Smt. Md. Ishrath Fathima

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.551/2024

Between:

Gundavarapu Eswari, W/o. Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. 2nd lane, Aditya Nagar, Guntur town, Guntur District. …Plaintiff.

And

Nomula Madhu, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Business, R/o. 1st lane, Kodhanda Ramaiah nagar, Near Chuttugunta , Guntur District. …Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 05-02-2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri.I.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,71,160/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and sixty only) being the Principal and interest due on suit promissory note dt. 03-10-2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy thousand only) by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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

On 03-10-2018 the defendant had approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business expenses and the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date promissing to repay the same together with agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and on 03-10-2021 when the defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt due under the said promissory note amount and the same was endorsed by the defendant on the reverse of the promissory note and on 01-05-2023 the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 054187 drawn on Union Bank of India, Kothapet Branch, Guntur for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt due under the suit pronote. On 06-05-2023 the plaintiff presented the said cheque to her banker for collection and on 08-05-2023 the cheque was returned unpaid as dishnoured and letter issued by the plaintiff's banker and on 23-05-2023 the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant and on 24-05-2023 the notice was refused by the defendant and on 23-06- 2023 and the plaintiff filed complaint Hon'ble IV AJCJ Court, Guntur U/Sec. 138 of NI Act and numbered the same in CC No. 2911/2023 and the same is pending and the defendant did not choose to repay the balance amount due under the suit pronote debt to the plaintiff . Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount due under the promissory note.

03.Summons of the defendant served through Court and RP. The defendant called absent. No representation. This Court set him ex-parte on 17-09-2024 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence.

04.In order to prove her case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 as attestor and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is the original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,70,000/- dt. 03-10-2018. Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsement made on the reverse of the suit promissory note dt. 03- 10-2021 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

05.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is:

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

07. POINT:

All the averments in the plaint which are necessary for a decision on the point are already stated supra and therefore the same are not restated. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows: that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy

Thousand Only) on 03/10/2018 from her for his business purpose and in evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note in her favour with his own handwriting at

Guntur Town on even date promising to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to her or to her order on demand. She submits that at the time of above said transaction, one attestor by name

Ch.M.B.Chakravarthi was also present and witnessed the same along with her and the defendant.

08.PW.1 further submits that inspite of repeated demands made by her, the defendant had paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on 03/10/2021 to her towards partpayment of the debt due under the aforesaid promissory note amount and the same was endorsed by him with his own handwriting on the reverse of the said promissory note. She submits that the above said transaction took place in the presence of P.V.S.Chalapati Rao who attested the same under the partpayment endorsement made on the reverse of the said promissory note.

09.PW.1 submits that subsequently the defendant did not choose to repay the balance amount due under the aforesaid promissory note amount on several demands made by her. She submits that the defendant have empty promises made to her from time to time for repayment of the balance amount due under the aforesaid pronote debt. She submits that on repeated demands made by her to the defendant on several occasions, at last the defendant have issued a cheque bearing

No.054187, dated 01/05/2023 drawn on Union Bank Of India, Kothapet branch,

Guntur Town for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in her favour towards part payment of the debt due under the balance amount of the aforesaid promissory note and he further stated that he is having sufficient funds in his account to honour the said cheque as and when presented.

10.PW.1 further submits that beleiving the respresentation made by the defendant, she presented the said cheque for collection through her banker Indian

Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch, Guntur Town on 06/05/2023. She submits that surprisingly the said cheque was returned dishonoured for the reasons endorsed that “Other reasons” along with a memo issued by her Banker on 08/05/2023. She submits that after that she approached the bank people and requested them to issue the cheque return memo again for mentioning the specific reason instead of “Other reasons” which was issued earlier Return Memo dated 08/05/2023. She submits that as on her request, her Banker issued further letter (Mail Copy) dated 20/05/2023 to show that the cheque was returned with the reasons endorsed that “Drawee Account Closed”. She submits that thus the defendant had failed to fulfill his part of promises made to her.

11.PW.1 submits that thereupon she got issued a Registered Legal Notice to the defendant on 23/05/2023 through her Counsel informing him about the dishonour of the said cheque and demanding for repayment of the debt due under the above said cheque within 15 days after receipt of the statutory notice, failing which, appropriate legal action will be taken. She submits that the said notice was refused by the defendant on 24/05/2023. She submits that even after issuance of the said notice also, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount or any reply to her till this date and kept quite without payment.

12.She submits that the defendant though having capacity to repay the balance amount due under the suit pronote but he did not repay the same to her till this date. She submits that hence there is no other go and she filed the present suit.

The sole attestor of Ex.A1 was examined as PW.2 and he also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

13. On careful perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that the same fully corroborate the oral testimony of the PW.1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear before this court and file his written statement and also failed to cross-examine Pws.1 and 2. Thus, the version of PW.1 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

14.This court had carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaint, oral evidence of PW.1 and documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.1 in her chief examination had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim. On the other hand the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude that the suit claim is proved. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established entitlement to a decree in her favour and against the defendant.

15.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of Rs.4,71,160/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUGE, (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1: Gundavarapu Eswari Ex-parte

P.W.2: Chilukoti Mohan Bala Chakravarthy

Documents marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: is the Original suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 2,70,000/- dt. 03-10-2018.

Ex.A2: is the part payment endorsement made on the reverse of the suit promissory note dt. 03-10-2021 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

For Defendant: -NIL-Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

PCJ (J.D), GNT.

//True copy//

PCJ (JD), GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR.

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.551/2024

Between:

Gundavarapu Eswari, W/o. Venkata Ramana, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Business, R/o. 2nd lane, Aditya Nagar, Guntur town, Guntur District. …Plaintiff.

And

Nomula Madhu, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Business, R/o. 1st lane, Kodhanda Ramaiah nagar, Near Chuttugunta , Guntur District. …Defendant.

Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,71,160/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and only) being the Principal and interest due on suit promissory note dt. 03-10-2018 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy only) by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum for subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 16-05-2024 Plaint filed on: 17-05-2024

Cause of Action: Cause of Action for the suit arose on 03-10-2018 the defendant had approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his business expenses and the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date promising to repay the same together with agreed interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to her order on demand and on 03-10-2021 when the defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt due under the said promissory note amount and the same was endorsed by the defendant on the reverse of the promissory note and on 01-05-2023 the defendant issued a cheque bearing No. 054187 drawn on Union Bank of India, Kothapet Branch, Guntur for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt due under the suit pronote.

On 06-05-2023 the plaintiff presented the said cheque to her banker for collection and on 08-05-2023 the cheque was returned unpaid as dishnoured and letter issued by the plaintiff's banker and on 23-05-2023 the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant and on 24-05-2023 the notice was refused by the defendant and on 23-06- 2023 and the plaintiff filed complaint Hon'ble IV AJCJ Court, Guntur U/Sec. 138 of NI Act and numbered the same in CC No. 2911/2023 and the same is pending and the defendant did not choose to repay the balance amount due under the suit pronote debt to the plaintiff . Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount due under the promissory note and both parties are living within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Particulars of Valuation: Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.4,71,160/- . On which a Court fee of Rs.7,226/- is paid U/sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V Act, 1956.

This suit has come before me on 05-02-2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri. I.Srinivasa Rao Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

(i) that the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

(ii)that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,71,160/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy One Thousand One Hundred and Sixty only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only).

(iii) that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs. 15,383/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Three only) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil (Exparte).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS.

For plaintiffFor defendant

(CM & FC Not filed )

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00--

Petition stamp ----

Stamp on plaint ----

Court Fee 7,226-00

Process fee 38-00--

Pleader's fee 7917-00--

Writing charges 100-00--

Typing charges100-00--

Total 15,383-00-Nil -

PCJ (JD), GNT.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 12th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.159/2024

Between: Kalvakolu Venkata Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o. 2/6 Brodipet, Guntur. …Plaintiff.

And

Thanugundala Sarada, W/o. Venkateswara Reddy @ Giddalu, aged about 48 years, R/o. Obayyapalle post, Tharlupadu mandal, Kandukuru Revenue Division, Prakasam District.…Defendant.

This suit has come before me on 05-02-2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Koteswara Rao Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,93,600/- (Rupees Five lakhs Ninty Three Thousand Six Hundred only) being the Principal and interest due on suit promissory note dt. 07-03-2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty thousand only) by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum from the date suit till the date of realization and for costs.

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

On 07-03-2021 the defendant had approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and the defendant had executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day evidencing the same and he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Guntur City and District by agreed to repay the same with compound rate of interest @ 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

The plaintiff also got issued registered legal notice to the defendant through his advocate on 02-01-2024 and the defendant received the said notice on 08-01-2024. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of amount due under the promissory note.

03.Summons of the defendant through Court by RP were served personally. The defendant called absent and she failed to file the written statement, since expiry of statutory period of filing of written statement, this Court set her ex- parte on 19-07-2024 and posted the matter for plaintiff’s ex-parte evidence.

04.In order to prove his case, the plaintiff himself examined as P.Ws1 and 2 and PW.1 got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.07- 03-2021 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is the office copy of the registered legal notice. Ex.A3 is the postal receipt dt. 02-01-2024. Ex.A4 is the postal tracking receipt.

05.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is:

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

07. POINT:

All the averments in the plaint which are necessary for a decision on the point are already stated supra and therefore the same are not restated. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded and as sought to be established is as follows: that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,50,000/- ( Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) from him on 07- 03-2021 (Seventh March Two Thousand Twenty One) for his family expenses, on the same day evidencing the same the defendant executed promissory note in favor of Plaintiff at Guntur and agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to him or his order on demand.

He submits that M.Srinivasa Rao and J.Rajeswara Rao attested the above said promissory note and one Myneni Nageswara Rao scribed the said promissory note.

08.PW.1 further submits that he made several demands to discharge under the cover of above referred promissory note debt and interest accrued thereon, but defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or other. He further submitted that he got issued regd. legal notice to the defendant through his advocate on 02-01-2024 demanding the defendant to discharge under the cover of the above referred promissory note debt and interest accrued thereon and the same was received by the defendant on 08-01-2024 but the defendant neither paid the amount nor gave any replay and kept quite. Hence this suit. The scribe of Ex.A1 was examined as PW.2 and he also corroborated with the evidence of PW.1.

09. On careful perusal of the documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff, it is clear that the same fully corroborate the oral testimony of the

PW.1. On the other hand the defendant even failed to appear before this court and file her written statement and also failed to cross-examine Pws.1 and 2. Thus, the version of PW.1 remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.

10.This court had carefully gone through the pleadings of the plaint, oral evidence of PW.1 and documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.

PW.1 in his chief examination had affirmed the plaint averments on oath and had translated the pleadings into direct evidence which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. There are no inherent infirmities either in the claim or in the nature of evidence adduced to prove the suit claim. On the other hand the evidence on record is sufficient to safely conclude that the suit claim is proved. In view of the above discussion coupled with reasons the point is accordingly answered holding that the plaintiff had sufficiently established entitlement to a decree in his favour and against the defendant.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount of

Rs.5,93,600/- (Rupees Five lakhs Ninty Three Thousand Six Hundred Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs Fifty Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the day of 12th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUGE, (JUNIOR DIVISION)

GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant

P.W.1:Kalvakolu Venkata Sambasiva Rao Ex-parte

P.W.2: Myneni Nageswara Rao

Documents marked For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- dt. 07-03-2021.

Ex.A2: is the office copy of registered legal notice dt. 02-01-2024.

Ex.A3: is the postal receipt dt. 02-01-2024.

Ex.A4: is the postal tracking receipt.

For Defendant: -NIL-Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

PCJ (J.D), GNT.

//True copy//

PCJ (JD), GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Wednesday, this the 12th day of February, 2025.

Original Suit No.159/2024

Between: Kalvakolu Venkata Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkata Rao, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Business, R/o. 2/6 Brodipet, Guntur. …Plaintiff.

And

Thanugundala Sarada, W/o. Venkateswara Reddy @ Giddalu, aged about 48 years, R/o. Obayyapalle post, Tharlupadu mandal, Kandukuru Revenue Division, Prakasam District.…Defendant.

Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,93,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninty Three Thousand Six Hundred only) being the Principal and interest due on suit promissory note dt. 07-03-2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for subsequent interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 02-02-2024 Plaint filed on: 02-02-2024

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 07-03-2021 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses, on the same day evidencing the same he executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Guntur and agreeing to repay the same with interest 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand . Subsequently the plaintiff made several demands to discharge the pronote debt and interest thereon, bu the defendant have been post phoning the same on one pretext or other, when the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant through his advocate on 02-01-2024 demanding the defendant to discharge the pronote debt and interest thereon, that execution of promissory note and the plaintiff and defendant residing and the transaction took place at Guntur and as such matter is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Particulars of Valuation:

Value of the suit for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.5,93,600/- . On which a Court fee of Rs.8,426/- is paid U/sec.20 of A.P.C.F & S.V Act, 1956.

This suit has come before me on 05-02-2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Koteswara Rao Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant having remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having considered the matter till this day, this court Doth Order and Decree as follows:

(i) that the suit be and is hereby decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;

(ii)that the defendant be and is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,93,600/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninty Three Thousand Six Hundred only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of suit and thereafter at 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

(iii) that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs. 18,422/-(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty Two only) to the plaintiff towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. Nil (Exparte).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 12th day of February, 2025.

PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

TABLE OF COSTS.

For plaintiffFor defendant

(CM & FC Not filed )

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00--

Petition stamp ----

Stamp on plaint ----

Court Fee 8,426-00

Process fee 40-00--

Pleader's fee 9754-00--

Writing charges 100-00--

Typing charges100-00--

Total 18422-00-Nil -

PCJ (JD), GNT.

1 Fair.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

GUNTUR.

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

Thursday, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

E.P.No.191/2022 in O.S.No.1054/2020

Between: Syamala Subba Reddy, S/o. Vema Reddy, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Government employee, R/o. Flat No. 304, Vasishta Apartments, New Pattabhipuram, Guntur District. …Decree Holder AND

Ambati Anil Kumar, S/o. Desananda Rao, Hindu, aged about 57 years, Government employee, Project director, Mepma project, Collectorate compound, Guntur District. ...Judgment debtor

This petition is coming on 06.02.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.M. Charu Latha Advocate for the Plaintiff/Decree Holder and Sri R.Manikya Rao Advocate for Defendant / Judgment Debtor and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

01.This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder against the Judgment Debtor to order for attachment of salary of JDR through the Garnishee ie. Administrative Officer, Mepma Project, Collectorate Compound, Guntur District under Order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C to the extent of warrant amount for realization of decree debt else the D.Hr will be put to loss. 02.The brief facts set out in the affidavit of the Decree Holder are as follows:-

He is working as a Project Director, Mepma Project, Collectorate compound, Guntur. He personally informed the decree and informed the same through mediators but the J.Dr has not responded and the J.Dr is bank employee is having capacity to repay the amount but intentionally avoiding payment of debt under these circumstances he have no other go except 2 Fair.

filing this EP for attachment of salary of J.Dr and he is having immovable properties and as such it is just and necessary to attachment of salary under Or.21 R.48 of CPC for realization of decree amount to D.Hr and to attach salary of Jdr under Or. 21 R.48 of CPC to extent of warrant amount for realization of decree amount . Under the above circumstances, the D.Hr is constrained to file the present Execution Petition to order attachment of the salary of the J.Dr through his garnishee under Order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C and Section 60 of C.P.C and send for the same to credit the suit for realization of the decree debt. Else the decree holder will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

03. The J.Dr filed his counter. The J.Dr denied the case of the D.Hr. He submits that the calculations in Column No.9 and 10 of the E.P are concerned they are totally incorrect figures and exaggerated figures by calculating the interest in huge manner only in order to harass the J.Dr and thereby gaining illegally by the D.Hr. The J.Dr is drawing a meager amount salary and he is also having financial crises and also having health issues and his earnings are not even sufficient to meet his livelihood and to meet his medical expenditure and in such circumstances if his salary will be attached his entire family members will be fallen on streets due to lack of money. Hence, prays to dismiss the E.P filed against the J.Dr with exemplary costs.

04. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

05. Heard both sides and perused the record.

06. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the D.Hr is able to prove the means of the J.Dr and J.Dr intentionally evading to pay the execution petition amount in spite of having sufficient means?.

07. POINT:

The initial burden lies on the D.Hr to prove that the J.Dr though having sufficient means intentionally evading to pay the execution petition amount. It is the contention of the D.Hr that he filed the above E.P against the 3 Fair.

respondent/J.Dr for recovery of the decretal amount as shown in 9th column of EP under 0.21 Rule 48 of C.P.C. He submits that the J.Dr is working as Junior Assistant in R&B Section ZP Compound. He submits that the J.Dr is Government employee and having capacity to repay the amount but intentionally avoiding payment of debt to him and under these circumstance, this D.Hr has no other go except filing this EP for attachment of salary of J.Dr. He submits that since J.dr failed to discharge the EP amount, it is just and necessary to issue notice under 0.21 R. 48 of CPC to the J.Dr and attach the salary of the J.Dr and the same is to be paid to him in the interests of justice.

08.On the other hand, it is the contention of the J.Dr in his counter that the calculations in Column No.9 and 10 of the EP are concerned are totally incorrect figures and exaggerated figures by calculating the interest in huge manner only in order to harass this J.Dr and thereby gaining illegally by the D.Hr. He submits that he is drawing a meager amount of salary and he is also having financial crisis and also having health issues and his earnings are not even sufficient to meet his livelihood and to meet his medical expenditure and in such circumstances if his salary will be attached, his entire family members would be fallen on streets due to lack of money. Hence he prays that the

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the EP filed against this J.Dr with

exemplary costs.

09.Heard Counsel for D.Hr and J.Dr hearing was treated as heard due to non representation. Having gone through the rival contentions, according to petitioner/D.Hr; J.Dr is working as Junior Assistant in R&B Section ZP Compound and that the J.Dr is Government employee and having capacity to repay the amount but intentionally avoiding payment of debt to him On the other hand it is the contentions of J.Dr that he is drawing a meagre amount of salary and he is also having financial crisis and also having health issues and his earnings are not even sufficient to meet his livelihood and to meet his medical expenditure and in such circumstances if his salary will be attached, his entire family members would be fallen on streets due to lack of money. Admittedly there is no documentary proof for the salary and properties of the J.Dr and also no proof to show that J.dr is suffering with financial crisis or that he is getting a meager salary. There is no documentary proof for the same.

4 Fair.

Hence the said contention is not taken into consideration. Therefore, the contention of respondent/J.Dr is not tenable. In these circumstances, this court is of considered view that J.Dr/respondent is having means to pay amount due under decree and inspite of that he is intentionally avoiding payment of decretal amount. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of Petitioner/D.Hr.

10. In the result, this petition is allowed and it is ordered to attach the salary of judgment-debtor as per section 60(i) of C.P.C till the realization of Execution petition amount.

(ii) The Garnishees of judgment-debtor is directed to execute this attachment warrant from the month of March, 2025.

(iii) He is also further directed that in case of his transfer to other place, he has to inform this salary attachment particulars to his successor to see the continuity of attachment of salary judgment-debtor till the realization of execution petition amount as ordered for. He is further directed that, in case of transfer of judgment-debtor to some other place, he have to inform this attachment particulars to the new garnishee of judgment-debtor to see continuity of execution of this order. Issue Rule 48 warrant to garnishee on process.

Typed to dictation by the Typist corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13th day of February, 2025.

Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner/D.Hr: For Respondent/JDr :

-Nil- -Nil- 5 Fair.

Documents Marked

For Petitioner/D.Hr: For Respondent/JDr:

-Nil- -Nil-

Sd/- Md. Ishrath Fathima,

P.C.J (JD), GNT.

//True copy//

PCJ (JD), GNT

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,( JUNIOR DIVISION) GUNTUR

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

This the 14th day of February, 2025.

O.S.No.1182/2022

Between :

Kothamasu Babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu,

business, R/o.D.No.25-4-61,5th line, R.Agraharam, Guntur. ..... Plaintiff

And

1. Chakka Jagadheeswari Devi, W/o. late Bhaskara Rao, aged about 50 years, Hindu, house wife, R/o. D.No. 18-10-6, Sardar Khan Street, Tenali, Guntur District.

2. Chakka Bala Naga Venkata Surya Brahmam, S/o. Late Bhaskara Rao, Hindu, aged about 23 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 18-10-6, Sardar Khan Street, Tenali, Guntur District.

3.Chakka Bala Naga Veera Pavani Sowmya,W/o. Tunuguntla Harish, aged about 27 years, Hindu, House wife, R/p. L.B. Nagar, Bahadur Gunda , Siva

Ganga colony, Sai Sadan Apartments,Flat No.406, Hyderabad. .... Defendants

Suit is filed for passing decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the estate of the deceased Chakka Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Bala

Chennaiah lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of Rs.

6,07,500/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dt.

10-05-2021 executed by late Chakka Bhaskara Rao being the husband of D1 and father of D2 and D3 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 18% per annum for subsequent interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This case came before me for continuation of chief of PW.1 on 14-02-2025 in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramana Advocate for the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 set exparte and having stood upon till this day and the matter as follows.

JUDGMENT

P.W.1 called present i.e. Plaintiff. Counsel for plaintiff filed memo to not press the suit as the same was settled out of Court. Heard. Memo recorded. In the result, the suit is dismissed as not press.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th day of February, 2025.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For plaintiff: For defendant: -Nil- -Nil- Documents Marked

For Plaintiff : For defendant: -Nil- -Nil-

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,( JUNIOR DIVISION) GUNTUR

Present: Smt Md. Ishrath Fathima Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)

This the 10th day of February, 2025.

O.S.No.433/2020

Between :

Kurri Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o. Hanumantha Reddy, Hindu, aged about 50 years, cultivation, R/o. Kothamallayapalem, Prathipadu mandal, Guntur District.

....... Plaintiff

And

Shaik Nagul Meera, S/o. Umarvali, Muslim, aged about 31 years, cultivation,

R/o. Lam village, Tadikonda Mandal, Guntur District........ Defendant

Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,15,800/- being the amount of principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 11-03- 2017 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- repayable with interest @ 24% per annum , for subsequent interest from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

This case came before me for trial on 10-02-2025 in the presence of Sri M.V.Subba Reddy Advocate for the plaintiffand Sri Sayed

Nabizilani Advocate for defendant and having stood upon till this day and the matter as follows.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called absent. No representation at call work. The case is kept pass over, even at 5.00pm also plaintiff called absent. No representation. Though several opportunities have been given the plaintiff did not turn up and plaintiff did not come forward for trial since 1-07-2024 and costs of Rs.200/- also imposed to DLSA. Even plaintiff is also not attending before the Court. So, without there being any representation going on adjourning the matter will not serve any purpose. It shows that the plaintiff does not have any interest to contest the suit. Therefore no other option is left to this Court. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the suit. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 10th day of February, 2025.

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness Examined

For plaintiff: For defendant: -Nil- -Nil- Documents Marked

For Plaintiff : For defendant: -Nil- -Nil-

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Guntur.