Sri.P.Bhaskara Rao, B.Sc.LL.M.,

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this the 20th day of July, 2012

O.S.No.1572/2009

Between:

Kandukuri Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Sri Lakshmaiah, Hindu, aged 42 years, Insurance Development Officer, Flat No.301, R.R.Residency, Raghavachari Street, Ramachandra Rao pet, Eluru. …Plaintiff.

And

Alluri Venkata Sanjeeva Raju, S/o.Ramaraju, Hindu, aged 48 years, Business, D.No.24-7-46, 4th cross road, Durgapuram, Vijayawada. …Defendant.

This suit is coming on 10.07.2012 before me for hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Jayaprabha, Advocate for plaintiff, and

Sri M.Siva Ramakrishna, Advocate for defendant, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

1. Plaintiff filed this suit against defendant for recovery of sum of

Rs.3,39,870/-.

The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The defendant approached plaintiff that he is the owner of plot

No.29 in R.S.No.141/2 of Gunadala village and offered to sell the same to the plaintiff. After negotiations, the bargain was settled for

Rs.6,28,230/-. Plaintiff was agreed to purchase the same on 22.01.2007. Defendant executed agreement of sale in favour of plaintiff 2 and received Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff towards part of sale consideration as advance. Though plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but defendant only postponed the execution of Registered Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff suspected the conduct of defendant made enquiries and came to know that the defendant intentionally avoiding to execute the Registered Sale

Deed so as to get wrongful gain in a fraudulent manner. Plaintiff also came to know that defendant had no right in the schedule property and by playing fraud on plaintiff he parted with Rs.2,00,000/-. Then plaintiff approached the defendant and warned him to initiate criminal proceedings for cheating and asking the defendant to return as advance amount. The defendant agreed to return the advance amount in the presence of Mylavarapu Lakshmi Narasimha Rao and

K.V.Gopala Krishna Mohan of Eluru. Accordingly, on 05.09.2007 defendant issued cheque for Rs.2,32,000/- drawn on Central Bank of

India to the plaintiff. When plaintiff presented the said cheque for collection it was bounced on the ground of funds insufficient. When plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 04.04.2008 to pay the amount covered under cheque failing which he would initiate legal proceedings, but there is no response from the defendant, as such plaintiff filed CC.No.122/2008 on the file of Special Judicial I Class

Magistrate (Mobile Court) Eluru against defendant under S.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act. While the complaint is pending plaintiff noticed father name of defendant was wrongly typed in the complaint in stead of the name of defendant, and plaintiff rectified the mistake by amending the complaint. Taking advantage of the mistake defendant 3 tried to escape from the liability in view of said facts the plaintiff constrained to file this suit for recovery of sit amount.

2. Defendant filed written statement contended that plaintiff to create and fabricate the agreement of sale and filed this false suit and also cheque bounce case. Suppressing the material facts there is no contract between plaintiff and this defendant agreement is not supported by consideration even there is no cause of action for plaintiff to file this suit. Interest claimed by plaintiff is excessive and usurious since this defendant never received any amount from plaintiff it is not liable to pay any amount and he prayed the Court to dismiss this suit.

3. Basing on the pleadings this Court framed the following issues :

1.Whether agreement of sale dt.22.01.2007 is true, valid?

2.Whether defendant committed breach of contract?

3.Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount?

4. During course of trial, plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 in his evidence Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. Ex.B1 certified copy of calendar and judgement in CC.122/2008 on the file of Spl.Judicial I Class

Magistrate (Mobile) Eluru dt.08.5.2011 is marked on the side of

defendant in the cross-examination of PW1. K.Venkata Gopala Krishna

Mohan said to be 2nd attestor under Ex.A1 agreement of sale was examined as PW2. On the other hand, defendant himself was examined as DW1, but no documents are marked in his evidence.

5. Heard arguments on either side.

4

6. Issue Nos.1 to 3 : -

The contention of defendant is one of total denial. Defendant did not advance any specific theory for fabricating the sale agreement and filed this suit by plaintiff against him. Ex.A1 is not simple promissory note. It is a sale agreement consisting of 3 pages. So, it is not easy for a person to fabricate the agreement of sale like a promissory note so as to believe the contention of defendant. Defendant denied his signatures in Ex.A1 and started putting short signatures from the date of filing written statement as A.V.S.Raju forgetting the fact that he put full signature in vakalat. The defendant in his cross-examination categorically stated that he will send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert, but defendant did not take any such steps to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert. In the written statement he signed as A.V.S.Raju, but in the chief affidavit as well in the cross-examination the defendant put full signature so as to mislead the Court. The defendant changed his signatures somehow or other to escape from the liability, but to my comparison both admitted signatures of defendant and disputed signatures in Ex.A1 appeared to be written by one and the same person.

7. It is further case of plaintiff that he came to know that defendant without having valid right over the plaint schedule property misrepresented that he is owner of schedule property under Ex.A1 and agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff and executed agreement in their favour by parting huge amounts and all of them came to know with defendant had no valid right and title over the property agreed to be 5 sold by him. They raised dispute before elders on that defendant issued cheques to several purchasers including plaintiff for a sum of

Rs.2,32,000/- dt.05.09.2007 bearing Cheque No.022327 drawn on

Central Bank of India, Vijayawada. When plaintiff presented the said cheque in Eluru for collection it was bounced. Ex.A2 is certified copy of cheque dt.20.09.2007, Ex.A3 return memo proved the said fact. In the cross-examination defendant was asked as to how his cheque came to the possession of plaintiff. The defendant simply skipped away stating that cheque was stolen from his office, but no police report was given and no instructions were given to the bank for stop payment. So, the explanation given by defendant that his cheque was stolen from his office is totally absurd and created by defendant to escape from the liability. The defendant did not mention about missing of his cheque in his written statement, therefore, explanation given by defendant is not true and correct.

8. The learned counsel for defendant vehemently argued that basing on Ex.B1 for the cheque bounce case filed by plaintiff against defendant was ended in acquittal, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount in this suit is not tenable. The decision given by criminal Court is not binding on Civil Court, but the decision given by civil Court is binding on the criminal Court. Further, the cheque bounce case was ended in acquittal due to some technical grounds ie., for not issuing statutory notice within the stipulated time and filing of complaint with incorrect name of defendant. Initially the defendant filed case against father of defendant by mistake, subsequently, plaintiff got amended the complaint and rectified the mistake by 6 incorporating the name of defendant to somehow or other the said case was dismissed, even then dismissal of cheque bounce case has no impact or effect on this civil suit.

9. Plaintiff also elicited that defendant knows the attestors and scribe, they are colleagues of plaintiff and defendant also admits that plaintiff is working in LIC. Defendant also admitted that attestors are also filed criminal case against him for cheque bounce. So, all these facts clinchingly reveal the theory that defendant executed several agreements to the plaintiff and his colleagues who signed in Ex.A1 as attestors by falsely representing that he is owner of several plots, and subsequently it was found that defendant has no right and on questioning defendant issued cheques, but they were bounced, therefore, plaintiff and other purchasers filed several suits and obtained decrees, therefore, theory advanced by defendant is only believable and reliable.

10. Plaintiff categorically stated that defendant agreed to sell the schedule property for Rs.6,28,230/-, and received Rs.2,00,000/- as advance under Ex.A1 agreement of sale dt.22.01.2007 in the presence of PW2, and another person by name M.C.N.Rao. Except discrepancy that criminal case filed by plaintiff against defendant was ended in acquittal, and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of plaintiff. Plaintiff categorically denied the suggestion that he forged the signature of defendant and obtained cheque from defendant in some other transaction and filed this case to get wrongful gain.

7

11. PW2 one of the attestors under Ex.A1 also categorically stated about execution of Ex.A1 by defendant. He also asserted that he also purchased one plot from defendant ie., one week after Ex.A1 in which plaintiff and another person signed as attestor in his agreement. First attestor in Ex.A1 purchased one plot, so, the theory of plaintiff that this defendant parted huge amounts and executed several agreements and cheated several people. Now, only to escape from the liability the defendant pleaded false. Plaintiff filed certified copy of plaint in

OS.290/2010, certified copy of decree in OS.298/10 and certified copy

of OS.1558/09 filed against defendant in all various courts, and all of them are decreed. So, theory advanced by plaintiff is only believable and reliable.

12. The learned counsel for defendant relied on a decision reported in D.Lakshminarayana Chetty (died) per L.Rs., vs. Avula Krishnaiah (died) per L.Rs., 1

Wherein it was held that

In case the respondent noticed any defect in title of the appellant vis-à-vis the suit schedule property, or any lapses on the part of the latter, in the matter of execution of sale deed, two courses were open to him. The first is to require the appellant to rectify the defects, if any, in the transaction and conclude the same, by executing the sale deed. The second was, to seek cancellation of Ex.A1. The recitals in Ex.A2 are mostly in the direction of the first course of action. The concluding portion of Ex.A2 reads as under 1 2006 (6) ALD 222 8

None the less my client is willing to take a sale deed from you, for the schedule mentioned property, by getting the same measured through the qualified surveyor and on production of necessary documents of title by you.

He sought for refund of the amount, only in case the appellant did not comply with the course of action, indicated by him. He did not express the intention to cancel the sale deed.

Notwithstanding any response from the appellant, the respondent could have enforced his rights under Ex.A1, by requiring the appellant to execute the sale deed and by getting the property measured. He could also have insisted on handing over the tile deeds. The very fact that the appellant volunteered to file Ex.B1, the source of his title, discloses that he never intended to withhold it from the respondent. In this background, the respondent filed the suit with the following prayer :

It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to pass a decree and judgement in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(a)directing the defendant for return sale consideration of Rs.4,500/-

and

(b)direct the first defendant to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.

In this case on hand, plaintiff not seeking relief of specific performance and sought only for refund of advance paid and specifically stated that defendant had no title in the schedule property, therefore, the agreement is deemed to be canceled. Plaintiff is not asking two reliefs except refund of money which is permissible under law, therefore, the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of present case.

9

13. The next decision relied by defendant reported in Putta Madhukar v. Duddilla Sridhar @ Duddilla Sridhar Babu and others 2

Wherein it was held that

Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides that an affidavit referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the Act shall be sworn before a Magistrate of First Class or a Notary or Commissioner of Oahts, and shall be in Form 25. In this election petition, the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with the election petition, was sworn before an Advocate. The profroma affidavit prescribed under Rule 94A shows that the affidavit as referred to, in Section 83 should be sworn before a Magistrate of

First Class or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths.

The above decision pertains to the election case. The facts are quite different in the said case, affidavit was sworn before an Advocate instead of Magistrate under R.94A of conduct of election rules 1961, therefore, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of thepresent case. From the foregoing discussion , I hold that Ex.A1 is true, valid and supported by consideration and it is found that lapse is with the defendant since he had no title to the property, but falsely represented the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 by parting Rs.2,00,000/- and failed to prove his title before this Court also and set up a false theory of total denial and which ultimately shows that defendant cheated plaintiff by parting huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as advance under Ex.A1, as such defendant is bound to return the said amount to the plaintiff in this suit, hence, these issues are answered in favour of plaintiff against the defendant.

2 2011 (2) ALD 667 10

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,870/- from defendant with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of July, 2012.

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For plaintiff : For defendant :

PW1: K.Srinivasa Rao. DW1: A.Venkata Sanjeeva Raju. PW2: K.Venkata Gopala Krishna Mohan.

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 22.01.2007 Original agreement of sale executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 20.09.2007 Certified copy of cheque bearing No.022327 issued for Rs.2,32,000/- by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A3 08.03.2008 Certified copy of cheque return memo issued by Central Bank of India, Eluru to the plaintiff.

For defendant:

Ex.B1 09.05.2011 Certified copy of calendar and judgement in

CC.No.122/2008 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court,

Eluru.

I ASCJ/VJA

Filename: OS 1572-09-M-MONEY-JULY2012(REFUND OF SALE CONS) Directory: C:�pload Judgements(July) Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL Subject: Author: a Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/23/2012 4:25:00 PM Change Number: 2 Last Saved On: 7/23/2012 4:25:00 PM Last Saved By: a Total Editing Time: 3 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/23/2012 11:37:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 10 Number of Words: 2,310 (approx.) Number of Characters: 13,170 (approx.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Thursday, this 19th day of July, 2012

O.S.No.619/2011

Between:

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Rep.by its Chief Manager, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Vijayawada JCJC., …Plaintiff.

And

1.Yerramsetty Dhanunjaya, S/o.Venkataramaiah, Hindu, aged 45 years, Business, Residing in 31-8-20B, Andhra Bank Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada, Vijayawada JCJC.,

2.Bachalakuri Yesudas, S/o.Raphael, Hindu, aged 55 years, Lecturer in SRR & CVR College, Machavaram, Vijayawada, Residing in D.No.48-11-18/3B, Currencynagar, Vijayawada, Vijayawada JCJC., …Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.2,57,357/- being the principal and interest due under personal loan agreement executed by 1st defendant on 20.05.2004 in favour of plaintiff bank for Rs.1,50,000/-, and on the same day 2nd defendant executed guarantee agreement in favour of plaintiff bank and agreed to repay the same with interest at 12.75% per annum with monthly rests and for costs. On 30.04.2007 and 28.04.2010 1st defendant executed debt revival letter.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri T.V.N.Vasudeva Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants called absent and set exparte, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Chief affidavit of PW1 filed. Exs.A1 to A10 are marked.

Defendants remained exparte. Heard the counsel for plaintiff and 2 perused the record. Suit claim is proved. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendants for recovery of Rs.2,57,357/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on balance amount of

Rs.1,46,966.13 ps.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of

July, 2012.

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For plaintiff : For defendants :

PW1: T.Radhakrishna. -- None --

Documents marked For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 20.05.2004 Loan application.

Ex.A2 20.05.2004Arrangement letter executed by defendants. Ex.A3 20.05.2004Personal loan agreement executed by the 1st defendant. Ex.A4 20.05.2004Guarantee deed executed by 2nd defendant. Ex.A5 30.04.2007Debt revival letter executed by 1st defendant. Ex.A6 28.04.2010Debt revival letter executed by 1st defendant. Ex.A7 16.05.2011Office copy of plaintiff’s demand notice. Ex.A8 20.05.2011Postal returned cover of 1st defendant. Ex.A9 20.05.2011Postal returned cover of 2nd defendant. Ex.A10 ---True copy of suit loan account.

For defendants: -- Nil -- I ASCJ/VJA

Filename: OS 619-11-M-EXP(SBI) Directory: C:�pload Judgements(July) Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL Subject: Author: USER Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/20/2012 10:45:00 PM Change Number: 5 Last Saved On: 7/20/2012 10:56:00 PM Last Saved By: USER Total Editing Time: 11 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/23/2012 11:35:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 2 Number of Words: 428 (approx.) Number of Characters: 2,445 (approx.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this 20th day of July, 2012

O.S.No.408/2012

Between:

Khareedu Venkata Nageswara Rao. …Plaintiff.

And

1.Kona Srinivas.

2.Kona Sri Ram. …Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.5,13,498/- (299000+117600+96898) being the principal and interest due under two demand promissory notes

dated 01.07.2008 respectively executed by late Kona Venkata

Narayana in favour of plaintiff for Rs.3,50,000/- (200000+100000), and he was also indebted to the plaintiff for Rs.82,397/- with regard to the chit run by him on 10.04.2009, and thereafter the said borrower died the defendants jointly (legal representatives of the deceased Kona

Venkata Narayana) acknowledged the above debts of their father on 10.04.2009 respectively in favour of plaintiff, and repayable with interest at 6% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Balaji, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants called absent and set exparte, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Chief affidavit of PW1 filed. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. Defendants remained exparte. Heard the counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. Suit claim is proved. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

2

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendants for recovery of Rs.5,13,498/- Rs.5,13,498/- (299000+117600+96898) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on principal amount of Rs.4,32,397/- (200000+100000+82397).

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of July,

2012.

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For plaintiff : For defendants :

PW1: K.Venkata Nageswara Rao. -- None --

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 10.04.2009 Promissory note executed by defendants.

Ex.A2 10.04.2009 Promissory note executed by defendants.

Ex.A3 10.04.2009 Promissory note executed by defendants.

For defendants :

-- Nil --

I ASCJ/VJA

Filename: OS 408-12-M-EXP(SINGLE PRONOTE)(kona) Directory: C:�pload Judgements(July) Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL Subject: Author: USER Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/20/2012 11:28:00 PM Change Number: 10 Last Saved On: 7/20/2012 11:42:00 PM Last Saved By: USER Total Editing Time: 15 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/23/2012 11:36:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 2 Number of Words: 341 (approx.) Number of Characters: 1,944 (approx.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this 20th day of July, 2012

O.S.No.261/2011

Between:

Tanaki Suseela. …Plaintiff.

And

1.Duddu Madhava Rao.

2.Duddu Venkateswarlu. …Defendants.

Suit for recovery of Rs.6,85,000/- being the principal and interest due under demand promissory note dated 09.03.2008 jointly executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.4,00,000/- repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.L.Prabhakar, Advocate for plaintiff, and defendants called absent and set exparte, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Chief affidavit of PW1 filed. Exs.A1 to A3 are marked. Defendants remained exparte. Heard the counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. Suit claim is proved. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for decree as prayed for.

In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against defendants for recovery of Rs.6,85,000/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization on principal amount of 2

Rs.4,00,000/-. Plaintiff is directed to pay the Court fee

within 15 days (Fifteen days).

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of July,

2012.

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined

For plaintiff : For defendants :

PW1: T.Suseela. -- None --

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 09.03.2008 Original promissory note jointly executed by defendants.

Ex.A2 22.01.2011 Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3 01.02.2011 Reply notice issued by the defendants.

For defendants:

-- Nil --

I ASCJ/VJA

Filename: OS 261-11-M-EXP(JOINT PRONOTE) Directory: C:�pload Judgements(July) Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL Subject: Author: USER Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/20/2012 11:02:00 PM Change Number: 4 Last Saved On: 7/20/2012 11:10:00 PM Last Saved By: USER Total Editing Time: 9 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/23/2012 11:36:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 2 Number of Words: 283 (approx.) Number of Characters: 1,615 (approx.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.BHASKARA RAO, B.Sc., LLM.,

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Friday, this 20th day of July, 2012

O.S.No.514/2010

Between:

Rayachuri Giridhar Raja Gopal Prasad.

…Plaintiff.

And

Eedupalli Ranga Rao. …Defendant.

Suit for recovery of Rs.1,03,200/- being the principal and interest due under promissory note dt.15.03.2007 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.60,000/- and repayable with interest at 24% per annum and for costs.

This suit is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri P.Mohan Rao, Advocate for plaintiff, and same is having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following :

JUDGEMENT

Plaintiff called absent. No representation. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of July,

2012

I ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence Witness examined --- None --- Documents marked --- Nil --- I ASCJ/VJA 2

Filename: OS 514-10-M-DD-JULY2012 Directory: C:�pload Judgements(July) Template: C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Normal.dot Title: IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL Subject: Author: USER Keywords: Comments: Creation Date: 7/23/2012 3:52:00 PM Change Number: 8 Last Saved On: 7/23/2012 3:57:00 PM Last Saved By: a Total Editing Time: 5 Minutes Last Printed On: 7/23/2012 11:35:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages: 2 Number of Words: 164 (approx.) Number of Characters: 938 (approx.)