Smt. P.Manga Kumari

1

THE COURT OF RINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::AMALAPURAM. PRESENT: Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Monday, the 16th day of February 2015

IA NO.894/2014 in OS No.20/2008

Between

Pukhraj Jain...Petitioner/plaintiff.

AND 1.Tatavarthi Satyanarayanamurthy (died) 2.Tatavarthi Adilakshmi. 3.Tatavarthi Ganeswararao. 4.Tatavarthi Sarveswararao. 5.Tatavarthi Suryanarayanarao. 6.Tatavarthi Narasimharao. 7.Tatavarthi Satyanarayanarao. 8.Guduri Nagapadmavathi.

..Respondents/defendants.

This petition coming on 10.2.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri P.Srinivasarao, Advocate for respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.The petitioner filed this petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of

CPC praying the court to amend the plaint i.e.,

a) For the declaration of the title in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff for the plaint schedule property in RS No.383, in Amalapuram town with an extent of 17 sq. yards out of 240 sq. yards in Northern side;

b) To grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the extended part 17 sq. yards within a time to be fixed by the court, failing which, get it remove through due process of law;

c)To pass permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers ever interfere with the plaintiff right for use of the 17 sq. yards APQ CWV and not to cause any obstruction or obstacle either temporary or permanent in nature in declaration of title user of property of 17 sq. yards;

d) Declare title in favour of the plaintiff for extend of 17 sq. yards part illegal construction, constructed by defendants and with costs.

2. In support of the petition, petitioner filed his affidavit stating that, he purchased the petition schedule property an extent of 240 sq. yards under registered sale deed dated 17.12.1993. He 2 purchased one part of two storied building in southern side; remaining part of two storied building, 1st respondent purchased on 6.9.1994. He filed the suit, as 1st respondent while removing his part, removed his building part approximately 20 sq. yards in

Northern side of petition schedule property and left the same damaged. The court appointed Advocate commissioner. He visited the property and found 1st respondent constructed iron pillars in the trespass of petition schedule property of 17 sq. yards. 1st respondent died on 11.7.2010. Thereafter, petitioner filed IA

No.931/2010 for adding of legal representatives of deceased 1st respondent. After respondents 2 to 8 came on record as L.Rs of deceased 1st respondent, they engaged advocate ; but did not file written statement and hence, the court set them exparte. The respondents constructed wall and building in the disputed area of 17 sq. yards of petition schedule property. The petitioner’s right was ultimately lost in 17 sq. yards of site. Hence the petition.

3.The respondents 2 to 8 filed their counter specifically denying the petition allegations and further contending that, the suit itself is devoid of merits and is also barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC in view of the petitioner/plaintiff filed the earlier suit in OS 306/2007 basing on the self same cause of action and against the same defendant and for the self same property. The respondent previously got filed a petition also to dismiss the suit as barred by provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 and the same is pending for adjudication. If the said petition is decided, the question of entertaining this suit or the present petition does not arise.

Subsequent to their impleadment as L.Rs of the deceased sole 3 defendant, they are contesting the suit basing on the written statement filed by their father 1st defendant. No separate statement is required to be filed by these defendants. That does not give any right to the petitioner to seek for amendment at his choice that too after lapse of six years. Basing on some alleged contentions in the plaint, the petitioner simply filed this petition seeking amendment of the relief of declaration. There are absolutely no grounds that were made out by the petitioner to seek for such an amendment and it is barred by limitation. The petition is filed by the petitioner is self- contradicting to his contentions in the plaint filed by him and as such, the petition is devoid of merits. Previously, the petitioner got filed another petition in similar lines, wherein, he alleged that 1st defendant encroached total extent of 11 sq. yards. Therefore, in view of all these self contradictory contentions, it is very much clear that the present petition as filed by the petitioner is nothing but a vexatious one and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

Further, by virtue of the proposed amendment, which the petitioner sought for, the very nature of the plaint itself will be changed. The cause of action as stated by the petitioner is entirely different one, for which, purpose, the petitioner needs to go for a separate suit subject to limitation, but he cannot be allowed to change the plaint and cause of action under the guise of the proposed amendment.

Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.Heard arguments. Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for determination is “Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for”?

6.POINT:

4

As seen from the record, trial has yet to be commenced.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC envisages as follows:-

Amendment of pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that is spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

In Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu (2002 (4) CCC 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that, “Question was whether it was permissible to convert through amendment a suit merely for permanent prohibitory injunction into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Basic structure of suit was not altered by proposed amendment. What was sought to be changed was nature of relief sought for by plaintiff. If it was permissible for plaintiff to file an independent suit, why the same relief which could be prayed for in a new suit could not be permitted to be incorporated in a pending suit. Allowing the amendment would curtail multiplicity of legal proceedings. Interest of defendant could be protected by directing that so far as relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession were concerned the prayer in that regard should be deemed to have been made on the date on which application for amendment has been filed”.

The suit was filed in the suit 2008. Initially the suit was filed for mandatory injunction directing the defendant not to do further construction and also for prohibitory injunction. Now, this petition is filed, to amend the plaint for the relief of declaration of his title over the plaint schedule property RS No.383, in Amalapuram town with an extent of 17 sq. yards out of 240 sq. yards in Northern side and to make consequential amendments. The amendment which sought by the petitioner does not alter the nature of suit. As far as 5 contention with regard to limitation, that can be decided only after full-fledged trial. To avoid further litigation driving the party to take appropriate steps subject to limitation is not legally valid. It is fit and proper to allow the petition; so that, the other party will have an opportunity to cull out the real facts, so also with regard to limitation as contended by the respondents. No prejudice would be caused to other side, even if this petition is allowed, as there will not be any change of cause of action. Considering the facts and circumstances, this court inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, point is answered.

In the result, petition is allowed on payment of costs of

Rs.100/- to be given to other side and permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint i.e., a) for the declaration of the title in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff for the plaint schedule property in RS No.383 in Amalapuram Town with an extent of 17 sq. yards out of 240 sq.

yards in Northern side; b)To grant mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the extend part of 17 sq. yards with in a time fixed, failing which, remove the same process of law; c)To pass permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers from interfering with the plaintiff right for user of the 17 sq.

yards; d) declare title in favour of plaintiff for extent of 17 sq. yards part illegal construction, constructed by defendants and for costs and make consequential amendments accordingly.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 16th day of February 2015

PRL. JR. CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of evidence 6

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

P.J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AMALAPURAM.

Present : Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Monday, the 16th day of March 2015

O.S.No.43/2014

Between:

The Deity Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Varu of Challapalli,

represented by its Executive Officer...Plaintiff.

AND

Gummalla Venkata Ramana S/o.Gandhi, 42 yrs, Cultivation, Bondodupet,

Challapalli, Amalapuram JCJC...Defendant

This suit coming on 12.3.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

P.V.P.Krishnarao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant and having stoodover for consideration, this court made the following:-

:: JUDGMENT ::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.46,318/- with subsequent interest and for costs.

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

The plaintiff is the deity and is the absolute owner of land an extent of

Ac.5.90 cents in RS No.372 of Challapalli village. The lease hold rights of the same were put to public auction on 10.7.2009 for a period of three years and the defendant became highest bidder by agreeing to pay 55 bags of paddy for the 1st crop payable by the end of January and 18 bags 25 kgs of paddy for 2nd crop payable by the end of April of every year. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant has to pay the agreed rent before due date, in case of default, the defendant has to pay value of the paddy at the prevailing market rate with interest at 12% p.a., The defendant took possession of the land and cultivated for the lease period of 3 years and enjoyed the usufructs thereon; but he is not regular in payment of rents and fell in arrears. The defendant failed to pay 35 bags of paddy for the 1st period 2010-11; for the 2nd crop of 2010-11 and 2011-12 is concerned, he is not paid any amount.. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement admitting relationship between them and further contending that, he paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 25.2.2010;

Rs.10,500/- on 26.5.2010 and some more amounts to the Manager of the office; but he has not issued receipts. The calculation arrived at is not true and correct. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.46,318/- with subsequent interest as prayed for”?

2. To what relief?

5. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Executive Officer of plaintiff-deity is examined as PW.1. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked on his behalf

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7.ISSUE NO.1:

Ex.A1 is the terms and conditions of the auction. Ex.A1 is the list of participants. Ex.A3 is the lease approval order. Ex.B1 is the receipt dt.25.2.2010 for

Rs.10,000/-. Ex.B2 is the receipt dated 26.5.2010 for Rs.10,500/-. Ex.B3 is the receipt for Rs.6000/-

In fact, there is no denial with regard landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The only contention raised by the defendant is that, he paid amount of Rs.10,000/- on 25.2.2010 (Ex.B1) and Rs.10,500/- on 26.5.2010. In the cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that, the arrears is of the years 2010-11 and 2011-

12. Ex.B3 is initial amount. Ex.B2 is the payment of cist paid by the defendant.

According to the plaint allegations, the defendant is in due of 35 bags of paddy out of 55 bags for the 1st crop of 2010-11 and fell in due of 2nd crop of 2010-11 and 2011-12. From the evidence let in by PW.1, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked, which shows that, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 25.2.2010 and a sum of Rs.10,500/- was paid on 26.5.2010, in total a sum of Rs.20,500/-.

As seen from Ex.B1, the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards security deposit for the auction held on 10.7.2009. Ex.B3 also discloses that, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.6000/- towards security for the auction held on 10.7.2009.

So, the plaintiff rightly deducted a sum of Rs.16,000/- from the suit claim. Whereas,

Ex.B2 discloses that, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards cist for year 2009-10; but not related to the suit claim years.

In view of the facts and circumstances, the defendant failed to prove that he paid amount to the plaintiff-deity. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 relates to security deposit, the said amount was deducted by the plaintiff from the suit claim. Ex.B3 does not relate to the suit claim year. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed. Accordingly the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

In the result, the suit is decreed partly with costs for a sum of Rs.46,318/- (Rupees forty six thousand, three hundred and eighteen only) with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on Rs.31,500/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me on this 13th day of March 2015.

PRL. JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiff: PW.1 : Bala Krishna, Executive Officer.

For defendant: DW.1 :G.Venkata Ramana. Documents marked For plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Terms and conditions of the auction, dt.10.7.2009 Ex.A2 : Auction list of participants dated 10.7.2009 Ex.A3 : Lease approval order dt.10.7.2009

For defendant:

Ex.B1 : Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dt.25.2.2010. Ex.B2 : Receipt for Rs.10,500/-, dt.26.5.2010 Ex.B3 : Receipt for Rs.6,000/-, dt.10.7.2009

.PJCJ.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AMALAPURAM.

Present : Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Monday, the 16th day of March 2015

O.S.No.43/2014

Between:

The Deity Sri Venu Gopala Swamy Varu of Challapalli,

represented by its Executive Officer...Plaintiff.

AND

Gummalla Venkata Ramana S/o.Gandhi, 42 yrs, Cultivation, Bondodupet,

Challapalli, Amalapuram JCJC...Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.46,318/- with subsequent interest and for costs.

Suit presented on 31.1.2014, filed on 7.1.2014.

Value of the suit:

a)Value of 35 bags @ 650/- per bag for the 1st crop 2010-2011..Rs. 22,750-00 Interest from 31.1.11 to 30.1.14 @ 12% pa..Rs. 08,190-00

b)Value of 18 bags 25kgs for the 2nd crop of 2010-11 @ 650/- per bag..Rs. 11,917-00 Interest from 30.4.11 to 31.1.14 @ 12% pa..Rs. 03,933-00

c)Value of 18 bags 25 kgs for the 2nd crop of 2011-12 @ 700/- per bag..Rs. 12,833-00 Interest from 30.4.12 to 31.1.14 @ 12% pa...Rs. 02,695-00 --------------------- TOTAL..Rs. 62,318-00 Deduction of deposit..Rs. 16,000-00 ---------------------- TOTAL..Rs. 46,318-00 ----------------------

A CF of Rs.2326/- is paid under section 20, sch.I Art 1{c} of APCF and SV Act.

Cause of action arose for the suit arose on 10.7.2009 date of auction and on 31.1.2011, 30.4.2011 and on 30.4.2012, the due dates for payment of rents and at the village of Challapalli, where the land situated is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming on 12.3.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

P.V.P.Krishnarao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for defendant and having stoodover for consideration, this court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE as follows:-

1) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.46,318/-

(Rupees forty six thousand, three hundred and eighteen only) with

subsequent interest at 6% p.a., on Rs.31,500/- from the date of

suit till the date of realization;

2) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5403/

-towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 16th day of March 2015.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff:-For Defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat..Rs. 2-00 Stamp on process..Rs. 60-00 Stamp on plaint..Rs.2326-00No costs memo filed. Advocate fee..Rs.3015-00 ----------------- TOTAL..Rs.5403-00

---------------- -P.J.C.J.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AMALAPURAM.

Present : Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Monday, the 20th day of April 2015

O.S.No.145/2014

Between:

Vetukuri Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Chechuraju, 55 yrs, D.No.2-100, Cultivation,

Magam, Ainavilli Mandal, Amalapuram JCJC...Plaintiff.

AND

Bonthu Satyamurthy, S/o.Ramanujayya, 50 yrs, Ironsmith, Visweswaraya Agraharam, D.No.5-2-50, H/o.Peruru, Amalapuram Mandal,

Amalapuram JCJC...Defendant

This suit coming on 17.4.2015 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri V.Sai, Advocate for plaintiff and of defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT::

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.98,240 /-with subsequent interest and for costs, on foot of promissory note.

2.The plaint averments is brief as follows:-

On 12.2.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., and executed suit promissory note. Subsequently, on demand, the defendant did not pay any amount, hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 15.7.2014. The same was received and got issued reply with false averments.

Having no other go, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement specifically denying the palint averments and further contending that, he borrowed Rs.10,000/- on 12.2.2012 from the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained his signatures on two blank printed promissory note towards security for the debt amount of Rs.10,000/-. Subsequently, he repaid the amount together with interest; but the plaintiff did not return the promissory note inspite of demands. The plaintiff filed the suit to grain wrongfully by make use of the available blank promissory note. The suit promissory note is not supported by any consideration.

There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1. He also examined one of the attestor of suit promissory note as PW.2 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Inspite of taking sufficient time, the defendant did not attend the court and there is no representation on his side. Hence, the defendant set him exparte.

6.Heard arguments.

7.ISSUE NO:1

In the evidence, PW.1 has reiterated his claim that the defendant borrowed Rs.60,000/- from him on 12.2.2012 and executed Ex.A1 promissory note.

The plaintiff demanded the defendant; but did not pay any amount. Hence, he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice. Having received the same under Ex.A3, issued reply under

Ex.A4.

The defendant in his written statement contending that, he borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff on 12.2.2012; subsequently he discharged the same; but the defendant did not return the blank promissory notes. The plaintiff in order to gain wrongfully filed the suit by make of use of one of the promissory note available with him.

In order to prove his defence, the defendant did not enter into witness.

Moreover, there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, this court has no other option, except to accept the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 in toto. The evidence of PW.1 and Pw.2 as well as the documentary evidence remained stands uncontroversial, hence plaintiff is entitled to decree as asked for. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2:

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.98,240/- (Rupees ninety eight thousand two hundred and forty only) with interest at 12% p.a., on

Rs.60,000/- (Principal amount) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected and pronounced by me on this 20th day of April 2015.

PRL. JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiff: PW.1 :V.V.S.Suryanarayanaraju. PW.2 :

For defendant: None. Documents marked For plaintiff: Ex.A1: Suit pronote dated.12.2.2012 Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice, dt.15.7.2014 Ex.A3: Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A4: Reply notice.

For defendant: NIL.PJCJ.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AMALAPURAM.

Present : Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Monday, the 20th day of April 2015

O.S.No.145/2014

Between:

Vetukuri Venkata Satya Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Chechuraju, 55 yrs, D.No.2-100, Cultivation,

Magam, Ainavilli Mandal, Amalapuram JCJC...Plaintiff.

AND

Bonthu Satyamurthy, S/o.Ramanujayya, 50 yrs, Ironsmith, Visweswaraya Agraharam, D.No.5-2-50, H/o.Peruru, Amalapuram Mandal,

Amalapuram JCJC...Defendant

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of

Rs.98,240 /-with subsequent interest and for costs, on foot of promissory note.

Suit presented on 9.10.2014; filed on 5.10.2014

Value of the suit:

Principal amount..Rs.60,000-00

Interest from 12.2.2012 to 8.10.2014 @ 24% pa..Rs.38,240-00 -------------------- TOTAL..Rs.98,240-00 -------------------- A CF of Rs.3426/- is paid under section 20, sch.I Art 1{c} of APCF and SV

Act.

Cause of action arose on 12.2.2012 when the defendant borrowed the amount, executed the suit pronote; when the plaintiff demanded, the defendant did not pay any amount and hence got issued legal notice and at Magam village where transaction took place is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This suit coming on 17.4.2015 for consideration before me in the presence of

Sri V.Sai, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.98,240/-(Rupees ninety eight thousand, two hundred

and forty only) with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., on

Rs.60,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and

thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization;

2) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.5732/ -towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 20th day of April 2015.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Particulars of Costs

For Plaintiff:-For Defendant:-

Stamp on vakalat..Rs. 2-00 Stamp on process..Rs. 60-00 Stamp on plaint..Rs.3346-00No costs memo filed. Advocate fee..Rs.2324-00 ----------------- TOTAL..Rs.5732-00

---------------- -P.J.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AMALAPURAM.

Present : Smt. P.Manga Kumari, Principal Junior Civil Judge Friday, the 8th day of May 2015

O.S.No.139/2014

Between:

Lanke Venkateswarlu, S/o.Ramaswamy, Hindu, Inam, 50 yrs, N.Kothapalli,

Uppalaguptam Mandal, Amalapuram JCJC. ..Plaintiff.

AND

Malladi Peda Ramudu, S/o.Kannayya, Hindu, Inam, 52 yrs, Peda Raghavulupeta, D.No.7-31, H/o.N.Kothapalli, Uppalaguptam Mandal,

Amalapuram JCJC. ..Defendant

This suit coming on 7.5.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri

K.Mallaparaju, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate for defendant and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

:: JUDGMENT::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs.62,000/- with subsequent interest and for costs, on foot of promissory note.

2. The plaint averments in brief are:-

On 21.9.2012 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a., executed suit promissory note. On demand, the defendant did not pay any amount, hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 7.8.2014. The defendant received the said legal notice, but kept quite. Hence the suit. .

3. The defendant filed his written statement specifically denying the plaint allegations and further contending that, on 10.10.2010 he borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the plaintiff and obtained two blank promissory note; subsequently, he discharged the amount; but the plaintiff did not return the empty promissory note and used to postpone the same. Taking advantage of the blank promissory note, the plaintiff creted and fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the suit. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant? 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

2

5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The counsel for the defendant filed memo reporting no defence evidence and further mentioned that, the defendant paid suit amount to the plaintiff.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

Plaintiff filed his chief affidavit in corroboration with his plea. In the cross- examination, nothing was elicited through his cross-examination. The counsel for the defendant filed memo stating that, the defendant paid entire amount to the plaintiff and that, there is no evidence on his behalf. The counsel for the plaintiff also conceded the same. Hence, it is clear that, there is no existing of debt, as the defendant paid the amount to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the issues are answered.

ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me on this 8th day of May 2015.

PRL. JR.CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For plaintiff: PW.1 :Lanke Venkateswarlu

For defendant: NONE

Documents marked For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 : Suit pronote dated.21.9.2012 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice dated.7.8.2014 Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment.

For defendant: NIL. PJCJ.