Smt O. Anusha

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI

Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka) · Nellore · Andhra Pradesh

Smt O. Anusha, JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI, is posted at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. 631 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, PRC cases.

631

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/117/2016 Acquitted

P.R.O venkatagiri vs Jalagam Subbamma

22 Apr 2025

APNE130001372015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::VENKATAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. O. ANUSHA,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VENKATAGIRI.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE. No. 117 of 2016.

State Represented by The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,

Enforcement, Nellore. .....Complainant

Versus

Jalagam Subbamma, W/o. Krishnaiah, Aged about 55 years, Velama by caste, Resident of Nidigallu Village, Balayapalli Mandal,

S.P.S.R. Nellore District. .....Accused

This case is coming up on 22.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and Sri. S.

Rajesh, advocate for the accused andupon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Enforcement,

Nellore has laid a charge sheet against the accused in P.R.No.39/2015-16 for the offence u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(i) On 23.09.2015 at about 03.30 PM, while Lw1/J. Ramesh, Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Nellore accompanied with his staff Lw2 to Lw4 for conducting raids; there they found one female person on suspicious circumstances with a gunny bag carrying on her left shoulder at Railway crossing which is situated on

Nidigallu to Bangarupet Road at a distance of 3.5 furlongs on the left of the road. On seeing the officials in uniform, she tried to escape. Lw1 detained him with the help of his staff and questioned her; she stated that the bag contains liquor bottles. Lw1 sent

Lw2 to bring mediators but he returned merely as non-availability of officials and none of them came forward to act as mediators. Lw1 verified the bag and found 51 bottles of

Old Tavern Fine Whisky of each 180 ml. When questioned, the accused confessed that she purchased the liquor bottles at Vengamambapuram Village from one unknown person to sell the same at higher rates for eking out her livelihood.

CC No. 117 of 2016 Page 2 of 6

(ii) Lw1 drawn one sample of 180 ml for sending chemical analysis. Basing on the report, Lw1 registered the same special report as a case in P.R.No.30/2015-16 u/s.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. The Chemical examiner analyzed and issued report stating that the sample is illicit distilled liquor. After the receipt of the chemical analysis report,

Lw6/G. Dwarakanadh, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Venkatagiri filed charge sheet.

Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, by this Court. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, the copies of the charge sheet and all the relevant documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/s. 239 of Cr.P.C. The charge u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution was examined Lw1/J. Ramesh, Prohibition and

Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Nellore as Pw1 and got marked Ex.P1. M.O.1 is the sample bottle of 180 ml “Old Tavern Fine Whisky”. Besides examined Lw2/U.

Srinivasulu, the then Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise as Pw2 and no documents were marked through Pw2.

5.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s.

313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution side and reported no evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed.

6.Heard the arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

8. POINT:

Evidence before the Court:

(i)To prove its case; the prosecution examined Pw1/J. Ramesh, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Nellore, he deposed in his evidence that on 23.09.2015, he along with his staff i.e., constables/Raja Kumar, Srinivasulu and

CC No. 117 of 2016 Page 3 of 6

Narasimhulu went to Nidigallu village nearby railway crossing with a distance of half furlong from the said railway crossing, on seeing the excise officials in uniform one female person tried to ran away from the scene by holding a white plastic gunny bag with her right hand, there on suspicion he detained her with the help of his staff and found 51 liquor bottles 180 ml each in the said bag i.e., Old Tavern fine whisky. Pw1 deputed one of his staff to secure the mediators, after some time he returned to the scene and reported that there are no revenue officials available in the village and also nobody came forward to act as mediators to excise offences. Pw1 further deposed that he drawn one sample bottle for chemical analysis purpose served notice to her U/Sec.

41 (A) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the special report. M.O.1 is the sample bottle.

(ii)Pw1 deposed in his cross examination that they have raided at Kondagunta of Gudur Mandal, Ramapuram, Mannuru and some other places. Pw1 further deposed that the accused was running a small kirana shop at Nidigallu village. Pw1 denied to the suggestion that for statistical purpose they arrested the accused under the cover of special report even though she is running a petty shop at her village. Pw1 stated that they reached the scene of offence in a hire jeep bearing registration no. AP 26 TV 1379 but he had not obtained the signatures of their jeep driver as a mediator in this case.

(iii)Pw2/ U. Srinivasulu, the then Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise,

Nellore deposed in his evidence that on 23.09.2015 at about 03.30 p.m, while they reached to Nidigallu railway crossing, they found one female person carrying one gunny bag on her left shoulder. On suspicion, Pw1 stopped the accused and enquired her about the contents in Gunny bag and the accused confessed that the bag contains liquor bottles. Pw2 further deposed that Pw1 directed him to go to Nidigallu village to secure mediators and after some time he returned back as VRO and VRA were not available in the village and none of the villagers came forward to act as mediators.

Then Pw1 opened the bag and found 51 bottles of Old Tavern Fine Whisky of 180 ml.

each. Pw1 arrested the accused and handed her to the S.H.O, Prohibition and Excise

Station, Rapur.

(iv)Pw2 deposed in his cross examination that before reaching the scene of offence from Nellore they conducted raids in four villages. Pw2 further deposed that he cannot say the registration number of their hired vehicle and the name of the driver.

CC No. 117 of 2016 Page 4 of 6

Pw2 stated that he does not know whether the accused is running petty shop or not.

Pw2 denied to the suggestion that they never went for raids and that they never conducted raids and foisted false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

Arguments:

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in his arguments had submitted that the evidence of Pw1, who is the Prohibition and Excise official is sufficient to convict the accused, as investigation was done by him and crime was registered basing on special report. Hence, prayed that the accused may be convicted for the offence u/s. 34 (a) of

A.P. Excise Act.

10.The learned defence counsel submitted that except evidence of Pw1, who is the

Prohibition and Excise official; there are no other independent witness and corroboration evidence was adduced by the prosecution. The learned defence counsel further submitted that due to political rivalry this case was foisted. Hence, prayed to acquit the accused for the alleged offence u/s. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act.

Discussion & Finding:

11.Pw1 did not follow 100 Cr.P.C. The Investigation Officer has failed to secure any independent panchyathdars for seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused, though there is possibility to secure them. The Investigation Officer/Pw1 had not submitted proper reasons for not securing independent mediators and Pw1 failed to depose the name of persons, who refused to act as mediators. Pw1 is Prohibition and

Excise Official and interested witness in the case of prosecution. In these circumstances it creates a doubt in the mind of the court whether really the Prohibition and Excise officials has seized the contraband from the possession of the accused under cover of

Ex.P1 as stated by prosecution. As Pw1/Investigation Officer has not followed the procedure specified u/s. 100 of Cr.P.C. while conducting seizure, there is possibility for plantation of evidence by Pw1. As Section 100 of Cr.P.C., is not followed by the

Investigation Officer and the evidence of Pw1 cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.

12.While coming to the Chemical Analysis Report filed by Pw1, analysis report opined that the sample is “Indian Liquor”. Moreover perusal of Chemical analysis report, it is evident that it does not contain details of the accused involved in crime.

CC No. 117 of 2016 Page 5 of 6

Merely because the analyst opined that the “Indian Liquor”, it cannot be presumed that the same was received from the possession of the accused.

13.On appreciation of evidence available on record, this court is of the opinion that the case of the prosecution failed to conduct the investigation as procedure established by Law. The lacunas in investigation conducted by Pw1 become fatal to the case of prosecution. There is no substantive evidence available on record for this court to convict the accused. Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s. 34(a) of A.P

Excise Act and accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The accused is directed to execute the bail bonds to appear before the higher court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective court and such bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months u/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 is the sample bottle of 180 ml “Old Tavern Fine Whisky” shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.The Unmarked, non-valuable property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

VENKATAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Pw1 : J. Ramesh, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Enforcement, Nellore. Pw2 : U. Srinivasulu, the then Head Constable, Prohibition and Excise Enforcement, Nellore.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Special Report.

CC No. 117 of 2016 Page 6 of 6

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

- NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Sample bottle of 180 ml “Old Tavern Fine Whisky”.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

VENKATAGIRI.

OS/23/2021

Madamala Venkatarami Reddy vs Chinthamanu Venkatapathi

17 Apr 2025

Fair Copy APNE130000432021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::VENKATAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. O. ANUSHA,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), VENKATAGIRI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 23 OF 2021

Madamala Venkataramireddy, S/o. M. Venkata Narasa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 55 years, Agriculturist-cum-Business,

.... Plaintiff

Residing at Devulapalli Village, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

-Vs-

Chinthamanu Venkatapathi, S/o. Ch. Penchalaiah, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Agriculturist-cum-Business, Residing at Devulapalli Vaddipalli Village, ….Defendant Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

This suit is coming on 17.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. G. Haranatha Reddy, advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. P. Ramprasad, advocate for the defendant; and upon hearing, this court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,93,473/- on the basis of the suit promissory note, dated: 06.03.2018 executed for an amount of Rs.1,72,000/-, along with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

It is submitted that on 06.03.2018, the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff for his necessities and executed a promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing therein to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Thereafter, the defendant did not choose to repay the due amount to the plaintiff inspite of repeated oral demands. Further, on 09.04.2020, the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant demanding him to repay the due amount under the above said suit promissory note but the defendant did not choose to repay the due amount inspite of receiving the said notice. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

3.On receipt of summons, the defendant made his appearance before this court through his counsel and filed written statement on his behalf.

Page 2 of 5

O.S.No.23 OF 2021

4. The brief averments of the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant are as follows:-

The defendant denied all the allegations and averments mentioned in the plaint except those that are specifically admitted herein to be true. It is submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount neither from the plaintiff nor anybody else. Due to previous enmity regarding the business transaction in between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff fabricated and forged the promissory note, and filed this false suit. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss this suit.

5.Based on the pleadings of both the parties, following issues are framed for trail:-

i)Whether the suit promissory note, dated: 06.03.2018 is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not?

ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

iii) To what relief?

6.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported for closure of plaintiff evidence. As a result, the chief of Pw2 is Eschewed.

Thereafter, the matter was posted for the defendant side evidence.

Ex.A1:Original Promissory note of Rs.1,72,000/-, dated: 06.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Office copy of registered legal notice, dated: 09.04.2020 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A3:Postal served acknowledgment card to the defendant.

Ex.A4:Postal deliver counter receipt.

7.Inspite of conditional order, the learned counsel for the defendant did not evinced any interest to adduce the evidence before the court and hence, the defendant side evidence was treated as ‘NIL’. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the arguments.

8.Heard. Perused the entire material on record.

9. Issue no: (i) and (ii):

(a)It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 06.03.2018, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. In spite of repeated demands made by the

Page 3 of 5

O.S.No.23 OF 2021

plaintiff to repay the suit amount, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount. Therefore, it compelled the plaintiff to file this suit.

(b)Per contra, the defendant specifically pleaded that he never borrowed any amount neither from the plaintiff nor anybody else. Due to previous enmity regarding the business transaction in between him and the plaintiff, the plaintiff fabricated and forged the promissory note and filed this false suit. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss this suit.

(c)In view of the rival contention of both the parties, it makes clear that there is a denial of execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant, if he succeeds in proving the same, then the presumptions under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act would draw a presumption that the consideration was passed under Ex.A1.

(d)Since, the learned counsel for the defendant did not came forward to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove the case the defendant; then there is nothing on record to support the contention of the defendant except the cross- examination of Pw1.

(e)To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as

Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents. Pw1 in his chief examination affidavit reiterated the contents whatever mentioned in the plaint. Further, Pw1 stated in his cross examination that he had given money to the defendant in the presence of M.

Srinivasa Reddy and Sridhar Reddy, and one T. Srinivasa Reddy is scribe. Pw1 denied to the suggestion that he had no financial capacity to give money to the defendant.

Pw1 further denied that he had foisted and fabricated the suit promissory note i.e.,

Ex.A1.

(f)Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 is trust worthy to prove that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- on 06.03.2018 from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and executed it. Since, the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant, the presumption contemplated under section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act would come to the rescue of the plaintiff presuming that consideration was passed under Ex.A1.

(g)Though, the onus of proof was shifted onto the defendant, the defendant neither came forward to adduce any oral evidence nor placed any documentary

Page 4 of 5

O.S.No.23 OF 2021

evidence to rebut the presumption placed in favour of the plaintiff. Further, on perusal of the written statement, it appears that there is no probable defence to throw any amount of doubt on the case of the plaintiff.

(h)However, the defendant contended in his written statement as the plaintiff fabricated and forged the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1. In this circumstance, the defendant might have filed a complaint against the plaintiff before various authorities, except filing the certified copies of complaints filed against the plaintiff before various authorities; he did not take any steps to prove the same. Therefore, the evidence of

Pw1 is unchallenged and the plaintiff manifestly proved that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant.

(i)Therefore, in view of the above said discussions, the plaintiff proved the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant is not a fabricated and forged one. Thus, the plaintiff proved execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. Therefore, Ex.A1 is also true, valid and binding on the defendant.

(j)Admittedly, the defendant did not paid any amount due under Ex.A1.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, the issues no. (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

10. Issue no. (iii):

In view of above discussion, the issues (i) and (ii) are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, and the suit is to be decreed with costs.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,93,473/- to the plaintiff together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on

Rs.1,72,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this day the 17th Day of April, 2025.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

Page 5 of 5

O.S.No.23 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant Pw.1: Madamala Venkatrami Reddy.-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. No Description of the Document

Ex.A1 :Original Promissory note of Rs.1,72,000/-, dated: 06.03.2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2 :Office copy of registered legal notice, dated: 09.04.2020 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A3 :Postal served acknowledgment card to the defendant.

Ex.A4 :Postal deliver counter receipt.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL-

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

OS/56/2025

ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Venkatamma and another

17 Apr 2025

Fair Copy APNE130000562025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::VENKATAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. O. ANUSHA,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), VENKATAGIRI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 56 OF 2025

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Venkatagiri Main Branch. …. Plaintiff Represented by it’s Manager.

-Vs-

Dattam Nadipaiah (Died).

1. Dattam Venkatamma, W/o. Late Nadipaiah, Hindu, aged about 55 years, House wife cum Cultivation.

2. Dattam Venkata Chalapathi, S/o. Late Nadipaiah, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Cultivation. All the defendants are the residents of Kummaripeta,….Defendants Kalavalapudi Village, Venkatagiri Mandal, Tirupati District.

This suit is coming on 17.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. S. Venkateswarlu, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 and 2 were set ex-parte due to no representation; and upon hearing, this court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of a suit amount of Rs.1,26,483/- on the basis of the Loan agreement and guarantee agreement executed for a sum of Rs.66,000/-, along with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

During the life time of Dattam Nadipaiah (deceased), he availed a crop loan of

Rs.66,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 21.01.2020 under crop loan A/c

No.91081573355 and executed the loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank for the said sum of Rs.66,000/- by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 7% per annum or such other rate that may be fixed by the bank as per directions of Reserve

Bank of India. The defendant no. 2, who is the son of Dattam Nadipaiah (deceased) offered as a guarantor and executed the guarantee agreement on even date in favour of the plaintiff bank for the loan availed by Dattam Nadipaiah. Thereafter, during the life time of Dattam Nadipaiah (deceased), and defendant no. 2 did not choose to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and guarantee

O.S.No.56 OF 2025 Page 2 of 4

agreement, and committed default inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, the said Dattam Nadipaiah died leaving behind the defendant nos. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. After the demise of Dattam Nadipaiah; the defendant no. 1, who is the wife of Dattam Nadipaiah executed the acknowledgement of debt on 01.01.2023, but the defendants did not choose to repay the loan amount. Further, the

Plaintiff bank filed the suit for an amount of Rs.1,26,483/- basing on the loan account extract, dated: 24.12.2024. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of receiving summons, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 did not appeared

before this court. Hence, the defendant no. 1 and 2 were set exparte due to no

representation and further, the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents.

Ex.A1:Loan agreement executed by the deceased Nadipaiah, dated: 21.01.2020 for Rs.66,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2:Guarantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant, dated: 21.01.2020 for Rs.66,000/-.

Ex.A3:Acknowledgment of debt executed by the defendant no. 1, dated: 01.01.2023.

Ex.A4:Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

5.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of

Rs.1,26,483/- with future interest and costs?”

Point:

7.Admittedly, the plaintiff bank filed the above suit against the defendant nos. 1 and 2 for recovery of money on the base of the Loan agreement, dated: 21.01.2020 executed during the life time of the deceased Dattam Nadipaiah and guarantee agreement, dated: 21.01.2020 executed by the defendant no. 2. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff bank to prove that the Loan agreement executed by the deceased

Dattam Nadipaiah and guarantee agreement executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

O.S.No.56 OF 2025 Page 3 of 4

8.To discharge the initial burden, the Manager of the plaintiff bank himself entered into the witness box as Pw1 and his proof-affidavit is nothing but a replica of the contents of the plaint. Through Pw1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were got marked. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

9.Consequently, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Manager of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 remained unchallenged. Upon perusal of entire material available on record, it is unambiguously clear that Dattam Nadipaiah executed the Loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank during his life time under Ex.A1, the defendant no. 2 executed the Guarantee agreement under Ex.A2, Ex.A3 is the

Acknowledgment of debt executed by the defendant no. 1, dated: 01.01.2023 and

Ex.A4 is the Copy of account extract. Admittedly, the defendant no. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A4 remained unchallenged and also manifestly proved that Dattam Nadipaiah (deceased) and defendant no. 2 availed a loan from the plaintiff bank but they refused to repay the said debt inspite of repeated demands. Later, Dattam Nadipaiah died leaving behind his wife and son i.e., defendant no. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant no. 1 and 2 with future interest and costs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant nos. 1 and 2.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,483/- to the plaintiff bank from the out of the estate of the deceased i.e., Dattam Nadipaiah lying in the hands of the defendant no. 1 together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution till the date of decree and thereafter, with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on Rs.66,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17th Day of April, 2025.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

O.S.No.56 OF 2025 Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Pw.1: Y. Lakshmi Kiran.-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. No Description of the Document

Ex.A1: Loan agreement executed by the deceased Nadipaiah, dated: 21.01.2020 for Rs.66,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2: Guarantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant, dated: 21.01.2020 for Rs.66,000/-.

Ex.A3: Acknowledgment of debt executed by the defendant no. 1, dated: 01.01.2023.

Ex.A4: Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

OS/55/2025

ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Yetti Suresh and another

17 Apr 2025

APNE130000552025 Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::VENKATAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. O. ANUSHA,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), VENKATAGIRI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 55 OF 2025

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Venkatagiri Branch. …. Plaintiff Represented by it’s Manager.

And

1. Yetti Suresh, S/o. Subramanyam, Hindu, aged about 38 years, Cultivation.

2. Allam Srinivasulu, S/o. Nagaiah, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Cultivation. Both the defendants are residents of Chinnanapeta, ….Defendants Venkatagiri Mandal, Tirupati District.

This suit is coming on 17.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. S. Venkateswarlu, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants remained exparte and upon hearing, this court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,55,600/- on the base of the Loan agreement executed by the defendant no. 1 and the guarantee agreement executed by the defendant no. 2 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant no. 1 availed sheep loan for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 26.07.2017 under loan A/c No.91087911798, and he executed the loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank for the said sum agreeing therein to repay the same with interest at 13% per annum or such other rate that may be fixed by the bank as per directions of Reserve Bank of India. The defendant no. 2 offered as a guarantor and executed the guarantee agreement on even date in favour of the plaintiff bank for the loan availed by the defendant no. 1. Thereafter, the defendants did not repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and the guarantee agreement and committed default inspite of repeated demands.

O.S. No. 55 OF 2025 Page 2 of 4

(ii) On 20.07.2021 and 15.07.2024, the defendant no. 1 executed the acknowledgment of debt by admitting the liability but the defendants did not choose to repay the same. Therefore, the Plaintiff bank filed the suit basing on the loan account extract, dated: 24.12.2024 for Rs.1,55,600/-. Hence, the suit.

3.Inspite of receiving summons, the defendants did not appeared before this court. Hence, the defendants were set exparte due to no representation. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 documents.

Ex.A1:Loan agreement executed by the 1st defendant, dated: 26.07.2017 for

Rs.1,00,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2:Guarantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant, dated: 26.07.2017.

Ex.A3:Health and Valuation certificate of Sheep unit, dated: 26.07.2017.

Ex.A4:Stamped receipt, dated: 26.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A5:Acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated:

20.07.2021.

Ex.A6:Acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated:

15.07.2024.

Ex.A7:Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

5.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of

Rs.1,55,600/- with future interest and costs?”

Point:

7.Admittedly, the plaintiff bank filed the above suit against the defendants for recovery of money on the base of the Loan agreement executed by the defendant no.

1, dated: 26.07.2017 and the guarantee agreement executed by the defendant no. 2,

dated: 26.07.2017. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of

money, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff bank to prove that the Loan agreement executed by the defendant no. 1 and also the guarantee agreement executed by the defendant no. 2 in favour of the plaintiff bank.

O.S. No. 55 OF 2025 Page 3 of 4

8.To discharge the initial burden, the Manager of the plaintiff bank himself entered into the witness box as Pw1 and his proof-affidavit is nothing but a replica of the contents of the plaint. Through Pw1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were got marked. The defendants remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

9.Consequently, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Manager of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 remained unchallenged. Upon perusal of entire material available on record, it is unambiguously clear that the defendant no. 1 executed the loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank under Ex.A1 and the defendant no. 2 executed the Guarantee agreement under Ex.A2, Ex.A3 is the Health and Valuation certificate of Sheep unit, dated: 26.07.2017, Ex.A4 is the Stamped receipt, dated: 26.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are the

Acknowledgment of Debts executed by the defendant no. 1, and Ex.A7 is the Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024. Admittedly, the defendants remained ex-parte.

Therefore, the evidence of Pw1 and the contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 remained unchallenged and also manifestly proved that the defendant no. 1 availed a sheep loan from the plaintiff bank and also proved that the defendant no. 2 stood as a guarantor for the sheep loan availed by the defendant no. 1, but they refused to repay the said debt inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants with future interest and costs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendants.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant no. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,600/- to the plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on Rs.1,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

O.S. No. 55 OF 2025 Page 4 of 4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Pw.1: Y. Lakshmi Kiran.-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. No Description of the Document

Ex.A1: Loan agreement executed by the 1st defendant, dated: 26.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2: Guarantee agreement executed by the 2nd defendant, dated: 26.07.2017.

Ex.A3: Health and Valuation certificate of Sheep unit, dated: 26.07.2017.

Ex.A4: Stamped receipt, dated: 26.07.2017 for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Ex.A5: Acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated: 20.07.2021.

Ex.A6: Acknowledgment of debt executed by the 1st defendant, dated: 15.07.2024.

Ex.A7: Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

-NIL-

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

OS/57/2025

ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Malleswari

17 Apr 2025

APNE130000572025 Fair Copy

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::VENKATAGIRI

PRESENT: Smt. O. ANUSHA,

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION), VENKATAGIRI.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO: 57 OF 2025

Between:

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Venkatagiri Branch. …. Plaintiff Represented by it’s Manager.

And

Dattam Malleswari, W/o. Rakesh, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Xerox shop, Resident of Chilmanuru. At present Kollaforum, near Railway Station, ….Defendant Venkatagiri, Tirupati District.

This suit is coming on 17.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. S. Venkateswarlu, advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and upon hearing, this court is having stood over for consideration till this date and this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,20,592/- on the base of the Loan agreement executed by the defendant for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, along with subsequent interest and costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant availed Mudra loan for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/- from the plaintiff bank on 30.09.2023 under loan A/c No.91174368490, and she executed the loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank for Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing therein to repay the same within 02 years after availing the loan amount with interest at 10% per annum or such other rate that may be fixed by the bank as per directions of Reserve

Bank of India. Thereafter, the defendant did not repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and committed default inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the Plaintiff bank filed the suit basing on the loan account extract,

dated: 24.12.2024 for Rs.1,20,592/-. Hence, the suit.

O.S. No. 57 OF 2025 Page 2 of 3

3.Inspite of receiving summons, the defendant did not appeared before this court.

Hence, the defendant was set exparte due to no representation. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiff.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 documents.

Ex.A1:Loan agreement executed by the defendant, dated: 30.09.2023 for

Rs.2,00,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2:Stamped receipt, dated: 30.09.2023 for Rs.1,35,000/-.

Ex.A3:Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

5.Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff bank.

6. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover an amount of

Rs.1,20,592/- with future interest and costs?”

Point:

7.Admittedly, the plaintiff bank filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of money on the base of the Loan agreement, dated: 30.09.2023 executed by the defendant. It is a settled proposition of law that in a suit for recovery of money, the initial burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff bank to prove that the Loan agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff bank.

8.To discharge the initial burden, the Manager of the plaintiff bank himself entered into the witness box as Pw1 and his proof-affidavit is nothing but a replica of the contents of the plaint. Through Pw1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were got marked. The defendant remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings.

9.Consequently, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Manager of the plaintiff bank, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 remained unchallenged. Upon perusal of entire material available on record, it is unambiguously clear that the defendant executed the loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff bank under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 is the Stamped receipt, dated: 30.09.2023 for Rs.1,35,000/- and Ex.A3 is the Copy of account extract,

dated: 24.12.2024. Admittedly, the defendant remained ex-parte. Therefore, the

evidence of Pw1 and the contents of Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 remained unchallenged and also manifestly proved that the defendant availed a Mudra loan from the plaintiff bank, but

O.S. No. 57 OF 2025 Page 3 of 3

she refused to repay the said debt inspite of repeated demands. Therefore, the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant with future interest and costs. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,592/- to the plaintiff bank together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on Rs.1,20,592/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Pw.1: Y. Lakshmi Kiran.-NIL-

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Sl. No Description of the Document

Ex.A1 : Loan agreement executed by the defendant, dated: 30.09.2023 for Rs.2,00,000/- along with photocopy.

Ex.A2 : Stamped receipt, dated: 30.09.2023 for Rs.1,35,000/-.

Ex.A3 : Copy of account extract, dated: 24.12.2024.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

-NIL-

Sd/- O. ANUSHA.

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

VENKATAGIRI.

Order Record 620 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/117/2016	P.R.O venkatagiri vs Jalagam Subbamma	22 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/23/2021	Madamala Venkatarami Reddy vs Chinthamanu Venkatapathi	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/55/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Yetti Suresh and another	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/56/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Venkatamma and another	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/57/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Malleswari	17 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/44/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Madhavi and another	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/47/2024	Canara Bank, Rapur Branch, Rapur vs Challa Prasad Reddy	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/54/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Avula Prasad and another	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/58/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Vamsi Krishan and another	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/59/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Dattam Sampoornamma and another	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/60/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Siddam Mani and another	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/61/2025	ANDHRA BANKVenkatagiri vs Kandagaddala Naga Subbamma	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/87/2023	Thummalapalli Madhusudhana Rao vs Chandragiri Yedukondalu	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/88/2017	Menta Ramataiah vs Vellapuneni Usha Rani	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/88/2021	Singiri Saradha vs Adapala Manjula	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/191/2019	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rapur Branch, Rapur vs Malepati Sailaja	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/48/2016	SHO balayapalli P.S vs Puttu Murali Naidu	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/224/2013	S.I of Police, Rapur vs Gopireddy Bhaskar Reddy	16 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/14/2018	S.I of police, Venkatagiri P.S vs Kamisetty Rammohan	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/221/2018	SHO, Dakkili, P S vs Duggi Bala Krishna	11 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/16/2018	Bhuma Obulu and another vs Salapakshi mohan and another	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/97/2020	Syndicate Bank, Venkatagiri branch, rep. by its Manager vs Machala Ankamma	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/99/2021	Vayyavuru Sreenivasulu and another vs Dabba Gopi and 5 others	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/33/2020	The Sub Inspector of Police, Balayapalli Police Station vs Nidiganti Ramanaiah	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/242/2024	Samala Leelavathi and 2 others vs Ummiti Mahalakshmi	09 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
CC/197/2017	S.H.O. of Venkatagiri P.S. vs Amarthulur Nageswara Rao	09 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/8/2020	Gandlapalli Chandra vs Byrapu Venkataramana	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/35/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Dakkili vs Pokuru Rathnamma and 2 others	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/302/2024	Nakkala Krishnaiah vs Nakkala Nagaraju alias Nagaiah	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	—
OS/69/2022	Sani Dhanumjaya vs Giddangi Raveendra kumar alias Kasaiah	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/87/2024	Canara Bank, Rapur Branch(previously Syndicate Bank, Rapur rep.by its manager) vs Kukati Narasamma -- D1 and 01 other	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/91/2023	Thummalapalli Madhusudhana Rao vs Tirupati Chinnaiah	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/156/2021	Kesani Janardhan Naidu vs Vuppu Ramaiah	28 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/103/2022	Samala Venkata Subbaiah vs Challa Sreenivasulu	13 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/44/2024	Canara Bank(previously Syndicate Bank, Rapur) vs Tirumalakonda Padma and other	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/126/2021	Guddete alias Guddeti Suman vs Kaveripakam Kranthi Kumar	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/218/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Venkatagiri vs Jorepalli Venkatamma and another	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/229/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Venkatagiri vs Karlagunta Ashok and another	12 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/45/2020	Moramreddy Venkataramana Reddy vs Chinthamanu Venkatapathi	11 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/68/2022	Sani Bharathi vs Giddangi Raveendra Kumar alias Kasaiah	06 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/117/2022	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Rapur vs Rapuru Ankaiah and another	03 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/287/2014	S.I of Police, Dakkili vs Pelluru Venkatasubbaiah	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/327/2015	SHO Balayapalli P.S vs Narravula rama Murthy Naidu and12 others	28 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/90/2023	Thummalapalli Madhusudhana Rao vs Tirupati Vinodh	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/139/2022	Adigopula subbarayudu vs Dasari Parandhamaiah	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/172/2022	Saitrasi Balaiah and 3 others vs Dabba Paramesh and 3 others	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/189/2016	Sompalli Rathnamma and 3 others vs Sompalli Jayamma and 3 others	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/196/2023	Kondayagari Mahesh vs E.V.Krishna	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/197/2023	Cherukuru Ravi Kumar vs E.V.Krishna	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/213/2023	Polamreddy Koteswra Reddy vs Geedipalli Sesha Chalapathi Reedy	27 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/250/2016	SHO,Venkatagiri PS vs Murahari Mohan and 3 others	21 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/120/2020	The State, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Balayapalli Police Station vs Sarpuru Manoramma	20 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/14/2018	Kommala Jayaramaiah vs Kommala Krishnaiah	18 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/105/2016	Nidiganti Markandeya@ nidigant markondaiah vs Putta Venkateswarlu and 3 others	17 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
CC/324/2014	S.I of Police, Balayapalli vs Challa Pitchaiah @ Balakrishnaiah	14 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/31/2021	Sajja Eswaraiah vs Doparthi Gopal	13 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/172/2024	Sanampuri Penchalaiah vs Jammalla Polaiah	13 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/283/2024	Doniparthi Chandra Lekha/Devineni Chandra Lekha vs Drangula Chinnaswamy	13 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/166/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Rapur vs Juvvalagunta Prabhavathi -D1 and another	11 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/167/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Rapur vs Dadineni Subbaiah - D1 and 01 another.	11 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/169/2024	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rapur Branch, SPSR Nellore District. vs Dagara Parvathi and 2 others	11 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/160/2024	Kalupudi Sudha Reddy vs Bulagakula Ramana Reddy and 8 others	07 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/59/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Venkatagiri vs Gonugodugu Subbaramaiah and another	05 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/104/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Venkatagiri vs Pagala Rajareddy and another	05 Feb 2025	Judgement	—
OS/50/2022	Seri Munuswamy vs Putturu Balamma	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/54/2022	Thodingala Sumathi vs Valluru Maheswar Reddy	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/70/2022	Gopidesi Narasimhulu vs Shaik Hussain	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/112/2019	Poli Sundara Rami Reddy vs Tambichetty Tirupalu	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/118/2020	Cheruku Vijaya Kumar vs Dakkili Chitti Babu	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/126/2023	Chesetty Prasunamba vs Yakala Swamaiah	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/151/2021	Katragadda Raveendra babu vs Salapakshi Lokanadham	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/165/2024	Canara Bank, Rapur Branch(previously Syndicate Bank, Rapur rep.by its manager) vs Andena Indiramma and 2 others	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/194/2024	Mavillapalli Prasad vs Shaik Dasthagiri	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/258/2024	Mathangi Varamma vs Ravula Ankaiah	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/260/2024	Kesani Janardhan Naidu vs Thambisetty alias Thamisetty Srinivasulu	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/281/2024	Vadlapudi Baby Sarala vs Arani Venu	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/282/2024	Vadlapudi Baby Sarala vs Billu Srinivasulu	31 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/140/2018	Thummalapalli Ademma vs D.Ramanjulu	30 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/187/2024	Ninappagari Chenchu Ramu vs Rangineni Koteswara rao	30 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/84/2019	Gowrabathina Usha vs Karnatakam Kiranmayi	29 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/254/2024	Pulla Venkatasubbaiah vs Gedi Bala Guravaiah and 3 others	29 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
CC/3/2016	SHO,Venkatagiri PS vs Rapuru Sobanadri and 2 others	08 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/47/2022	Mannem Subba Rao vs Anisetty Mohan	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/216/2024	Vadlapudi Murali Naidu vs Chandragiri Krishnaiah	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/238/2024	Panjam Gurunadham vs Muduru Madhavi	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/246/2024	Tadi Chalamaiah vs Pallipati Radhaiah and another	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/247/2024	Pallipati Masthanamma vs Pallipati Ragaiah and another	07 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/24/2023	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,Venkatagiri vs Alwaru Veera Raghavulu and another	06 Jan 2025	Judgement	—
OS/10/2022	Madamala Venkataramireddy vs Elikinti Chenchaiah	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/152/2022	Yellanti Chandra Reddy vs Konda Mera Reddy	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/155/2022	Thaniyala Sarithamma vs Konda Mera Reddy	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/165/2021	M/s.Bank of Baroda, Venkatagiri Branch, rep by its Branch Manager, Venkatagiri vs Bonaga Vamsi and 2 others	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/179/2024	Nagolu Chenchurathanam vs Gurram Venkata Rathanaiah	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/185/2021	Madamala Venkataramireddy vs Elikinti Chenchaiah	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
CC/213/2016	SHO VenkatagiriP.S. vs Thammiredy Bali Reddy	31 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/32/2018	Sundra alias Sandra. Srihari vs Ramisetty . Rakesh	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
PRC/4/2018	sub Inspector of police, Venkatagiri PS vs Kurapati Vijayaraju	30 Dec 2024	Order	—
PRC/4/2024	Sub - Inspector of police, Venkatagiri PS vs Kalathuru Teja @ Tulasi	30 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/60/2024	Kadapa Venkateswarlu vs Mandati Subbarao( died) and 02 others	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—
OS/213/2024	Vadlapudi Baby Sarala vs Dattam Dasaiah	23 Dec 2024	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 620 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		30
Mar 2025		12
Feb 2025		23
Jan 2025		24
Dec 2024		37
Nov 2024		45
Oct 2024		42
Sep 2024		32
Aug 2024		47
Jul 2024		26
Jun 2024		17
May 2024		26

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt O. Anusha handled?

Smt O. Anusha has handled 631 court orders since 2022 at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 18 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt O. Anusha hear?

Based on available records, Smt O. Anusha primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka).

Where is Smt O. Anusha currently posted?

Smt O. Anusha is posted as JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka), Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt O. Anusha available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt O. Anusha are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt O. Anusha dispose cases?

Smt O. Anusha disposes approximately 18 cases per month, based on 631 orders handled over their tenure at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka).

Since when is Smt O. Anusha serving?

Smt O. Anusha has been serving at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka) since 2022.

Case Types

OS 68%

CC 19%

PRC 12%

MC 0%

EP 0%

Posting History

May 2022 — Apr 2025

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI · 631 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 1

Other Judges at this Court

S Vishnu Varma

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VENKATAGIRI

294 orders

← View all judges at Junior Civil Judge`s Court, Venkatagiri (Taluka)