Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka) · Ananthapur · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 102 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

102

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/356/2024

Dudekula Rameeja Begum vs The Distrcit Collector, Puttaparthi District

11 Nov 2024

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

DHARMAVARAM

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda

FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Monday, the 11th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.356 of 2024

Between:

1) Dudekula Rameeja Begum, W/o Late Dudekula Chaman Sab, aged 57 years, Permanent resident of R.Kothapalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Puttaparthy District.

2) Dudekula Mohammad Umar Mukthar, S/o Late Dudekula Chaman Sab, aged 23 years, Permanent resident of R.Kothapalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal, Puttaparthy District. Presently residing in Door No.6-3-971, Maruthi Nagar, 2nd cross, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh. …. Plaintiffs.

And

1) The District Collector, Puttaparthy District.

2) The Tahsildar, Ramagiri Village and Mandal,

Puttaparthy District.....Defendants.

This suit is coming on 07-11-2024 for final hearing in presence of Sri. G.Anwar Basha and Smt M.Khamar Begum, Advocates for Plaintiffs and Defendants remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of legal status of plaintiff

No.1/Dudekula Rameeja Begum and plaintiff No.2/Dudekula Mohammad Umar

Mukthar who are legal-heirs of Late Dudekula Chaman Sab and for costs.

2. The facts of the plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that :-

(a) The plaintiffs through their plaint submitted that the deceased Dudekula

Chaman Sab resident of R.Kothapalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal was the husband of first plaintiff and father of second plaintiff and that he died on 07.05.2018 due to 2

Cardiac arrest at R.Kothapalli Village leaving behind plaintiffs 1 and 2 as his legal- heirs and that the plaintiffs had obtained family member certificate from the second defendant as per G.O.Ms.No.237, Revenue (Ser.II) Department, dated 30.06.2015 and that in the said Family Member Certificate it is noted as this is a Family

Member Certificate and not a legal-heir certificate and that the first plaintiff has given notarized certificate stating that herself and second plaintiff are the legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab and except that there are no other legal-heirs to him and in view of making a note in the family member certificate that it is not a legal-heir certificate, the same is not being accepted by so many authorities/officers and the family member certificate is being returned that it is not a legal-heir certificate and legal-heir certificate is being insisted.

(b) The plaintiffs submitted that they have several times requested the

Tahsildar, Ramagiri Mandal to issue legal-heir certificate or to delete the note in the family member certificate and that the subject mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.237 dated 30.06.2015 says that family member certificate is issued for all the purposes and as per G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 25.04.2015 it is issued for applying to various

Government welfare programmes and in the said Government Order it is clearly mentioned that it is not a legal-heir certificate and that after the death of deceased

Dudekula Chaman Sab they have succeeded his estate and they are to be recognized as his legal-heirs and therefore they have filed the suit for declaration declaring them to be a legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab. The plaintiffs further submitted that as the defendants are specifically noted that family member certificate is not legal-heir certificate as such this suit is being filed against them. Hence the suit.

3. Summons on defendants served and they called absent on 03.10.2024 and they were set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiffs, the first plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A5.

5. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material available on record. This Court has also gone through the Judgment which is relied by the 3 plaintiffs in M.Parvathi V/s M.Vasantha, Bhadradri District, C.R.P.No.1525 of 2017

dated 05.01.2023.

6. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

7. POINT :

a) This court has perused the deposition of witness and exhibits marked on behalf of the plaintiff, so also given thoughtful consideration to the arguments adduced by the plaintiff counsel.

b) The first plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. She filed her chief affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief reiterating the contents of plaint. Through her Exs.A1 to

A5 are received in evidence. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab and that though they have obtained family member certificate they are not been accepted as his legal-heirs for availing in several Government Officers and authorities and therefore they have filed this suit to declare them as the legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman

Sab. As per Sec.34 of Specific Performance Relief Act the Court has the power to declare the person’s rights or status. The declaratory relief is in the nature of equitable relief for granting of an already existing right which has been denied by the other party. The main object of declaratory decree is that where a person’s status or legal character has been denied or could has been caste upon the plaintiff and the plaintiff can get the declaration as to the status of legal character or legal right of him.

c) The plaintiffs must establish that at the time of the suit they are entitled to any legal character as to declare their status. The legal character constitutes of the attributes that the law attaches to him in his personal capacity such as marriage, adoption, divorce, legitimacy and etc. In the case on hand the plaintiffs are said to be legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab. The plaintiffs had exhibited the death certificate of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab which is clear that the 4 deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab died on 07.05.2018. The Ex.A2 is the family member certificate which is a Meeseva copy issued by the Tahsildar, Ramagiri

Mandal and it clearly reflects that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are being only family members of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab. The plaintiff No.1 gave her notarized affidavit wherein she is called D.Rameeza Bee and also as Dudekula

Rameeza Begum. The Aadhar Cards of plaintiffs 1 and 2 clearly shows their address is mentioned as they are wife and son of deceased Dudekula Chaman

Sab residing in Door No.6-3-971, Maruthi Nagar, 2nd cross, Georgepet,

Ananthapuramu. The defendants are the persons who denied the legal status of plaintiffs. No one has approached to this Court stating that they are also legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab.

d) From the above discussion it is evident that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the legal-heirs of deceased Dudekula Chaman Sab and that they are entitled for declaration of their legal status as it is specifically denied by defendants. On the other hand the defendants failed to contest the suit and hence evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged. This Court is not carried away by the fact that the defendants remained exparte. Since the defendants had remained unchallenged in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against them to the effect that they have admitted the case of plaintiffs.

8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs and the legal status of plaintiff No.1/Dudekula Rameeja Begum is hereby declared as legally wedded wife of late Dudekula Chaman Sab and the legal status of plaintiff No.2/Dudekula

Mohammad Umar Mukthar is hereby declared that he is the legitimate son of late

Dudekula Chaman Sab and Dudekula Rameeja Begum/plaintiff No.1.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11th day of November, 2024.

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA.

FAC/ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

PW-1Dudekula Rameeja BegumNONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 :Death certificate of D.Chaman Sab. Ex.A2 :Meeseva copy of family member certificate of D.Chaman Sab. Ex.A3 :Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A4 :Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2. Ex.A5 :Notary affidavit of plaintiff No.1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

- NIL-

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PENUKONDA.

FAC/ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM.

OS/198/2024

S.Krishnaveni vs S.Anjineyulu

08 Nov 2024

OS.198 of 2024 1 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

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

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda.

FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Friday, the 8th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.198 of 2024

Between:

S.Krishnaveni, W/o S.Nagamuni, Aged about 54 yrs, Housewife, D.No.4/85, Shivanagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal. …Plaintiff.

-Versus-

S.Anjineyulu, S/o Late S.Gampaiah, Aged about 44 yrs, Business, D.No.4-800, Shivanagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal. …. Defendant.

This suit is coming on 07.11.2024 for final hearing in presence of Sri. K.M.Athavulla, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,62,125/- (Rs.4,41,875/- + Rs.1,20,250/-) (Rupees Five lakhs Sixty Two thousand One hundred and Twenty Five only) being the principal and interest basing on the A- marked and B-marked promissory notes executed by the defendant and for costs.

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

The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and

Fifty Thousand only) from the plaintiff on 01.01.2023 and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One lakh only) from the plaintiff on 01.05.2023 and executed ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked promissory notes in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Inspite of several demands made by the plaintniff, the

OS.198 of 2024 2 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

defendant did not repay the debt amount and that the defendant is not an agriculturist and he is doing business as such he is not entitled for the benefits under A.P. Debt Relief Act. Hence the suit.

3. Summons on defendant served and he called absent on 23.07.2024 and he was set exparte.

4. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A.1 and A2.

5. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit promissory notes amount as claimed for?”

7. POINT:

a) The plaintiff in order to establish her contentions, she herself is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A2. She filed her chief examination affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief. The evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 Promissory Notes clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 01.01.2023 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.05.2023 from PW.1 by executing Exs.A1 and

A2 in her favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. The plaintiff made a demand to repay the amount covered under Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes orally but the defendant paid deaf ear and did not pay the amount to plaintiff.

Therefore, Exs.A1 and A2 clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) from the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount to her. Since the defendant had remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he had admitted the case of plaintiff.

(b) Therefore, by virtue of consistent and on discredited evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, this Court concludes that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 and the defendant had failed to

OS.198 of 2024 3 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

discharge the same as such the plaintiff is entitled for the suit promissory notes amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.5,62,125/- (Rs.4,41,875/- + Rs.1,20,250/-) (Rupees Five lakhs Sixty Two thousand One hundred and Twenty Five only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 18 % p.a.

from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) under two promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 8th day of November, 2024.

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Dharmavaram (FAC).

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

P.W-1 – S.Krishnaveni None

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 – Original ‘A’ marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.01.01.2023 Ex.A2 – Original ‘B’ marked promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.01.05.2023.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

- NIL -

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Dharmavaram (FAC).

OS.198 of 2024 4 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

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

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Penukonda.

FAC/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Friday, the 8th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No.198 of 2024

Between:

S.Krishnaveni, W/o S.Nagamuni, Aged about 54 yrs, Housewife, D.No.4/85, Shivanagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal. …Plaintiff.

-Versus-

S.Anjineyulu, S/o Late S.Gampaiah, Aged about 44 yrs, Business, D.No.4-800, Shivanagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal. …. Defendant.

Suit for recovery of Rs.5,62,125/- (Rs.4,41,875/- + Rs.1,20,250/-) being the principal and interest due on A and B marked suit pronotes dt.0101.2023 and 01.05.2023 respectively for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rs.3,50,000/- +Rs.1,00,000/-) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. as the defendant is not an agriculturist and hence the defendant is not entitled for any benefits under debt relief Act.

Plaint presented on: 18.06.2024 Plaint Numbered on: 18.06.2024

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,62,125/- (Rs.4,41,875/- + Rs.1,20,250/-) and a court fee of Rs.10,652/- (Rs.6,926/- +

Rs.3,726/-) is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.3,50,000/- on 01.01.2023 and executed A marked suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff and again the same day the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.5.2023 and executed B marked suit pronote in favour of

OS.198 of 2024 5 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

the plaintiff and the plaintiff on when the defendant made payment and all dates of demands at Dharmavaram Town and mandal within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming on 07.11.2024 for final hearing in presence of

Sri. K.M.Athavulla, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court doth order and

Decree:-

i) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.5,62,125/- (Rs.4,41,875/- + Rs.1,20,250/-) (Rupees Five lakhs Sixty Two thousand One hundred and Twenty Five only)with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree thereafter @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rs.3,50,000/- + Rs.1,00,000/-) (Rupees

Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only);And ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,674/- (Rupees Seven thousand Six hundred and Seventy Four only) towards the cost of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 08th day of November, 2024.

FAC-Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

OS.198 of 2024 6 Judgment, dated 08.11.2024

Table of costs for Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaintRs. 10,652-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on vakalathRs. 2-00Rs.---

Stamp on processRs. 205-00Rs. ---

Commissioner Fee Rs.-- Rs.--

Pro.wrt.chargesRs.100-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on PetitionRs.--Rs. ---

Typing chargesRs.100-00Rs. ---

Publication chargesRs. ---Rs. ---

Advocate’s fee Rs.9282-00Rs. ---

Junior Advocate Fee Rs.---Rs.----

TOTAL:- Rs.20,341-00 Rs.---

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintiff)

FAC-A.C.J.(J.D.)/DMM.

OS/568/2022

A.Kalavathi vs Gaddam, Appanna

14 Nov 2024

1 Judgment, dated 14.11.2024

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

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Penukonda.

FAC/Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram

Thursday, the 14th day of November, 2024

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 568 of 2022

Between:

A.Kalavathi, W/o A.Babaiah, Parvathadevarapalli village of Kanaganapalli mandal. …Plaintiff

-Versus-

1.Gaddam Appanna, S/o G.Pakkerappa, Aged about 91 yrs, Cultivation, D.No.4/62, Seetharamapalli village of Dharmavaram Mandal.

2. Gaddam Shankar, S/o G.Appanna, Aged about 48 yrs, Cultivation, D.No.4/62, Seetharampalli village of Dharmavarm Mandal. 3.Gaddam Vamshi Krishna, S/o G.Shankar, Aged about 22 yrs, Cultivation, D.No.4/62,Seetharampalli village of Dharmavaram Mandal. ….Defendants

This suit is coming on 14-11-2024 for final hearing in presence of Sri. K.M.Suresh Chowdary, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 is died and Defendant No.2 is exparte on 27.10.2022 and Defendant No.3 is exparte on 21.7.2023 and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Suit for specific performance to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants directing the Defendant NO.1 to 3 to convey the said property by executing registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance consideration of Rs.7,50,000/- and in the even failure of the Defendants No.1 to 3 to executing the sale deed for an order to execute the sale deed by the court, if not prayed for then an alternative relief of decree or refund of part of sale consideration amount of Rs.6,50,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of agreement of sale to date of realization and award costs of the suit.

2 Judgment, dated 14.11.2024

The counsel for the plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is settled out of court and prayed to dismiss the suit accordingly. Memo recorded. Hence this suit is dismissed as settled out of court. Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of November, 2024.

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram(FAC).

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL -

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram(FAC).

EP/54/2023 Terminated

A.Krishnababu vs K.Sreenivasulu

24 Oct 2024

EP/14/2022 Closed

K.Kesappa vs G.Goutham Kumar

14 Nov 2024

Order Record 67 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/14/2022	K.Kesappa vs G.Goutham Kumar	14 Nov 2024	judgment	Closed
OS/568/2022	A.Kalavathi vs Gaddam, Appanna	14 Nov 2024	judgment	—
OS/356/2024	Dudekula Rameeja Begum vs The Distrcit Collector, Puttaparthi District	11 Nov 2024	judgment	—
OS/198/2024	S.Krishnaveni vs S.Anjineyulu	08 Nov 2024	judgment	—
EP/54/2023	A.Krishnababu vs K.Sreenivasulu	24 Oct 2024	judgment	Terminated
EP/116/2018	G.Kesavanarayana vs D.Ramana naik	24 Oct 2024	judgment	—
OS/574/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, branch at N.S Gate, C.K Palli Mandal. Rep. by its branch Manager. vs Boya Savithramma	24 Oct 2024	judgment	—
OS/204/2021	J.Raghavendra vs Bandi Nagaraju	22 Oct 2024	judgment	—
EP/14/2020	A.Krishna Murthy vs M.Suri	17 Oct 2024	order	—
OS/330/2018	Byalla Ganganna vs D.Syamprasad	17 Oct 2024	judgment	—
OS/362/2018	J.Lakshmikantham Setty vs Govt. of A.P. rep. by its District Collector	17 Oct 2024	judgment	—
OS/438/2018	K.Babu vs S.Shareefa	17 Oct 2024	judgment	—
CC/295/2018	B.Hari vs P.Suresh	10 Oct 2024	order	—
MC/8/2018	Boyagadda Lakshminarasamma vs Boyagadda Akkulappa	10 Oct 2024	order	—
OS/182/2024	Dasari Narasimhulu vs Gujjari Suri	04 Oct 2024	judgment	—
CC/500/2019	H.N.Jagadeesh vs Banda Nagarjuna	04 Oct 2024	order	—
OS/594/2023	M.Venakta Ramana vs P.Jayachandra Reddy	03 Oct 2024	judgment	—
MC/22/2022	Neeluri Kasturi vs Madana Nagaraju	03 Oct 2024	order	—
OS/430/2021	P.Janardhan Reddy vs Bandaru Ravi	01 Oct 2024	judgment	—
EP/33/2019	B.Jagadeesh Babu vs M.Anjineyulu	26 Sep 2024	order	—
OS/178/2019	C.Sankara Reddy vs C.Konda Reddy	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/362/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Talari Pothulaiah	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/364/2023	Andrha Pragathi Grameena Bank vs A.Baswanth Reddy	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/436/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs G Chowdappa	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/442/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Paritala Sainath	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/568/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Talari Pedda Obulesu	26 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/200/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs G Mangamma	20 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/322/2019	Canara Bank rep. by the Branch Manager vs G.Venkata Narayana Reddy	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/354/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameen Bank vs K.Gayathri	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/382/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Rep. by its Branch Manager. vs K.Vijayamma	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/412/2021	Canara Bank vs D.Gopal Naik	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/542/2023	P.Narayana Reddy vs G.Lingamaiah	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/644/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs D.Nagaraju	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/664/2022	Andhra pragathi Grameena Bank vs J.Lakshminarayana	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
OS/730/2022	Javanur Shaik Jaffar vs Lavanur Shaik Faru Bee	19 Sep 2024	judgment	—
PRC/13/2024	STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH vs Sake Obulesu	19 Sep 2024	order	—
EP/63/2023	V.Narasimha Murthy vs A.Dhanunjaya	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/32/2020	S.H.O., C.K.Palli P.S. vs Gali Bayapa Reddy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/56/2020	SHO, K.G.Palli P.S. vs Devarakonda Venkatesu	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/80/2019	SHO Dharmavaram Town PS vs Devarakonda Venkatesh	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/132/2023	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs Lavanur Shaik Fakru Bee	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/144/2022	G.Ramanjaneyulu vs Pamisetty Venkata Ramana	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/252/2020	SHO, Dharmavaram Rural P.S., vs Pitta Rajasekhar @ Raju	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/334/2020	SHO, Tadimarri P.S. vs Marrineni Yogananda	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/378/2019	SHO Dharmavaram Rural P.S. vs Mandala Pullappa	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/455/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs Ramalingamaiah	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/456/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs B.Bhaskar	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/457/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs ATte Pawan Kalyan	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/458/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs Pula Narayanaswamy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/464/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs G.Manjunatha Reddy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/476/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli Ps vs P.Obulapathi	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/477/2024	SHO-Kanaganapalli PS vs Paltha Anil Naik	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/478/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs Dudekula Siddaiah	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/479/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs B.Nagabhushana	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/480/2024	SHO- Bathalapalli PS vs Sake Obulapathi	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/485/2024	SHO-Ramagiri PS vs Srisailam Ravi Shankar @ Ediga RAvi	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/487/2024	SHO-kanaganapalli PS vs Indravath Rajasekhar	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/492/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs D.Lalu Swamy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/494/2024	SHO-Bathalapalli PS vs B.Jagan @ Jagadeesh	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/496/2024	SHO-Bathalapall PS vs Palyam Eswaraiah	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/497/2024	SHO-Dharmavaram Rural PS vs M.Ramanjineyulu	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/498/2024	SHO-Dharmavaarm Rural PS vs Jinkala Nagaraju	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/499/2024	SHO-Dharmavarm Rural Ps vs Surapareddy Ramaprasad REddy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/500/2024	SHO-Dharmavarm Rural PS vs S.Nagaraju	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/522/2021	Sub Inspector of police, Tadimarri PS vs Gangulakunta Adinarayana Reddy	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/694/2018	T.Sulochana vs N.Balu	14 Sep 2024	order	—
CC/1200/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town PS vs Talari Naresh	14 Sep 2024	order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Nov 2024		4
Oct 2024		15
Sep 2024		83

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM handled?

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM has handled 102 court orders since 2024 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 30 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM hear?

Based on available records, Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka).

Where is Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM currently posted?

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM is posted as Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka), Ananthapur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM dispose cases?

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM disposes approximately 30 cases per month, based on 102 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka).

Since when is Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM serving?

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka) since 2024.

Case Types

CC 50%

OS 26%

EP 21%

MC 2%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Sep 2024 — Nov 2024

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 102 orders
Aug 2024 — Aug 2024

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

Outcomes on Record

Closed 1

Terminated 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri T.venkateswarlu

Senior Civil Judge

294 orders

Ms. J.nandini

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

822 orders

Sri Prakya Venkata Harish

Addl. Junior Civil Judge

791 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Dharmavaram (Taluka)

Sri Muzeeb Pasala syed, ADM

DHARMAVARAM

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed,

ORIGINAL SUIT No.356 of 2024

J U D G M E N T

PENUKONDA.

DHARMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS

PENUKONDA.

DHARMAVARAM.

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

ORIGINAL SUIT No.198 of 2024

-Versus-

J U D G M E N T

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

ORIGINAL SUIT No.198 of 2024

-Versus-

TOTAL:- Rs.20,341-00 Rs.---

DHARMAVARAM

Present : Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 568 of 2022

-Versus-

J U D G M E N T

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed, Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Penukonda,

FAC-Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram

Case No. :EP/0000054/2023

Present: Sri Muzeeb Pasapala Syed, Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Penukonda,

FAC-Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram

Case No. :EP/0000014/2022