Smt.P.Gayathri

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Prl District Court Ongole · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.P.Gayathri, III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE, is posted at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,254 court orders on record since 2020. 21 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, OS cases.

2,254

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/100430/2016

Bommireddy Jali reddy vs Thirumalasetty Mohan Rao

10 Aug 2022

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 430 of 2016

BETWEEN:

Bommireddi Jali Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Alluru Village, Kothapatnam Mandal.

... Plaintiff

Tirumalasetti Mohan Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Rice mill business, r/o. Alluru village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming up before this court on 04.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Raghava Rao, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri M.Gangadhara Rao, the learned counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,68,216.50ps (Rs.1,20,353/-+ Rs.1,47,863/-) (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) and (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Three only) being

principal and interest due under two suit promissory notes dated 10.08.2013 executed

by the defendant for Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) and Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eight Six Thousand only) respectively agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., with accrued interest and with costs from the defendant.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, as follows:

On 10.08.2013, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note. On the same day, the defendant also borrowed another sum of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand only) agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount and hence, he issued legal notice on 02.08.2016 demanding the defendnat to pay the amount due under the suit

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

promissory notes but the said notice was not served on the defendatn and ehnce, the suit.

4. Pursuant to the receipt of sumons thedefendant appeared before this court and filed his written statement. The defendant denied all the material allegations made by the plaintiff in his plaint and further submitted that he is not an agriculturist and he is a business man and he has no neessity toborrow amount from the plainitff. He further submitted that he purchased Bengal gram crop from the plaitniff and the suit promissory notes as security and he discharge the said amount after he selling away the said crop. He further submitted that no consideration is pased and the plaintiff colluded with the attestors and filed the present false suit for his wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the rival pleadings, this Court framed the following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.In order to prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and original promissory note dt.10.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as Ex.A1, original promissory note dt.10.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as Ex.A2, office copy of the legal notice, dt. 02.08.2016 as Ex.A3 and postal receipt, dt. 02.08.2016 as A4. In supoort of his case the plaintiff got examined one of the attestor of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 namely Bommireddy Subbareddy as P.W.2. To rebutt the evidence of the plaintiff and in support of his defence the defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and got examined a third party to suit proceedings namely Achakala srinivasulu as DW.2 and no documents were marked on his behalf.

7. Heard the learned counsels for both plaintiff and the defendant. Perused the records available and the evidence.

In order to answer the issues framed, the reasoning for said issue as follows:-

8.Issue No.1:-

In order to prove that the defendant borrowed amount from him, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. P.W.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint deposed that on 10.08.2013 the defendant borrowed amounts from under Exs. A1 and A2 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., P.W.1 further submitted that the defendnat did not choose to repay the suit debt despite his repeated demands and hene, he issued legal notice demanding the defendant for the said notice is not served on the defendnat and defendnat did not repay the suit debt.

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

9. During Course of his cross examination, PW.1 deposed that the defendant never borrowed any amount under Ex.A1 and A2 and he never executed Ex.A1 and A2. And he denied other questions.

10.To support the evidence of PW.1 the attestor namely Bommireddy subbreddy got examined as PW.2. PW.2 in his affidavit in lieu of chief examination deposed that on 10.08.2013 the defendant borrowed an amount from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 and A2. During his cross examinaiton the defendnat borrowed money and denied the other questions.

11. To rebut the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and to support his defence the defendant himself got examined as DW.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examinaiton which is nothing but replica of his written statement and further deposed that he never borrowed any amount and never executed any suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. He never borrowed any amount under Ex.A1 nd A2 but he executed the same as security for the purchase of bengal gram from theplaitiff and he discharged the said amount due under Exs.A1 and A2.

12. In his cross examination DW.1 deposed that he do not have any proof to show that he paid amount to the plaintiff. He further admitted that he signed on Ex.A1. He further deposed that he has not issued any legal notice demanding the plaintiff Ex.A1 and denied other questiones.

13. In his support the efendnat got examined a third party to the suit proceedings namely Atchakala Srinivasulu as DW.2. In his affidavit in lieu of chief examination DW.2 deposed that the defendant used to purchase paddy and bengal gram from the ryots and used to execute promissory notes in teir favour and after repaying the amounts the ryots will return the promissory notes. He further deposed that he has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff as mentioned in the plaint.

14. During his cross examination DW.2 admitted that there was a finance transaction between the plaintiff and DW1and he do not know whether thedefendnt borrowed any amount from the p;laitniff. And denied other questiones.

15. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff proved his case by examining himself as P.W.1 and the attestor of Ex.A.1 and E.A.2 as P.W.2. and nothing to discredit the testimony could be elicited during the course of their cross- examination and the suit be decreed.

16.The learned Counsel for the defendant, on the other hand, has stated that the defendant did not borrow amount from the palintiff and never executed Ex.A.1 and A2, however, the defendnat executed Ex.A.1 and A2 as security for the credit took by him while he purchased bengal gram from the plaintiff and he repaied the same but the plainitff did not return Exs.A1 and A2 and filed the unjust suit.

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

17.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence present in hand, as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 it is established that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.68,800/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred only) under Ex.A.1 from the plaintiff and accordingly executed the same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. on demand of the palintiff.

18. During their cross examination PW.1 and 2 did not shattered from their affidavit in lieu of chief examinaiton. The learned counsel for the defendant did not elicit any evidence in favour of the defendant during the cross examination of Plaintiff as P.W.1 and the attestor of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 as PW.2 and nothing is elicited to disbelieve their evidence.

19.The defendant as DW.1 admitted his signature on Ex.A1 and he pleaded discharged and did not file any documentary proof to suffice his defence. The defendnat as DW.1 himself admitted there is no proof to the said discharge. The evidence of DW.2 is no way helpful to the defendant as himself admitted there was a financial trnasaction between plaitniff and defendant.

20.In view of facts of the present case the plaintiff proved his case by producing cogent and reliable evidence which is not shettered by the defedndant and the defendant failed to prove his defence by producing cogent and reliable evidence except denying passage of consideration under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2, and pleading discharge of the amount mentioned in Ex.A1 and A2 in his written statement and in his evidence. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW.2 and available documentary record and as per the cross examination of P.W.1 and PW.2 by the learned counsel of the defendant that execution of Ex.A1 and A2 by the defendant is established. Thus, Ex.A1 and A2 are true, valid and genuine and binding on the defendant.

21.The plaintiff has amply proved that Ex.A.1 and A2 suit promissory notes are supported by consideration and the defendant had executed it. Thus Ex.A.1 and A2 are valid and binding on the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Ex.A.1 and A2 as per the terms contained therein in Ex.A.1 and A2 the suit promissory note.

22.As far as the amount claimed towards interest is concerned, Section 34 of C.P.C governs the law relating to interest. The said provision deals with grant of interest at three stages, firstly for the period prior to the institution of the suit, secondly from the date of suit to the date of decree and thirdly past decretal period i.e. from the date of decree till the date of realization.

23. Therefore, as per Ex.A1 and Ex.A.2 it is established that the defendant agreed to repay the suit debt at the rate of 24% per annum. This court is of the view that the plaintiff is certainly entitled for interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

the suit to till the date of decree and 6 % per annum from the date of the decree to till realization of suit. Hence, this Issue is accordingly answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

24. Issue No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,68,216.50ps (Rs.1,20,353/-+ Rs.1,47,863/-) (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) and (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Three only) with future interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,86,000/- (Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) + Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty Six Thousand only).

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

For Plaintiffs:- For Defendants:-

PW.1: Bommireddi Jali ReddyDW.1: Tirumalasetty Mohana Rao PW.2: Bommireddi Subba ReddyDW.2: Achakala Srinivasulu

Exhibits marked for plaintiffs

Ex.A1 : Original Suit Promissory note, Dated 10.08.2013 for Rs.70,000/-. Ex.A2 : Original Suit Promissory note, Dated 10.08.2013 for Rs.86,000/-. Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt. 02.08.2016. Ex.A4 : Postal receipt. Ex.A5 : Registered postal cover.

Exhibits marked for defendants

- N I L -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole,

(FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 430 of 2016

BETWEEN:

Bommireddi Jali Reddy, S/o. Raghava Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Alluru Village, Kothapatnam Mandal.

... Plaintiff

Tirumalasetti Mohan Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Rice mill business, r/o. Alluru village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Defendant

The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.2,68,216.50ps (Rs.1,20,353/-+ Rs.1,47,863/-) (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Three only) and (Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Three only) being

principal and interest due under two suit promissory notes dated 10.08.2013 executed

Plaint presented on: 10.08.2016 Plaint filed on: 24.09.2016

Cause of Action:-

The cause of action for the suit arose on 10.08.2013 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,56,000/- from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes in Alluru village in favour of the plaintiff with his own handwriting one for Rs.70,000/- and another for Rs.86,000/- by undertaking to pay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a., when in spite of demands and legal notice, dt. 02.08.2016 defendant failed to discharge the same, where both parties are residents of Alluru village within the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court.

Valuation and Court Fee: Valuation of the suit for the purpose of total Court Fee and Jurisdiction of Rs.2,68,216-50ps (Rs.1,20,353/- + Rs.1,47,863/-) on which a Court Fee of Rs.7752/- (Rs.3826/- + Rs.3926/-) is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

O.S.NO. 430/2016 dtd 10.08.2022 III AJCJ, ,Ongole,Prakasam Dist

hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record, this Court doth order anddecree:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,68,216-50ps (Rs.1,20,353/- + Rs.1,47,863/-) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a., till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,86,000/- (Rs.70,000/- + Rs.86,000/-) ; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.18,100/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10 th day of

August, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole, FAC: III Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.)

Stamp on Vakalath 2-00

Stamp on Plaint 7752-00

Process 200-00

Advocate Fee 9746-00 N I L Writing Charges 200-00

Typing Charges 200-00

Total costs of Rs. 18100-00

II-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

FAC: III-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

CC/402/2022 Acquitted

SHO Ongole Taluka P.S. vs Gaddala Rambabu

04 Aug 2022

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

PRESENT: SMT P. GAYATHRI,

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS. ONGOLE

FAC:III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS. ONGOLE

Thursday, this the 04 th day of August, 2022

CALENDER CASE NUMBER 402 of 2022

Between: - The State of Andhra Pradesh represented By its Sub Inspector of Police, Taluka Police Station, Ongole. … Complainant

And

Gaddala Rambabu, S/o. Yesobu, aged 27 years, SC Madiga by caste, r/o. Karavadi Village, Ongole Mandal. … Accused

This case came up for final hearing before me on 02.08.2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. A.Rama Krishna, learned Counsel for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluka police station, Ongole, filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.11/2022 of Taluka Police Station, Ongole for the offences punishable under section 420, 379 of Indian Penal Code (in brevity I.P.C), Sec. 21 (2) of

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act (in brevity M.M.D.R. Act). The accused is charged and tried for the offences.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 07.01.2022 at about 00.15 hrs the informant namely Kavarthapu Yedukondalu, the Head constable, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Ongole found the accused being the driver of the tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and trolley bearing registration no. AP 39 TYK 9938 illegally transporting the sand approximately 5 tonnes without any permission from the concerned authorities by committing the theft of sand from sand at Kothapatnam government lands and transporting the same to Ongole. The informant namely

Kavarthapu Yedukondalu seized the tractor and trolley along with the sand and also arrested the accused under special report.

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

3.Basing upon the special report, L.W.3, P.Ramesh Babu, Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka police station, registered a case in Cr.No.11/2022 of

Ongole Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under section 420, 379 of I.P.C., section 21 (2) of M.M.D.R. Act and issued FIR and investigated into.

4.L.W.3, P.Ramesh Babu examined L.W.1 and L.W.2 namely Kavarthapu

Yedukondalu and Karavadi Kishore and recorded their statements under 161(3) of

Criminal Procedure Code (in short Cr.P.C). He inspected the scene of offence, and prepared rough sketch.

5.On the same day L.W.3, P.Ramesh Babu served section 41-A Cr.P.C., notices to the accused. Later, he forwarded the seized sand to the Tahsildar for the disposal of the same and received the receipt of remittance of auction amount to the Government.

6 . After completion of investigation, L.W.4, H.Chenchaiah, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ongole Taluka Police Station, filed charge sheet under section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C against the accused for the offences punishable under section 420,379 of I.P.C., section 21 (2) of M.M.D.R. Act .

7.This Court took cognizance under section 190(1) (b) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. against the accused.

8.On appearance of accused case copies were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

9.The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed against accused for the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. and same were read over and explained to accused in Telugu and accused denied the accusation made against him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

10.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, M.O.1. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has not choose to examine L.W.4- H.Chenchaiah. Prosecution evidence is closed.

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

11.After completion of the evidence for prosecution accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the circumstances appearing from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were explained to accused. Accused denied the same. However, accused did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary, in his defence.

12.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused and perused the records.

13. Now the points for determination is:-

1. Whether the prosecution is succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

2. Whether the accused are liable for the punishment punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. ?

14. The case of prosecution is that the accused committed the theft of sand from

Kothapatnam government lands and illegally transporting the said sand without any permission from the concerned authorities for his wrongful gain.

15.To bring home the charges against accused the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4, M.O.1 .

16.Kavarthapu Yedukondalu, the then Head Constable, Special Enforcement

Bureau, Ongole, got examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 deposed that on 07.01.2022 at about 12.15 A.M., he along with L.W.2-Karavadi Kishore went to Ambedkar statue, Koppolu village, Ongole mandal for conducting the vehicle checking and at that time a tractor and trolley came to the scene of offence, then they stopped, enquired. He further deposed that accused stated that he is transporting the sand from Kothapatnam Government lands without any bill or permit to Ongole for sale, for which he seized the tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and trolley bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9938 under cover of special report, which was scribed by L.W.2- Karavadi Kishore. P.W.1 further deposed that he handed over accused along with seized tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and trolley bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9938 along with Special report to Ongole Taluka police station to proceed further.

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

17.P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that the scene of seizure of is busy locality. He further deposed that he did not secure independent witnesses at the scene of offence and he did not issue any written notices to anyone to act as mediators in this case and denied other questions.

18.Karavadi Kishore, who assisted P.W.1 in the present case examined as P.W.2.

P.W.2 deposed in the similar lines of P.W.1 and P.W.2 further deposed that he drafted

Ex.P.1 as per the instructions of P.W.1.

19.P.W.2 in their cross examination deposed that scene of seizure is busy locality and P.W.1 did not secure any mediators for the proceeding of Ex.P.1 and he denied other questions.

20.P.Ramesh Babu, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka police station and the investigating officer examined as P.W.3. P.W.3 deposed about receiving of special report, registering case, issuing FIR, examining the witnesses, visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch, serving 41-A Cr.P.C., notices to accused, handing over the seized sand to the Tahasildar, Ongole, receiving the relevant documents of auction from the Tahasildar, Ongole and after completion of investigation, LW.4-H.Chenchaiah,

Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka P.S., filed the charge sheet against accused.

21.In his cross examination P.W.3 admitted that he did not examine any independent witnesses at scene of offence and denied other questions.

22. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted that as per evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the prosecution is able to establish that accused were transporting sand illegally without permit and license and transporting the same to Ongole and thus accused committed theft of the sand. The learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of PW.1 to P.W.3 is inspiring confidence and trustworthy and prayed to convict the accused .

23.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that except the evidence of officials of Special Enforcement Bureau and the investigating officer, there is no other

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole evidence and thereby there is no evidence to show that the accused loaded sand in their respective tipper lorries, and prayed to acquit the accused

POINT NO.1:

24.A perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, except the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are Special Enforcement Bureau Officials and

Investigating Officer, there is no other evidence available in the record against the accused. Further as per the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the scene of seizure is busy locality and non availability of independent mediators at the scene of seizure does not inspire confidence about prosecution case but creates doubts.

25.P.W.1 did not ascertain whether the accused stolen the said sand from

Kothapatnam government lands. Further, P.W.1 did not secure the presence of mediators at the scene of offence which is fatal to the prosecution case.

26.Further seizing of tractor and trolley, auctioning the sand, remitting the auction amount and serving 41-A Cr.P.C., notices to the accused itself does not establish that the accused transporting the sand illegally without any permit or license and selling the same for higher rates.

27. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.Babu Saheb @ Babu

Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1) ALT (Crl) 32 (AP) in Paragraph No.27 was pleased to hold that:- “The evidence let in by the prosecution must create confidence and must be reliable. Since no efforts were made to take independent mediators into case, it appears that it is not desirable to convict the accused on evidence of P.W.1 to 3.”

28.Thus the prosecution is unsuccessful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.

This point is answered accordingly.

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

POINT No.2:

29.In view of foregoing discussion in point No.1, it is not proved that accused committed the offences punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused cannot be convicted as the benefit of doubt is in his favour.

30.In the result, accused is not found guilty under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. and he is acquittedfor the said offence.

The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/-. The personal bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., for his appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed. The interim custody of the case property i.e., M.O.1/tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and trolley bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9938 which were already given to the owner as per orders Dt.25.01.2022 in Crl.M.P. No. 34/2022 by this Court is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole FAC: III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

For PROSECUTION: For DEFENCE:

1. P.W.1: Kavarthapu Yedukondalu -None-

2. P.W.2: Karavadi Kishore

3. P.W.3: P.Ramesh Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

1. Ex.P.1: Special report

2. Ex.P.2: First information report

3. Ex.P.3: Rough sketch

4. Ex.P.4: Remittance receipt along with covering letter

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

M.Os. MARKED

M.O.1: Tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and Trolley bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9938.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, FAC: III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

C.C.No.402/2022 dtd 04.08.2022III AJFCM, Ongole

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: PRAKASAM Calendar cases tried by the II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole, FAC: III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.

Date of OffenceReportApprehensiReleased onCommenceClose ofSentence on ofbailment oftrial Accusedtrial 07.01.2207.01.22–41-A Cr.P.C.,21.06.22 05.07.2204.08.22

Judgment in C.C. No.402/2022 on the file of III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.. Complainant : Sub Inspector of Police, Taluka P.S., Ongole Cr. No: 11/2022

Sl.Name of theAgeFather’s/ReligionResidenceMandal NoAccusedHusband’s Name

1.Gaddala Rambabu27YesobuMadigaKaravadiOngole

Offence:-under section 379 of I.P.C.

Finding:- Accused is found not guilty under section 379 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted for the said offence.

In the result, accused is not found guilty under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., Sentence:- for the offence punishable under section 379 of I.P.C. and he is acquittedfor the said offence. The accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.10,000/-. The personal bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today under section 437-A of Cr.P.C., for his appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed. The interim custody of the case property i.e., M.O.1/tractor bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9842 and trolley bearing registration number AP 39 TK 9938 which were already given to the owner as per orders Dt.25.01.2022 in Crl.M.P. No. 34/2022 by this Court is made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole FAC: III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

OS/1221/2021

Vema Sravan Kumar vs Lavish Tiles and Granites, Thiruvananthapuram Rep by its Propreitor Ranjith Kuttikalayil Chandran

03 Aug 2022

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20221 III AJCJ, OGL

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, 03 rd day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 1221 OF 2021

Vema Sravan Kumar, S/o. Venkata Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Employee, r/o. D.No.4-16, Mandiram bazar, Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

M/S. Lavish Tiles and Granites, Thiruvananthapuram, rep. Byits Prop. Renjith Kuttikalayil Chandran, S/o. Chandran, Hindu, aged about 40 years, r/o. TC 30/11651, Kanjirampara, Vattiyoorkavu, Thiruvananthapuram-695 030, Kerala state.

... Defendant

This suit is coming up before this court on 27.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Visweswara Rao, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,35,800/- (Rupees One Lakh

Thirty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) being principal and interest due under suit cheque dated 24.12.2018 issued by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only) with accrued interest and with costs from the defendant.

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

The plaintiff and the prorietor of the defendnat arehaving business transactionswithregard to the supply of granite stone. On 24.12.2018 the defendant requested the plainitff to lend hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as he is in need of money and issued cheque for the same and requested nottodeposit the same immediately. On 27.12.2018 the plainitff depositd the said cheque in hisbank at the request of thedefendnatbut the same was dishnoured on 28.12.2018.

The plaintiff intimated the same to the defendant and orally requested for the payment of money and also requested through whatsapp messages, but the defendnat did not pay the amount as the defendant did not pay the amount he issued a legal notice, dt. 16.11.2021 demanding the defendant to repay

Rs.1,00,000/- together with interst 24% p.a., depsite receiving the said notie the defendant neither issued reply nor repaid the amount. Hence the suit.

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20222 III AJCJ, OGL

3. Despite receiving the summons from this court the defendant did not appear bnefore this court and was set ex-parte on 16.03.2022 and posted for plaintiff evidene.

4.Basing up on the plaint pleadings the points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?

2. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, plaintiff adduced his oral evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., Original cheque bearing no. 000098 issued by defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt. 24.12.2018, Cheque return memo, dt. 28.12.2018 and

Office copy of legal notice, dt. 16.11.2021 and the defendant did not choose to contest the case but remained ex-parte.

6. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the records available and the evidence.

7.Point No:1 :-

The plaintiff in order to establish his case got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint.

P.W.1 in his chief examination re-iterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that the defendant issued chequie after receiving the consideration which is marked as Ex.A1 and the same is dishnoured due to insufficient funds. P.W.1 further deposed that despite repeated demands the defendant did not choose to repay the debt, hence, he issued legalnotice on 16.11.2021. PW.1 further deposed that despite receiving legal notice the defendnat did not choose to repay the due under

Ex.A.1.

8. On co-joint reading of plaint, the oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence available on hand it is well established that the defendant issued Ex.A1 cheque after receiving the consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was dishonoured as evidenced by Ex.A2. Hence this court holds that Ex.A1 was issued by the defendant on 24.12.2018 and defendant has not paid the suit debt despite of repeated demands. Furthermore defendant had not choose to contest the suit of the plaintiff and have choose to remain ex-parte.

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20223 III AJCJ, OGL

9. The plaintiff has amply proved that the defendant issued Ex.A.1 cheque after receiving consideration and the same is dishonoured and hence it is valid and binding on the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount mentioned in Ex.A.1 cheque along with the accrued interest as per the section 80 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and the defendant is not entitled for anyrelief as he did not contest the case. The point is answered accordingly.

10.Point No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of

Rs.1,35,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with future interest at 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 03rd day of August, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendant PW.1: Vema Sravan Kumar - NIL -

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original cheque bearing no. 000098 issued by the defendant in favour of plaintiff, dt. 24.12.2018.

Ex.A2 : Cheque return memo, dt. 28.12.2018.

Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt. 16.11.2021.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-N I L -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole,

(FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20224 III AJCJ, OGL

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, 03 rd day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 1221 OF 2021

Vema Sravan Kumar, S/o. Venkata Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about 33 years, Employee, r/o. D.No.4-16, Mandiram bazar, Santhanuthalapadu Village, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

… Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,35,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Thirty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) being principal and interest due under suit cheque dated 24.12.2018 issued by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with accrued interest and with costs from the defendant.

Plaint presented on: 20.12.2021Plaint filed on: 27.12.2021

Cause of Action:-

The cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant is trader and marker of granite stone, having shop in the name of defendant, when the proprietor of defendant used to purchase granite stone in Ongole and Chimakurthy, when father of plaintiff and defendant’s proprietor have good acquaintance, when the plaintiff given Rs.1,00,000/- to the proprietor of defendant as requested by him on 24.12.2018, when the defendant issued cheque to the plainitff immediately to present the cheque with his account within one week, when plainitff believed and to the cheque, when the proprietor of defendant informed to plaintiff that he has no money, when pay money and take back the cheque from the plaintiff since December, 2018, when he is avoiding, when plaintiff presented the cheque with his bankers IDBI Bank, Ongole on 27.12.2018 and the cheque was bounced on 28.12.2018 by the bankers of defendant with reason “Funds Insufficient”, when defendant requested plainitff not to file case by promising that the defendant will pay with 12% ionterest, when defendant also sent whatsapp messages that the defendant will pay money in weekly installments and failed to do so, when the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt. 16.11.2021 demanding when defendant received the same and neither choose to give reply nor choose to pay the amount due at Santhanuthalapadu and Ongole where cause of action for the suit arose and where the cheque issued and was presented and returned is within the jurisdiction of this

Honourable Court.

Valuation and Court Fee: Valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and Jurisdiction of Rs.1,35,800/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.3,826/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20225 III AJCJ, OGL

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,35,800/- with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter 6% p.a., till its realization on the principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/-; and

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,927/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 03 rd day of

August, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole, FAC: III Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.)

Stamp on Vakalath 2-00

Stamp on Plaint 3826-00

Process50-00

Senior Advocate Fee 2887-00 N I L Junior Advocate Fee 962.00

Writing Charges 100-00

Typing Charges 100-00

Total costs of Rs. 7927-00

II-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

FAC: III-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

O.S.No.1221 of 2021, dt.03.08.20226 III AJCJ, OGL

OS/1165/2021

Piduguralla Koteswaramma vs District Educational Officer, Ongole

10 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 1165 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Piduguralla Koteswaramma, W/o. Govindu, aged about 60 years, Hindu, House wife, r/o. Indira colony, near ambedkar bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

The District Educational Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Defendant

This suit is coming up before this court on 02.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.V. Satyanarayana Reddy, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare her as the wife of deceased

Piduguralla Govindu to get family pension of the deceased and to pass such other orders.

2.The averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff is the wife of deceased Piduguralla Govindu, whose marriage was performed with 15 years back and they begot 4 children out of their wedlock. The plaintiff further submitted that the deceased Piduguralla Govindu retired as a government teacher and he died on 16.08.2016 due to his ill-ness and during his life time he was drawing his pension under P.R.O. No. 17/SGC-008380 through Vijaya Bank, Ongole.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that after the death of her husband she approached the defendant for issuance of family pension of deceased husband and after verifying the records the defendant intimated her that the details of the family members of the deceased were not entered in his service register and the plaintiff 2 has not shown as his wife. Te plaintiff further submitted that the defendant requested her to produce the orders of the court declaring her as wife of deceased

Piduguralla Govindu. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present case.

4.Pursuant to the receipt of the summons, the defendant appeared

before the court through additional government pleader, however, did not file the

written statement despite granting sufficient time. Hence, the defendant is set ex- parte and posted for plaintiff evidence

5. Basing up on the plaint pleadings the points for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declare her as the wife of deceased Govindu as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

Point No.1:-

7.The Plaintiff to prove that she is the wife of deceased Govindu filed

Exs.A1 to A7 by filing her affidavit in lieu of chief examination which is nothing but replica of plaint. Plaintiff further deposed that she is the wife of deceased Govindu and her name was not entered in the records concerned to avail the family pension of her deceased husband and when she approached concerned authorities they requested to produced the orders of this court, Perusal of Ex.A6 and A4 which clearly shows that the husbands name of the plaintiff is Govindu. Further the defendant did not choose to contest the case and to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Hence, the evidence of plaintiff stands unchallenged and unrebutted.

8. A perusal of Exs.A1 to A3 shows that the deceased Govindu was worked as a government employee and after his retirement he received pensions.

The death of the deceased is not disputed by the deceased wife and it is not disputed that the plaintiff is not the wife of the deceased Govindu. Thus as per the evidence available on record which is undisputed shows that the plaintiff is the wife of deceased Govindu and she is entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9.Point No.2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the plaintiff as the wife of deceased Govindu who was retired from his services as a government teacher.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 10th day of August, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff : Defendant

PW.1: Piduguralla Koteswaramma - NIL-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Petitioner’s identity card in the name of P.Govindu. Ex.A2 : Vijaya Bank pass book in the name of P.Govindu. Ex.A3 : Aadhar card of Piduguralla Govindu. Ex.A4 : Aadhar card of the plaintiff. Ex.A5 : Original postal pass book in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A6 : Original identity card of National old age pension scheme in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A7 : Information sought from Mandal Revenue officer, Mandal Parishad, Ongole, dt. 20.09.2016.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-N I L -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole,

(FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 10 th day of August, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 1165 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Piduguralla Koteswaramma, W/o. Govindu, aged about 60 years, Hindu, House wife, r/o. Indira colony, near ambedkar bhavan, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

The District Educational Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District.

... Defendant

The suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare her as the wife of deceased Piduguralla Govindu to get family pension of the deceased and to pass such other orders.

Plaint presented on: 22.09.2021 Plaint filed on: 10.12.2021

Cause of Action:-

The cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintiff got married with Govindu, who worked as a teacher 50 years back and residing in Valetivaripalem village, Karavadi and after his retirement they resided in Ongole, Ambedkar Nagar, when the plaintiffs husband died on 16.08.2016 due to ill-health, when the plaintiffs name is not mentioned as wife of deceased Govindu as S.R., when the plaintiff approached concerned authorities for seeking family pension whey they directed the plaintiff to produce declaration certificate of marriage regarding as the plaintiff is wife of deceased Govindu for which the plaintiff filed this petition. The plaintiff is residing in Ongole which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable court.

Valuation and Court Fee: For the relief of permanent injunction is valued at Rs.17,453/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.1,236/- is paid under Sec. 20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

This suit is coming up before this court on 02.08.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.S.V. Satyanarayana Redddy, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and on perusing the material available on record, this Court doth order anddecree:- 5

1. that the suit be and is hereby decreed;

2. that the defendants and its officials, men and followers are hereby restrained from obstructing the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule mentioned property comprising of Ac.00.15 cents of land out of Ac.2.96 cents situate in Chimakurthy Municipality in Sy. No. 334/1, 325/1 and 325/2 by way of permanent injunction; and

3. that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,238/- towards costs of the suit; and do bear his own costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10 th day of

August, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole, FAC: III Additional Junior Civil Judge,Ongole.

// TABLE OF COSTS //

For Plaintiff For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.)

Stamp on Vakalath 2-00 N I L Stamp on Plaint 1236-00

Total costs of Rs. 1238-00

II-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE,

FAC: III-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

OS/813/2022

Koduri Lakshmi vs Purini Sankaraiah

26 Sep 2022

O.S. No. 813/2022 dtd 26.09.20221 IIIAJFCM,ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ONGOLE

Present : Smt. P. Gayathri, II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 26 th day of September, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NUMBER 813 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Koduri Lakshmi, W/o. Koteswara Rao, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Agriculturist, r/o. Motumala Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Plaintiff

1. Purini Sankaraiah, S/o. Late Venkata Subba Reddy, aged about 55 years, Hindu, Salt cultivation, r/o. Motumala Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Purini Govindamma, W/o. Sankaraiah, aged about 49 years, Hindu, Salt cultivation, r/o. Motumala Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Purini Srinivasa Reddy @ Srinu, S/o. Sankaraiah, aged about 32 years, Hindu, Private employee, r/o. Motumala Village, Kothapatnam Mandal, Prakasam District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming up before this court on 23.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.L. Govindaiah, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri N.Pothu Raju, the learned counsel for Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The suit is filed for granting of permanent injunction in favour of the plaitiff against the defendants, their men and followers by restraining them from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s plaint schdule land in any manner and to grant for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint, in brief, as follows:

The plaintiff and defendants are belongs to same village and plaint schdule property is situated in that village. The schedule property is originally belongs to government and it has been cultivated by plaintiff for last 25 years by raising crops every year and he was an landless poor person and he requeseted to government for issued

DK patta for the said land and the government issue D-Form (7) patta on 07.04.2007 by

Tahsildar, Kothapatnam vide D.K. No. 71/1415. Plaintiff also dug bore well in land and obtained electricity service connection bearing S.C. No. 680 of Motumala for agricultre puprose and arranged electrical motor to bore well and raising vegetable garden in every year. The raithu barosa kendram, Rangayapalem village maintained by A.P. government

O.S. No. 813/2022 dtd 26.09.20221 III AJFCM,ONGOLE

recognized plaintiff and raising vegetable leaf in the said land and issued E-Karshak certificate to plaintiff on 09.01.2022. The plaitniff cultivating the schdule land by raising crops every year and enjoying land with absolute rights uninterruptedly.

3.There are family disputes between husband of plaintiff and defendant no.1 to defendant no.3 and defendants threatened to plaitniff to grab the schdule land and she is unable to resist the high handed and illegal acts of defendants for last fifteen days and plaitniff and her family members threatened with dire consequences. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

4. At this juncture that the plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.3 requested to refer the matter for mediation as there is a chance of settlement of the case. Accordingly, this case is referred to mediation to the Mediation Center, Prakasam

District at Ongole. Accordingly, the Co-Ordinator, Mediation Center at District Legal

Services Authority, Prakasam District at Ongole pleased to appoint Sri. G.Gandhi, to mediate in between the parties.

5.The learned Mediator held mediation in between the parties on 23.09.2022 and the parties arrived to the agreement under following terms:

1. The case is filed by the plaintiff Under Or 7 R 1 and sec. 26 of CPC on the file of the

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole.

2. The matter was referred to mediation vide an order dt. 23.09.2022 passed by the

Hon’ble Co-ordinator, Mediation center, Ongole.

3. The parties agreed that the Mediation would act as their mediator.

4. Meeting was held on 23.09.2022. The parties with the assistance of mediator voluntarily agreed to arrive at an amicable solution resolving the above mentioned dispute.

5. The parties herein confirm and declare that they have voluntarily and of their own free will arrived at this settlement of agreement in the presence of the mediator.

6. The following settlement has been arrived between the parties hereto:

A. The plaintiff and defendants have got measure the schedule land and found that the schedule land is only an extent of 99 ½ cents in Sy. No. 705/2 of Motumala village of Padarthi revenue. Out of the said 99 ½ cents the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of item no.1 i.e., an extent of 57 cents and the 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of item no.2 i.e., an extent of 42 ½ cents.

O.S. No. 813/2022 dtd 26.09.20221 III AJFCM,ONGOLE

B. Item No.1:-

The plaintiff’s 57 cents land in Sy. No. 705/2 is within the following boundaries:-

East:-Agricultural land of 15 cents plaintiff in sy. No. 705/3 (koduri Lakshmi) South:-Land of Purini Sankaraiah (1st defendant) West:-The land in an extent of 10 cents in Sy. No. 827 of the plaintiff in between this item and the padarthi-Motumala road. North:-Land of Purini Govindamma i.e., item no.2.

C. Item No.2:-

The 2nd defendant’s 42 ½ cents land in Sy. No. 705/2 is within the following boundaries:-

East:-Agricultural land of Purini Govindamma (2nd defendant) South:-Item no.1 belongs to the plaintiff. West:-The land in an extent of 10 cents in Sy. No. 827 of the 2nd defendant in between this item and the padarthi-Motumala road. North:-Land of Purini Govindamma, W/o. Nageswara Rao

The plaintiff and defendants agreed that they will not interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above respective items of the plaintiff and 2nd defendant in any manner.

The plaintiff and the defendants have agreed that they have no objection to get mutate their names in the revenue records as per the terms of compromise of the above suit.

7.By signing this agreement the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to OS. No. 813/2022 on the file of the III Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole and all disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto through process of this mediation.

6.The plaintiff further agreed that she will have no further claims or demands against each other with respect of O.S. No. 813/2022 pending before this Court as the all the disputes are settled amicably under Mediation.

7.Thus as the parties to the present case settled the case as per the terms of the agreement of mediation and as the petitioner agreed not claim any reliefs in the present case, in view of the settlement arrived by the parties before the Mediation

O.S. No. 813/2022 dtd 26.09.20221 III AJFCM,ONGOLE

Center, Ongole before the Mediator, this Court inclined to dispose the present case in the terms of the agreement of Mediation.

8.In the result, the case is settled before the mediation and the present case disposed as per the settled terms of mediation.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 26th day of September, 2022.

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

- N I L -

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

O.S. No. 813/2022 dtd 26.09.20221 III AJFCM,ONGOLE

Order Record 2,248 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/687/2022	Daka Rami Reddy vs Bodapati Venkaiah	24 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/687/2022	Daka Rami Reddy vs Bodapati Venkaiah	24 Apr 2023	Decree	—
OS/79/2023	Chandra Krishnaveni vs Prattipati Sesha Rao	19 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/260/2023	Shaik Umar Farooq vs Shaik Sabeeha @ Syed Sabeeha	11 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/813/2022	Koduri Lakshmi vs Purini Sankaraiah	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
CC/1379/2019	Karumudi Anjaneyulu vs Manne Anjaneyulu	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	Compromised
CC/1380/2019	Marella Rama Krishna vs Manne Anjaneyulu	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	Compromised
CC/1948/2022	Sub Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluka P.S, vs Undela Venkata Reddy	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	Convicted
DVC/400008/2018	Chittem Supriya vs Chittem Venkata Rajesh	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	Compromised
MC/400007/2017	Chittam Supriya vs Chittam Venkata Rajesh	26 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/100596/2016	Dharmavarapu Prasada Rao vs Arumulla Srinivasa Reddy	22 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/738/2022	Rayapati Suresh @ Ravipati Suresh vs Nuthalapati Srinivasa Rao	21 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/740/2022	Paturi Venkateswarlu vs Nuthalapati Srinivasa Rao	21 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/87/2021	Singamneni Brahmanandam vs Chunduri Naga Siddaratha	20 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/468/2022	Perumalla Srinivasa Rao vs Gangireddy Indira	20 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/577/2022	Mareddy Lakshma Reddy vs Daachuri Madhava Reddy	20 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/23/2019	Muppaneni Mallika vs Vskakumani Venkateswarlu	19 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/215/2022	Danduri Srinivasulu vs Chennam Venkata Panduranga Rao	15 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/423/2022	Mutyala Maiyadri vs Kancharla Pullaiah	14 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
DVC/1/2016	Chaganti Anusha vs Chaganti Ravi Kumar Reddy	07 Sep 2022	Judgement	—
OS/579/2021	Ankitha Lakshmi Narayana vs Pokala Hanumantha Rao	29 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
MC/29/2022	Kuncahala Anusha vs Kunchala Santhosh Kumar	26 Aug 2022	Order	Compromised
OS/639/2022	Cherukuri Yallamanda vs Gujjala Venkata Subhash Reddy	22 Aug 2022	Judgement	—
OS/639/2022	Cherukuri Yallamanda vs Gujjala Venkata Subhash Reddy	22 Aug 2022	Decree	—
CC/1/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Kalluri Nuresh	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/5/2022	Andhra Pradesh, Chimakurthy PS vs Arithoti Srinivasarao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/18/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Muttukuri Malliswari	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/23/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Sirimalla Syam	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/26/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Madala Kondala Rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/31/2021	SHO S.N. PADU PS vs Pothuri Sai Venkata Vinay	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/37/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Naligala Yalamanda	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/38/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG Padu PS vs Thotapalli Anjaneyulu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/82/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of Police NG Padu PS vs Nuthalapati Sai Teja	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/83/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of Police, Chimakurthy vs Marineni Venkata rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/84/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of Police, NG padu PS vs Kukkala Ayyapureddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/158/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, NG padu PS vs Mallela Sai Praveen Kumar@ Sai	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/357/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. vs Battula Rambabu alias Ramjith	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/362/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Lama Jeevarathnam	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/393/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Telagathoti Peddamayi	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/396/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Suriboina Aliyas Surini Siva Krishna reddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/467/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Bathula hanumanthurao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/549/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Bogireddy Yedukondalureddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/595/2022	Andhra Pradesh, Chimakurthy PS vs Medarametla Hari Babu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/697/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Annapureddi Venkteswara Reddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/741/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, NG padu PS vs Nookathoti Rama Rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/793/2019	SHO CHIMAKURTHY PS vs Duddukuri Rambabu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/970/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Satharasi Nagasai	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/988/2019	SHO cHIMAKURTHY PS vs Madarametla Venkata Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1173/2021	SHO CHIMAKURTHY PS vs Nallmala Srinu and 1other	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1184/2020	SHO N.G. PADU PS vs Mandapati Anjaneyulu alias Anji	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1205/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Kunchala Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1307/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Pinupa venkata saibabu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1487/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Sarvepalli Anil	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1488/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN Padu PS vs Tanneeru Peetar Paul	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1490/2022	Andhra Pradesh, Chimakurthy PS vs Gali Sivakrishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1494/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Kakani Venkateswarlu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1498/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, Chimakurthy vs Rathikinda Madhu babu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1500/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of Police, NG padu PS vs Thummala Sudhakara Rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1525/2021	SHO Chimakurthy ps vs Pallapu Ramanaiah and 3others	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1525/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SN padu PS vs Chatti Chennakesavulu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1526/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Kota Nageswara rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1527/2021	SHO Chimakurthy ps vs Thanniru Bala Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1530/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Burri Hanumantha Rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1531/2022	Andhra Pradesh, NG padu PS vs Perala Fransis	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1543/2019	SHO N.G. PADU PS vs Sathuluri Sindhu Alias Borugadda Yesturu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1544/2022	Andhra Pradesh, Chimakurthy PS vs Dupati Mariyadasu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1555/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police., Chimakurthy vs Shaik Sadik	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1556/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, Chiamurthy vs Paladugu Koushik	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1557/2022	Andhra Pradesh, SI of police, Chimakurthy PS vs Nallapu Venkat subbarami Reddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1567/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Vskodamula Ismael	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1577/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Maddineni Sridhar	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1580/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Jonnalagadda Meeraiah	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1582/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Yerraguntla Venkateswarlu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1584/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Pulimardi Chenna Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1585/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Panjab Mudi	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1587/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Mannepalli Venkata Sai Kumar	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1588/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Yesupogu Venkatrao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1590/2022	Station House Officer, Chimakurthy vs Elchuri Anil	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1592/2022	Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu vs Kota Babu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1593/2022	Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu vs Bapatla Siva Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1594/2022	Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu vs Gujjula Amrutha Srinivasa Reddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1595/2022	Station House Officer, Santhanuthalapadu vs Estarla Kumar	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1597/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy vs Galimutti Prasanth	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1598/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy vs Janamala Chinna Subba Rao alias Chinna Subbaiah	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1600/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy vs Adapala Gangaiah	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1602/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy vs Darla Nagamanai	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1623/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu P.S., vs Pettu Koti Reddy	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1624/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police,Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Gajendran Devaraj	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1625/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police,Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Kondepi Gopi	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1627/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police,S.N.padu Police Station. vs Butti Nagaiah	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1629/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Koppula Adi Narayana	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1631/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Nalagatla Yedukondalu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1633/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. vs Mudda Mahesh	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1635/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, N.G.Padu Police Station. vs Shaik Mahammad Rafi	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1636/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police,Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Prameswar	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1638/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, Chimakurthy Police Station. vs Janarajupalli Vijay Babu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1639/2022	State Sub Inspector of Police, S.N.Padu Police Station. vs Kola Ramachandraiah	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1643/2022	Ch.Madusudhana Rao vs Ramadugu Venkateswarlu	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1649/2022	State Station House Officer, Chimakurthy P.S. vs Chinthaginjala Bala Krishna	13 Aug 2022	Order	—
CC/1650/2022	State Station House Officer, Chimakurthy P.S. vs Gopisetty Koteswara Rao	13 Aug 2022	Order	—

Showing 100 of 2,248 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		4
Sep 2022		17
Aug 2022		117
Jul 2022		18
Jun 2022		1,882
May 2022		12
Apr 2022		39
Mar 2022		64
Feb 2022		12
Jan 2022		26
Dec 2021		36
Nov 2021		22

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.P.Gayathri handled?

Smt.P.Gayathri has handled 2254 court orders since 2020 at Prl District Court Ongole. The average disposal rate is 68 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.P.Gayathri hear?

Based on available records, Smt.P.Gayathri primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits) at Prl District Court Ongole.

Where is Smt.P.Gayathri currently posted?

Smt.P.Gayathri is posted as III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE at Prl District Court Ongole, Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.P.Gayathri available online?

Yes. 21 judgments by Smt.P.Gayathri are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.P.Gayathri dispose cases?

Smt.P.Gayathri disposes approximately 68 cases per month, based on 2254 orders handled over their tenure at Prl District Court Ongole.

Since when is Smt.P.Gayathri serving?

Smt.P.Gayathri has been serving at Prl District Court Ongole since 2020.

Case Types

STC 78%

CC 11%

OS 10%

DVC 0%

MC 0%

A 0%

PRC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2023 — Apr 2023

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 4 orders
Aug 2022 — Sep 2022

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 18 orders
Aug 2022 — Aug 2022

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE
Aug 2022 — Aug 2022

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE · 101 orders
Apr 2022 — Apr 2022

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE
Apr 2022 — Aug 2022

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 1,352 orders
Apr 2022 — Aug 2022

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE · 580 orders
Oct 2021 — Apr 2022

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE · 199 orders
Jul 2020 — Apr 2023

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Compromised 4

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.Satyanand

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,ONGOLE

10 orders

Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

4,159 orders

Smt. Pandiri Laltiha

II Additional District and Sessiosns Judge-cum-Spe...

474 orders

Smt. A.Purnima

III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

409 orders

Sri K.Syam Babu

VII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ONGOLE

12 orders

Smt G.Deena

JUDGE,FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII-ADDL.DIST.JUDGE,ONGOLE

0 orders

Smt V.Pallavi

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

0 orders

Sri Ch.V.Rama Krishna

Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

710 orders

Smt S.Komalavalli

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

0 orders

Ms Y Shalini Reddy

I-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

505 orders

Ms. Shaik Roshan

II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

325 orders

Ms. V.Navyashri

III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE

831 orders

Smt J.Krishna Priya

SPL. JMFC, EXCISE COURT, ONGOLE

0 orders

Sri Vatram Venkateswara Rao

JMFC, SPL. MOBILE COURT, ONGOLE

983 orders

Miss K. Sailaja

Spl. Judge for speedy trial of offences under the...

293 orders

← View all judges at Prl District Court Ongole