Sri P Pavan Kumar

Junior Civil Judge

Medak, PDJ Court Complex · Medak · Telangana

Sri P Pavan Kumar, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Medak, PDJ Court Complex, Medak, Telangana, India. 2,676 court orders on record since 2017. 19 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

2,676

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/124/2018

Manager, A.P Grameena Vikas Bank, Ramayampet Branch, Medak Dist vs Pulimamidi RAju

30 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SRI. P. PAVAN KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR

FAC, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK

MONDAY, DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

O.S.No. 124 of 2018

Between:

Manager, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Ramayampet Branch, Medak District, Represented by its Manager, Ch. Vinay Kumar, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 35 Years, Occupation: Branch Manager, APGVB, Ramayampet branch, Medak District.

...PLAINTIFF

A N D

Pulimamidi Raju, S/o. Swamy, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Sutharpally Village, Ramayampet Revenue Mandal, Medak District. ...DE

FENDANT

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. R. Rama Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, while the Defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,28,485/ together with interest at @ 14% per annum basing on the agreement of loan and Hypothecation executed 04072013.

Loan/Hypothecation Agreement on 04.07.2013 in favour of the Plaintiff’s Bank.

But the defendant obtained the loan of Rs. 64,000/ only from plaintiff’s bank on 04.07.2013 vide Loan Account No.73061091393, and agreed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank along with interest @ 14% per annum. But, the Defendant did not pay the said loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank as agreed by him. When the plaintiff’s bank insisted the Defendant for repayment of the loan amount, she requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount, because of loss occurred to her in the agriculture. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.74,900/ vide Loan A/c. No.

73091175007 on 19.11.2014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of

Rs.74,900/ is adjusted into the old loan account bearing loan A/c. No.

73061091393 of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant on 19.11.2014 for the said amount of Rs.74,900/. The defendant failed to repay the said loan of Rs.74,900/ along with interest @ 14% per annum as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff Bank being no other alternative compelled to file the present suit for the recovery of loan of

Rs.1,28,485/ including interest @14% per annum upto 05.11.2018. Further, the defendant is liable to pay the interest from 06.11.2018 to till the date of repayment of total loan amount. Hence the suit.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared but failed to file written statements thereafter, consequently was set exparte.

4.The plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as Pw.1 in which he reiterated the contents of plaint. On behalf of plaintiff Ex.A1 to A7 marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point that arises for determination is;

“Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount

with interest @ 14% P.A. or not?

POINT:

Rs.64,000/ under load agreement undertaking to repay the loan amount with interest @ 14% P.A. PW.1 also deposed that defendant executed hypothecation agreement acknowledging to repay the loan amount within time. But, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiffs bank as agreed by him and when the plaintiff insisted the defendant for repayment of the loan amount, she requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.74,900/ on 19112014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of Rs.74,900/ is adjusted into the old loan account of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant. Again the defendant failed to repay the said loan of Rs.74,900/ along with interest @ 14% P.A. as agreed by her to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff bank being no other alternative filed this suit for recovery of loan of

Rs.1,28,485/ including interest @ 14% P.A. upto 05.11.2018.

8.PW.1 exhibited Hypothecation agreement dt. 14112014. Ex.A2 letter of undertaking given by the borrower dt. 19112014. Ex.A3 Revival letter dt.

15112017. Ex.A4 office copy of legal notice. Ex.A5 postal receipt. Ex.A6 is statement of the defendant from 04112013 to 19112014 and Ex.A7 is the statement of the defendant from 19112014 to 31102018 All the documents prima facie shows the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant who received summons failed to file written statements. Ex.A6 is statement of account categorically shows the default of payment made by the defendant. When the oral and documentary evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy, no 4 reason appears to discard the same. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,28,485/ from defendant with future interest @ 14% P.a.

from the date of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% P.A. from the date of the decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of December, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDAK.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PW1Ch. Vinay Kumar (Plaintiff)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the Hypothecation agreement dt: 14112014, Ex.A2 is Letter of undertaking given by the borrower dt: 19112014, Ex.A3 is Revival Letter Dt: 15112017, Ex: A4 is Office copy of legal notice, Ex. A5 is Postal receipt, Ex.A6 is statement of the defendant from 04112013 to 19112014 Ex.A7 is the statement of the defendant from 19112014 to 31102018

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

Nil—

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDAK.

OS/122/2018

Manager, A.P.Grameena Vikas Bank, Ramayampet Branch, Medak Dist vs Lambadi Jemla

30 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SRI. P. PAVAN KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR

FAC, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK

MONDAY, DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

O.S.No. 122 of 2018

Between: Manager, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Ramayampet Branch, Medak District, Represented by its Manager, Ch. Vinay Kumar, S/o. Ramaiah, aged about 35 Years, Occupation: Branch Manager, APGVB, Ramayampet branch, Medak District.

...PLAINTIFF

A N D Lambadi Jemla, W/o. Shetya, Aged about 45 Years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Komatpally Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Medak District.

...DEFENDANT

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of loan amount of Rs. 64,268/ together with interest at @ 14% per annum basing on the agreement of loan and Hypothecation executed 06062013.

2.The case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint averments in brief is that the defendant approached the plaintiff’s bank and requested for grant of crop loan. The plaintiff bank considering the 2 request of the defendant, agreed to give the said loan to the defendant upto the limit of Rs. 51,000/ (Rupees Fifty one thousand only). As such, the defendant executed the Loan/Hypothecation Agreement on 06.06.2013 in favour of the Plaintiff’s Bank. But the defendant obtained the loan of Rs. 32,000/ only from plaintiff’s bank on 06.06.2013 vide

Loan Account No.73059596068, and agreed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank along with interest @ 14% per annum. But, the

Defendant did not pay the said loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank as agreed by him. When the Plaintiff’s bank insisted the Defendant for repayment of the loan amount, she requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount, because of loss occurred to her in the agriculture. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.37,941/ vide Loan A/c. No. 73091800167 on 29.11.2014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of Rs.37,941/ is adjusted into the old loan account bearing loan A/c. No. 73059596068 of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant on 29.11.2014 for the said amount of Rs. 37,941/. The defendant failed to repay the said loan of Rs.37,941/ along with interest @ 14% per annum as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff Bank being no other alternative compelled to file the present suit for the recovery of loan of

Rs.64,268/ including @14% per annum up to 05.11.2018. Further, the defendant is liable to pay the interest from 06.11.2018 to till the date of repayment of total loan amount. Hence the suit.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared but failed to file written statements thereafter, consequently was set ex parte.

4.The plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as Pw.1 in which he reiterated the contents of plaint. On behalf of plaintiff Ex.A1 to A6 marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point that arises for determination is; “Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest @ 14% P.A. or not?

POINT:

7.PW.1 in the capacity of Manager of plaintiffs bank in his evidence deposed that defendant approached plaintiff bank for grant of crop loan and by considering the request of defendant, their bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.32,000/ under load agreement undertaking to repay the loan amount with interest @ 14% P.A. PW.1 also deposed that defendant executed hypothecation agreement acknowledging to repay the loan amount within time. But, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiffs bank as agreed by him and when the plaintiff insisted the defendant for repayment of the loan amount, she requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.37,971/ on 29112014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of Rs.37,941/ is adjusted into the old loan account of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant. Again the defendant failed to repay the said loan of

Rs.37,941/ along with interest @ 14% P.A. as agreed by her to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff bank being no other alternative filed this suit for recovery of loan of Rs.64,628/ including interest @ 14%

P.A. upto 05.11.2018.

8.PW.1 exhibited Hypothecation agreement dt. 06062013. Ex.A2 letter of undertaking dt. 29112014. Ex.A3 revival letter dt. 2411 2017. Ex.A4 office copy of legal notice dt. 09102017. Ex.A5 postal receipt and Ex.A6 is statement of account. All the documents prima facie shows the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant who received summons failed to file written statements. Ex.A6 is statement of account categorically shows the default of payment made by the defendant. When the oral and documentary evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy, no reason appears to discard the same. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.64,268/ from defendant with future interest @ 14% P.A. from the date of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% P.A.

from the date of the decree till realization.

T yped to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30 th day of

December, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Plaintiff Defendant PW.1. Ch. Vinay Kumar Nil 5

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the Loan/Hypothecation agreement, Dated: 06062013

Ex.A2 is the Letter of Undertaking, Dated: 29112014

Ex.A3 is the Revival Letter, Dated: 24112017

Ex.A4 is the Office copy of the Legal Notice, Dated: 09102017

Ex.A5 is the Postal receipt

Ex.A6 is the Statement of Accounts.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

NIL

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medak.

OS/121/2018

Manger, A.P. Grameena Vikas Bank, Ramayampet Branch vs Pendala mallesham

30 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SRI. P. PAVAN KUMAR

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR

FAC, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK

MONDAY, DATED THE 30 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

O.S.No. 121 of 2018

Between:

...PLAINTIFF

A N D

Pendala Mallesham, S/o. Shivaiah, Age: 50 Yrs, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o. Shivaipally Village, Ramayampet Mandal, Medak District. ...DE

FENDANT

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,40,052/ together with interest at @ 14% per annum basing on the agreement of loan and Hypothecation executed 04072013.

Loan/Hypothecation Agreement on 04.07.2013 in favour of the Plaintiff’s Bank.

But the defendant obtained the loan of Rs. 70,000/ only from plaintiff’s bank on 04.07.2013 vide Loan Account No.73061109379, and agreed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank along with interest @ 7% per annum. But, the Defendant did not pay the said loan amount to the plaintiff’s bank as agreed by him. When the plaintiff’s bank insisted the Defendant for repayment of the loan amount, he requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount, because of loss occurred to him in the agriculture. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.81,246/ vide Loan A/c. No. 73090016353 on 05.11.2014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of Rs.81,246/ is adjusted into the old loan account bearing loan A/c. No. 73061109379 of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant on 05.11.2014 for the said amount of Rs.81,246/. The defendant failed to repay the said loan of Rs.81,246/ along with interest @ 14% per annum as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff Bank being no other alternative compelled to file the present suit for the recovery of loan of Rs.1,40,052/ including interest @14% per annum upto 05.11.2018. Further, the defendant is liable to pay the interest from 06.11.2018 to till the date of repayment of total loan amount. Hence the suit.

3.After receipt of summons from this Court, the defendant appeared but failed to file written statements thereafter, consequently was set exparte.

4.The plaintiff bank examined its Branch Manager as Pw.1 in which he reiterated the contents of plaint. On behalf of plaintiff Ex.A1 to A6 marked.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

6.The point that arises for determination is;

“Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount

with interest @ 14% P.A. or not?

POINT:

Rs.70,000/ under load agreement undertaking to repay the loan amount with interest @ 14% P.A. PW.1 also deposed that defendant executed hypothecation agreement acknowledging to repay the loan amount within time. But, the defendant failed to repay the loan amount to the plaintiffs bank as agreed by him and when the plaintiff insisted the defendant for repayment of the loan amount, she requested the plaintiff bank to grant another crop loan to repay the old crop loan amount. Considering the oral request of the defendant, the plaintiff bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.81,246/ on 05112014 to the defendant and the said loan amount of Rs.81,246/ is adjusted into the old loan account of the defendant while taking letter of undertaking from the defendant. Again the defendant failed to repay the said loan of Rs.81,246/ along with interest @ 14% P.A. as agreed by him to the plaintiff bank. As such, the plaintiff bank being no other alternative filed this suit for recovery of loan of

Rs.1,40,052/ including interest @ 14% P.A. upto 05.11.2018.

8.PW.1 exhibited Hypothecation agreement dt. 04072013. Ex.A2 letter of undertaking dt. 05112014. Ex.A3 Revival letter dt. 03112017. Ex.A4 office copy of legal notice, Dt: 09102017. Ex.A5 Postal receipt, dt: 10102017.

Ex.A6 is the Accounts statement of the defendant. All the documents prima facie shows the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant who received summons failed to file written statements. Ex.A6 is statement of account categorically shows the default of payment made by the defendant.

When the oral and documentary evidence of PW.1 is trustworthy, no reason appears to discard the same. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs. Plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,40,052/ from defendant with future interest @ 14% P.a.

from the date of the suit till the date of decree and @ 6% P.A. from the date of the decree till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of December, 2019.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDAK.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF

PW1Ch. Vinay Kumar (Plaintiff)

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

None

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is the Hypothecation Agreement, Dt: 04072013, Ex.A2 is Letter of undertaking, Dt: 05112014, Ex.A3 is Revival Letter Dt: 03112017, Ex: A4 is Office copy of legal notice, Dt: 09102017, Ex. A5 is Postal receipt, Dt:10102017, Ex.A6 is Accounts statement of the defendant

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

Nil—

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDAK.

PRC/3/2021

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Dhammagwoni sai kiran goud

08 Oct 2021

P.R.C. NO.03 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SRI P PAVAN KUMAR

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR.

DATED: THIS THE 08 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

P.R.C. NO.03 OF 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana, Through S.I. of Police,

P.S. Jinnaram. ....Complainant.

A N D Dammagouni Sai Kiran Goud S/o Narsimulu Goud, aged: 23 yrs, Caste: Goud, Occ: Factory Worker, R/o Wavilala village of Jinnaram Mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on this the day before me for committal in presence of learned A.P.P., for the state and Sri.D.Sridhar Reddy and Sri.P.Sudhakar, Counsel for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:

// COMMITTAL ORDER //

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Jinnaram, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.42/2019 of

P.S. Jinnaram for the offence punishable under section 332, 341, 307, 506 IPC, the brief facts of which are narrated hereunder :

2. On 20.07.2019 at 11:00 hrs complainant (J.Naresh) came to PS Jinnaram lodged a

Telugu written petition stating that, the LW1 is the Deputy Plantation Manager in Telangana

State Forest development corporation, LW2 (K.Balaswamy) is the watcher in Forest department and LW3 (D.Suresh), LW4 (Khaja Yakhub Ali) and LW5 (Sandila Praveen

Kumar) are plantation workers, whereas the accused belongs to Wavilala village, working in

TIDC Private Limited company at Khajipally village. On 19.07.2019 at about 17:30 hrs

LW1 to 5 working in plantation EP 1996 wavilala forest area as a part of duty. Meanwhile accused coming from Korlakunta village on his motorcycle vide B.No.TS15EF9561 then,

LW1 asked him who are you and what are you doing in Forest area, then, the accused questioned LW1 who are you to stop me this is my village and abused in filthy language and caught LW1 neck with left hand and bet on LW1 right eye with his right fist due to LW1 received injury, and obstructed LW1 discharging his duties. Then LW1 told him he was

Deputy Plantation Manager in forest department but did not listen to LW1 and asked him

I/D proof and what is the proof this is a forest area due to which the issue was raised and the accused intentionally try to murder the LW1 by throwing Nilgiri stick towards LW1 head,

LW1 escaped from the stick due to which LW1 received injury on his hand. If the LW1 not

P.R.C. NO.03 OF 2021 escape from the stick then he would have died. Then LW2 to 5 came to there the accused warned dire-consequence to LW1 and went away from there on his motorcycle. Thereby the accused committed an offence liable U/sec.332, 341, 307, 506 IPC. Thus he requested to take necessary legal action against accused person.

Basing on the above complaint LW-11 (MD.Sadath Miya) (ASI), registered a case in crime No.42/2019, U/sec.332,341,307,506 IPC, and took up investigation having dispatched

FIR to all the concerned. LW10 (Dr.M.D.Shoiab Hussion) treated him and opined the injuries are “simple in nature”. After completion of investigation and collecting the material papers police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.332,341,307,506 IPC. Upon which affected their Accused arrested on 22.07.2019 at 09:00 hrs, duly issuing arrest memo and produced him before this Hon’ble Court with a pray to send the accused person for judicial remand.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/s 190 (b) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 332,341,307,506 IPC against the accused numbered as P.R.C.03 of 2021 on the file of this court.

4.On presence of the accused in the court, they were furnished with copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet and other material papers on record, it clearly reveals that the offence alleged against the accused persons under section 332,341,307,506 IPC, is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Hence, the case is committed to the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy U/s 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused present and directed to appear before the court of Hon'ble Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy on at 10:30AM.

7.The office is directed to submit the entire case record and property if any, to the

Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy forthwith, by notifying about

the committal of the case to Public Prosecutor of the said court.

Dictated to the stenographer on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 08th day of October, 2021.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NARSAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: -NIL

PRC/24/2020

STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmonamgari sudhakar

08 Oct 2021

2 P.R.C. NO.24 OF 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SRI P PAVAN KUMAR

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NARSAPUR.

DATED: THIS THE 08 th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021.

P.R.C. NO.24 OF 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, Through S.I. of Police,

P.S. Chilipched. ....Complainant.

A N D Monamgari Sudhakar S/o Raghupathi, aged: 55 yrs, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: RMP, R/o Kowdipally village and Mandal, N/o Andugulapally village, Yeldurthy Mandal, Medak District.

...Accused.

This case is coming on this the day before me for committal in presence of learned A.P.P., for the state and Sri.B.Anil Reddy and Sri.E.Sathyanarayana, Counsel for the accused upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides, this court delivered the following:

// COMMITTAL ORDER //

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Chilapched, filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.35/2020 of

P.S. Chilapched for the offence punishable under section 304-II, 420 IPC, the brief facts of which are narrated hereunder :

2. On 19.04.2020 at 11:00 hrs complainant (N.Govind) came to PS Chilapched lodged a Telugu written petition stating that, the LW1 is the resident of Rahimguda Thanda village of Chilipched Mandal, while Nunavath Shanthi (deceased) is his wife, whereas deceased is suffering from severe stomach, upon which on 05.03.2020 LW1 took deceased to accused

Venkateshwara Nursing Home for treatment, there accused has examined the deceased and said that her womb (garba sanchi) has spoiled and also advised LW1 to remove the womb, then, on 06.03.2020 accused has removed the womb and discharged on 13.03.2020, even though deceased did not cured the stomach pain. As such again LW1 took her to accused

Nursing home, again accused examined the deceased over scanning machine and prescribe some medicines, even though it did not cured. On 10.04.2020 LW1 took the deceased to

Malla Reddy Narayana Hospital, Suraram and admitted, the duty doctor was opined she got internal inflection and failed her liver and kidneys due to previous surgery there and made treatment on 17.04.2020 discharged return to home and the LW1 brought the deceased to his house and on 19.04.2020 deceased succumbed at his house. Thus he requested to take necessary legal action against accused person.

2 P.R.C. NO.24 OF 2020

Basing on the above complaint LW-17 (P.Malla Reddy) (SI), registered a case in crime No.35/2020, U/sec.304-II, 420 IPC, and took up investigation having dispatched FIR to all the concerned. LW16 (Dr.Praveena) held autopsy over the dead body of deceased and she opined that the cause of death of deceased is due to “Cirrhosis of Liver”. After completion of investigation and collecting the material papers police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec. 304-II, 420 IPC. Upon which affected their Accused arrested on 03.09.2020, duly issuing arrest memo and produced him before this Hon’ble Court with a pray to send the accused person for judicial remand.

3.This court took cognizance of the offence U/s 190 (b) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 304-II, 420 IPC against the accused numbered as P.R.C.24 of 2020 on the file of this court.

4.On presence of the accused in the court, they were furnished with copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.On a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet and other material papers on record, it clearly reveals that the offence alleged against the accused persons under section 304-II, 420 IPC, is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Hence, the case is committed to the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy U/s 209(a) of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused present and directed to appear before the court of Hon'ble Prl. District &

Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy on at 10:30AM.

7.The office is directed to submit the entire case record and property if any, to the

Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy forthwith, by notifying about

the committal of the case to Public Prosecutor of the said court.

Dictated to the stenographer on the Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 08th day of October, 2021.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

NARSAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: -NIL

Order Record 2,631 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/516/2016	PS Hathnoora Yerukala Yellaiah vs Dhaggu @ Mudiraj Shanker	08 Oct 2021	Abeted	—
PRC/1/2017	PS Jinnaram vs Tigulla Sathaiah Goud	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/3/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Dhammagwoni sai kiran goud	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/18/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gugloth Vijay	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/24/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmonamgari sudhakar	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/36/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vskonne SAI RAM	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/37/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bandameedi Raju	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/43/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pullera Yadagiri	08 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
CC/316/2018	SARA SATHYANARAYANA vs DABBII YADAGIRI	07 Oct 2021	Dismissed as withdrawn	—
CC/340/2015	Nadiminti Srinivas vs Meesala Devaswamy @ Devasahayam	07 Oct 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/394/2019	Madaram Renuka vs Madaram Raju	07 Oct 2021	Compromise	—
CC/484/2015	PS Shivampet Smt.Kandegari Subhadra vs Boguula Venugopal	07 Oct 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
EP/5/2016	THE ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK vs SRI.M.RAVI PRAKASH	05 Oct 2021	Dismissed for default	—
EP/8/2016	the andhra pradesh grameen avikas bank vs Vssri.g.srinivas rao	05 Oct 2021	Dismissed for default	—
CC/75/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Sri Kummari Srikanth	05 Oct 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/635/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vskavali mallesh	04 Oct 2021	convicted	—
CC/73/2019	Excise Narsapur vs P.Venkatesh goud	01 Oct 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/73/2020	PS IDA Bollaram Laxmikanth Das vs Vadde Sanjeev	01 Oct 2021	Abeted	—
CC/127/2019	PS Narsapur Maloth Laxman vs Jarpula Somla	01 Oct 2021	acquittal	—
CC/204/2019	PS Jinnaram Dadigudem Sathyanarayana vs Kavali Ramulu	01 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
CC/396/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA, Excise Narsapur vs Konda Sudharshan	01 Oct 2021	Abeted	—
CC/622/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mopineni venkata Ramarao	01 Oct 2021	convicted	—
CC/709/2019	PS Hathnoora Vadla Ashok vs Thalari Lingaraju	01 Oct 2021	acquittal	—
PRC/5/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chanduri Sathaiah	01 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/25/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gandigudem Yadagiri	01 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/36/2012	S. VENKATESH SIP OF IDA BOLLARAM vs NASEEM AND 5 OTHERS	01 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/38/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Narsapuram Krishna goud	01 Oct 2021	Transfered	—
CC/173/2019	PS IDA Bollaram Kothuru usha vs Naresh Kunta	30 Sep 2021	Abeted	—
CC/417/2015	PS Hathnoora Dandu Durgaiah vs Varigutham Mallesham	30 Sep 2021	Abeted	—
PRC/12/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pichakuntla Gandaiah	30 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/20/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Yerraboina Venkatesh	30 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/30/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA Bollram vs Md Rayees	30 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/33/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Rustumpeta Yadaiah	30 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
CC/496/2019	Ps Shivampet M.D.Sailani vs Gaikwad Shivaji	29 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
CC/595/2018	MADDETI MALLESH vs MADDI MALLA REDDY	29 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
PRC/24/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmonamgari sudhakar	29 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/42/2016	police shivampet vs Gangloth vitta and 4 others	29 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
EP/2/2018	Margadarshi chits fund pvt ltd. vs Mr.Iqbal	28 Sep 2021	Dismissed as not pressed	—
OS/39/2015	THE STATE BANK OF INDIA ADB NARSAPUR BRANCH vs ARRAGOLLA GOPAL AND OTHERS	28 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
OS/42/2015	THE STATE BANK OF INDIA NARSAPUR vs LAMBADI KETHAVATHE DURGYA	28 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
OS/73/2015	THE STATE BANK OF INDIA GUMMADILA BRANCH vs JAMAEDAR SREEDEVI	28 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
CC/141/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vssaggala kiran kumar	28 Sep 2021	convicted	—
OS/22/2016	M. RAMULU vs M. KISHTAMMA AND 2 OTHERS	27 Sep 2021	Abeted	—
OS/26/2017	MACHKURI ANJAIAH vs DAPPU NARSHIMA	27 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
CC/222/2019	PS Gummadidala Gidde Raju vs Dinesh Kumar	24 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
DVC/3/2017	SMT. MARLA OSRI VIDHYA AND ONE ANTOHER vs MARLA SATHYANARAYANA AND 4 ANOTHER	24 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
MC/3/2017	Marla Sri Vidhya vs Marla Sathyanarayana	24 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
PRC/19/2019	Erukala Kumar vs Panuganti Balanarsaiah	24 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/21/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Mekala Subash	24 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/27/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vallapu Raju	24 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/35/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsveeragoni AMAD GOUD	24 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/12/2020	PS Hathnoora vs Vadde Eman @ Armukam	23 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/35/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Chakali Swaroopa	23 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
CC/338/2018	PS Hathnoora Sri Amradhi Anjaiah vs Megavath Narender	22 Sep 2021	acquittal	—
CC/415/2017	PS Jinnaram Rashmitha vs Mangali srikhanth	22 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
OS/66/2020	Mahakali Harishenker GOud vs Meesala Arjun	20 Sep 2021	Dismissed as not pressed	—
CC/404/2021	Dr.A.Vijay Kumar vs Mallampally Malleshwara Siva Kumar	17 Sep 2021	acquittal	—
CC/721/2019	PS Gummadidala Tuniki Yellaiah vs Sarala Sreekanth	17 Sep 2021	Abeted	—
PRC/15/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Ambati Neelamma	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/29/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA, P.S Hathnoora vs Balli Raju	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/31/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Katroth Shakru	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/40/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Allolla Yashwanth Kumar	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/41/2014	PS Hathnoora MD. KHADEER vs BHOOPEN SAIKIYA	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/44/2021	Ps Kowdipally vs Boda @ Patel Satish goud	17 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
PRC/38/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pochugari Sanjeeva Reddy	15 Sep 2021	Transfered	—
OS/69/2017	Kalemla Anjaneyulu vs Kalema Narsamma	14 Sep 2021	Dismissed as non presecution	—
OS/70/2021	Bhavani Laxmi vs Janumula Kamalamma	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/1/2018	PS Shivampet Mohd Thasleem vs Mohd Shakeel	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/145/2019	Uppu Gangamma vs Dyanamgula RAju	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/156/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gummula Shivulu	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/169/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Kummari Shivakumar	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/174/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Pogula Sai Ram	11 Sep 2021	convicted	—
CC/182/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gummula Gonaiah	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/189/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA PS Shivampet vs Pullaiahgari Nagaraju	11 Sep 2021	convicted	—
CC/228/2017	Ts State Police through m. Bal Reddy SIP, Hathnoora vs Solakpally Kistaiah	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/232/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Byagari Narsimlu	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/235/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gangoni Harish	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/254/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmuddamgula nagaraju	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/266/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Dudekula Naseer	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/268/2015	PS Kowdipally Katroth Pulya vs Katroth Dhan Singh	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/269/2018	PS Hathnoora RANGAMPET MOGULAIAH vs MANGALI NAGESH	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/310/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA, P.S Hathnoora vs Thalari Sahadev	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/317/2018	A ANAND KUMAR vs DUDDALA VENKATESH	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/319/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA, P.S Shivampet vs Megavath Narsimlu	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/350/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsmutyamolla balaiah	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/352/2018	GANGU RAMESH vs NARABOINA SRINIVAS	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/361/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Thummala Sailu	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/365/2018	Chinthala Jaggjeevan reddy vs Mood Suryam	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/376/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vskadavath gopal	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/420/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Kadapala Srihari	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/434/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vsnunsavath mothilal	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/440/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Katroth Manyaa	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/441/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MD Mannan	11 Sep 2021	Settled before Lokadalat	—
CC/463/2016	N Nagabushanam vs V Ramesh Goud	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/465/2015	PS Kowdipally Katroth Tulsi Ram vs Katroth Pulya	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/477/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vssingireddy mahendarreddy	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/484/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Vssunanda reddy	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/486/2019	PS Shivampet Gaddam Venkat Reddy vs Gaddam Janga Reddy	11 Sep 2021	acquittal	—
CC/486/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Singireddy Srinivas reddy	11 Sep 2021	Compromise	—
CC/487/2019	PS Shivampet Gadam Janga Reddy vs Gaddam Raji Reddy	11 Sep 2021	acquittal	—

Showing 100 of 2,631 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2021		27
Sep 2021		137
Aug 2021		43
Jul 2021		141
Jun 2021		4
Apr 2021		77
Mar 2021		56
Feb 2021		29
Jan 2021		35
Dec 2020		118
Nov 2020		113
Oct 2020		3

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri P Pavan Kumar handled?

Sri P Pavan Kumar has handled 2676 court orders since 2017 at Medak, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 81 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri P Pavan Kumar hear?

Based on available records, Sri P Pavan Kumar primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Medak, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri P Pavan Kumar currently posted?

Sri P Pavan Kumar is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Medak, PDJ Court Complex, Medak, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri P Pavan Kumar available online?

Yes. 19 judgments by Sri P Pavan Kumar are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri P Pavan Kumar dispose cases?

Sri P Pavan Kumar disposes approximately 81 cases per month, based on 2676 orders handled over their tenure at Medak, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri P Pavan Kumar serving?

Sri P Pavan Kumar has been serving at Medak, PDJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 79%

OS 10%

PRC 7%

EP 1%

STC 1%

MC 1%

DVC 0%

CRL 0%

Posting History

Jun 2019 — Jan 2020

Junior Civil Judge · 243 orders
Jun 2019 — Jan 2020

JFCM SPECIAL MOBILE COURT · 130 orders
Mar 2019 — Oct 2021

Junior Civil Judge · 1,539 orders
Apr 2017 — Dec 2018

Junior Civil Judge · 764 orders

Outcomes on Record

Convicted 5

Other Judges at this Court

G Neelima

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak

589 orders

Miss. R.m. Subhavalli

Fast Tract Special Court for Expeditious Trial and...

95 orders

Smt. R.Siri Sowjanya

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistr...

3,152 orders

Smt. Rubina Fatima

Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge, M...

432 orders

Sri Ure Sai Prabhakar

I Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Special Judi...

7,730 orders

← View all judges at Medak, PDJ Court Complex