Smt.N.Radhika

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur

SCJ Court Complex Kovvur · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.N.Radhika, I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, is posted at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 286 court orders on record since 2016. 3 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

286

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/100124/2015

Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Rajahmundry vs Marri Veerraju

27 Feb 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Ist ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KOVVUR.

Present: Smt. N.Radhika, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Tues day, this the27th day of February , 2018.

O.S.NO.124/2015.

Between:

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., a Banking, Branch at Innispeta, Rajahmundry, rep. By its Branch Manager, Rajahmundry. … Plaintiff. <and>

1. Marri Veerraju,S/o,.Ramayya, Hindu, 50 years, Secondary Grade Teacher, D.No.8-104, Vadapalli, Kovvur Mandal.

2. Marri Ramana, W/o.Veerraju, Hindu, 45 years, Housewife,D.No.8-104, Vadapalli, Kovvur Mandal. … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me on 28-08-2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.N.V.S.Surendra Reddi, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri

K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Defendant No.1, and having stood over for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the Defendants 1 and 2 directing them to pay an amount of Rs.1,20,295-50 Ps., to the Plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2.The relevant facts of the Plaint that the Defendants are husband wife. For purposes of residential house, the 1st Defendant approached the Plaintiff bank for loan of Rs.1,50,000/- interlaid offering security of the site together with the house to be constructed thereon and personal guarantee of 2nd Defendant and proposing to discharge the loan within a period of 10 years in monthly installments and submitted a loan application Dt.02-05-2006 to the Plaintiff along with 2nd Defendant, agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of Housing Loan. Considering their request the Plaintiff bank agreed to sanction the loan to the defendant subject to terms and conditions of Housing Loan.

3.The defendants, apart from other documents, executed Demand Pronote for

Rs.1,50,000/- by 1st Defendant, Agreement for Loans by 1st Defendant, Guarantee agreement executed by 2nd Defendant.

4.As per the terms and conditions of loan, the loan shall be discharged together with interest at 9% p.a., monthly rests, with variable rates from time to time in 114 equal; monthly installments of Rs.2,100/- per month, the 1st installment commencing from December 2006 and the subsequent installments payable on 120th day of every succeeding month.

5.In terms of sanction and as agreed, to create security for the debt, by way of

Mortgage by deposit the title deeds, the 1st Defendant deposited the original settlement Deed Dt.11-03-2015 executed in his favour by his father, in respect of the site covered by the Plaint schedule, building plan sanctioned by the Gram

Panchayat, E.C., Etc., with the Plaintiff bank at Rajahmundry and executed a Regd.

Memorandum of deposit of title deeds Dt.11-05-2006.

6.A Loan account bearing No.022101557172721501 was opened in the name of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant availed the loan facility. The 1st defendant constructed an RCC roofed building in the schedule site with the loan amount.

Thus the Plaint schedule property was given as security for the loan availed by the

Defendants. Having availed the loan facility, the defendants did not confirm to the terms and conditions of repayment and failed to adhere to the repayment schedule.

7.While the loan thus remained contending the defendants executed revival letters on 27-09-2008, 28-05-2011 and 02-04-2014 acknowledging and confirming their liability. But the defendants did not adhere to the terms and conditions of loan and the demands made on behalf of the Plaintiff were of no avail.

8.The Plaintiff was constrained to recall the debt and issue a Notice Dt.15-02- 2014 through its Advocate calling upon the defendants to pay the sum of

Rs.1,43,471-50 Ps., due as on 31-01-2014 together with subsequent interest within7 days of receipt of the notice, failing which informing that it will proceed for recovery of the amount. The defendants received the said notice on 21-02-2014 and kept quiet.

9.The 1st Defendant mortgaged the schedule property on 11-05-2006 in favour of the Plaintiff bank for Rs.1,50,000/-.

10.The defendant No.1 filed written statement contending the averments of the plaint and also contended that he was paid entire loan amount to the Plaintiff bank.

The Plaintiff bank got issued a legal notice, the defendants approached the Plaintiff bank and questioned them about legal notice. The staff in the Plaintiff bank promised to the defendant, that they will verify their accounts and also promise to issue account copy to the defendant as demanded by him. But they did not supply his account copy as demanded by the defendant on the other hand they have filed this suit with false allegations with a view to wrongful gain. The defendants never executed any revival letter and the suit is barred by limitation. The Plaintiff bank forged the signatures of the defendant and fabricated the revival letter. The defendants are not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the Plaintiff in the alleged plaint and the Plaintiff is not entitled for the same.

11.On hearing both sides, the following issues are framed for Trial:

i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount? ii) To what relief?

12.During the course of Trial P.W-1 is examined on behalf of the plaintiff and

Exs.A-1 to A-19 are marked on behalf of the Plaintiff and D.W-1 is examined on behalf of the Defendants.

13.It was elicited during the cross examination of PW1 that Ex.A7 is a settlement which was executed between the 1st defendant and his father and that Ex.A7 was deposited in the Bank towards security for the loan obtained by the 1st defendant. The contention of the defendant is that while issuance of loans the Plaintiff bank obtained the signatures of the customers on empty

Promissory notes. Admittedly, the defendant paid certain loan amount. PW1 deposed that the account statement was enclosed with the Plaint to show the repayments done by the defendants. It is undisputed that the 1st defendant obtained loan from the Plaintiff bank, but the contention of the defendants is that the entire loan amount was already paid and that the plaintiff bank filed the suit dishonestly with a view to obtain wrongful ains from the defendants.

4 14.D.W1 deposed that himself and the 2nd defendant had taken house loan of

Rs.1,50,000/- in Catholic Syrian Bank ltd., Rajahmundry. The term for the loan is 10 years payable @ 2100/- per month. DW1 pledged the property under Ex.A-7 towards security and also deposited the Memorandum of registration under Ex.A-9. DW1 deposed that he paid an amount of

Rs.16,508/- on 19-06-2014. It was elicited that DW1 signed on all the relevant papers at the time of revival letter. His contention was that the plaintiff bank forged his signature on the revival letter, but he was not able to say the particular revival letter forged by the bank. Further, the defendants did not make any correspondence or did not take any steps to prove the alleged forgery. DW1 deposed that he had discharged the entire loan and the receipts are in his custody, but he did not file the said receipts in the Court.

15.The Plaintiff was able to discharge his onus by his oral testimony and by exhibiting documents Ex.A1 to A6. The loan transaction between the Plaintiff bank and the defendants is undisputed. But the contention of the defendants is that the Plaintiff bank obtained their signatures on empty documents at the time of obtaining the loan and used the said documents for filing this suit.

Even if for the sake of assumption, the plaintiff bank had really obtained the signatures of the defendants on empty promissory notes, in that case also by virtue of section 20 of NI Act, the plaintiff bank being a holder of the instrument was authorized to complete the instrument and the defendants are liable upon such instrument in the capacity in which he signed the same.

Another contention of the defendants was that the entire loan amount was already paid. DW1 deposed that the receipts of payment of loan installments is in his possession. If that is the case, the 1st defendant ought to have filed the receipts before the court and exhibited in support of his case, but he did not do the same, which leads this court to draw an adverse inference against him that had he really paid the entire loan, he would have filed the receipts to prove the same. The Plaintiff was able to categorically prove his case and the defendants were not able to refute the same. In these circumstances and for the foregoing discussion, this court is of he opinion that the plaintiff is 5 entitled for the recovery of money from the defendants and the defendants 1 &2 are jointly and severally liable for the payment of suit amount to the plaintiff bank. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

16.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount of Rs.1,20,295-50 Ps, with subsequent interest @12% per annum, from the date of suit till the date of realization, from the defendants 1 &2.

Typed by me and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of February, 2018.

sd/- N.Radhika,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1: Lajita Patnaik.

FOR DEFENDANT :

D.W-1: Marri Veerraju.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1 is the Housing loan application submitted by the Defendants dated 02-05-2006.

Ex.A-2 is the Pronote for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 10-05-2006 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A-3 is the Guarantee Agreement dated 10-05-2006 executed by 2nd Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A-4 is the Guarantee Agreement dated 10-05-2006 executed by 2nd Defendant in favour of Plaintiff.

Ex.A-5 is the letter of disclose dated 10-05-2006 executed by 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-6 is the letter of disclose dated 10-05-2006 executed by 2nd Defendant.

Ex.,A-7 is the Settlement Deed dated 11-03-2005 executed by Marri Ramaiah in favour of the 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-8 is the Proceedings dated 31-03-2005 issued by gram Panchayat, Vadapalli issued to the 1st Defendant with approved plan.

Ex.A-9 is the Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds dated 11-05-2006 executed by 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-10 is the Revival letter dated 27-09-2008 executed by 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-11 is the Revival letter dated 27-09-2008 executed by 2nd Defendant.

Ex.A-12 is the Revival letter dated 28-05-2011 executed by 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-13 is the Revival letter dated 28-05-2011 executed by 2nd Defendant.

Ex.A-14 is the Revival letter dated 02-04-2014 executed by 1st Defendant.

Ex.A-15 is the Revival letter dated 02-04-2014 executed by 2nd Defendant.

Ex.A-16 is the legal notice dated 15-02-2014 got issued by the Plaintiff to the defendants together with postal receipts.

Ex.A-17 is the Postal Acknowledgment dated 21-02-2014 of Defendant NO.1.

Ex.A-18 is the Postal Acknowledgment dated 21-02-2014 of Defendant NO.2.

Ex.A-19 is the certified extract of account dated 05-03-2015 of 1st Defendant.

FOR DEFENDANT : NIL.

sd/- N.Radhika,

IAJCJ, KVR.

OS/100038/2016

Chintalapudi Narayan rao vs Vulisetti barathi Vara Lakshmi

05 Mar 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : : KOVVUR.

Present: Smt. N.Radhika,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Monday, this the 5th day of March, 2018.

O.S.NO.38/2016.

Between:

1. Chintalapudi Narayana Rao, S/o.late Subba Rao, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal. … Plaintiff. <and>

1. Smt.Vulisetti Barathi Vara lakshmi, W/o.late Gandhi, D.No.8-6-23/1, 8th Ward, Old Ramalayam Street, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal.

2. Master Vulisetti Santosh Sravanandha Kumar, S/o.late Gandhi, D.No.8-6-23/1, 8th Ward, Old Ramalayam Street, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal. (2nd Defendant being minor rep. by his next friend and guardian 1st Defendant) (2nd Defendant is declared as major as per order in I.A.NO.45/2017 dated 20-02-2017) … Defendants. This suit is coming before me on 05-01-2018 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri K.Gopala Krishna, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri K.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for

Defendant, and having stood over for consideration this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff submits as follows:

1. 1st defendant is the wife, 2nd defendant is the son of late Vulisetti Gandhi ,who worked as an attender in the court of principal senior civil judge ,Kovvur. Both the defendants are the joint family members of late Vulisetti Gandhi . The said Vulisetti

Gandhi, S/o.Ramarao, during his life time borrowed an Amount of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only )from the plaintiff on 01-06-2014(first day of June month, two thousand fourteen)for the purpose of his family expenses and on the behalf of the joint family and executed the suit promissory note on even date in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24%p.a. either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

2. Subsequently the said Vulisetti Gandhi died on 15-01-2016 without discharging the said loan Amount. The defendants 1 and 2 being the clas-1 legal heirs of the said

Vulisetti Gandhi and also the joint family members who benefited and enjoyed the above said loan amount borrowed by the said Vulisetti Gandhi as a manager of their joint family are liable to repay the same personally and also due to pious obligation cast upon them. Both the defendants have succeeded the entire estate of the deceased vulisetti Gandhi and enjoying the same. But, the defendants did not discharge the said debt inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, subsequent to the death of the original borrower Vulisetti Gandhi and have been postponing the same on some pretext other . The plaintiff get issued a legal notice through his advocate to the defendants on 03-03-2016 and the defendants acknowledging the same on 04-03-2016 and kept quite. now, the plaintiff reliably learnt that the defendants are seriously contemplating to secret the entire death/retirement benefits of the original borrower Vulisetti Gandhi with an evil intention to evade or avoid repayment of the said pronote debt due to the plaintiff, hence , the plaintiff obliged to file this suit urgently for recovery of the amount due under the suit pronote from the estate of the deceased original borrower Vulisetti Gandhi now in the hands of the defendants with subsequent interest and costs. the plaintiff is also filing a separate application under order 38, rule 5c.p.c. for attachment of arrears of salary, leave salary , etc. , attachable amounts of the said Vulisetti Gandhi out of his death /benefits lying with the garnishee in the Hon'ble principal senior civil judge , kovvur , W.G.Dist

3. The provisions of any debt relief laws are not applicable to this case since of defendants are not agriculturists and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest on the lending amount as per the rate of interest stipulated in the suit pronote.

4. After receiving summons the 1st defendant filed her written statement and the 2nd defendant filed adoption memo adopting the pleadings of 1st defendant. Besides denying the pleadings of the plaintiff the averments of the defendants are that the defendants is not aware of the alleged pronote debt. The deceased vulisetti Gandhi never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory note much less the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at any time . The suit pronote is a rank forgery and the same is not supported by any consideration.

5. If really the husband of this defendant vulisetti Gandhi borrowed amount from the plaintiff under pronote , he would have informed the same to this defendant. but, he never informed about the same to this defendant. in fact, The said Vulisetti Gandhi had no necessity to borrow such huge amount from the plaintiff. Moreover the plaintiff has no capacity at all so lend such huge amount. When the suit debt is a false one as stated above, and there is no debtor and creditor relationship between the deceased vullisetti Gandhi and the plaintiff the question of the alleged demands by the plaintiff does not arise at all. All are created with evil motives.

6. This defendant humbly submits before the honourable court that, The plaintiff is a stranger to her. This defendant never saw even the face of the plaintiff. This defendant suspects that, Tacking advantage of the death of her husband Gandhi, The plaintiff himself or at the instance of any of the opponents of her deceased husband, might have forged and fabricated the suit promissory note and filed this false suit with in evil intention to harass the defendants and to have wrongful again, if possible. the plaintiff never approached the defendant regarding the alleged pronote debt at any time. The husband of this defendant V.Gandhi never borrowed any amount nor executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In fact, The family of the defendants has no necessity to borrow such huge amount . The alleged promissory note is a fabricated document, Falsely created and forged one by the plaintiff with the support of the alleged attesters and scribe of the pronote, and the same is not supported by any consideration. The alleged scribe and attester as well as the plaintiff are unknown to this defendant. The scribe and attester might be the close associates of the plaintiff who are all colluded together, Engineered the suit pronote and filed this suit with an illegal view to get wrongful enrichment by unlawful means. so, the suit filed by the plaintiff basing on the forged and fabricated document is not at all maintainable under law, and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

7. Thus, the plaintiff has not approached the honourable court with clean hands.

there are no bona fides on the part of the plaintiff in filing this suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a mischievous frivolous and vindictive in nature, and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8. As these all are the real facts of the case, The plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount much less the suit amount etc., from the defendants, and the defendants are not liable for the same. The suit filed is not maintainable either under law or on facts in any point of view, and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

9. It is pertinent to mention here that, the plaintiff is well versed with court litigations.

he used to file false suits against many people with a dishonest intention to have wrongful gain by unlawful means by creating false documents. he is also habituated to depose false evidences before the honourable courts by taking money from the parties.

10. The case of action alleged in para 7 of the plaint is totally not true and correct, and the same is falsely created for the purpose of the suit. in fact, the plaintiff has no cause of action at all for filing of this suit against the defendants.

11. The following issues are framed basing on the pleadings, to be settled at trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendants?

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

3. To what relief?

12.During the course of trial, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A4 were marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. The defendant did not choose to enter into the witness box and did not exhibit any documents in support of his case.

13.The Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and affirmed all the averments of his plaint in his chief examination. He examined PW2 to corroborate his case. The defendants did not choose to cross examine the plaintiff witnesses to test their veracity.

Further the defendants did not choose to enter into the witness box to adduce evidence on their behalf, and as such invited the risk of drawing adverse inference against the defendants by this court that the version of plaintiff that is true and Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on them. It is undisputed that the defendants are the legal heirs of he deceased borrower. Hence this court is inclined to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants. Issues No. 1 &2 are answered accordingly.

14.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for a sum of Rs.2,85,864/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization, out of the estate of the deceased.

Typed by me and corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 5th day of March, 2018.

sd/- N.Radhika,

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : P.W.1: Chintalapudi Narayana Rao. P.W-2: Akula Pavan Kumar.

FOR DEFENDANT : -NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A-1 is the Original Pronote dated 01-06-2014 executed in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.A-2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 03-03-2016 got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants. Ex.A-3 is the original postal receipt Dt.03-03-2016. Ex.A-4 is the acknowledgment dated 04-03-2016 issued by Post Master, Head Post office, Kovvur.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

sd/- N.Radhika,

IAJCJ, KVR.

OS/100024/2018

Muthina Muni Raju vs Muthina Radha Krishna

01 Mar 2018

Order Record 276 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/100013/2016	MS. Avanthi Feeds Limited vs S.V.P. Lakshmi	09 Mar 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100038/2016	Chintalapudi Narayan rao vs Vulisetti barathi Vara Lakshmi	05 Mar 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/100037/2016	Ganni Veera Raghavulu vs Ganni Satish	05 Mar 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100024/2018	Muthina Muni Raju vs Muthina Radha Krishna	01 Mar 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100118/2014	Pathan Akbar Khan vs Shaik Madeena Basha	01 Mar 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100124/2015	Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, Rajahmundry vs Marri Veerraju	27 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100023/2016	The SHO, Tallapudi PS vs Relangi Siva Nagendra Babu	26 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100180/2016	Vundrajavarapu Raja Rao vs Gella Santhosham	23 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100042/2015	Gannamani Janardhana Rao vs Challamalla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	22 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100124/2016	Chaparla Subba Rao vs Suravarapu Suryanarayana	21 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100009/2014	Achanta Venkata ramanna - died vs Kodamanchili Peddiyya	20 Feb 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100026/2017	Smt.Mullapudi Prabhavathi vs Sm.Ganta Sayavathi	20 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100100/2016	State Bank of India, vs Vadlamudi Rajendra Prasad	20 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100102/2016	State bank of india vs Koya Annapurna	20 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100001/2014	Sha Chagan Lal vs Chavva Venkata Rao	19 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200878/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Karri Venkata Lakshmi Narayana	16 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100002/2010	Nadipalli Satyanarayana vs Ponnuswamy Mathu	12 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100134/2016	The SHO, Devarapalli PS vs Jujjavarapu Venkata Ratnam	10 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200025/2017	The SHO, Devarapalli PS vs Gokanaboina Srinivas	10 Feb 2018	Copy of Order	—
CC/100013/2016	MS. Avanthi Feeds Limited vs S.V.P. Lakshmi	08 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100074/2009	Manda Srinivasa Reddy vs Kalagara Annapurna	06 Feb 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100018/2017	Matcha Rambabu vs Songa Nageswara Rao	05 Feb 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100048/2013	Karri Narasamma vs Nodagala Srinivasa Rao	05 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100059/2016	MVR Transports, Mallina Sridevi vs Amulya Feeds Ltd, MD, Dr. P. Lakshminarayana	05 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100383/2008	Srirangam Sree Ramulu vs Karengula Satyavathi	01 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100385/2008	SrirangamAppa Rao vs KarengulaSatyavathi	01 Feb 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100176/2016	Keerthi Srinivasa Rao vs Malladi Venkata Ramana Murthy	30 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100066/2017	KSN Transport, rep. by its propreitor Katragadda Suresh Babu vs Metkore Alloys and industries Ltd., rep. by its Managilng Director	24 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100120/2017	Lanka Sri Kumaraswamy vs Challa Rajasekhar	24 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200584/2016	Shaik Pheer Basha vs Adapakula Venkata Chaitanya	24 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100034/2017	Smt.Veeramalla Nagamani vs Komati Subba Lakshmi	23 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100065/2016	The SHO, Gopalapuram PS vs Moyyeti Pandu	23 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200171/2017	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Rudram Veerababu	20 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100132/2017	Smt.Gedela Kumari Sarojini vs Smt.Polavaram Sanyasamma	19 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100038/2015	Konatham Venkata Surya Jayalakshmi @ Jayalakshmi vs Chinnam Nagaratnam	18 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100113/2011	Garaga Seetha Ratnam vs Kodi Satyanarayana	18 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200167/2017	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Thota Ramakrishna	17 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100185/2010	Srirangam Ganga Raju - died vs Bandi Ratna Kumari	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100032/2013	Tadepalli Subbamma vs Vemu Krishna	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Order	—
OS/100032/2013	Tadepalli Subbamma vs Vemu Krishna	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100098/2016	State Bank of India vs Koya Annapurna	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100106/2016	VallabhaniSri Hari vs Jonnakuti Meenakshi	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200620/2016	Ms. Gautami Chemicals and Pesticides Pvt, Ltd., vs Ms. Sri Sabareesh Rythu Depot.	09 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100090/2016	Peddasaniganti Bala Krilshna vs PeddasanigantiSatyanarayana Murthy	08 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100110/2015	Madala Satyanarayana vs Duggina Ramababu	08 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100178/2017	State Bank of India, Jangareddigudem Branch vs Maliboina Seetgharamudu	08 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100202/2015	Reddi sita ramulu vs Patnala Surya Gana Siva Sankara Nagu	08 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100097/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Rural PS vs Mare Joseph Samuel	08 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100025/2012	Gonimadathala Venkata Nageswari vs Yaganti Veera venkata Satyanarayana	05 Jan 2018	Copy of Order	—
CC/200463/2016	Dandabuthula Rama Krishna Kishore vs Kondapalli Veerababu	05 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100080/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Kokkiripati Pakeer	03 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100098/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Polumati Rambabu	03 Jan 2018	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200637/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Nandipalli Venkata Ramababu	30 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100023/2017	Maddipatla Surya Suryanarayana vs Addagarla Veeraswamy	29 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100114/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Rural PS vs Choutupalli Srinivas	29 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100034/2014	Vundavalli Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs Karuturi Kasi Viswanadh	27 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100137/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Gosangi Satyanarayana	27 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100192/2017	Addala Tata Rao vs Smt.Aradari Srivijayalakshmi	26 Dec 2017	Copy of Order	—
CC/100120/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Bavana Suresh Kumar	22 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/200007/2017	Smt. Matthe Nagamani vs Matthe Venkatesu @ Yohanu	21 Dec 2017	Copy of Order	—
CC/100061/2015	Juttika Chandra vs Seelaboina Venkata Satyanarayana	20 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100113/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Godi Satish Kumar aka Kaki	19 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100007/2016	Duddupudi Prasanth Kumar vs Atru Veera Prakasa Rao	18 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100057/2015	SHO Gopalapuram PS vs Veeramalla Prasad	15 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100106/2016	The SHO, Devarapalli PS vs Gubbala Rama Rao @ Rambabu	15 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/200007/2017	Smt. Matthe Nagamani vs Matthe Venkatesu @ Yohanu	15 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200027/2017	The SHO, Devarapalli PS vs Kokkiripati Arun Kiran	13 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200173/2017	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Gurrana Durga Prasad	13 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100008/2016	Komati Venkata rao vs Komati Subbalakshmi	11 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100082/2012	Karuturi Chilaka Pushpa rAtnam vs Reddy Subbayamma	11 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100119/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Yedidha Ramesh	09 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100127/2016	The SHO, Devarapalli PS vs Dagani Samuel Johnson	09 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100004/2014	Pendyala Lakshmi Narasamma vs Geda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	08 Dec 2017	Copy of Order	—
EP/100005/2014	Sunkavalli Bulliraju vs Geda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana	08 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200676/2016	Taniki Sarojii vs YVSN Murthy	05 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100001/2015	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kovvur Rural P.S. vs Rachapalli Srihari	04 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100009/2016	Nagireddi Apparao vs Karanam Sambhasivarao	04 Dec 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100108/2017	Uppalapati jayalakshmi vs Kalla Satyavathi	30 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/100028/2016	Smt. Gella Ammani vs Gella Krishna Murthy	30 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100055/2011	Kovvuri Venkata Ratnam vs Duggirala Purnachandra Joshi	17 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100248/2010	Devarapalli Papa vs Inaparthi Kamalamma	17 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100101/2016	The State represented by the Food Safety Officer vs Majeti Mohana Rao	17 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100022/2015	Chakravarthula Tatacharyulu Trust vs Bobbili Ganapathi	16 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100105/2016	Neelam Veerabhadra Rao vs Soma Venugopala Reddy	14 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100003/2010	Kovvur Town Ps vs Arjun Sah	08 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100008/2016	Kolli Sunil Kumar vs Guthala Sudheer Babu	08 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100023/2010	Tavitiki Chandrababu vs Beerendra Pradhan	08 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100076/2010	Station House Officer vs Arjun Kumaar Shaw	08 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100203/2010	Chodavarapu Narayanamma vs Konala Nageswara Rao	07 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100082/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Vemulapalli Satyanarayana @ Satish	07 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200377/2016	Nakka Anand Kumar vs Soma Venu Gopala Reddy	07 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100002/2009	Sidda Chakradhara Rao vs Sidda Hemantha Raj	06 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100801/2006	Sidda Hemantha Raju vs Sidda Narayana Rao	06 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100124/2016	MS Goutami chemicals and Pesticides P Ltd., vs MS Sri Sai Srinivasa Seeds	01 Nov 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/100048/2016	Muppidi Nageswara Rao vs Vijjeswarapu Narasimha Murthy	31 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
MC/100036/2016	Smt. Jakkamsetti Durga vs Jakkamsetti Divakar	28 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/100018/2015	Putta Nagamani vs Balam Manikantha @ Chiranjeevi	27 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200619/2016	Ms. Avanti Feeds Ltd. rep by its Deputy Manager vs Deb Prakash Mahapatra Managing Director	27 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/200894/2016	The SHO, Kovvur Town PS vs Akkabathula Pradeep	26 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100122/2016	MS Gouthami Chemicals and Pesticies P Ltd., vs MS Venugopal Traders	25 Oct 2017	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 276 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2018		5
Feb 2018		21
Jan 2018		26
Dec 2017		27
Nov 2017		17
Oct 2017		21
Sep 2017		11
Aug 2017		19
Jul 2017		23
Jun 2017		9
May 2017		1
Apr 2017		18

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.N.Radhika handled?

Smt.N.Radhika has handled 286 court orders since 2016 at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur. The average disposal rate is 18 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.N.Radhika hear?

Based on available records, Smt.N.Radhika primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur.

Where is Smt.N.Radhika currently posted?

Smt.N.Radhika is posted as I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.N.Radhika available online?

Yes. 3 judgments by Smt.N.Radhika are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.N.Radhika dispose cases?

Smt.N.Radhika disposes approximately 18 cases per month, based on 286 orders handled over their tenure at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur.

Since when is Smt.N.Radhika serving?

Smt.N.Radhika has been serving at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur since 2016.

Case Types

OS 43%

CC 36%

EP 12%

MC 9%

Posting History

Nov 2016 — Mar 2018

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur · 286 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt M Anuradha

IX Additional District Judge

1,091 orders

Smt Gandham Venkata Lakshmi Saraswathi

Principal Senior Civil Judge

1,852 orders

V. Nageswar Rao Naik

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

Smt K Naga Lakshmi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- I Additiona...

42 orders

← View all judges at SCJ Court Complex Kovvur

Smt.N.Radhika

J U D G M E N T

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

DOCUMENTS MARKED

J U D G M E N T

I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

DOCUMENTS MARKED

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::KOVVUR

A N D

JUDGMENT :: ::