Ms. Nerella Venkata Hyma Pujitha

Page 1 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.279 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Wednesday, dated this the 13th day of May, 2026

PRESENT:- Smt. N.V.H.Pujitha,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

O.S.No.279 of 2025

BETWEEN: -

Kanaparthi Chandrakala, W/o Venkateswarlu, Age: 53 years, Occ:

Business, R/o H. No. 5-3NA0003, Gandhi Nagar, Navabharath, Paloncha

Town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .

… Plaintiff

AND

Gaddala Yebu, S/o Krupaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Employee in KTPS, R/o H.

No. 8-2-244, Gattaigudem, Paloncha town, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 06.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. Sharath Shahameer, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the

Defendant remained set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case records this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code seeking recovery of money of Rs.9,60,000/-.

The averments of the plaint in brief is as follows:

2.The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six

Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 10.06.2023 for his family necessities with a

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 2 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.279 of 2025 promise to return the same on demand along with an accrued interest at the rate of 24% per annum in favor of the plaintiff.

After availing the said loan amount the defendant failed to repay despite persistent requests and demands made by the plaintiff. It seems that the defendant is the mood of evading the payment of the above said debts, considering that the defendant intended to evade the payment. Considering that the defendant intended to evade the payment, having no other go the plaintiff filed this present suit. Hence, this suit.

3.Summon served to the defendant. Defendant called absent no representation on his behalf. Hence, Defendant made ex-parte and he was set ex-parte on Dt:28.04.2026 and the suit proceeded for ex-parte evidence.

4.During the trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Ex. A-1 and A-2 were got marked and no further plaintiff evidence reported. Hence, the plaintiff evidence was closed.

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

6.Now the points for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

2. To what relief?

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 3 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.279 of 2025

POINT NO.1

7.The Plaintiff as PW-1 in his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination had reiterated the contents of the plaint without any variance. Therefore, chronicle of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.

8.On perusal of the exhibits i.e., Ex. A-1 Original Promissory note depicts that it was executed for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on

Dt:10.06.2023 with an accrued interest 24% per annum, Ex. A-2 is Office

copy of legal notice, dated 19.12.2025. Under section 118 of the Negotiable

Instrument Act, the court shall presume that a Negotiable Instrument has been executed for consideration, this court has raised presumption under

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that the instrument was made for consideration. The presumption which was raised by the court implies that the defendant has received the consideration under the foot of promissory note i.e., Ex. A-1. Once the presumption is raised, the burden of proof is shifted to defendant. In a suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, the initial burden of proof is on promisee to prove the execution of Ex.

A-1 and once it is done there is a presumption in favour of promisee in respect of passing of consideration, but the presumption can be rebutted by the promiser.

09.The defendant for the reason best known to him, has not contested the suit despite the summon issued to him was successfully served, but no representation on behalf of defendant. There is no material on record to disprove the case of the plaintiff or the signature of defendant on Ex.A1.

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 4 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.279 of 2025

Upon consideration of the documentary evidence and the unchallenged testimony of PW-1, this court holds that the plaintiff has established his case against the Defendant and that the Defendant is liable to pay suit amount. This point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, this suit is decreed without costs in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.9,60,000/-. (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Sixty Thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest 24% per annum on

principal sum i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- from the date of the suit to date of decree

and with future interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by my typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 5 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.279 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: K. Chandrakala - None -

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex. A1: Original Promissory Note Dt: 10.06.2023. - None -

Ex. A2: Office copy of Legal Notice, Dt: 19.12.2025.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 1 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.275 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Wednesday, dated this the 13th day of May, 2026

PRESENT:- Smt. N.V.H.Pujitha,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem

O.S.No.275 of 2025

BETWEEN: -

Peraboina yakaswamy, S/o Ramachandraiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Private

Employee, R/o H. No. 18-2-118, Nehru Nagar, Palvoncha Town, Bhadradri

Kothagudem District.

… Plaintiff

AND

B. Ramadevi, W/o Pradeep, Age: 50 years, Occ: Government Teacher, R/o H.

No. 17-2-2, Ramavaram, Kothagudem Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem

District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 05.05.2026 in the presence of Sri. P. Nageswara Rao, Counsel for the Plaintiff and the

Defendant remained set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, after perusal of the case records this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code seeking recovery of money of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 2 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.275 of 2025

The averments of the plaint in brief is as follows:

2.The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees

Four Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 05.11.2023 for his family necessities with a promise to return the same on demand along with an accrued interest at the rate of 24% per annum in favor of the plaintiff.

After availing the said loan amount the defendant failed to repay despite persistent requests and demands made by the plaintiff. It seems that the defendant is the mood of evading the payment of the above said debts, considering that the defendant intended to evade the payment. Considering that the defendant intended to evade the payment, having no other go the plaintiff filed this present suit. Hence, this suit.

3.Summon served to the defendant's sister, which is deemed to be held sufficiently served and no representation on his behalf. Hence, Defendant made ex-parte and he was set ex-parte on Dt:09.03.2026 and the suit proceeded for ex-parte evidence.

4.During the trial the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Ex. A-1 was got marked and no further plaintiff evidence reported. Hence, the plaintiff evidence was closed.

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

6.Now the points for consideration is:

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 3 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.275 of 2025

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant?

2. To what relief?

POINT NO.1

7.The Plaintiff as PW-1 in his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination had reiterated the contents of the plaint without any variance. Therefore, chronicle of those facts over again will not serve any useful purpose.

8.On perusal of the exhibits i.e., Ex. A-1 Original Promissory note depicts that it was executed for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on

Dt:05.11.2023 with an accrued interest 24% per annum. Under section 118

of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court shall presume that a Negotiable

Instrument has been executed for consideration, this court has raised presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act that the instrument was made for consideration. The presumption which was raised by the court implies that the defendant has received the consideration under the foot of promissory note i.e., Ex. A-1. Once the presumption is raised, the burden of proof is shifted to defendant. In a suit for recovery of money on a promissory note, the initial burden of proof is on promisee to prove the execution of Ex. A-1 and once it is done there is a presumption in favour of promisee in respect of passing of consideration, but the presumption can be rebutted by the promiser.

09.The defendant for the reason best known to him, has not contested the suit despite the summon issued to him was successfully served, but no representation on behalf of defendant. There is no material on record to

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 4 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.275 of 2025 disprove the case of the plaintiff or the signature of defendant on Ex.A1.

Upon consideration of the documentary evidence and the unchallenged testimony of PW-1, this court holds that the plaintiff has established his case against the Defendant and that the Defendant is liable to pay suit amount. This point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, this suit is decreed without costs in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the plaintiff with interest 24% per annum on principal sum i.e.,

Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of the suit to date of decree and with future interest of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by my typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

Page 5 of total 5 pagesO.S. No.275 of 2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW-1: P. Yakaswamy - None -

(EXHIBITS MARKED)

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex. A1: Original Promissory Note Dt: 05.11.2023. - None -

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Smt.N.V.H.Pujitha, [Prl.JCJ]

TSBK020013282026

Presented on : 18-05-2026 Registered on : 18-05-2026 Decided on : 18-05-2026 Duration : 0 years, 0 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem.

AT ,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

(Presided Over by Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA)

CRLMP.BAIL/116/2026

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Charpa Venkatesh Through Police Station Officer , R/O SanjeevaPalli VillgeMulakalapalli Mandal Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM

2: Kaka Mahesh Age: 33 Occupation : R/o SanjeevaPalli VillgeMulakalapalli Mandal Bhadradri-Kothagudem District

Charpa Venkatesh VERSUS :

STATE OF TELANGANA,P.S.MULAKALAPALLY

Age: 0 Occupation :

STATE OF TELANGANA,P.S.MULAKALAPALLY

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Vantasala Lakshmana Rao,Vantasala Lakshmana Rao Advocate for appearing for STATE OF TELANGANA,P.S.MULAKALAPALLY Advocate appearing for , respectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 437 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita,

ORDER

This is the bail petition filed U/s.437 of Cr.P.C, by petitioner/accused persons with a prayer to grant bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 and 2 submitted that Accused No.1 and 2 remanded to judicial custody on 12.05.2026 on execution of NBW. The petitioner/accused persons was suffering with severe ill- health, due to the said reason the petitioner/ Accused No.1 and 2 did not attend the court. The petitioner/ Accused No.1 and 2 are sole bread earning member of their family member, as such their further detention will result in starvation of their entire family members. The petitioner. The petitioner/ Accused No.1 and 2 further submitted that they are ready to furnish the solvency for the satisfaction of the court and he is ready to attend before the court on each and every adjournments. Hence, the petition. Learned APP received notice and filed counter. 3.The counter averments is that if Accused No.1 and 2 are released on bail, they may not attend the court or cooperate the investigating officer, if the accused persons released on bail, the common public lose confidence over the investigation agency. If the accused is enlarged on bail, they will not attend the court as accused is belonged to various stated and it is very difficult to re- secure and cause them production before this court. Hence, dismiss the bail petition. 4.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. Perused the record. The above Accused No.1 and 2 are remanded to judicial custody on 12.05.2026 and since then they are in judicial custody. On perusal of the record, it is noticed that as Accused No.1 and 2 did not appear before the court, this court issued NBW. 6. However having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the period of detention of Accused No.1 and 2 in judicial custody, this court is of the view that, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would not cause any prejudice to the investigation agency. Hence this petition is allowed with the following conditions. 7. In the result, petitioner/ Accused No.1 and 2 shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with (2) sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of this court.

Date : 18-05-2026

(Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK020027602023

Presented on : 05-09-2023 Registered on : 05-09-2023 Decided on : 13-05-2026 Duration : 2 years, 8 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem. AT ,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM Presided Over by Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA

OS/363/2023

Exhibit No.:

: Tirumala Priyanka Age: 28 Occupation : Address: D/o late Tirumala Chandra Reddy, Occ. House hold, H.No. 15-7- 32, rotary nagar, Khammam city and corporation, khammam District

VERSUS : Tirumala Swapna and others Age: 43 Occupation : Address: Occ. House hold, H.No. 9-151, Santha Bazar, Bayyaram Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

2:Tirumala Varshith Reddy Age: 12 Occupation : Occ. Student H.No. 9-151 Santha Bazar Bayyaram Mandal Mahabubabad District.

3:The Superintendent of police Bhadradri Kothagudem Age: 0 Occupation : The Superintendent of police Bhadradri Kothagude ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : SHIVARAM PRASAD J Advocate for : appearing for Tirumala Swapna and others: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

ORDER

Plaintiff and defendant No.1 called present in terms. Defendant nO.2 is minor and represented by defendant No.1 Joint memo field by both parties and read over to both parties. Accordingly award is passed among parties in accordance with terms of compromise.

Date : 13-05-2026

(Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

TSBK020003002023

Presented on : 18-01-2023 Registered on : 01-02-2023 Decided on : 08-05-2026 Duration : 3 years, 3 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Bhadradri Kothagudem. AT ,BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM Presided Over by Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA

EP/26/2023

Exhibit No.:

: Urugonda Sathish kumar Age: 60 Occupation : Address: occ. business, H.no.9-8-126, Barlipet area, Kothagudem Dist, Ts.

VERSUS : Sanka Murali Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Occ. Govt. teacher in ZPSS medara Basthi, kothagudem. dist ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : RAMACHANDRA REDDY G Advocate for : appearing for Sanka Murali: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

JDr counsel called present. Both parties called present. Full satisfaction memo field. Hence EP proceedings are terminated

Date : 08-05-2026

(Ms. NERELLA VENKATA HYMA PUJITHA)

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum - Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Bhadradri Kothagudem.