Currently Serving

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi

Prl JCJ cum JMFC

Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex · Nagarkurnool · Telangana

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi, Prl JCJ cum JMFC, is posted at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana, India. 946 court orders on record since 2024. 6 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

946

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/112/2019 Acquitted

Karigalla Venkataiah vs Mavilla Anjaneyulu

31 Mar 2026

1 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF II. ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Ms. Nadigottu Srinidhi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026.

C.C.No: 112 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through P.S.Bijinapally.

...Complainant.

AND Mavilla Anjaneyulu S/o Ramulu, Aged 30 years, Occ: Driver., R/o Vattem Village, Bijinapally Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of the

Learned APP for the Prosecution and Sri. V. Raghunath Rao, O. Ramesh,

Defense Counsel and having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following.,

J U D G M E N T

1.This case is filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offence punishable under section 304 (A) of IPC.

2.The facts of the case is that on 22-05-2018 at 10:00 hrs the

Complainant(Lw1) lodged a report before Police, Bijinapally stating that On 21.05.2018 at about 22:00 hrs his villager by name Mamilla Anjaneyulu driver of lorry bearing No. AP 4Y 1224 drove his six tires lorry in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash against his son by name karigalla Shiva Krishna from back side while his son was discharging his duties in the premises of company and due to which he died on the spot. Hence, the case.

2 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

3.Basing upon the said complaint, The Sub-Inspector of Police., Bijinapally registered a case in Crime No: 79 of 2018 against the Accused for the offence under section 304 (A) of IPC.

4.This Court has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 304 (A) of

IPC against the Accused. Summons were issued to the Accused.

5.On appearance, the Accused was furnished with case copies as required under Section-207 Cr.P.C and was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The accusation leveled against the Accused for the offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC was framed, readover and explained to him for which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to establish the guilt of the Accused, the Prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10. After examining the

Prosecution witnesses the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The incriminating material available against the Accused is readover and explained to him for which he denied the same.

7.Heard the Learned APP for the state and Learned Defense counsel for the Accused.

8.Now the point for determination is.,

A) Whether death of the deceased was caused on the alleged date of incident?

B) Whether the Accused was rash or negligent in causing death of the deceased ?

C) Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt?

3 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

ON POINT A & B: Whether death of the deceased was caused on the alleged date of incident ? Whether the Accused was rash or negligent in causing death of the deceased ?

In order to prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Accused.

(i)PW1 is the father of the deceased. His evidence shows that he came to know about the accident through phone call and went to the spot. He is not an eye witness to the incident. His evidence is only regarding what he came to know later.

(ii)PW2 is projected as eye witness. He stated that the Accused drove the vehicle and hit the deceased. However, in cross-examination, it is elicited that there are differences in his earlier statement and his version before the Court.

His evidence is not fully consistent and no independent corroboration is available.

(iii)PW3 to PW6, who are panch witnesses for scene of offence and inquest, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. They clearly stated that police obtained their signatures on papers and they do not know the contents. Hence their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.

(iv)PW7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He stated that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. This only shows that accident was not due to mechanical failure, but it does not prove rash or negligent driving.

4 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

(v)PW8 is the doctor who conducted postmortem. He stated that the deceased sustained crush injuries and died due to cardio respiratory arrest.

His evidence only proves that death occurred due to injuries, but it does not speak about how the accident occurred.

(vi)PW9 is the Investigating Officer. He spoke about registration of case, conducting investigation and filing of charge sheet. However, his evidence is only formal in nature and depends on other witnesses.

Thus, the main evidence regarding rash and negligent driving is that of

PW2 alone. There is no corroboration from other witnesses. The panch witnesses have not supported the case. There are also inconsistencies in the evidence of PW2.

Further, there are material doubts regarding the exact manner in which the accident occurred. As per the evidence on record, the incident took place within the premises of the company during night hours, and no clear evidence is produced to show the lighting conditions or visibility at the spot. There is also no clear explanation as to how the deceased came into the path of the vehicle or whether any precautions were taken by him. The prosecution has not placed any sketch, photographs or independent evidence to clearly establish the position of the vehicle and the deceased at the time of accident.

In such circumstances, possibility of accidental occurrence without negligence on the part of the Accused cannot be ruled out. The benefit of such doubt must necessarily go in favour of the Accused.

5 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

It is well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 304-A

IPC, the prosecution must clearly prove that the Accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death. In the present case, such proof is not available in a convincing manner.

ON POINT C: Whether the Prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the

Accused beyond reasonable doubt?

9.In the result, the Accused found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of IPC and accordingly is acquitted under Section-255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds shall stand canceled U/s. 437-A Cr..PC i.e., after expiry of the appeal period. No property is produced as such no orders as to disposal of property.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 31st day of March, 2026.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

6 of 6 C.C. No. 112 of 2019

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 Venkataiah. None. PW.2 Raju. PW.3 Gudese Thirupathaiah. PW.4 Vattem Raju. PW.5 Rama Swamy. PW.6 Ramesh. PW.7 M. Yeri Swamy. PW.8 Dr. Pramod Kumar. PW.9 V. Pradeep Kumar.

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Report. Ex.P2 Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1. Ex.P3 Signature of Pw3 on Inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 Signature of Pw4 on Inquest panchanama. Ex.P5 Signature of Pw5 on CDF. Ex.P6 Signature of Pw6 on CDF. Ex.P7 MVI report. Ex.P8 PME report. Ex.P9 FIR. Ex.P10 CDF.

For Defence:

Ex.D1 is the marked portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1. Ex.D2 is the marked portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1. Ex.D3 is the marked portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1.

MO’s marked. Nil.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS/214/2025

Busireddy Sridhar Reddy vs Kura Chinnaiah

01 Apr 2026

1 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Smt. Nadigottu Srinidhi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. FAC: Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

Wednesday, this the 01st day of April, 2026

OS.No. 214 of 2025

Between:-

BusiReddy Sridhar Reddy S/o B. Krishna Reddy, Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

...Plaintiff.

And

1. Kura Chinnaiah S/o Kurva Vallaiah, Aged 58 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

2. Kura Kurmurthy S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 30 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

3. Chittigalla Masamma W/o Thikkayya, Aged 55 yrs, Occ: Teacher, R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District. Presently R/o Kodair Village and Mandal.

4. Chittigalla Ramesh S/o Thikkayya, Aged 35 yrs, Occ: Teacher, R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District. Presently R/o Kodair Village and Mandal.

5. Kura Ramulu S/o Chinnaiah, Aged 26 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

6. Kura Kashamma W/o K. Chinnaiah, Aged 55 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Nallavelly Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal & District.

...Defendants Nos.1 to 6.

Claim: Suit for Declaration of Title & Injunction.

***

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.

Narsimha Reddy & Waheed Pasha, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte and having been stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:- 2 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 r/w Section 26 Of

CPC, 1908.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

The case of the Plaintiff in brief is that the Plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No. 16 to an extent of Ac. 00-27 gts situated at

Nallavelly Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal & District. Originally the above said land belongs to one B. Krishna Reddy who is father of the Plaintiff and the parents of the Plaintiff has been jointly gifted the above said land to the

Plaintiff along with some other lands through Reg. Gift deed No. 6314/2016.

Since the date of gift, the Plaintiff has implemented his name in the Revenue records as a pattadar and Revenue authorities have issued new patta passbook cum title deed in favour of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment without any interruption from anybody till today.

The Defendants, who are no way concerned to the Plaintiff and have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, with an intention to occupy the suit land are unlawfully interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment and demanding the Plaintiff to sell the land to them at a cheaper rate. When the Plaintiff refused to sell the land, the

Defendants repeatedly attempted to encroach upon and occupy the suit land and finally on 24-08-2025, the Defendants along with their supporters trespassed into the suit land illegally and tried to occupy the same, which was 3 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025 resisted by the Plaintiff with the help of neighbors and while leaving, the

Defendants also threatened that they will again come with much force and will occupy the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.Suit was registered and summons were ordered by the Court. Summons were duly served on the Defendants and no representation made by the

Defendants in person nor filed any written statement. Hence, they were set ex-parte.

4.To support his case Plaintiff was examined as Pw1. Chief examination affidavit of Pw1 was filed and Exhibits A1 to A4 were marked.

5.Heard Counsel for Plaintiff.

6.Now the points for consideration are.,

1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?

2) Whether the Plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property ?

3) Whether the Plaintiff proves interference by the Defendants ?

4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and perpetual injunction ?

5) To what releif ?

The above points 1 & 2 are taken up together for common consideration., 4 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

ON POINT Nos-1 & 2:- Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ? Whether the Plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property ?

PW-1 in his chief affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

He clearly deposed that the suit property was gifted by his parents under a registered gift deed No. 6314/2016 and after the gift, his name was mutated in the revenue records. Ex.A1 is the registered gift deed No. 6314/2016 which shows that parents of the Plaintiff have gifted the suit land. Ex.A2 is the pattadar passbook, Ex.A3 is the Original specimen copy obtained from the meeseva and Ex.A4 is the land detail search obtained from the Bhubharathi, all these exhibits disclose that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit land. These documents remained unchallenged as the

Defendants did not contest the matter.

In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff inspires confidence. Hence, it can safely be held that the Plaintiff has established his title and possession over the suit schedule property.

Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

5 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

ON POINT NO-3:- Whether the Plaintiff proves interference by the

Defendants?

PW-1 categorically deposed that the Defendants interfered with his possession and attempted to obstruct his agricultural activities and threatened to dispossess him. Though no cross-examination was conducted, the evidence of PW-1 remained unshaken. The suit itself is filed immediately after such interference, which strengthens his version.

In ex parte matters, when the evidence is consistent and supported by documents, the same can be accepted. Hence, it is held that the Plaintiff has proved interference by the Defendants.

Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

ON POINT NO-4:- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and perpetual injunction?

In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has successfully established his title and possession over the suit property and also interference by the Defendants. Therefore, he is entitled for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction.

Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

6 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

ON POINT NO-5:-To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring Plaintiff as an absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and further perpetual injunction is granted against the Defendants, restraining them, their men, agents, supporters and persons claiming through them etc., from causing illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No order as to cost.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01 st day of April, 2026.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

7 of 7 OS.No. 214 of 2025

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1: Busi Reddy Sridhar Reddy. Ex-parte.

Exhibits marked.

For the Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 C.C. of Regd.Gift deed No. 6314/2016. Ex.A2 Original pattadar passbook cum title deed in favour of the Plaintiff. Ex.A3 Original specimen copy obtained from the Meeseva. Ex.A4 Land details search obtained from the Bhubharathi.

For Defendants:-

Nil.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

OS/219/2022

Smt. Jillella Mallamma vs The District Collector

31 Mar 2026

1 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF II. ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Smt. Nadigottu Srinidhi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026

OS.No. 219 of 2022

Between:-

Jillella Mallamma W/o Poshanna, Aged 60 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Near Ganga Talkies, Nagarkurnool Village & District.

...Plaintiff.

And

1. The District Collector, Nagarkurnool District.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagarkurnool.

3. The Tahasildar, Nagarkurnool.

...Defendants Nos.1 to 3.

Claim: Suit for Declaration of Title & Perpetual Injunction.

*** This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.B.

Rajashekar & P. Krishna, Advocates for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte and having been stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 r/w Section 26 Of

CPC, 1908.

2.The brief averments of the Plaint are as follows:

The Plaintiff is native of Nagarkurnool and is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No. 176/A2 to an extent of Ac.00-15 gts situated at Naganool

Village of Nagarkurnool Mandal. Originally the said land belongs to one J.

Poshanna who is the husband of the Plaintiff and said Poshanna purchased the 2 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022 suit property from its original owner long back. After the said purchase the

Poshanna has mutated his name in the revenue records and cultivated the suit schedule property. Later, after the death of said Poshanna, the Plaintiff got mutated her name in the Revenue records and obtained ROR, Pahanies,

Pattadar passbook in her name and the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoying the same till today.

The Defendants, who are no way concerned with the suit schedule property and they are government officials and have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property are unlawfully interfering with the

Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment by stating that the said land belongs to Government and it is sarakari land and the Defendants repeatedly attempted to encroach upon and finally on 20-03-2022, the Defendants along with their supporters trespassed into the suit land illegally and tried to interfere the same, which was resisted by the Plaintiff with the help of neighbors and while leaving, the Defendants also threatened that they will again come with much force and will occupy the suit schedule property.

Hence, the suit.

3.Suit was registered and summons were ordered by the Court. Summons were duly served on the Defendants and no representation made by the

Defendants in person nor filed any written statement. Hence, they were set ex-parte.

3 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022

4.To support her case Plaintiff was examined as Pw1. Chief examination affidavit of Pw1 was filed and Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked. Chief-affidavit of

PW2 is also filed and examined on behalf of the Plaintiff.

5.Heard Counsel for Plaintiff.

6.Now the points for consideration are.,

1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?

2) Whether the Plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property ?

3) Whether the Plaintiff proves interference by the Defendants ?

4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and perpetual injunction ?

5) To what releif ?

The above points 1 & 2 are taken up together for common consideration.,

ON POINT Nos-1 & 2:- Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ? Whether the Plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule property ?

PW-1 in her chief affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint.

She clearly deposed that the suit property was purchased by her husband under a registered sale deed and after his death, her name was mutated in the revenue records. Ex.A4 is the registered sale deed dated 22.05.1984 which shows the title of Plaintiff’s husband over the suit property. Ex.A2 i.e., 4 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022 pattadar passbook and Ex.A1 i.e., Dharani pahani, along with Ex.A9 pahani for the year 2017, disclose that the Plaintiff’s name is reflected in the revenue records. Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, which are revenue proceedings and

ROR documents, further support the case of the Plaintiff regarding mutation and possession. These documents remained unchallenged as the Defendants did not contest the matter.

In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Plaintiff inspires confidence. Hence, it can safely be held that the Plaintiff has established her title and possession over the suit schedule property.

Accordingly, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

ON POINT NO-3:- Whether the Plaintiff proves interference by the

Defendants?

PW-1 categorically deposed that the Defendants interfered with her possession and attempted to obstruct her agricultural activities and threatened to dispossess her. Though no cross-examination was conducted, the evidence of PW-1 remained unshaken. The suit itself is filed immediately after such interference, which strengthens her version.

In ex parte matters, when the evidence is consistent and supported by documents, the same can be accepted. Hence, it is held that the Plaintiff has proved interference by the Defendants.

Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

5 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022

ON POINT NO-4:- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration and perpetual injunction?

In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff has successfully established her title and possession over the suit property and also interference by the Defendants. Therefore, she is entitled for declaration of title and consequential perpetual injunction.

Accordingly, Point No.4 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff.

ON POINT NO-5:-To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring Plaintiff as an absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and further permanent injunction is granted against the Defendants, restraining them, their men, agents, suporters and persons claiming through them etc., from causing illegal interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No order as to cost.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of March, 2026.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

6 of 6 OS.No. 219 of 2022

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW1: Jillella Mallamma. Ex-parte. PW2: Bonasi Mallaiah.

Exhibits marked.

For the Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 Online Dharani Pahani. Ex.A2 Original New pattadar passbook of Plaintiff. Ex.A3 Valuation Certificate. Ex.A4 Original Regd. Sale deed No. 1578/1984, dt. 22.05.1984. Ex.A5 Original 13(B) certificate vide file No. ROR/3010/90ATED,

dt. 27.07.1990

Ex.A6 Original proceedings ROR/MRO/PRO3010/90 Ex.A7 Original proceeding file No. 226/2017, dt. 24.12.2017. Ex.A8 C.C. of ROR, dt. 24.10.2018. Ex.A9 C.C. of Pahani Fasili 2017, dt. 24.10.2018.

For Defendants:-

Nil.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS/175/2025

Jillella Thirupathaiah vs M. Santhosh

01 Apr 2026

1 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Smt. Nadigottu Srinidhi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. FAC: Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

Wednesday, this the 01st day of April, 2026

OS.No. 175 of 2025

Between:-

Jillella Thirupathaiah S/o Jillella Ramulu, Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Agril., R/o Yengampally Village, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

...Plaintiff.

And

M. Santhosh S/o M. Narasimha Swamy, Aged 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o Yengampally Village, Tadoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District.

...Defendant.

Claim: Suit for Recovery of Amount.

***

This suit came up before me for final hearing in the presence V. Rama

Krishna Yadav, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant was set ex-parte and having been stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section- 26 of CPC.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

2.The Plaintiff and the Defendant are acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the Defendant has approached the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- as handloan for his personal and family necessities. And as 2 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025 per his request Plaintiff gave an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- to Defendant as handloan which is repayable along with interest @ Rs.2/- per 100/- per month and Defendant executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff on the same day. He also agreed to repay the amount within a short period. But, the

Defendant did not repay the amount till the date of filing of the suit even after making several demands. And Defendant postponed the payment from time to time for one or the other reason. Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice on the Defendant on 30-05-2024 demanding him to repay the loan amount which was acknowledged but the Defendant did not reply for the notice even after receiving the notice. Having left with no other option the

Plaintiff has approached this Court. Hence, this suit.

3.Suit was registered and summons were ordered by this Court. The

Defendant received summons. Held sufficient. No representation made by

Defendant in person nor engaged any counsel on his behalf. Hence, he was set ex-parte.

4.To support his case Plaintiff himself was examined as Pw1. Chief examination affidavit of Pw1 is filed and Exhibit A1 to A3 were marked.

5.Heard Counsel for the Plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is.,

A) Whether the promissory note dated 08-09-2022 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant ?

3 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025

B) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of principal amount along with future interest from the Defendant ?

C) To what relief?

POINT A: Whether the promissory note dated 08-09-2022 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant ?

(i)It is the contention of Pw1 that on 08-09-2022 the Defendant approached him and requested to give handloan of Rs. 3,90,000/-(Rupees

Three lakhs Ninety Thousand only) to him for his personal and family necessities. And on his request, Pw1 has secured him the handloan for an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- on the same day. And the Defendant after getting the loan amount from Pw1 has executed a promissory in favour of Pw1.

To prove this, Pw1 has filed exhibit A1 i.e. original promissory note dated 08-09-2022. Upon perusal of exhibit A1, it is seen that the Defendant has voluntarily executed exhibit A1 for an amount of Rs.3,90,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs Ninety Thousand only) in favour of Pw1. Exhibit A1 shows all the contentions that are raised by Pw1 against the Defendant. On the otherhand, there is no adverse evidence against the Exhibit A1 as the Defendant stood ex-parte. Hence, in the absence of the same the contents of exhibit A1 is treated to be true and genuine. Hence, with the aid of exhibit A1, this Court is of the opinion that the promissory note is true valid and binding on the

Defendant.

Hence, Point A is answered accordingly.

4 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025

ON POINT B: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of principal amount along with future interest from the Defendant ?

(i)Pw1 has stated in his evidence that the Plaintiff has given an amount of

Rs.3,90,000/- for an interest @ Rs.2/- per month and the Defendant promised to repay it within short period. But failed to repay the same even after making several demands. And as the Defendant has failed to repay the loan, he has issued a legal notice upon him on 30-05-2024 for which he failed to reply. To prove this, Pw1 has filed exhibit A2 which proves that he has issued a legal notice to the Defendant. Pw1 also filed exhibit A3 i.e., Postal receipt dated 31- 05-2024. All the above exhibits stand in support of the contentions raised by

Pw1 with regard to refusal of legal notice by Defendant.

Hence, upon considering the evidence of Pw1 and also the documents filed by him, it is evident that the contentions of Pw1 against the Defendant is supported by his evidence and also the documents. Therefore, with this, it can be concluded that Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of amount given to the

Defendant.

Hence, Point B is answered accordingly.

ON POINT C: To what relief?

In the result, Suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the

Defendant to repay the loan amount of Rupees 3,90,000/- (Rupees Three

Lakhs Ninety Thousand only) with interest of Rs.2,65,200/-(from 08.09.2022 to 5 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025 07.07.2025) along with future interest @ 6 % P.A. from the date of the suit till the date of the realization of the said amounts. No order as to cost.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this 01st day of April, 2026.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

6 of 6 OS.No. 175 of 2025

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

Pw1: Jillella Thirupathaiah. Set ex-parte.

Exhibits marked. For the Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 Original Promissory note. Ex.A2 Copy of legal notice dated.30.05.2024. Ex.A3 Postal receipt dated. 31.05.2024.

For Defendant:-

NIL.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

OS/4/2025

K. Aruna vs M. Laxmana Chary

08 Apr 2026

1 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

Present: Smt. Nadigottu Srinidhi, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool. FAC: Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

Wednesday, this the 08th day of April, 2026

OS.No. 04 of 2025

Between:-

K. Aruna W/o Srinivasa Chary, Aged 53 yrs, Occ: Tailor., R/o H.No. 15-94/2, Raghavendra Colony Behind Telephone Exchange, Nagarkurnool.

...Plaintiff.

And

M. Laxmana Chary S/o Peddha Ranga Chary, Aged 48 yrs, Occ: Centring Mestri, R/o Puljala Village, Nagarkurnool Mandal.

...Defendant.

Claim: Suit for Recovery of Amount.

*** This suit came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.

Harshavardhan Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendant was set ex- parte and having been stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section- 26 of CPC.

Factual Matrix of the Case:

2.The Plaintiff and the Defendant are acquainted with each other. Out of such acquaintance, the Defendant has approached the Plaintiff for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as handloan for his family necessities. And as per his request 2 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025 on 14.04.2022 the Plaintiff gave an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to Defendant as handloan which is repayable along with interest @ 2% per month and

Defendant executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff on the same day.

But, the Defendant did not repay the amount till the date of filing of the suit even after making several demands. Aggrieved by this, the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice on the Defendant on 02-12-2024 demanding him to repay the loan amount which was acknowledged but the Defendant did not reply for the notice even after receiving the notice. Having left with no other option the

Plaintiff has approached this Court. Hence, this suit.

3.Suit was registered and summons were ordered by this Court. The

Defendant received summons. Held sufficient. No representation made by

Defendant in person nor engaged any counsel on his behalf. Hence, he was set ex-parte.

4.To support his case Plaintiff himself was examined as Pw1. Chief examination affidavit of Pw1 is filed and Exhibit A1 to A3 were marked. Chief- affidavit of PW2 is also filed and examined on behalf of the Plaintiff.

5.Heard Counsel for the Plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is.,

A) Whether the promissory note dated 14-04-2022 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant ?

3 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025

B) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of principal amount along with future interest from the Defendant ?

C) To what relief?

POINT A: Whether the promissory note dated 14-04-2022 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant ?

(i)It is the contention of Pw1 that the Defendant approached her and requested to give handloan of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousand only) to him for his family necessities. And on his request, Pw1 has secured him the handloan for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 14.04.2022. And the

Defendant after getting the loan amount from Pw1 has executed a promissory in favour of Pw1.

To prove this, Pw1 has filed exhibit A1 i.e. original promissory note dated 14-04-2022. Upon perusal of exhibit A1, it is seen that the Defendant has voluntarily executed exhibit A1 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh Fifty Thousand only) in favour of Pw1. Exhibit A1 shows all the contentions that are raised by Pw1 against the Defendant. On the otherhand, there is no adverse evidence against the Exhibit A1 as the Defendant stood ex-parte. Hence, in the absence of the same the contents of exhibit A1 is treated to be true and genuine. Hence, with the aid of exhibit A1, this Court is of the opinion that the promissory note is true valid and binding on the

Defendant.

Hence, Point A is answered accordingly.

4 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025

ON POINT B: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of principal amount along with future interest from the Defendant ?

(i)Pw1 has stated in her evidence that the Plaintiff has given an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/- for an interest @ Rs.2/- per month and the Defendant promised to repay it. But failed to repay the same even after making several demands.

And as the Defendant has failed to repay the loan, Pw1 has issued a legal notice upon him on 02-12-2024 for which he failed to reply. To prove this, Pw1 has filed exhibit A2 which proves that she has issued a legal notice to the

Defendant. Pw1 also filed exhibit A3 i.e., Acknowledgment receipt. All the above exhibits stand in support of the contentions raised by Pw1 with regard to refusal of legal notice by Defendant. Additionally, Pw1 got examined Pw2 to support her contention and PW2 also reiterated the contents as stated in his chief examination.

Hence, upon considering the evidence of Pw1 and also the documents filed by her, it is evident that the contentions of Pw1 against the Defendant is supported by her evidence and also the documents. Therefore, with this, it can be concluded that Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of amount given to the

Defendant.

Hence, Point B is answered accordingly.

ON POINT C: To what relief?

In the result, Suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the

Defendant to repay the loan amount of Rupees 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 5 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025

Fifty Thousand only) with interest of Rs.97,200/- (from 14.04.2022 to 31.12.2024) along with future interest @ 6 % P.A. from the date of the suit till the date of the realization of the said amounts. No order as to cost.

Typed by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this 08th day of April, 2026.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

6 of 6 OS.No. 04 of 2025

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

Pw1: K. Aruna. Set ex-parte. Pw2: K. Saibabu.

Exhibits marked. For the Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 Original Promissory note, dt. 14.04.2022. Ex.A2 Copy of legal notice dated.02.12.2024. Ex.A3 Acknowledgment receipt.

For Defendant:-

NIL.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool. FAC. Prl. JCJ, Nagarkurnool.

Order Record 902 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/25/2023	Nasnayi Srisailam vs N.Kurva Hanmanthu	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/4/2025	K. Aruna vs M. Laxmana Chary	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
DVC/2/2025	Atmakur Nagamani vs Sangam Kurumurthy	08 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/3/2025	Uppari Chiluka Parvathamma vs Chiluka Shivakumar	08 Apr 2026	judgement	—
OS/179/2024	P. Ramesh vs Linga Swamy	07 Apr 2026	judgement	—
OS/33/2020	R. Manyam vs R. Estharamma	06 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/175/2025	Jillella Thirupathaiah vs M. Santhosh	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/214/2025	Busireddy Sridhar Reddy vs Kura Chinnaiah	01 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/211/2023	The Prohibition Excise PS Nagarkurnool vs Madugula Ramudu	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
PRC/25/2025	SIP Nagarkurnool vs Shiva Dasarla	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
OS/189/2020	Bandaru Srikanth vs Bandaru Mallaiah	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/219/2022	Smt. Jillella Mallamma vs The District Collector	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/112/2019	Karigalla Venkataiah vs Mavilla Anjaneyulu	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/1/2020	Gaddamapally Ajith Reddy vs The District caolllector, Nagarkurnool	31 Mar 2026	judgement	—
PRC/2/2026	PS Thimmajipet vs Koushik Sama	31 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/85/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Bhavath Polamoni	30 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/234/2019	SHO Nagarkurnool vs Boddupally Raju	28 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/25/2026	Shivashankar Maramoni vs Ganesh Magdumkari	28 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/27/2023	C.Bharathi vs M.Chandra kumar	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/35/2026	PS. Bijinapally vs Anjaneyulu Kotha	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/81/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Narasimha Vadakattu	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/88/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Koti Katravath	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/90/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Narsimha Swamy Kanchakuri	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/108/2024	Manganoor Balraj vs Balakrishna Manganoor	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/124/2022	State of Telangana vs Dasarla Balaiah	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/130/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs B. Shanthaiah	28 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/167/2025	Appala Lalitha vs Srisailam Kongiri	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/207/2022	State of Telangana vs Muddamngula Ramchandraiah	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/273/2025	Janumpally Chandramohan vs Pedda Narsimha Koduparthy	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/325/2019	Papishetty Narender vs Sambhu Narsimha Swamy	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/616/2023	State of Telangana vs Rathlavatah Thukaram	28 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
MC/21/2024	C. Bharathi vs Manda Chandra Kumar	28 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/6/2026	PS Telkapally vs Balakrishna Barla	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/7/2026	State of Telangana vs Ravindar Mangalagiri	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/8/2026	State of Telangana vs Srinivasulu Shivva	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/9/2026	State of Telangana vs Pakiraiah Bairapaga	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/10/2026	State of Telangana vs Balaswamy Reddy Pothireddy	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/11/2026	State of Telangana vs Raju Mudavath	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/12/2026	State of Telangana vs Shameemuddin Mohammed	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/15/2026	State of Telangana vs Raju Mallekedi	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/16/2026	State of Telangana vs Nagaiah Bachhalakura	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/17/2026	State of Telangana vs Balraju Bairapaga	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/18/2026	State of Telangana vs Yadagiri Doma	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/34/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Ramesh Padala	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/41/2025	State of Telangana vs Chandra Shekar Dandu	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/59/2026	State of Telangana vs Renaiah Galiguti	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/61/2026	State of Telangana vs Lingam Doremoni	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/62/2026	State of Telangana vs Nagesh Kavali	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/63/2026	State of Telangana vs Paramesh Anemoni	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/65/2026	State of Telangana vs Somla naik Nenavath	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/85/2025	State of Telangana vs Balchandri Bathini	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/132/2025	State of Telangana of PS Telkapally vs Niranjan Buddula	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/173/2022	Kesani Jyothi vs Macha Sudhakar Rao	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/318/2022	Padiga Anjaneyulu vs Thungani Bhaskar	28 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/76/2026	SIP Tadoor vs Venugopal Chinthapally	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/80/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Raghavendar Mallipeddi	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/82/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Raman Goud Panasa	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/83/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Ramaswamy Kalwakole	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/86/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Mahesh Goud Thamatam	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/87/2026	SIP of Tadoor vs Ravishankar Pasupula	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/105/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Niranjan Ummanamoni	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/106/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Shiva Kadari	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/108/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Srikanth Gaddapara	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/123/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Ramesh Saka	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/124/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Krishna Mohan Miryala	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/129/2026	SIP Bijinapally vs Vssarvar Mohd	26 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/282/2024	Palamuru Anjaneyulu vs Masi reddy Gattu	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/29/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Ramesh Siddamshetti	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/30/2026	P.S.Telkapally vs Raghavender Gurram	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/31/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Varun Kumar Beesam	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/32/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Venkataiah Anepally	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/33/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Thirupathaiah Goud Panjugula	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/35/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Suman Goud Akkala	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/36/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Sarveshwara Chary Avancha	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/38/2026	P.S. Telkapally vs Parwathi kethavath	26 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/111/2025	Yara Anjaneyulu vs Suresh Jatamoni	24 Mar 2026	AWARD COPY	—
CC/267/2024	State of Telangana vs Mallela Nagesh Kumar Goud	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/728/2023	State of Telangana of police BIJINAPALLY vs K. VENKOJI	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/117/2025	State of Telangana of PS Thimmajipet vs Krishnaiah Jampula	24 Mar 2026	order	—
CC/457/2022	State of Telangana vs Venkataiah Bairapaga	24 Mar 2026	order	—
JCC/12/2023	Samba Mallaiah vs Terapogu Shiva	13 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/37/2025	Avancha Ramulu vs The Tahsildar, Nagarkurnool	12 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/502/2021	Sripuram Suvernamma vs Kotla Kanthi reddy	11 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/134/2025	Rathlavath Basha vs Rathlavath Pittu	10 Mar 2026	judgement	—
PRC/2/2025	State of Telangana SI OF POLICE TELKAPLLY vs B. Yadagiri	10 Mar 2026	order	—
PRC/7/2025	State of Telangana of PS Thimmajipet vs Parusharamulu Bolly	10 Mar 2026	order	—
OS/74/2025	S. Laxmi vs Maredu Bichaiah	09 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
PRC/11/2025	Kumari Midde Nagalaxmi vs Mahesh Kakam kakandi	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/130/2020	Kyama Chinnamma vs Kyama Parvathulu	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/160/2020	Yenamala Sailu vs Yenamala Balaswmy	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/207/2024	Vasa Laxmaiah vs Shaik Balemiya	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/242/2022	A. Ravi Chandra Prakash vs D. Niramalamma	05 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/374/2022	STATE BANK OF INDIA (ADB0 NAGARKURNOOL BRANCH , BRANCH MANAGAER vs Gorita Pratap Roy	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/98/2020	Barigela Yellaiah vs Barigela Krishnaiah	02 Mar 2026	Order	—
CC/164/2020	State of Telangana vs Vsnandipeta Balaiah	27 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/23/2022	K. Krishnavardhan Reddy vs Gurrala Srikanth Reddy	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/341/2021	Kayiti Ramchandra Reddy vs Dendi Lachi reddy	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/389/2021	Neelam Suguna vs Uduthanur Srisailam	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/748/2022	B. Bangaramma vs To whom so ever concerned	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
CC/126/2021	State of Telangana vs MD Ibrahim	26 Feb 2026	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 902 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		10
Mar 2026		85
Feb 2026		33
Jan 2026		28
Dec 2025		109
Nov 2025		69
Oct 2025		19
Sep 2025		75
Jun 2025		52
May 2025		9
Apr 2025		30
Mar 2025		79

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi handled?

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi has handled 946 court orders since 2024 at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 34 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi hear?

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

Where is Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi currently posted?

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi is posted as Prl JCJ cum JMFC at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex, Nagarkurnool, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi available online?

Yes. 6 judgments by Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi dispose cases?

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi disposes approximately 34 cases per month, based on 946 orders handled over their tenure at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi serving?

Smt.Nadigottu Srinidhi has been serving at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 54%

OS 36%

PRC 5%

MC 3%

DVC 1%

STC 1%

EP 1%

JCC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2026 — Present

Prl JCJ cum JMFC
Nov 2025 — Present

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-SPL.MOBLIE JUDGE · 101 orders
Nov 2025 — Present

Prl JCJ cum JMFC · 53 orders
Aug 2025 — Present

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 274 orders
Nov 2024 — Jun 2025

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 297 orders
Apr 2024 — Aug 2024

Prl JCJ cum JMFC · 14 orders
Apr 2024 — Aug 2024

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 35 orders
Feb 2024 — Sep 2024

II Addl JCJ cum JMFC · 172 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri M.Raju

Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at Kalwakurthy, SCJ Court Complex