing their business and family needs and requirements, requested him to advance loan of Rs.20,00,000/- by offering their aforesaid house property as security and out of his acquaintance with the Defendants No.1 and 2, he accepted their request and expressed his readiness to advance the money to the Defendants and accordingly, on 07.09.2018, the

Defendants No.1 and 2 borrowed the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash from him by mortgaging their aforesaid house property by executing a -6- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL

Simple Mortgage Deed bearing Doc.No.5540/2018, dt.07.09.2018 in his favour acknowledging the receipt of said amount and also delivered the original Registered Gift Deed, dt.04.12.2014 to him and the Defendants promised to pay interest @ Rs.2/- per hundred per month on the borrowed amount of Rs.20,00,000/- on or before 5th day of every month regularly till the principal amount is repaid within a period of 24 months by redeeming the aforesaid Registered Mortgage.

9.PW1 further deposed that the Defendants paid interest as agreed up to December, 2018 only and thereafter committed default and did not pay the monthly interest from 05.01.2019 and postponed the same on one pretext or the other and that in the meanwhile, the agreed period of 24 months was also expired by 07.09.2020 and even then, the defendants failed to repay the due amount and later also, even after several demands, the defendants did not pay the due amount and then, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, dt.30.12.2022 and the Defendants duly received the same on 03.01.2023, but neither complied the demand made therein nor paid any amount and gave any reply and after expiry of stipulated period, on 18.01.2023 the Defendants got issued a reply with false and incorrect averments and denied their liability.

-7- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL

10.PW1 further deposed that as on date date of filing the suit, the Defendants are liable to pay the principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with agreed interest @ 2% per month i.e., 24% per annum from 05.01.2019 to 27.01.2023 (I.e., 4 years & 22 days) of Rs.19,49,326/-, totaling Rs.39,49,326/- and therefore, payed to decree the suit as prayed for.

11.The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by Ex.A1 to Ex.A6.

Ex.A1 is the original Registered Simple Mortgage Deed bearing

Doc.No.5540/2018, dt.07.09.2018, Ex.A2 is the original Registered Gift

Deed bearing Doc.No.10823/2014, dt.04.12.2014, Ex.A3 is the original

Encumbrance Certificate, dt.01.09.2018 brought by Defendant No.1,

Ex.A4 is the office copy of Legal Notice, dt.30.12.2022, Ex.A5 is the

Reply Notice, dt.13.01.2023 with cover, got issued by the Defendants, which was posted on 17.01.2023 and Ex.A6 is the online Encumbrance

Certificate, dt.25.01.2023 showing suit mortgage registration.

12.Defendants No.1 and 2 remained exparte. Therefore, evidence of PW1 was remained unchallenged as the defendants remained exparte. From the unchallenged testimony of PW1 coupled -8- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL with Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the

Plaintiff proved his claim against Defendants No.1. and 2.

13.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for and the Defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to discharge the mortgage debt jointly and severally and that either of them can redeem the mortgaged property by paying mortgage debt in terms of Mortgage Deed. Point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result:-

(a)The suit is decreed preliminarily with costs directing the defendants Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay an amount of

Rs.39,49,326/- (Rupees Thirty Nine lakh Forty Nine thousand Three hundred and Twenty Six only) with interest thereon at 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. Time for redemption is three months.

(b)The Defendants No.1 and 2 are given time of three months from today to redeem the mortgage and if the Defendants No.1 and 2 failed to redeem the mortgage within time given by the Court; the Plaintiff -9- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL is at liberty to apply for final decree for sale of mortgaged Suit Schedule

Property.

(c)If the sale proceeds of the mortgage of the property are not sufficient to discharge the loan amount, the defendants No.1 and 2 are personally liable for the balance amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of November,

2023.

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1/ Akula Ravi-None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Registered Simple Mortgage Deed bearing

Doc.No.5540/2018, dt.07.09.2018.

Ex.A2 : Original Registered Gift Deed bearing Doc.No.10823/2014, dt.04.12.2014.

Ex.A3 : Original Encumbrance Certificate, dt.01.09.2018 brought by

Defendant No.1.

-10- Judgment, dt.09.11.2023 in OS No.16 of 2023 SCJ WGL

Ex.A4 : Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.30.12.2022.

Ex.A5 : Reply Notice, dt.13.01.2023 with cover, got issued by the

Defendants, which was posted on 17.01.2023.

Ex.A6 : Online Encumbrance Certificate, dt.25.01.2023 showing suit mortgage registration.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT S

-NIL-

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL.

Present: Sri M. Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Wednesday, this the 8th day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 04 of 2023

BETWEEN:

B.Mohan Rao, S/o Papaiah, Age: 58 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.11-14-41, “O” City, Warangal.

… Plaintiff AND

Dr. Koluguri Suranjan, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Medical Practitioner, R/o H.No.d9-1-30 & 32, Sri Vijaya Sai Hospital, Jammikunta (V & M), Karimnagar District, Another Address: H.No.4-166, Ellanthakunta (V), Jammikunta (M), Karimnagar District.

… Defendant.

This suit coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

T.Sadashivudu, Advocate for Plaintiff and the sole Defendant remained exparte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed for recovery of amount of Rs.42,50,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum against the defendant, basing on an Agreement/Bond on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper, dt.31.01.2020.

- 2 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

2.Averments of the plaint in brief are:

i.The plaintiff and defendant are known to each other and basing on that acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to arrange an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- for his family and personal necessities and agreed to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per month within two months, for which on 31.01.2020, the plaintiff transferred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from his account through Axis

Bank, Warangal to the account of the defendant and an amount of

Rs.20,000/- paid through cash and thus, the defendant received total an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

ii.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that, on receipt of the above amount, on the same day i.e., 31.01.2020, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper in favour of plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and he has also deposited his original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1188/2015, dt.12.02.2015,

Registered Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.2299/2015, dt.24.04.2015,

Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.1897/2011, dt.19.05.2011,

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.97/1978, dt.18.01.1978 in respect of house and open place in H.No.8-1-73 in Sy.No.556, admeasuring 160.00

Sq.Yards or 133.76 Sq.Mtrs., situated at Jammikunta (V), Karimnagar

District along with his original Certificate of Registration of Allopathic - 3 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

Private Medical Care Establishment, dt.02.03.2019 of M/s. Sri Vijaya Sai

Hospital, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District and original bank cheque bearing No.000057, dt.Nil for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank,

Jammikunta, Karimnagar District with the plaintiff towards security of the above said borrowed amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff.

3.It is further submitted by the plaintiff that, he made several demands for repayment of the borrowed amount together with interest, but the defendant dodged the matter on one or other pretext and finally, the defendant got issued a legal notice, dt.10.12.2022 calling the defendant to pay the due amount within one week and the defendant received the said notice on 15.12.2022 at his residential address and got return the notice sent to his clinic address on 22.1.2022 with an endorsement “Unclaimed” and thereafter, the defendant did not give any reply and not paid single rupee to the plaintiff till date. Hence, the suit.

4.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the

Defendant and the service of summons on defendant held sufficiently, but the defendant did not choose to appear before the Court and did not choose to file written statement and on 26.06.2023, there was no representation on behalf of defendant and therefore, he was set exparte and thus, remained exparte.

- 4 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

5.During course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. He also got examined one Kundla

Srinivas as PW2.

6.Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiff.

7.Perused the material available on record.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for?”

9. P O I N T :

The evidence of P.W.1 is that, out of acquaintance, on 31.01.2020, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from him to meet his family and personal necessities agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 2% per month and after receipt of said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on Rs.50/-

Non-judicial stamp paper in favour of plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and he has also deposited his original Registered Sale Deed vide

Doc.No.1188/2015, dt.12.02.2015, Registered Rectification Deed vide

Doc.No.2299/2015, dt.24.04.2015, Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide

Doc.No.1897/2011, dt.19.05.2011, Registered Sale Deed vide

Doc.No.97/1978, dt.18.01.1978 in respect of house and open place in - 5 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

H.No.8-1-73 in Sy.No.556, admeasuring 160.00 Sq.Yards or 133.76

Sq.Mtrs., situated at Jammikunta (V), Karimnagar District along with his original Certificate of Registration of Allopathic Private Medical Care

Establishment, dt.02.03.2019 of M/s. Sri Vijaya Sai Hospital, Jammikunta,

Karimnagar District and original bank cheque bearing No.000057, dt.Nil for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jammikunta, Karimnagar

District with him towards security of the above said borrowed amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- from him and thereafter, even after several demands and issuing legal notice demanding to repay due amount, the defendant neither replied the legal notice nor paid any amount and therefore, he filed the present suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.42,50,000/ along with future interest @ 24% per annum.

10.The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by Ex.A1 and Ex.A12.

Ex.A1 is the original Agreement on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper, dt.31.01.2020; Ex.A2 is the original Cheque bearing No.000057, dt.Nil for

Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jammikunta, Karimnagar; Ex.A3 is the original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1188/2015, dt.12.02.20215; Ex.A4 is the original Registered Rectification Deed vide

Doc.No.2299/2015, dt.24.04.2015; Ex.A5 is the original Gift Settlement

Deed vide Doc.No.1897/2011, dt.19.05.2011l; Ex.A6 is the original

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.97/1978, dt.18.01.1978; Ex.A7 is the - 6 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

Certificate of Registration of Allopathic Private Medical Care

Establishment issued by the Government of Telangana vide Registration

Authority No.772, dt.02.03.2019; Ex.A8 is the original Statement of

Account issued by Axis Bank, Warangal for the period from 30.01.2020 to 31.02.2020; Ex.A9 is the Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.12.12.2022;

Ex.A10 is the postal receipts (2), dt.12.12.2022, Ex.A11 is the postal track consignment, dt.15.12.2022; and Ex.A12 is the postal returned cover, dt.22.12.2022.

11.Further, PW2 supported the case of plaintiff and he deposed in the same lines as PW1 and stated that he knows the plaintiff and defendant since long time and on his personal work, when he went to the house of plaintiff on 31.01.2020, the defendant along with three persons were present there and a financial transaction taken place between the plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff transferred an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from his account to the account of the defendant and paid

Rs.20,00,000/- through cash and thus, total Rs.25,00,000/- was received by the defendant from the plaintiff, for which on the same day, the defendant executed a demand promissory note on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper in favour of plaintiff in the presence of witnesses and he has also deposited his original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1188/2015, dt.12.02.2015, Registered Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.2299/2015, - 7 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

dt.24.04.2015, Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.1897/2011, dt.19.05.2011, Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.97/1978, dt.18.01.1978 in respect of house and open place in H.No.8-1-73 in

Sy.No.556, admeasuring 160.00 Sq.Yards or 133.76 Sq.Mtrs., situated at

Jammikunta (V), Karimnagar District along with his original Certificate of

Registration of Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishment, dt.02.03.2019 of M/s. Sri Vijaya Sai Hospital, Jammikunta, Karimnagar

District and original bank cheque bearing No.000057, dt.Nil for

Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District with him towards security of the above said borrowed amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- from him and that two witnesses and one E.Damodar scribed the demand promissory note on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper and executed in favour of plaintiff, in which the defendant, two witnesses and E.Damodar scribed their signatures and at the time of said transaction, he was present.

12.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 was remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. From the unchallenged testimony of

PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A12, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the Plaintiff proved his claim and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the Defendant, as prayed for.

The point is answered accordingly.

- 8 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.42,50,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization, on Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8 th day of November,

2023.

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

P.W.1/ B.Mohan Rao-Nil-

P.W.2/ Kundla Srinivas

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Original Agreement on Rs.50/- Non-judicial stamp paper, dt.31.01.2020.

Ex.A2 : Original Cheque bearing No.000057, dt.Nil for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Jammikunta, Karimnagar.

Ex.A3 : Original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.1188/2015, dt.12.02.20215.

- 9 - Judgment, dt.08.11.2023 in OS No.4 of 2023, SCJ,Wgl.

Ex.A4 : Original Registered Rectification Deed vide Doc.No.2299/2015, dt.24.04.2015.

Ex.A5 : Original Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc.No.1897/2011, dt.19.05.2011l.

Ex.A6 : Original Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.97/1978, dt.18.01.1978.

Ex.A7 : Certificate of Registration of Allopathic Private Medical Care

Establishment issued by the Government of Telangana vide

Registration Authority No.772, dt.02.03.2019.

Ex.A8 : Original Statement of Account issued by Axis Bank, Warangal for the period from 30.01.2020 to 31.02.2020.

Ex.A9 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.12.12.2022.

Ex.A10 : Postal receipts (2), dt.12.12.2022.

Ex.A11 : Postal track consignment, dt.15.12.2022.

Ex.A12 : Postal returned cover, dt.22.12.2022.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL-

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL

Present: M. Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Thursday, this the 2 nd day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 345 of 2022

(Old OS No.689 of 2018)

BETWEEN:

Bank of India, Warangal Branch, represented by its GPA Holder, Mussita Maha Lakshmi, W/o Dr. Janakinath, Age: 56 years, Occu: Chief Manager, R/o Hyderabad. … Plaintiff

And

1.Smt. Madishetty Srivani, W/o Srinivas, Age: 30 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.13-1-101, Kakatiya Talkies Lane, Near Masjid, Matwada, Warangal District.

2.Madishetty Srinivas, S/o Sadashivudu, Age: 35 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.13-1-101, Kakatiya Talkies Lane, Near Masjid, Matwada, Warangal District.

… Defendants

The suit coming before me for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri Bh. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff-bank; and the Defendants are remained set ex parte; having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit filed for recovery of money Rs.3,52,227/- from

Defendants along with pendent-elite interest @ 13.70% per annum with monthly compounded.

- 2 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

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

The Defendant No.1 has applied to the plaintiff bank on 18.12.2015 for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- for the working capital needs and for the purchase of stock for her business and on 21.12.2015, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and released the amount and the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan amount and the defendant No.1 has executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff bank on 21.12.2015 promising to repay the loan amount on demand with interest @ 11.70% per annum with monthly compounded. The defendant No.2 who stood as guarantor has has executed a deed of guarantee guaranteeing repayment of the loan amount in case of 1st defendant failed to repay and the defendants further agreed to pay penal interest at 2% in excess in case of default and further the defendant No.1 has executed hypothecation-cum-loan agreement on 21.12.2015 agreeing to repay the loan amount in 60 monthly installments @ Rs.11,047/- P.M., commencing from February, 2016 with interest @ 11.70% P.A., with monthly compounded. The defendants, however, had failed to repay the loan amount as agreed even after issuing legal notice, dt.14.06.2018 demanding to repay the loan amount and he is due to pay Rs.3,52,227/- as on 03.09.2018 as per the extract of the loan account of defendant No.1 and, thus, the - 3 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

defendants had committed default and liable to pay the suit sum. The relief is, hence, sought in the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, Sri D.Ramakanth, Advocate filed

Vakalat for Defendants No.1 and 2. But, the defendant did not choose to file their written statement, though there is conditional order. Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 were set ex parte as per the docket order dated 24-11-2021. Thus, the defendants remained ex-parte.

4.During course of trial, the Officer in Advances of plaintiff bank was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiff.

6.Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point germane for my determination is “Whether

the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendants as prayed for?

8. P O I N T :

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in order to prove the claim of the Plaintiff, the Officer in Advances of Plaintiff bank was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A-9. The evidence of - 4 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-9 is establishing that the defendant No.1 obtained loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for her business purpose with interest @ 11.70% per annum on 21-12-2015 by hypothecating the stock in trade in favour of plaintiff bank and that on the same day, for sanction of the said loan, the defendant No.1 executed all the necessary documents in its favour and the defendant No.2 is stood as guarantor and defendant No.1 had agreed to repay the loan amount in monthly installments together with interest @ 11.70% per annum and that

Defendant No.1 has committed default of payment of loan amount. The above evidence of PW-1 and Ex A-1 to A-9 were remained unchallenged as the defendants were remained exparte.

9.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,52,227/- to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same from defendants along with interest as prayed for. Point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally an amount of

Rs.3,52,227/- (Rupees Three lakh Fifty Two Thousand and Two hundred - 5 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

and Twenty Seven only) with interest thereon at 13.70% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2 nd day of November, 2023.

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-BANK

PW-1Sandeep Kumar E. …Plaintiff-bank

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-BANK :

Ex. A-1Application, dt.18.12.2015 submitted by 1st Defendant for loan.

Ex. A-2Demand promissory note, dt.21.12.2015 executed by Defendant No.1.

Ex. A-3Guarantee Agreement, dt.21.12.2015 executed by Defendant No.1.

Ex. A-4Deed of Undertaking, dt.21.12.2015 executed by Defendant No.1.

Ex. A-5Hypothecation -cum-Loan Agreement, dt.21.12.2015 executed by Defendant No.1.

Ex. A-6 Certified copy of Extract of Loan Account, dt.03.09.2018.

Ex. A-7Letter of Declaration, Undertaking and Authority, dt.21.12.2015 executed by the Defendant No.1.

Ex. A-8Sanction Letter for credit limits above Rs.2,00,000/-, dt.21.12.2015 executed by Defendant No.1.

- 6 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.345 of 2022 (Old OS No.689 of 2018), SCJ, Wgl.

Ex. A-9Office copy of legal notice, dt.14.06.2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

- 1 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.878 of 2022 (Old OS No.197 of 2019), SCJ, Wgl.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL

Present: M. Venkateswara Rao,

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Thursday, this the 2 nd day of November, 2023

O.S.No. 878 of 2022

(Old OS No.197 of 2019)

BETWEEN:

Bank of India, Pragathi Industrial Estate Branch, Narsampet Road, Warangal, represented by its Manager. … Plaintiff

And

1.M/s. Jayanth Internet & Xerox Centre, represented by its Proprietor Sri Pasunuti Jaihind, S/o Ratnam, R/o H.No.11-5-88, Christian Colony, Warangal.

2.Sri Pasunuti Jaihind, S/o Ratnam, Age: 35 years, Occu: Business, R/o H.No.11-5-88, Christian Colony, Warangal.

… Defendants

The suit coming before me for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri Bh. Nanda Kishor, Advocate for the Plaintiff-bank; and the Defendants are remained set ex parte; having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit filed for recovery of money Rs.5,89,187/- from

Defendants along with pendent-elite interest @ 13.50% per annum with monthly compounded.

- 2 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.878 of 2022 (Old OS No.197 of 2019), SCJ, Wgl.

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

The Defendant No.2 has applied to the plaintiff bank on 02.05.2017 for a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to his Internet & Xerox Centre business running under the name and style of M/s. Jayanth Internet &

Xerox Centre, which is first defendant, and on the same day, the plaintiff bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and credited the amount to the account of defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 executed Demand Promissory Note in favour of plaintiff-bank promising to repay the loan amount in monthly installments with interest @ 11.50% per annum with monthly compounded. The defendant No.2 has hypothecated the stock in trade in favour of the plaintiff towards security and further agreed to pay penal interest at 2% in excess in case of default and further agreed to pay interest as charged by the bank from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI. The defendant, however, had failed to repay the loan amount as agreed and he is due to pay

Rs.5,89,187/- as on 30.01.2019 as per the extract of the loan account of defendant No.1 and, thus, the defendants had committed default and liable to pay the suit sum. The relief is, hence, sought in the suit.

3.After registering the suit, Sri J.Anand Kumar, Advocate filed Vakalat for Defendants No.1 and 2. But, the defendant did not - 3 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.878 of 2022 (Old OS No.197 of 2019), SCJ, Wgl.

choose to file their written statement, though there is conditional order.

Hence, defendants No.1 and 2 were set ex parte as per the docket order dated 06-11-2019. Subsequently, defendants filed IA No.376 of 2021 and the same was allowed on 23.03.2023 subject to condition to pay costs of Rs.500/-. But, the said petition was dismissed as conditions in IA No.376 of 2021 were not complied and thereby the defendants remained ex-parte.

4.During course of trial, the Assistant Manager of plaintiff bank was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard the Learned Counsel appearing for Plaintiff.

6.Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point germane for my determination is “Whether

the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the

defendants as prayed for?

8. P O I N T :

The counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in order to prove the claim of the Plaintiff, the Assistant Manager of Plaintiff bank was examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A-5. The evidence of

PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 to A-5 is establishing that the defendant - 4 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.878 of 2022 (Old OS No.197 of 2019), SCJ, Wgl.

No.2 obtained loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for his Internet & Xerox

Centre business purpose with interest @ 11.50% per annum on 02-05- 2017 by hypothecating the stock in trade in favour of plaintiff bank and that on the same day, for sanction of the said loan and the defendant

No.2 executed all the necessary documents in its favour and that the defendant No.2 had executed Exs.A1to A4 in favour of plaintiff-bank and that the defendant No.2 had agreed to repay the loan amount in monthly installments together with interest @ 11.50% per annum and that the Defendants have committed default of payment of loan amount.

The above evidence of PW-1 and Ex A-1 to A-5 were remained unchallenged as the defendants were remained ex-parte.

9.Therefore, in view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the defendants are liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,89,187/- to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the same from defendants. Point is answered accordingly.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.5,89,187/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Eighty Nine thousand One hundred and Eighty Seven only) with interest thereon at 13.07% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and - 5 - Judgment, dt.02.11.2023 in OS No.878 of 2022 (Old OS No.197 of 2019), SCJ, Wgl.

with future interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2 nd day of November, 2023.

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-BANK

PW-1Porika Vittal Kumar …Plaintiff-bank

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: -NONE-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF-BANK :

Ex. A-1Application for loan, dated 02.05.2017.

Ex. A-2Demand promissory note, dt.02.05.2017.

Ex. A-3Term Loan Agreement, dt.02.05.2017.

Ex. A-4Hypothecation-cum-loan agreement, dt.02.05.2017.

Ex. A-5Statement of Account of Defendant, dt.07.01.2019.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

Sd/- (Sri M.Venkateswara Rao),

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.