Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B.,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B.,, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,028 court orders on record since 2015. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, RCC cases.

1,028

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/125/2016

Janjanam Bala Sankar vs Paladi Raja Sumathi

28 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.125 of 2016

Between:

Janjanam Bala Sankar S/o late Sriramulu, aged 39 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Door No.4-198, Epurupalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...... Plaintiff.

And

1. Paladi Raja Sumathi W/o late Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 44 years, Hindu, house wife, R/o C/o Paladi Chinna Rao, Doos No.6-8, Main Road, Near Mee Seva Centre, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Paladi Rajesh S/o late Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 23 years, Hindu, un-employee, R/o C/o Paladi Chinnarao, Door No.6-8, Main road, Near Mee Seva Centre, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Paladi Koteswara Rao S/o late Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 21 years, Hindu, un-employee, R/o C/o Paladi Chinna Rao, Door No.6-8, Main Road, Near Mee Seva Centre,

Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ……....Defendants.

This suit is coming on 27.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Raju, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri B. Srinivasulu and

Sri P. Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocates for Defendants 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of

Rs.2,76,080/- being the principal and interest based on a promissory note dt.15.03.2015 said to have executed by deceased borrower Paladi

Venkata Rama Rao and the said amount be recovered out of the estate of said deceased/borrower lying in the hands of Defendants and for costs.

2.Brief averments of plaint are that:

One Paladi Venkata Rama Rao borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-0 from plaintiff on 15.03.2015 for the expenses of his family and in evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note on the even dae undertaking to repay the said amounts together with interest at 24% p.a.

either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. Later said Paladi Venkata

Rama Rao died intestate on 07.04.2016 leaving behind him, his wife and children who are defendants herein (as his legal heirs). The plaintiff submitted that the deceased left his estate also in the custody of defendants 1 to 3. The deceased was a conductor of APSRTC, Chirala depot. After demise of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao, the plaintiff approached

Defendants 1 to 3 and demanded them to repay the amount due under promissory note for which they got admitted about the execution of promissory note but did not choose to repay the amount due under promissory note but postponed the matter on the pretext of something or other. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to defendants 1 to 3 on 19.04.2016 demanding them to repay amounts due under promissory note, but in vain. Hence, the suit.

3.On the otherhand, defendant No.1 filed written statement contending the suit is not maintainable either in-law or on facts and put plaintiff strict proof of allegations made in plaint except those that are admitted in his written statement specifically, interalia, contended that her husband Paladi Venkata Rama Rao never borrowed alleged sum of

Rs.2,20,000/- from plaintiff on 15.03.2015 and never executed alleged promissory note and that alleged suit promissory note dt.15.03.2015 is a blank promissory note and the signature of her husband might have forged by plaintiff and that her husband had no need or necessity to 3 borrow such huge amount. This defendant further submitted that she has never seen the complexion of plaintiff, alleged attestors and scribe and suit promissory note is rank forged and there are no merits in the suit and accordingly prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the pleadings of the both parties, the following issues were framed on 27.12.2016.

1. Whether suit promissory note dt.15.03.2015 for Rs.2,20,000/- executed by deceased borrower namely Paladi Venkata Rama Rao in favour of plaintiff is true, valid, correct and binding on the defendants herein ?

2.Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover entire suit amount from defendants as prayed for ?

3.To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

5.The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1 and also adduced oral evidence of scribe and attestors of suit promissory note namely one Janjanam Prasad, Sk. Kalesha and Vangara Suresh Babu as

Pws.2 to 4 and got marked Ex.A.1 and A.2. Ex.A.1 is original promissory note dt.15.03.2015 for Rs.2,20,000/- executed by one Paladi Venkata

Rama Rao in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2 is office copy of legal notice dt.19.04.2016 along with postal receipts three in number.

6.On the otherhand, the defendant also filed written statement and cross examined PW.1 but did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence on their side.

7.I have heard the arguments of learned advocates for plaintiff and defendants respectively.

8. Admitted Facts:

The defendants herein admitted the following facts by way of their written statement. The defendants 1 to 3 admitted about their relationship with deceased borrower Paladi Venkata Rama Rao. D.1 is 4 the wife, D.2 and D.3 are the children of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao.

Further defendants admitted the said Paladi Venkata Rama Rao during his life time worked as conductor in APSRTC Chirala. Further they did not deny about the fact that they are entitled for the death benefits of Paladi

Venkata Rama Rao lying in the hands of garnishee.

9. ISSUE NOS.1 & 2:

1. Whether suit promissory note dt.15.03.2015 for Rs.2,20,000/- executed by deceased borrower namely paladi Venkata Rama Rao in favour of plaintiff is true, valid, correct and binding on the defendants herein ?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover entire suit amount from defendants as prayed for ?

Since issues 1 & 2 are inter-related and inter-connected to each other, as such those issues are taken up together for consideration.

The contention of the plaintiff is that deceased Paladi Venkata

Rama Rao borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on 15.03.2015 for meeting expenses of his family and in evidence thereof executed a promissory note/Ex.A.1 on the even date undertaking to repay the said sum together with interest @ 24% p.a. either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendants herein denied about the acquittance of plaintiff and also denied about the alleged signature of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao on suit promissory dt.15.03.2015. But the defendants in their entire written statement no where specifically mentioned about any specific reason which made the plaintiff for forging the signature of Paladi Venkata Rama

Rao . However, the preliminary burden regarding proof of execution of

Ex.A.1 promissory note lies upon plaintiff. The plaintiff inorder to establish his case examined himself as PW.1 and filed chief affidavit reiterating all the averments as stated in his plaint pleadings. Apart from his oral evidence, plaintiff adduced oral evidence of scribe and attestors in Ex.A.1 as Pws.2 to 4 respectively. This court keenly perused the chief affidavit of 5

PW.2 who corroborated the version of PW.1 in all material facts regarding execution of promissory note by Paladi Venkata Rama Rao by receiving a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on 15.03.2015 and also the presence of attestors at the time of said transaction. Pws.3 & 4 who were attestors, also categorically deposed that they were present at the time of Ex.A.1 transaction and corroborated Paladi Venkata Rama Rao received

Rs.2,20,000/- from plaintiff on 15.03.2015 and executed Ex.A.1 in favour of plaintiff. Thus the oral evidence of Pws.2 to 4 on record goes to show that deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao received Rs.2,20,000/- from plaintiff on 15.03.2015 and in token thereof he executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in favour of plaintiff.

10.Further this court perused the cross examination of PW.1 in which

PW.1 reiterated that he lent a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to late Paladi Venkata

Rama Rao on 15.03.2015 and said transaction took place at his house at about 11-00 am and while so Pws.2 to 4 present. PW.1 further stated in cross examination that Ex.A.1 filled up at the pan shop of scribe (J.

Prasad) as he went to the said pan shop at 12-00 noon. PW.1 urther affirmatively stated that Paladi Venkata Rama Rao subscribed the signature in English language. PW.1 denied the suggestion the signature appended on Ex.A.1 did not belong to late Paladi Venkata Rama Rao and also denied the suggestion that said Paladi Venkata Rama Rao used to subscribe his signature in short form. The defendants in their written statement no where specifically that Paladi Venkata Rama Rao used to put his signature in short form. The learned advocate although cross examined PW.1 but no any material elicited to say what made plaintiff to forge the signature of deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao. Although there is slight confusion regarding the place of execution of Ex.A.1 in the 6 evidence of PW.1 but he is very affirmative regarding borrowal of such amount by defendant.

11.Further this court perused the cross examination of PW.2 in which he admitted that his sur name and sur name of plaintiff one and the same but denied any relationship with plaintiff. PW.2 in cross examination affirmatively stated that “ I have seen while deceased borrower received amount covered under Ex.A.1 from plaintiff. Ex.A.1 transaction took place at the provision shop of plaintiff but Ex.A.1 contents scribed at my pan shop. One Sk. Kalesha and V.Suresh Babu(PWs.3 & 4) also present when the deceased borrower received the amount covered under Ex.A.1 from plaintiff. Further PW.2 affirmatively stated that the deceased borrower put his full signature on Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff lent a sum of

Rs.2,20,000/- to deceased borrower as Ex.A.1 and the said amount consists of Rs.1000/- currency notices. The learned advocate although cross examined PW.1 but no any single suggestion put to him that the signature of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao got forged. Thus the evidence of

PW.2 fully corroborated Ex.A.1 transaction without any doubt and demur.

12. Pws.3 & 4 who are attestors who also in cross examination affirmatively stated that Ex.A.1 transaction took place at the house of plaintiff but the contents filled up at the pan shop of PW.2. Pws.3 & 4 reiterated that PW.2 scribed Ex.A.1 contents. Pws.3 & 4 in cross examination emphatically denied the suggestion that signature of deceased borrower on Ex.A.1 is forged. Although the learned advocate for defendant posed such suggestion regarding forgery of signature of deceased borrower on Ex.A.1 but the learned advocate for defendant could not suggest or whisper the specific reasons which made plaintiff to forge the signature of defendant on Ex.A.1. The defendants in the written 7 statement denied acquittance with the plaintiff and also execution of

Ex.A.1 by deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao . But the plaintiff by adducing sufficient oral evidence established the fact of execution of

Ex.A.1 promissory note by deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao. The learned advocate for defendants did not put any single question to Pws.1 to 4 regarding issuance of legal notice to defendants under Ex.A.2.

Although there is no any proof regarding receipt of said notice by defendants 1 to 3 but by filing Ex.A.2 legal notice, plaintiff made out that he demanded due amount from legal heirs of deceased borrower.

13.Further this court keenly scrutinized the Ex.A.1 original promissory note which contents made it clear that the borrower by name Paladi

Venkata Rama Rao appeared to have borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- on 15.03.2015 from plaintiff for meeting expenses of his family and also undertook to repay the said sum together with interest @ 24% p.a. either to plaintiff or to his order on demand. Further Ex.A.1 made it clear PW.2 filled up Ex.A.1 contents whereas Pws.3 & 4 stood as attestors. Thus the oral evidence of Pws.1 to 4 is in-consonance with that of Ex.A.1 document. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff goes to show the deceased borrower borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- and executed Ex.A.1 promissory note in evidence of receipt of consideration.

Thus plaintiff able to establish execution of Ex.A.1 promissory by deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao.

14.Once execution is proved with cogent evidence, a presumption

U/s.118 of Negotiable Instrument Act comes to rescue the case of plaintiff and a presumption can be drawn in favour of plaintiff that consideration under Ex.A.1 duly passed to deceased borrower/promissor unless contra proved. In the present case the defendants have taken specific plea that 8 the signature of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao got forged but they did not deny about the passing of consideration specifically. If really the signatures of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao got forged by plaintiff, defendants ought to have sent such disputed signatures of Paladi

Venkata Rama Rao to hand writing expert so as to compare such disputed signatures of Paladi Venkata Rama Rao with that of his admitted signatures. But to that fact defendants did not take any steps. Moreover the defendants although filed their written statement and also cross examined Pws.1 to 4 at length but they did not adduce their side evidence or enter witness box to give their evidence for the reasons best known to them. Such Abstinence on the part of defendants not entering witness box gives an adverse inference that they have no legs to stand in this case and a presumption also can be drawn that the signatures appended on Ex.A.1 belonged to deceased borrower Paladi Venkata Rama

Rao. Thus this court is of considered view Ex.A.1 is executed by deceased

Paladi Venkata Rama Rao on receipt of consideration for meeting expenses of his family. Thus Ex.A.1 is true, correct, valid and binding on defendants herein and they are liable to pay suit amount to plaintiff out of the estate of deceased borrower which admittedly lying in their hands.

Therefore, Issues 1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendants 1 to 3.

15. ISSUE NO.3:- To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

In view of my findings in issues 1 & 2, suit is liable to be decreed.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.2,78,080/- to plaintiff together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the 9

principal amount of Rs.2,20,000/- out of the estate of deceased Paladi

Venkata Rama Rao which is lying in their hands.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1 : Janjanam Bala Sankar - N O N E -

PW.2 : Janjanam Prasad

PW.3 : Sk. Kalesha

PW.4 : Vangara Suresh Babu

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : Original promissory note dt.15.03.2015 for Rs.2,20,000/- executed by one Paladi Venkata Rama Rao in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A.2 : Office copy of Legal notice dt.19.04.2016 along with postal receipts three in number.

For Defendants: - N I L -

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

P.J.C.J. Chirala.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

10 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.125 of 2016

Between:

Janjanam Bala Sankar S/o late Sriramulu, aged 39 years, Hindu, Business, R/o Door No.4-198, Epurupalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...... Plaintiff.

And

3. Paladi Koteswara Rao S/o late Venkata Rama Rao, aged about 21 years, Hindu, un-employee, R/o C/o Paladi Chinna Rao, Door No.6-8, Main Road, Near Mee Seva Centre,

Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ……....Defendants.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,76,080/- being the principal and interest based on a promissory note dt.15.03.2015 said to have executed by deceased borrower Paladi Venkata Rama Rao and the said amount be recovered out of the estate of said deceased/borrower lying in the hands of Defendants and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 22.04.2016Plaint filed on : 22.04.2016

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose when the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 & 3 by name Paladi Venkata Rama Rao borrowed an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.03.2015 for his family expenses and when the said paladi Venkata Rama Rao executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff, when the said Paladi Venkata Rama Rao died on 07.04.2016 leaving the defendants 1 to 3 as his heirs, when the deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao worked as conductor in APSRTC, Chirala Depot, and his estate was fallen to defendants 1 to 3, when the plaintiff approached the defendants 1 to 3 for discharge the debt, when the defendants postponing the repayment, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants 1 to 3, and at Epurupalem, where the suit promissory note was executed by the 2 deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao during his life time, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.

Valuation : Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.2,78,080/- on which a Court fee of Rs.5226/- is payable but paid Rs.5230/-(excess CF of Rs.4/-) U/sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

This suit is coming on 27.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N. Raju, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri B. Srinivasulu and Sri P. Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocates for Defendants 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments on both side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the defendants 1 to 3 from out of the estate of deceased Paladi Venkata Rama Rao which is lying in their hands do pay to the plaintiff a sum of 2,78,080/- together with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e, 22.04.2016 to till the date of decree i.e., 28.04.2017 and thereafter at 6% p.a. till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,20,000/-; and

2. that the defendants 1 to 3 like-wise do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.11,428/- towards costs of the suit; bearing their own costs of Rs.NIL (No CM & FC is filed on behalf of defendants).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHIRALA.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor PlaintiffDefendants 1 to 3

Stamp on Vakalat2.00 -No CM & FC is filed -

Stamp on Plaint5226.00 Stamps on Process 100.00 Advocate's fee 6000.00 (as claimed) Writing charges100.00 Total 11428.00

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PJCJ.Chirala. // True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIRALA.

OS/124/2015

Indian overseas Bank, Chirala vs Siddavi Yellaiah

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.124 of 2015

Between:

Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Siddavi Yellaiah S/o Somanne, Hindu, aged 46 years, Business, R/o Door No.1-71B, Devangapuri,

Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

This suit is coming on 24.04.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Hemantha Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri B. Rudra Kumar, Advocate for defendant, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of

Rs.45,953/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that:-

The defendant herein approached plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do

Handloom Weaving business and submitted application to bank authorities in turn such application considered by the bank and sanctioned loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to defendant vide loan account

No.311200023 and in evidence thereof the defendant executed credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012 and also demand promissory note and deed of hypothication, hypothicating the goods. Further the defendant agreed to repay loan amount together with interest at 11-50 % p.a and also agreed to pay over due interest at 2% p.a. in 60 equated instalments 2 @ Rs.1150/- per month. Further the defendant agreed to open a Savings

Bank account with plaintiff bank. As per the terms and conditions of agreement the 1st instalment shall commence on 01.07.2012. Later plaintiff bank demanded defendant to pay due amount but the defendant failed to pay due amount for one or other reason. Hence, plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dt.18.02.2015 demanding defendant to pay due amount but having received such notice on 24.02.2015, defendant neither gave any reply nor paid any amount. The plaintiff submitted that as on the date of 13.03.2015, defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.45,953/-.

Hence, the suit.

3.On the otherhand, defendant filed written statement contending that suit is not maintainable either in-law or on facts and put plaintiff strict proof of allegations made in plaint except those that are admitted in his written statement specifically, interalia, contended that plaintiff bank sanctioned loan amount for Handloom Weaving business but after obtaining the said loan, Handloom Weaving business is in serious fluctuations as he sustained huge loss and indebted to several creditors including plaintiff. This defendant submitted that he has no intention to evade debt due to plaintiff bank but they got filed this suit only to harass this defendant and the loan extract account filed by plaintiff bank is not correct and they claimed excessive interest. The defendant submitted that Government of Andhra Pradesh implemented a scheme that

Handloom loans be abolished. Moreover Government asked bank authorities to furnish particulars of Handloom loans as such defendant eligible for such a waiver of loan amount by government. The defendant submitted that he is unable to discharge the debt due to financial in- stability. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Based on the pleadings of the both parties, the following issues have been framed for determination of the suit.

1. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

2. Whether interest claimed by plaintiff bank is exorbitant and usurious as contended by defendant ?

3. To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

5.The plaintiff Bank inorder to prove its case examined its Branch

Manager by name P. Akhil and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is the

Original Loan Application of defendant dt.26.03.2012. Ex.A.2 is demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant in favour of Indian

Overseas Bank, Chirala for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.3 is original deed of

Hypothication dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.4 is repayment form dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.5 is office copy of legal notice dt.18.02.2015 issued by I.O.B Chirala to defendant. Ex.A.6 is served acknowledgment of defendant. Ex.A.7 is true copy of account copy extract of defendant vide account No.038303311200023 issued by Senior

Manager, I.O.B, Chirala.

6.On the otherhand defendant neither adduced any oral nor documentary evidence.

7.I have heard arguments of learned advocate for plaintiff and defendant.

8.ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 :-

1. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

2. Whether interest claimed by plaintiff bank is exorbitant and usurious as contended by defendant ?.

Since these issues are inter-related and inter-connected to each other, as such those issues are taken up together for consideration.

The plaintiff bank filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,953/- from defendant who said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 based on a loan agreement. The plaintiff bank inorder to prove their case examined its branch manager as PW.1 who filed chief affidavit reiterating all the averments as stated in plaint pleadings. The defendant in his written statement itself categorically admitted about availing of loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and also execution of relevant documents in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant simply expressed his in-ability to pay loan amount to plaintiff bank and also expressed that government of Andhra Pradesh may soon abolish

Handloom loans under a scheme and to that effect government directed bank authorities to furnish the particulars of Handloom loans. In view of categorical admission on the part of defendant regarding loan amount of

Rs.50,000/-, it is not necessary for plaintiff to adduce evidence.

9.However, plaintiff bank in order to prove their case examined its manager and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. This court keenly scrutinized the documents filed under Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is loan application which made it clear the defendant herein made loan application to plaintiff bank and sought sanction of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing

Handloom Weaving machinery. Ex.A.1 contains the signatures of defendant. Ex.A.2 demand promissory note. Ex.A.3 Hypothication agreement also executed by defendant on same terms and conditions.

Ex.A.4 repayment form dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Exs.A.1 to

A.4 filed made it clear that defendant herein got availed loan of

Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank and executed documents to that effect.

Thus the loan incurred by defendant is proved with cogent evidence.

10.Further Ex.A.5 legal notice under which plaintiff bank demanded defendant to pay a sum of Rs.45,953/- as on 13.03.2015 and such legal notice got received by defendant under Ex.A.6. However, he could not discharge the due amount. Ex.A.7 true copy of statement of account which stands in the name of defendant goes to show that he has to pay a sum of Rs.45,953/- as on 13.03.2015. The defendant did not dispute

Ex.A.1 to A.7 in any manner. Although defendant disputed about Ex.A.7 loan extract account copy but during cross examination PW.1, defendant did not put a single question to PW.1 denying correctness of Ex.A.7 document in any manner.

11.The learned advocate for defendant during course of cross examination PW.1 elicited about the fact that government of Andhra

Pradesh waived loan account of defendant and credited the said loan amount into the account of defendant recently. Further the learned advocate for defendant elicited that defendant received a sum of

Rs.15,212/- from his loan account maintained from their bank. Further it is elicited that “the Government waived the loan amount due as on 31.03.2014 but he could not mention such fact in his chief affidavit.

Further it is elicited from PW.1 that “the Government sent loan amount of defendant waived to our bank on 01.12.2016 and said fact also not stated in my chief affidavit. PW.1 further admitted in cross examination that “ it is true that I did not file any relevant documents viz., calculation memo after the Government waived the loan amount due by defendant as on 31.03.2014”. The above statement on the part of branch manager goes to show that Government appeared to have waived the loan amount of defendant as on 31.03.2014 but the defendant did not adduce evidence and enter witness box to substantiate such contention of waiver of his loan amount by government. Although the learned advocate for 6 defendant elicited the fact of waiver of loan amount by government but the counsel for defendant did not elicit anything how much amount in the loan account of defendant is waived. It is the bounden duty of defendant to say under what scheme of government waived, the loan amount of defendant to that effect defendant ought to have adduced evidence and proved such fact with cogent evidence. Further there is no any documentary proof adduced by defendant to establish his contention that the government waived the loan amount of defendant maintained at plaintiff bank. The learned advocate for defendant although elicited the fact of waiver from the mouth of PW.1 but such fact elicited by defendant counsel is very vague and un-certain regarding the quantum of amount waived by the government. Hence, in these circumstance plaintiff bank is entitled to recover entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for.

Further the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his contention regarding waiver of Handloom loans. The defendant further contended that the bank claimed excessive interest.

But on perusal of loan agreement, it is clear that plaintiff sought interest as per contract. Moreover the interest claimed by the plaintiff is within the per-view of Reserve Bank of India guidelines. In view of seeking interest within the per-view of loan agreement, it cannot be stated that plaintiff claimed excessive interest. Hence, this court is of considered view the interest claimed by the plaintiff is just and correct. Therefore, in these circumstance this court is of considered view that the debt due to the bank is not yet discharged. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.ISSUE NO.3:- To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.45,953/- to plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest thereon at 6% p.a from the date of filing suit to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of

April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW.01 : P. Akhil- N O N E -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: Original Loan Application of defendant dt.26.03.2012. Ex.A.2: Demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant in favour of Indian Overseas Bank, Chirala for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.3: Original deed of Hypothication dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.4: Repayment form dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.5: Office copy of legal notice dt.18.02.2015 issued by I.O.B Chirala to defendant. Ex.A.6: Served acknowledgment of defendant. Ex.A.7: True copy of account copy extract of defendant vide account No.038303311200023 issued by Senior Manager, I.O.B, Chirala.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

P.J.C.J.,CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

8 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.124 of 2015

Between:

Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Siddavi Yellaiah S/o Somanne, Hindu, aged 46 years, Business, R/o Door No.1-71B, Devangapuri,

Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

This is a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of Rs.45,953/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 24.03.2015Plaint filed on : 01.07.2015

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 26.03.2012, when the 1st Defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do Handloom weaving business and the plaintiff bank agreed to sanction the same under loan account No.311200023 thorugh credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012. The Defendant received loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 and executed a Demand Promissory note on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant executed deed of hypothication dt.26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 11.50% per annum and also agreed overdue interest at 2% p.a and the defenant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest within 60 equal monthly installments at a rate of Rs.1,150/- per month. The 1st instalments shall commence on 01.07.2012. The defendant executed letter and payment schedule on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff Bank. The liability of the defendant is personally and severally. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff Bank officials demanding the defendants to pay the due amount, the defendants failed to pay the due amount. The plaintiff got issued Lawyer notice dt.18.02.2015 demanding the defendant to pay the due amount and the said lawyer notice duly served on 25.02.2015 on the defendant and the defendant did not choose to pay the due amount. As per the statement of the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank in regular course of the business the defendant is liable to pay suit amount of Rs.45,953/- as on 13.03.2015. All the suit transactions took place in plaintiff bank at Chirala and the defendant is residing at Jandrapeta within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court.

Valuation : Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.45,953/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2,266/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF and SV Act.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.45,953/- together with subsequent interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e, 24.03.2015 to till the date of realization; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5431/- towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of the suit is Rs.NIL(No CM & FC is filed on behalf of defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHIRALA.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor PlaintiffDefendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 -No CM & FC is filed -

Stamp on Plaint2266-00 Stamps on Process 65-00 Advocate's fee 2998-00 Writing charges100-00 Total costs of Rs.5431-00

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PJCJ.Chirala.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

OS/126/2015

Indian overseas Bank, Chirala vs Prudhvi venkateswarlu

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.126 of 2015

Between: Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Prudhvi Venkateswarlu S/o China Venkata Subbarao, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business, R/o Door No.2-60, Devangapuri, Jandrapeta,

Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

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

1.This is a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of

Rs.40,838/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that:-

The defendant herein approached plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do

Handloom Weaving business and submitted application to bank authorities in turn such application considered by the bank and sanctioned loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to defendant vide loan account

No.311200015 and in evidence thereof the defendant executed credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012 and also demand promissory note and deed of hypothication, hypothicating the goods. Further the defendant agreed to repay loan amount together with interest at 11-50 % p.a and also agreed to pay over due interest at 2% p.a. in 60 equated instalments 2 @ Rs.1150/- per month. Further the defendant agreed to open a Savings

Bank account with plaintiff bank. As per the terms and conditions of agreement the 1st instalment shall commence on 01.07.2012. Later plaintiff bank demanded defendant to pay due amount but the defendant failed to pay due amount for one or other reason. Hence, plaintiff bank got issued legal notice dt.18.02.2015 demanding defendant to pay due amount but having received such otice on 21.02.2015, defendant neither gave any reply nor paid any amount. The plaintiff submitted that as on the date of 13.03.2015, defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.40,838/-.

Hence, the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings of the both parties, the following issues have been framed for determination of the suit.

1. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

2. To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

5.The plaintiff Bank inorder to prove its case examined its Branch

Manager by name P. Akhil and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is the

Loan Application of defendant dt.26.03.2012. Ex.A.2 is credit sanction advise dt.26.03.2012 of defendant. Ex.A.3 is the demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff bank for

Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.4 is Loan Agreement-cum-Hypothication dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.5 is office copy of legal notice dt.18.02.2015 issued by plaintiff bank to defendant. Ex.A.6 is Acknowledgment of notice by defendant dt.21.02.2015. Ex.A.7 is true copy of statement of account of defendant vide account No.038303311200015 issued by Senior

Manager, I.O.B.

6.On the otherhand defendant neither adduced any oral nor documentary evidence.

7.I have heard arguments of learned advocate for plaintiff and defendant.

8.ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

The plaintiff bank filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,838/- from defendant who said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 based on a loan agreement. The plaintiff bank inorder to prove their case examined its branch manager as PW.1 who filed chief affidavit reiterating all the averments as stated in plaint 4 pleadings. The defendant in his written statement itself categorically admitted about availing of loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and also execution of relevant documents in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant simply expressed his in-ability to pay loan amount to plaintiff bank and also expressed that government of Andhra Pradesh may soon abolish

Rs.50,000/-, it is not necessary for plaintiff to adduce evidence.

9.However, plaintiff bank in order to prove their case examined its manager and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. This court keenly scrutinized the documents filed under Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is loan application which made it clear that the defendant herein made loan application to plaintiff bank and sought sanction of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing

Handloom Weaving machinery. Ex.A.1 contains the signatures of defendant. Ex.A.2 is credit sanction advise under which defendant accepted the terms and conditions of the sanction of credit facilities stipulated by the plaintiff bank. Ex.A.2 made it clear that defendant herein agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equated monthly instalments @ Rs.1150/- per month commencing from 1st July, 2012 together with interest @ 11.50 % p.a. and also agreed to pay over-due interest @ 2% p.a. Ex.A.3 demand promissory note. Ex.A.4 Hypothication agreement also executed by defendant on same terms and conditions.

Exs.A.1 to A.4 filed made it clear that defendant herein got availed loan of

Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank and executed documents to that effect.

Thus the loan incurred by defendant is proved with cogent evidence.

10.Further Ex.A.5 legal notice under which plaintiff bank demanded defendant to pay a sum of Rs.43,557/- as on 31.01.2015 and such legal notice got received by defendant under Ex.A.6. However, he could not discharge the due amount. Ex.A.7 true copy of statement of account which stands in the name of defendant goes to show that he has to pay a sum of Rs.40,838/- as on 13.03.2015. The defendant did not dispute

11.The learned advocate for defendant during course of cross examination PW.1 elicited about the fact that government of Andhra

Pradesh waived loan account of defendant and credited the said loan amount into the account of defendant recently. Further the learned advocate for defendant elicited that defendant received a sum of

Rs.12,537/- from his loan account maintained from their bank. Further it is elicited that “the Government waived the loan amount due as on 31.03.2014 but he could not mention such fact in his chief affidavit.

Further it is elicited from PW.1 that “the Government sent loan amount of defendant waived to our bank on 01.12.2016 and said fact also not stated in my chief affidavit. PW.1 further admitted in cross examination that “ it is true that I did not file any relevant documents viz., calculation memo after the Government waived the loan amount due by defendant as on 31.03.2014”. The above statement on the part of branch manager goes to show that Government appeared to have waived the loan amount of defendant as on 31.03.2014 but the defendant did not adduce evidence and enter witness box to substantiate such contention of waiver of his loan amount by government. Although the learned advocate for 6 defendant elicited the fact of waiver of loan amount by government but the counsel for defendant did not elicit anything how much amount in the loan account of defendant is waived. It is the bounden duty of defendant to say under what scheme of government waived, the loan amount of defendant and to that effect defendant ought to have adduced evidence and proved such fact with cogent evidence. Further there is no any documentary proof adduced by defendant to establish his contention that the government waived the loan amount of defendant maintained at plaintiff bank. The learned advocate for defendant although elicited the fact of waiver from the mouth of PW.1 but such fact elicited by defendant counsel is very vague and un-certain regarding the quantum of amount waived by the government. Hence, in these circumstance plaintiff bank is entitled to recover entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for.

Further the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his contention regarding waiver of Handloom loans.

Therefore, in these circumstance this court is of considered view that the debt due to the bank is not yet discharged. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

12.ISSUE NO.2:- To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

In the result, suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.40,838/- to plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest thereon at 6% p.a from the date of filing suit to till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW.01 : P. Akhil- N O N E -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A.1: Loan Application of defendant dt.26.03.2012. Ex.A.2: Credit sanction advise dt.26.03.2012 of defendant. Ex.A.3: Demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.4: Loan Agreement-cum-Hypothication dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant. Ex.A.5: Office copy of legal notice dt.18.02.2015 issued by plaintiff bank to defendant. Ex.A.6: Acknowledgment of notice by defendant dt.21.02.2015. Ex.A.7: True copy of statement of account of defendant vide account No.038303311200015 issued by Senior Manager, I.O.B.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/-N.RajaSekhar,

P.J.C.J.,CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.126 of 2015

Between: Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Prudhvi Venkateswarlu S/o China Venkata Subbarao, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business, R/o Door No.2-60, Devangapuri, Jandrapeta,

Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of Rs.40,838/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 24.03.2015Plaint filed on : 01.07.2015

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 26.03.2012, when the 1st Defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do Handloom weaving business and the plaintiff bank agreed to sanction the same under loan account No.311200015 through credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012. The Defendant received loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 and executed a Demand Promissory note on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant executed deed of hypothication dt.26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 11.50% per annum and also agreed overdue interest at 2% p.a and the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest within 60 equal monthly installments at a rate of Rs.1,150/- per month. The 1st instalments shall commence on 01.07.2012. The defendant executed letter and payment schedule on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff Bank. The liability of the defendant is personally and severally. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff Bank officials demanding the defendants to pay the due amount, the defendants failed to pay the due amount. The plaintiff got issued Lawyer notice dt.18.02.2015 demanding the defendant to pay the due amount and the said lawyer notice duly served on 21.02.2015 on the defendant and the defendant did not choose to pay the due amount. As per the statement of the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank in regular course of the business the defendant is liable to pay suit amount of Rs.40,838/- as on 13.03.2015. All the suit transactions took place in plaintiff bank at Chirala and the defendant is residing at Jandrapeta within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court.

Valuation : Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.40,838/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2,146/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF and SV Act.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.40,838/- together with subsequent interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e, 24.03.2015 to till the date of realization; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5055/- towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of the suit is Rs.NIL(No CM & FC is filed on behalf of defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHIRALA.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor PlaintiffDefendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 -No CM & FC is filed -

Stamp on Plaint2146-00 Stamps on Process 65-00 Advocate's fee 2742-00 Writing charges100-00 Total costs of Rs.5055-00

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PJCJ.Chirala.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

OS/125/2015

Indian Overseas Bank, Chirala vs Nakkina Damodaram Alias Damadora Rao

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.125 of 2015

Between:

Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Nakkina Damodaram @ Damodara Rao S/o Somaraju, Hindu, aged 39 years, business, R/o Door No.1-108, Devangapuri,

Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

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

1.This is a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of

Rs.40,838/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

2.The brief averments of plaint are that:-

The defendant herein approached plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do

Handloom Weaving business and submitted application to bank authorities in turn such application considered by the bank and sanctioned loan amount of Rs.50,000/- to defendant vide loan account

No.311200024 and in evidence thereof the defendant executed credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012 and also demand promissory note and deed of hypothication, hypothicating the goods. Further the defendant agreed to repay loan amount together with interest at 11-50 % p.a and also agreed to pay over due interest at 2% p.a. in 60 equated instalments 2 @ Rs.1150/- per month. Further the defendant agreed to open a Savings

Hence, the suit.

4.Based on the pleadings of the both parties, the following issues have been framed for determination of the suit.

1. Whether plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

2. To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

5.The plaintiff Bank inorder to prove its case examined its Branch

Manager by name P. Akhil and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is the

Original Loan Application of defendant dt.26.03.2012. Ex.A.2 is demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant in favour of Indian

Overseas Bank, Chirala for Rs.50,000/-. Ex.A.3 is original deed of

Manager, I.O.B, Chirala.

6.On the otherhand defendant neither adduced any oral nor documentary evidence.

7.I have heard arguments of learned advocate for plaintiff and defendant.

8.ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

The plaintiff bank filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,578/- from defendant who said to have borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 based on a loan agreement. The plaintiff bank inorder to prove their case examined its branch manager as PW.1 who filed chief affidavit reiterating all the averments as stated in plaint 4 pleadings. The defendant in his written statement itself categorically admitted about availing of loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and also execution of relevant documents in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant simply expressed his in-ability to pay loan amount to plaintiff bank and also expressed that government of Andhra Pradesh may soon abolish

Rs.50,000/-, it is not necessary for plaintiff to adduce evidence.

9.However, plaintiff bank in order to prove their case examined its manager and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.7. This court keenly scrutinized the documents filed under Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is loan application which made it clear that the defendant herein made loan application to plaintiff bank and sought sanction of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing

Handloom Weaving machinery. Ex.A.1 contains the signatures of defendant. Ex.A.2 demand promissory note dt.26.03.2012, Ex.A.3

Hypothication agreement also executed by defendant on same terms and conditions. Ex.A.4 repayment form dt.26.03.2012 executed by defendant.

Exs.A.1 to A.4 filed made it clear that defendant herein got availed loan of

Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff bank and executed documents to that effect.

Thus the loan incurred by defendant is proved with cogent evidence.

10.Further Ex.A.5 legal notice under which plaintiff bank demanded defendant to pay a sum of Rs.38,578/- as on 13.03.2015 and such legal notice got received by defendant under Ex.A.6. However, he could not discharge the due amount. Ex.A.7 true copy of statement of account which stands in the name of defendant goes to show that he has to pay a sum of Rs.38,578/- as on 13.03.2015. The defendant did not dispute 5

11.The learned advocate for defendant during course of cross examination PW.1 elicited about the fact that government of Andhra

Pradesh waived loan account of defendant and credited the said loan amount into the account of defendant recently. Further the learned advocate for defendant elicited that defendant received a sum of

Rs.10,000/- from his loan account maintained from their bank. Further it is elicited that “the Government waived the loan amount due as on 31.03.2014 but he could not mention such fact in his chief affidavit.

Further it is elicited from PW.1 that “the Government sent loan amount of defendant waived to our bank on 08.12.2016 and said fact also not stated in my chief affidavit. PW.1 further admitted in cross examination that “ it is true that I did not file any relevant documents viz., calculation memo after the Government waived the loan amount due by defendant as on 31.03.2014”. The above statement on the part of branch manager goes to show that Government appeared to have waived the loan amount of defendant as on 31.03.2014 but the defendant did not adduce evidence and enter witness box to substantiate such contention of waiver of his loan amount by government. Although the learned advocate for defendant elicited the fact of waiver of loan amount by government but the counsel for defendant did not elicit anything how much amount in the loan account of defendant is waived. It is the bounden duty of defendant to say under what scheme of government waived, the loan amount of defendant and to that effect defendant ought to have adduced evidence and proved such fact with cogent evidence. Further there is no any 6 documentary proof adduced by defendant to establish his contention that the government waived the loan amount of defendant maintained at plaintiff bank. The learned advocate for defendant although elicited the fact of waiver from the mouth of PW.1 but such fact elicited by defendant counsel is very vague and un-certain regarding the quantum of amount waived by the government. Hence, in these circumstance plaintiff bank is entitled to recover entire suit amount from defendant as prayed for.

Further the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to substantiate his contention regarding waiver of Handloom loans.

12.ISSUE NO.2:- To what relief, if any, is plaintiff entitled ?

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of

April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

PW.01 : P. Akhil- N O N E - 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

P.J.C.J.,CHIRALA.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

O.S.No.125 of 2015

Between:

Indian Overseas Bank,

represented by its Branch Manager, Chirala. ...... Plaintiff.

And

Nakkina Damodaram @ Damodara Rao S/o Somaraju, Hindu, aged 39 years, business, R/o Door No.1-108, Devangapuri,

Jandrapeta, Chirala Mandal. …....Defendant.

This is a suit filed by Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of Rs.40,838/- being the principal and interest based on a loan agreement dt.26.03.2012 said to have executed by defendant and for costs.

Plaint Presented on : 24.03.2015Plaint filed on : 01.07.2015

Cause of Action : Cause of action for the suit arose on 26.03.2012, when the 1st Defendant approached the plaintiff bank for loan amount of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of working capital to do Handloom weaving business and the plaintiff bank agreed to sanction the same under loan account No.311200024 through credit sanction advice dt.26.03.2012. The Defendant received loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 26.03.2012 and executed a Demand Promissory note on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant executed deed of hypothication dt.26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest at 11.50% per annum and also agreed overdue interest at 2% p.a and the defendant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest within 60 equal monthly installments at a rate of Rs.1,150/- per month. The 1st instalments shall commence on 01.07.2012. The defendant executed letter and payment schedule on 26.03.2012 in favour of plaintiff Bank. The liability of the defendant is personally and severally. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff Bank officials demanding the defendants to pay the due amount, the defendants failed to pay the due amount. The plaintiff got issued Lawyer notice dt.18.02.2015 demanding the defendant to pay the due amount and the said lawyer notice duly served on 24.02.2015 on the defendant and the defendant did not choose to pay the due amount. As per the statement of the account copy maintained by the plaintiff bank in regular course of the business the defendant is liable to pay suit amount of Rs.38,578/- as on 13.03.2015. All the suit transactions took place in plaintiff bank at Chirala and the defendant is residing at Jandrapeta within the jurisdiction of this

Hon'ble court.

Valuation : Value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, the suit is valued at Rs.38,578/-, on which a court fee of Rs.2,086/- is paid U/s.20 of APCF and SV Act.

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.38,578/- together with subsequent interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e, 24.03.2015 to till the date of realization; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4882/- towards costs of the suit, bearing his own costs of the suit is Rs.NIL(No CM & FC is filed on behalf of defendant).

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHIRALA.

Table of Costs

ParticularsForFor PlaintiffDefendant

Stamp on Vakalat2-00 -No CM & FC is filed -

Stamp on Plaint2086-00 Stamps on Process 65-00 Advocate's fee 2629-00 Writing charges100-00 Total costs of Rs.4882-00

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

PJCJ.Chirala.

// True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHIRALA.

OS/88/2017

Gopidesi Samba Siva Rao vs Middiboina Yedukondalu

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No. 88 of 2017

Between: Gopidesi Samba Siva Rao S/o Ramaiah, aged 48 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Gavinivaripalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Middiboina Yedukondalu S/o Pitchaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Mason, R/o Gavinivaripalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,54,734/- is made up of (1) Rs.77,367/- being the principal and interest due on a suit promissory note dt.10.12.2014 for Rs.50,000/- and (b) Rs.77,367/- being the principal and interest due on a suit promissory note dated 10.12.2014 and for Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 30% p.a. for subsequent interest and for costs. But interest claimed at 24% p.a.

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and summons of defendant served personally, but called absent, plaintiff counsel filed a joint memo stating the matter is adjusted out of court and suit is dismissed as settled out of court, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Defendant called absent. However advocate for plaintiff filed a joint memo stating that this matter is adjusted out of court. Memo recorded. Hence, suit is dismissed as settled out of court.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 27th day of January,

2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Chirala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-N I L -

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

Prl.J.C.J. Chirala.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHIRALA

Present: Sri N. Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala.

Thursday, this the 27th day of April, 2017

Original Suit No.88 of 2017

Between:

Gopidesi Samba Siva Rao S/o Ramaiah, aged 48 years, Hindu, cultivation, R/o Gavinivaripalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Middiboina Yedukondalu S/o Pitchaiah, aged 45 years, Hindu, Mason, R/o Gavinivaripalem,

Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... Defendant.

Plaint presented on: 24.03.2017 Plaint filed on: 24.03.2017

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 10.12.2014 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively from the plaintiff for his cultivation expenses purpose and when the defendant executed two separate promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff on the same date for Rs.50,000/- each and failed to repay the same with interest by taking time after time on some pretext or other and where the pronotes transaction took place and plaintiff and defendant residing at Gavinivaripalem, Chirala Mandal is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Valuation: The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,54,734/-(Rs.77,367/- + Rs.77,367/-), on which a court fee of Rs.5892/-(Rs.2,946/- + Rs.2,946/-) is paid U/sec.20 of APCF & SV Act.

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as settled out of court; and

2. that there be no order as to costs. (No CM & FC is filed on either side)

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 27th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala.

TABLE OF COSTS

- N I L -

Sd/-N.Raja Sekhar,

Prl.J.C.J. Chirala.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Chirala.

Order Record 896 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/4/2017	Nandam Ravi Babu vs Mukiri Ravi	01 May 2017	Order	—
EP/25/2010	SADU VENKATA SUBBA RAO vs DESU SRINIVASA RAO	01 May 2017	Order	—
EP/33/2016	Tanneeru Venkata Srinivasa Rao vs Kattula Muddu Srinivasa Babu	01 May 2017	Order	—
OS/125/2016	Janjanam Bala Sankar vs Paladi Raja Sumathi	28 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/88/2017	Gopidesi Samba Siva Rao vs Middiboina Yedukondalu	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/124/2015	Indian overseas Bank, Chirala vs Siddavi Yellaiah	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/125/2015	Indian Overseas Bank, Chirala vs Nakkina Damodaram Alias Damadora Rao	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/126/2015	Indian overseas Bank, Chirala vs Prudhvi venkateswarlu	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/169/2014	Yericharla Salmon Raju vs Yericharla Persi	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/222/2016	Chekuri Yemiliyamma vs Devathoti Bullemma	27 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/45/2016	Sapram Sankara Rao vs Damarla Dhana Lakshmi	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/294/2011	CHIRALA NEW FASSIONS REP BY ITS PROPRIATE vs MAHATHAMMA GANDHI CLOTHN MARKET KAMITI	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/326/2016	Vemula Satya Sundara Rao vs Vemula Babu Suvarna Latha	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/372/2016	Padarthi Raju Babu vs Nagineni Srinivasulu	26 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/90/2015	Pinjala Madhavi vs Lella Rama Krishna	25 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/154/2015	Indian overseas Bank vs Busam Nageswara Rao	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/155/2015	Indian Overseas Bank vs Busam Mohan rao	25 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/357/2016	Angadi Krishna vs Uyyala Nageswara Rao	24 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/32/2016	Karedla Venkata Subba Rao vs Mallela Venkateswarlu	21 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/1/2015	Gade Himaja vs Gade Lakshmi	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/202/2016	Pidatala Prem Kumar vs Davaleswaram Chindambarachari	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/367/2016	Ganta Chennaiah vs Anala Venkata Ramana	21 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/40/2016	Koya Pothuraju vs Billa Ravi Kumar	20 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/84/2012	Pavuluri Balarama Krishna vs Rajupalepu Uma Maheswara Rao	19 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/26/2016	Potluri sambasiva Rao vs Barlapudi Srinivasa Rao	18 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/27/2016	Pallapolu Srinivasa rao vs Doguparthi Veerabrahmam	18 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/62/2015	Chunduri Krishna Murthy vs Shaik John	18 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/4/2008	mella venkata subba rao vs MALLELA BALA RAMA MURTHY	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/77/2017	Panchumarthy venkata Saibabu vs Kavuri Ramesh	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/205/2016	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank vs Smt. Kathi Sarala Devi	18 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/48/2016	Ms.Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd. vs Kommanaboina Purna Rao	17 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/144/2015	Dantham Venkateswarlu vs Gavini Naga raju	12 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/70/2017	Pakanati Krishnareddy vs Gali Venkata Ramanareddy	11 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/199/2011	KOGANTI LAKSHMI TAYARU vs TELLA NARASIMHA RAO	10 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/354/2011	Asodi Vijaya Bhasakar Rao vs Asodi Siva Rama Subba Reddy	10 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
EP/22/2016	Gudavalli Ravindranath Tagore vs Mukkala Prabhakara Rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/51/2016	Muntha Venkateswara rao vs Nukathoti Kishore Babu	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/170/2016	Addanki Murali Krishna vs Madasu Veeraiah	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/198/2011	jonnala padma vs Vstella narasimha rao	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/204/2016	Mulagani Venkata Sudhakar Reddy vs Balamala Suneetha	08 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/83/2015	Shriam Chits Pvt. Ltd., Chirala, represented by its Branch Manager cum Foreman vs Syed Babu	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
EP/87/2015	Ms. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Ongole vs Chimakurthy Kumara Swamy	07 Apr 2017	Order	—
OS/275/2011	PACHARU KOTESWARRAO vs SYAYED SARAZ	06 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/23/2017	Reddy Subba Rao vs Yarravarapu Srinivasa Rao	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/24/2017	Mutyala Dharma Rao vs Yarravarapu Srinivasa Rao	04 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/22/2017	Kaki Annapurna vs Gajjarapu Narayana Rao	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/64/2017	Sri Srinivasa Cycle Stores, rep by Gopu Ranga Rao vs Sri Lakshmi Cycle shop, Tenali repy by K. Baji	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/76/2014	Aluru Ramesh vs Gollapudi Hanumantha Rao	03 Apr 2017	Judgment	—
OS/34/2017	Peeka Sangeetha Rao vs Perli Manikya Rao	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/227/2008	nAYANI VENKATESWARLU vs VspAKALA JHANSI RANI	31 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/188/2015	Marripudi Adinarayana vs Gutti Venkata Subrahmanyam	30 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/44/2016	Ballapudi Rangamma vs Vallepu Subba rao	28 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/24/2011	SANKASIVA RAMA PRASAD vs SANKA VENKATERWARLU	28 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/55/2016	Pedasingu Srinivasa rao vs Danduprolu Raghavulu	27 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/277/2016	Lingala Marthamma vs Lingala Manimma	27 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/53/2016	Bommisetty Haranadha Murali vs Gavini Venkanna	24 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/48/2017	Are Siva Koti Reddy vs Kamjula Siva reddy	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/279/2015	Attuluri srinivasa rao vs Gavini Satyanarayana	24 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/5/2012	Nakkala Koteswara Rao vs Nakkala Venkateswar	23 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/29/2015	Chappidi Nageswara Rao vs The Andhra Bank	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/112/2016	State Bank on India vs Dasari Rohini	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/229/2011	Gottipolu Malleswari vs Tella Narasimha Rao	16 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/39/2016	Ummiti Umamaheswara rao vs Lella Venkata Subbaiah	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/134/2009	ANNAM RANGA KUMARI vs VISSA VEERAIAH	15 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/55/2016	Bhavanam Harinarayana vs Tammisetty Venkateswarlu	14 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/92/2011	gudise padmakumari@ nagamma vs Vspalathoti sundara rao	10 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/20/2016	Kalli Nageswara rao vs Ganji Koteswara Rao	09 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/253/2015	Shaik Mastan vali vs Kaveti Venkateswarlu	08 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/18/2013	Meda Venkata Ratnam vs Akurathi Devendranadham	07 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/19/2010	PALAGANI YELLAMANDA REDDY vs PALAGANI SUBBAREDDY	07 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/2/2016	Penugonda Bhuvaneswari vs Ms. Indian Cashews, Vetapalem	06 Mar 2017	Order	—
EP/3/2016	Penugonda Chandrakala vs Ms. The Indian Cashews, Vetapalem	06 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/154/2016	Kondragunta Chandrasekhar vs Yadavalli Krishna	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/163/2016	Kondragunta Chandrasekhar vs Yadavalli Krishna	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/193/2016	Vankayalapati Latha vs Yadavalli Krishna	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/224/2016	Vakkalagadda Peresh Kumar vs Union Bank of India	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/328/2016	Shaik Noorabi vs Turlapati Venkata Naga Sudhakara Rao	03 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/48/2015	Shriram Chits private Limited vs Devarakonda Ravindranadh	02 Mar 2017	Order	—
OS/68/2014	Vallampatla Venkata Rama Prasad vs Drakharam Sundara Murthy	02 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/133/2016	Gavini Nageswara Rao vs Kukkala Anki Reddy	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
OS/136/2016	Gavini Nageswara Rao vs Boddu Gopal Reddy	01 Mar 2017	Judgment	—
EP/11/2016	Kapil chil funds private limited, Chirala vs Dabbakuti Venkata Jagan Mohana Rao	28 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/246/2015	Chakka Cehnnakesavulu vs Vutukuri Rama mohan	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/263/2011	Kuchipudi Baburao vs Gorantla Krishna Tulasi	28 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/20/2014	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Chirala vs Karneti Nagamalleswara Rao	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/57/2013	Chunduri Srihari Rao vs Chunduri Siva Prasada Rao	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/64/2013	Chunduri Srihari Rao vs Macha Ayyappa Reddy	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/199/2015	Prudhvi Ramesh vs Pinjala Suresh Babu	27 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/27/2016	Sri Venkateswara Furnishings Chirala vs Sikhakolli Venkateswara rao	25 Feb 2017	Order	—
EP/21/2016	CCKR Chits and Finance Pvt. LTD., rep. by its Assistant Manager, Ongole vs Ghanta Chennaiah	22 Feb 2017	Order	—
OS/91/2015	Komatla Subbaramireddy vs The District Collector, Ongole	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/147/2015	Shaik Dariya Babu vs Jagabathuni Venkata Niranjan	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/185/2016	Dontiboina Venkateswara Reddy vs Bhasamgari Dharamaiah	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/264/2016	Muttukuri Venkaiah vs Chintakayala Rudra Murthy	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/4/2017	Veerla Pradeep vs Palaparthi Adi Lakshmi	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/152/2015	Syndicate Bank vs Chandraju Subrahmanya Raju	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/186/2011	NANNAPANENI KISHORE BABU vs TELLA NARASIMHA RAO	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/187/2011	VELAGARAJYALAKSHMI vs TELLA NARSIMHARAO	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/190/2011	INALA SUBHAKARA RAO vs TELLA NARASIMHA RAO	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/192/2011	MALLAMPATI NAGESWARA RAO vs TELLA NARASIMHA RAO	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 896 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2017		3
Apr 2017		45
Mar 2017		33
Feb 2017		51
Jan 2017		42
Dec 2016		64
Nov 2016		37
Oct 2016		26
Sep 2016		37
Aug 2016		44
Jul 2016		23
Jun 2016		59

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., handled?

Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., has handled 1028 court orders since 2015 at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 45 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., hear?

Based on available records, Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka).

Where is Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., currently posted?

Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., is posted as Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., available online?

Yes. 7 judgments by Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., dispose cases?

Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., disposes approximately 45 cases per month, based on 1028 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka).

Since when is Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., serving?

Sri N. Raja Sekhar, B.Sc., LL.B., has been serving at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka) since 2015.

Case Types

OS 76%

EP 23%

RCC 1%

FDP 0%

Posting History

Nov 2015 — May 2017

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala · 791 orders
Jun 2015 — Oct 2015

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala · 237 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt.B.Baby Rani

Senior Civil Judge, Chirala

0 orders

Smt M.Venkata Vahini

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chirala

639 orders

Smt. J.Katyaini

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chirala

1,611 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge, Chirala (Taluka)