N. Santhosh Kumar

S.C.No.270 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MANCHERIAL

Present:­ N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal 

FAC : Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial,

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

S.C.No.270 of 2013

(On committal by Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur in P.R.C.No.9 of 2013, dt.16.07.2013 in Cr.No.21/2012 of Police Station, Jaipur)

Name of the Complainant : The State through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Jaipur.

Name of the Accused: Jummidi Thirupathi, s/o.Bhumaiah, Age:23 years, occ: Coolie, r/o.Arepalli village, Jaipur mandal.

Offence alleged against the: Under Sections 306 and 498­A I.P.C. accused

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Accused: Found not guilty.

Order of sentence or acquittal: The Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498­A I.P.C. and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for six months as contemplated under section 437­A Cr.P.C.

This Sessions case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18.02.2019 in the presence of Sri N. Raj Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M. Ravinder Rao, Advocate for accused and having heard and stood over for determination till today, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The State through the Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station,

Jaipur has filed the charge­sheet against the accused for the offences 

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­2­ punishable under Sections 306 and 498­A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C’).

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2012 at about 4.00 p.m. the de­facto complainant by name Sri Balla Sammaiah (PW.1) came to police station, Jaipur and lodged a report stating that, his elder sister Krishnaveni (hereinafter referred to “deceased”) committed suicide by hanging. Hence Pw­1 lodged a report requesting for necessary action. 

3.Basing on the Report lodged by PW1 Balla Sammaiah, PW­9

Sri.J.Shyamsunder, Sub­Inspector of Police, Police Station, Jaipur registered a case in Crime No.211/2012 306 IPC by registering FIR.

During the course of investigation, PW­9 Sri. J.Shyamsunder, Sub­

Inspector of Police, Police Station, Jaipur examined and recorded the statement of de­facto complainant Balla Sammaiah (PW­1) besides visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators; and prepared the scene of offence panchanama by incorporating the details in Crime Details Form and seized Chunni pieces from the scene of offence. Later Inquest over the dead body of deceased was held at Government Hospital, Mancherial in the presence of mediators and autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was conducted and it is opined that the cause of the death of deceased was due to cardio respiratory arrest due to neurogenic secondary to asphixio following hanging. In the meantime, on 29.12.2012 the accused was apprehended and on interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence pertains to this case,

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­3­ hence the accused was arrested and produced before the concerned

Magistrate Court for judicial custody. During the course of investigation,

it was revealed that the Accused has subjected the deceased to cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide. After completion of investigation,

PW.9 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Secs.306 and 498­A IPC before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Chennur. 

4.Later on filing and verification of the said Charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chennur took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs.306 and 498­A I.P.C. against the accused and registered the same as P.R.C.No.9/2013. Later by following the procedure prescribed by law, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Chennur furnished the copies of documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter committed the case to the

Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Adilabad as per

procedure. Later, the Hon'ble Principal District Sessions Court,

Adilabad, in turn, registered this case as S.C.No.270/2013 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, the charges for the offences punishable under Secs.306 and 498­A I.P.C. were framed against the accused, the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, for

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­4­ which the accused has denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 on its behalf. PW.1 Balla

Sammiah is the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased. PW.2

Balla Durgamma is the mother of the deceased. PW.3 Balla Kumar is the younger brother of the deceased. PW.4 Jadi Mallaiah elder maternal uncle of deceased. PW.5 Sundilla Gattaiah is the mediator for scene of offence and inquest. PW.6 Balla Malleshwari is the younger sister of the deceased. PW.7 Dr.M.Yashwanth Rao is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued P.M.E.

report. PW.8 Sri Jangidi Ramesh, photographed the dead body of the deceased. PW.9 J.Shyam Sunder, Investigation Officer who filed charge sheet against the accused.

7.After closure of the evidence of all prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by placing before him the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused has denied the incriminating evidence placed before him and reported no evidence in support of his defence. 

8.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material on record. 

9.Basing on the contention on both sides, now the point for determination before this court is:

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­5­ “Whether the prosecution has established its case

against the accused for the charges under

Sections 306 and 498­A I.P.C. beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

10.POINT:To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Sections 306 and 498­A IPC, the Prosecution has able to prove that the accused being the husband of deceased subjected the deceased to cruelty by harassing her both mentally and physically and consequently the deceased was died due to abetment of accused. 

11.Sri. Balla Sammaiah is the Defacto complainant and elder brother of the deceased examined as PW.1 and according to him, the marriage of his sister Krishnaveni was performed with the accused in the year 2012 and thereafter both of them lived happily for some time after that she was suffered with stomach ache and unable to bear the said stomach ache, his deceased sister Krishnaveni hang herself and was died. Thereafter he went to the police station Jaipur, where the police have obtained his signature under Ex.P1 on white blank paper. Thus,

PW.1 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, declared PW.1 as hostile and cross examined PW.1 to elicit the truth. In spite of the cross examination of PW.1 by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing in favour of the prosecution was

elicited, except placing certain suggestions about the involvement of accused, but the same have been denied by PW.1. PW.1 in his cross examination also denied to have given his 161 Cr.P.C. statement to the

Police as in Ex.P2.

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­6­

12.Smt. Balla Durgamma and Sri Balla Kumar are the mother and younger brother of deceased examined as PW.2 and 3 respectively and according to them, the marriage of Krishnaveni was performed with the accused in the year 2012 and thereafter both of them lived happily for some time after that she was suffered with stomach ache and unable to bear the said stomach ache, the deceased Krishnaveni hang herself and was died. Thus, PW.2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, declared PW.2 and 3 as hostile and cross examined PW.2 and 3 to elicit the truth. In spite of the cross examination of PW.2 and 3 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, nothing in favour of the prosecution was elicited, except placing certain suggestions about the involvement of accused, but the same have been denied by PW.2 and 3 and they also denied to have given their 161

Cr.P.C. statements to the Police as in Exs.P3 and P4 respectively.

13.Sri Jadi Mallaiah and Kum. Balla Malleshwari are the elder maternal uncle and younger sister of the deceased examined as

PWs.4 and 6 respectively; according to them, the deceased Krishnaveni was died by hanging due to unbearable stomach ache. Thus, PWs.4 and 6 did not support the prosecution case about the involvement of accused and turned hostile. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court, declared PWs.4 and 6 as hostile and cross examined PWs.4 and 6 to elicit the truth. In spite of the cross examination of PWs.4 and 6 by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor,

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­7­ nothing in favour of the prosecution was elicited. PWs.4 and 6 in their cross examination denied to have given their 161 Cr.P.C. statements to the Police as in Exs.P5 and P8 respectively.

14.Sri Sundilla Gattaiah is the mediator for scene of offence and inquest panchanama examined as PW.5 and according to him, about 6 years ago on one day the Police Jaipur have conducted scene of offence by incorporating the details of scene of offence in Ex.P6 Crime

Details Form and conducted Ex.P7 inquest panchanamas in his presence and in the presence of Kamatham Balaiah/LW.10. 

15. Dr. M. Yashwanth Rao is the then Civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt.

Area Hospital, Mancherial examined as PW.7 and according to him, he autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Krishnaveni and issued

Ex.P9 Post Mortem Examination report. 

16.Sri Jangidi Ramesh is the photographer examined as PW.8 and according to him, on 25.12.2012 the Police Jaipur have summoned him for taking the photographs of the dead body of a deceased woman and accordingly he obtained Ex.P10 consist of 6 positive colour photographs and handed over the same to the Police, Jaipur. 

17.Sri J. Shyam Sunder is thethen Sub­Inspector of Police,

Jipuar and the Investigating Officer examined as PW.9  and according to him, on 20.05.2012 basing on report lodged by PW.1, he registered a case in Cr.NO.211/2012 for the offence Under Section 306 IPC by

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­8­ issuing Ex.P11 First Information Report. Pw­9 further deposed that later he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene offence and inquest panchanamas, in the presence of two mediators and recorded the statement of PW.1 and got photographed the dead body of the deceased by PW.8 and seized two pieces Chunni used by the deceased to hang and sent the dead body of the deceased to the duty Medical Officer at the

Government Hospital Mancherial for autopsy and thereafter he recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of other witnesses. On reliable information, he apprehended the accused at Arepalli village, on oral interrogation, the accused confessed to have committed the offence, hence he arrested the accused and produce before the concerned court for judicial custody and after concluding the entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

18. In the present case on hand, the accused is charged for the offences under section 498­A and 306 IPC. In these circumstances, it is relevant to go through the provisions of Sec. 498­A IPC, which reads as under : 

498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her

to cruelty—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­9­

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

19. The plain reading of the above section would disclose that harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her husband or any person related to her to meet such demand amounts to cruelty, which is punishable. The explanation defines the expression ‘cruelty’ and clause (a) pertains to willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) and clause (b) deals with harassment with a view to secure fulfillment of an unlawful demand or when such harassment is on account of failure to fulfill such demand.

20.The accused is also charged for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Section 306 IPC prescribes the punishment against a person who abets the deceased to commit the suicide, whereas section 107 IPC defined the abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­10­

Even assuming for a moment that the accused has uttered any word in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. In the present case on hand, there is no whisper in the testimonies of PWs.1 to 5 that accused abated or instigated commission of suicide by the deceased.

21. In the present case on hand, the accused is charged for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and thereby abetted the deceased to commit suicide. PW.1 is the elder brother of the deceased deposed that on the date of alleged incident, the deceased Krishnaveni hanged herself due to unbearable stomach ache and died, hence he lodged Ex.P1 report.

The testimony of PW.1 did not reveals the person responsible for the death of the deceased. PW.2 to 4 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased stated that the deceased hanged herself and committed suicide due to unbearable stomach pain. On considering the testimonies of PWs.1 to 4 and 6, there is no corroboration among their testimonies as to the cause why the deceased has committed suicide. Be that as it may, PWs. 1 to 4 and 6 did not state before this court as per their previous version stated

before the police. Therefore the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

rightly declared PWs.1 to 4 and 6 as hostile and in spite of their cross examination, nothing in favour of prosecution is elicited proving the involvement of accused regarding the alleged cruelty and abatement. 

22. According to the prosecution case the accused person is alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and that and as a consequence of abetment, the deceased Krishnaveni has committed

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­11­ suicide on 25.12.2012. PW1 is none other than the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased who set the law in motion though stated above the marriage of the deceased with the accused, but he caterrogically deposed that his sister/deceased has suffered with stomach ache and unable to bear the same, she has commit suicide by hanging herself and that the police have obtained his signature under

Ex.P1 on blank paper. PWs.2 to 4 and 6 are none other than the close relatives of deceased too deposed that the deceased was died unable to bear her stomach ache, but not due to the alleged harassment of accused. 

23.The evidence of PW.7 medical officer at Government Area

Hospital, Mancherial reveals that on 25.12.2012 he conducted post

Mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the death of the deceased was due to Cardio respiratory arrest following the hanging. This testimony of PW7 reveals that the death of the deceased was caused due to hanging. The testimony of PW9 investigating officer deposed as per the investigation done by him. As seen from the testimonies of PWs.1 to 9, except PW.9, there was no involvement of accused in any manner.

24.As could be seen from the Prosecution case, PWs.1 to 4 and 6 are the family members of deceased and the material witnesses did not support the Prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, I am of the view that the crucial and necessary ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused was not established

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­12­ and that the suicide of deceased was not the result of abetment of the accused.

25.In view of the above said facts, circumstances and the discussed as stated above, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 498­A and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence I find that the accused is found not guilty of the charges under Sections 498­A and 306 IPC and accordingly the accused is to be acquitted for the said charges. In this case, the Police Jaipur have deposited the case property viz. Two pieces of Chunny, which is non­valuable in nature and that nobody have claimed for the same till this day, therefore it is just and appropriate to pass an order for its destruction, after appeal time is over.

26.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 498­A and 306 IPC and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437­A Cr.P.C. The case property viz. Two pieces of Chunni are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist directly on the computer, Corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of February 2019. 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIRMAL. 

FAC:PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

S.C.No.270 of 2013 ­13­

For Prosecution:­ For Defence:­ None

PW1: Sri.Ball Sammaiah (Defacto Complainant and brother of deceased) PW2: Smt.Balla Durgamma (Mother of the deceased) PW3: Sri. Balla Kumar (Elder brother of the deceased) PW4: Smt. Jadi Mallaiah (Elder maternal uncle of the deceased) PW5: Sri. Sundilla Gattaiah (Mediator for Ex.P6) PW6: Balla Malleshwari (Elder sister of the deceased) PW7: Dr.M.Yashwanth Rao (Civil Asst. Surgeon Govt. Area Hospital, Mancherial) PW8: Jangidi Ramesh (Photographer) PW9: J. Shyam Sunder (Inspector of Police, Jaipur and I.O. filed the charge sheet)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:­ Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the original report. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.4. Ex.P6: Crime Details Form, dt.25.12.2012. Ex.P7: Inquest Panchanama, dt.25.12.2012 . Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.6. Ex.P9: Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex.P10: 6 positive colour photographs of the deceased. Ex.P11: First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO1: Two pieces of Chunny

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIRMAL. 

FAC:PRL.ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

MANCHERIAL

Present:­ N. Santosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal 

FAC: Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial,

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

O.S.No.132 of 2018

Between

P. Suresh Kumar Jain s/o. A. Parasmal Jain, age: 52 years, occ: Business, r/o.H.No.4­29/1, Paras Nivas, First Floor, Above Chola Insurance Express, Opp: Laxmi Talkies, Mancherial, District: Mancherial.

..Plaintiff

//A N D//

Mohammad Pasha s/o.Ameer Ali, age: 58 years, Occ: Singareni Employee, r/o.H.No.11­7, Opp: Police Station, Gandhi nagar, CCC Naspur, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial district. 

..Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing on 25.02.2019 in the presence of P. Sanjay Kumar Jain, Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant remained ex­parte and having heard and stood over for consideration till to­day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T 

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,84,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs eighty four thousand only) with interest and costs.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, are that on 11.06.2017 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 original promissory note, dt.11.06.2017 in favour of plaintiff and promised to repay the same with interest @24% per annum as and when demanded. But, thereafter, in spite of demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of original of Ex.A2 legal notice, dt.01.02.2018, the defendant did not ­2­ repay the suit amount. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of

Rs.3,84,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs eighty four thousand only) with cost and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

3.In spite of proper service of summons on the defendant, he did not appear before this court, therefore the defendant was set­ex­parte. 

4.In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff Sri Suresh

Kumar Jain examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. The plaintiff got examined the second attestor of Ex.A1

Promissory note namely Mohd.Sadiq as PW.2 and also got examined the scribe of Ex.A1 Promissory note namely Md.Arifuddin as PW.3. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note, dt.11.06.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.01.02.2018 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. Ex.A3 consist of two returned postal covers of defendant. 

5.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record. 

6.Now the point for consideration before this court is:

“whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount

from the defendant with costs and interest as prayed for?” 

7.Point: The plaintiff who examined as PW1 testified all the facts by reiterating the averments of plaint. According to PW1, at the request of defendant, he advanced an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ to the defendant, for which the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note ­3­ with a promise to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Ex.A1 Promissory note shows that the defendant having received the suit amount, promised to repay the suit amount with interest @2% per month as and when demanded. Ex. A2 is the office copy of legal notice showing the proof of written demand made by the plaintiff to the defendant to return the suit amount with interest, whereas Ex.A3 consist of two returned postal covers of defendant showing the proof of dispatch and return of original of Ex.A2 legal notice to the defendant. The pleadings of plaintiff and the testimonies of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 are remain unchallenged.

8.The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 goes to show that defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 11.06.2017 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the same with interest @24% per annum. But, thereafter, in spite of demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of original of Ex.A2 legal notice, dt.01.02.2018, the defendant did not repay the due amount. Thus, the plaintiff has proved Ex.A1 by examining himself as PW.1 and got examining its attestor and scribe as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.3,84,000/­ along with costs and interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the principal sum of Rs.3,00,000/­(Rupees three lakhs only) from the defendant. Thus the point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

­4­

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,84,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs eighty four thousand only) together with pendente lite interest @12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realisation on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) to the plaintiff.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of February 2019. 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIRMAL. 

FAC:PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant: (Exparte)

PW­1:Sri P. Suresh Kumar JainNone (Plaintiff) PW­2: Mohammad Sadiq (Second attestor of Ex.A1) PW­3:Mohammad Arifuddin (Scribe of Ex.A1)

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original promissory note, dt.11.06.2017. Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.01.02.2018. Ex.A3: Two returned postal covers of defendant.

For defendant: Nil

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NIRMAL.

FAC:PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT MANCHERIAL

Present:- Smt. R. Sree Lekha, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2017

Between Ramalla Narendhar, S/o.Gattaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o.H.No.1-76/1, Jyothi Nagar, Teegalpahad, Mandal: Naspur, District: Mancherial.

...PETITIONER

A N D

Ramalla Alivelu, W/o.Narendhar, Age: 32 years, Occ: Office subordinate, R/o.H.No.16-31, Prashanth Nagar, CCC Naspur, Mandal: Naspur, District: Mancherial.

...RESPONDENT

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Vodnala Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioner and and Sri Budde Sathaiah, Advocate for Respondent and having heard and stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Petitioner present. Memo filed by the petitioner through his counsel received. Respondent called absent. Memo filed by the counsel for petitioner that the petition is not pressed. In view of the same, the petition is dissmissed as not pressed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of March 2019.

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

-NIL-

PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

Present:­Sri N Santhosh Kumar,

Senior Civil Judge,Nirmal,

FAC: Prl Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial,

Monday, this the 25 th day of February, 2019

E.P.No.05 of 2019

Between:

Embadi Mallesham, R/o. Ponkal village, of Jannaram Manndal, of Adilabad District. ...Decree Holder // And // 1)Gudla Rajanna and another, R/o.H.No.1­28, Ramnagar, Ponkal, Mandal. Jannaram, District. Adilabad.

2) Gudla Saroja, R/o.H.No.1­281, Ram Nagar, Ponkal, Mandal.Jannaram, District.Adilabad. ...Judgment Debtors

This petition is coming on before me in presence ofSri J Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate for the Decree Holder and having heard and stood over for consideration till to­day, this Court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

This case is pertaining to Juridiction of Honourable Addl. Senior Civil

Judge (FTC) Luxettipet. Hence transfer to Addl. Senior Civil Judge (FTC)

Luxettipet. On point of Juridiction.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this the 25 th day of February, 2019.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANCHERIAL.