Currently Serving

Smt. P. Poornima Devi

Junior Civil Judge

Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI, Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 823 court orders on record since 2024. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

823

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/57/2021

Krishnamaneni Ramamurthy Naidu vs M.Venugopal

08 May 2026

APCH0F0001602021 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), PAKALA.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pakala.

Friday, this the 08 th (Eighth) day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 57 OF 2021

Between:

Krishnamaneni Ramamurthy Naidu, S/o K.Bramhaiah Naidu, Hindu, aged 71 years, living by Cultivation, residing at Kavalivaripalli Village, K.Oddepalli Post, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District.

… Plaintiff

And:

M.Venugopal, S/o Manga.Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged 55 years, living by business, residing at Kavalivaripalli Village, K.Oddepalli Post, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District.

…… Defendant This Suit is coming on 01.05.2026 for final hearing before this court and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.Guruswamy Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri J.M.Gowri Sankara Raju, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant to direct the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.3,75,000/- together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization of the

APCH0F0001602021 2

principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and to direct the defendant to pay the

costs of the suit.

02.The brief averments of plaint are as fallows:-

(a) On 25.03.2019 the defendant has borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, promising to repay the same together with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay any amount and post-phoned day to day. Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 15.4.2021 by way of Registered

Post demanding the defendant to repay the promissory note amount and hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

03.The defendant filed written statement. The Brief averments of written statement of defendant are as follows:

(a) The defendant filed written statement denying the material averments of the plaint. Further contends that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Further contends that there was transactions among the plaintiff and the defendant, in that the defendant received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a demand promissory note and recently there was misunderstandings among the defendant and the plaintiff with regard to Gramapanchayathi

Elections and the plaintiff have colluded with the attestors and scribe and got created the suit promissory note by forging the signatures of the defendant and filed this false suit and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

APCH0F0001602021 3

04. Basing on the above pleadings the the following issues settled for trial on 29.11.2024.

01.“Whether the suit promissory note dt.25.03.2019 is true valid and binding on the defendant”?

02.“Whether the plaintiff forged the signature of defendant as pleaded by defendant in written statement”?

03.“ To what relief”?

05. During the course of trial,the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 on behalf of PW.1 and one more witness examined as PW.2. On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1, no documents are marked and on behalf of the defendant.

06. Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant. Perused the record.

07.Issues Nos. 1 and 2:-

01.“Whether the suit promissory note dt.25.03.2019 is true valid and binding on the defendant”?

02.“Whether the plaintiff forged the signature of defendant as pleaded by defendant in written statement”?

The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.03.2019 and executed

Ex.A.1-promissory note and inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not repaid the amount. Finally the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 15.4.2021, hence, the plaintiff filed this suit. On the

APCH0F0001602021 4 other hand, the defendant filed written statement stating that misunderstandings arose among the defendant and the plaintiff with regard to Gramapanchayathi Elections and the plaintiff have colluded with the attestors and scribe and forged the signature of the defendant and filed this false suit and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

08.To establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. The attestor of the suit promissory note examined as

PW.2.

09. PW.1 filed chief-affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. PW.1. During the cross-examination he deposed that “ defendant belongs to his native village and one of the attestor by name Reddeppa

Naidu is belongs to his community and 2nd attestor of Ex.A.1

C.Dhananjaya who is no more at present. The rest of the cross- examination is full of suggestions”. Nothing could be elicited from PW.1 in favour of defendant.

10. PW.2 filed chief-affidavit by supporting the case of the plaintiff that on 25.03.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff.

On one day he went to Kavalivaripalli to purchase motor pump-set, at that time, the defendant called him to attest the signature of the defendant in a promissory note and in his presence one B.Reddeppa scriber of the

Ex.A.1-promissory note and C.Dhananjaya attested the signature of the defendant. Nothing could be elicited from PW.2.

APCH0F0001602021 5

11.PW.2 deposed evidence during his cross-examination is that “ he know PW.1 is my childhood friend. The rest of the cross-examination is full of suggestions”.

12.On behalf of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents are marked. DW.1 filed chief-affidavit by reiterating the contents of the written statement filed by him. DW.1 deposed during his cross-examination is that “ he never borrowed any amount from the PW.1 at any point of time and never executed any promissory note in favour of PW.1 and he mentioned in the written statement that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Pw.1 and executed a promissory note. DW.1 further deposed that prior to filing of the suit there was no enmity between himself and PW1. The rest of the cross-examination is full of suggestions”.

13.Now it has to be determine, whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A.1- promissory note. In the written statement the defendant mentioned that there was transactions among the plaintiff and the defendant, in that the defendant received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a demand promissory note and recently there was misunderstandings among the defendant and the plaintiff with regard to

Gramapanchayathi Elections and the plaintiff have colluded with the attestors and scribe and got created the suit promissory note by forging the signatures of the defendant. During the cross-examination of DW.1, the DW.1 deposed that, the signatures on written statement and vakalath

APCH0F0001602021 6 is that off him and also deposed that the signature found in the Ex.A.1 does not belongs to him. If, that be the case, the defendant has ample opportunity to send his own document to the handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures and disputed signatures. But in this case, the defendant failed to opt to get opinion from the handwriting expert.

14.The defendant has also taken another plea that the signature on Ex.A.1 is not belonged to him. In this regard, it is not take any requisite steps to form an opinion that the signature available on Ex.A.1 is not belonged to him. As per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act/ 72 of BSA this court has ample power to observe the disputed signatures of the parties and form an opinion on that aspect. Accordingly, this court has observed the suit summons, served postal acknowledgments and also vakalth filed by the defendant and including written statement and Ex.A.1 this court does not find any variation in regard to signatures available on such documents and they are similar to each other. Mere oral allegation of the defendant does not lead to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. To establish the execution of Ex.A.1-promissory note the plaintiff got examined one of the attestor of the promissory note as PW.2, he also categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in his presence. Further, the defendant pleaded that there was prior transaction between plaintiff and defendant, due to misunderstandings arose between the defendant and plaintiff, he filed this false suit against him. In this regard, the PW.1 deposed

APCH0F0001602021 7 evidence during his cross-examination nothing could elicited in favour of the defendant, hence, his evidence is not useful. The defendant also admitted during his cross-examination that the signature found in the

Ex.A.1 has executed is not belongs to him and himself and PW.1 are not the political leaders. There is no denial from the defendant by attributing in his written statement that the signature reflected on vakalath, summons, served postal acknowledgment are not belonged to them rather he himself admitted during his cross-examination that those signatures appears to be on the face of such documents are belonged to him. It established by the plaintiff that he lent money to the defendant on 25.03.2019 through himself and his supportive evidence. Moreover the defendant though cross-examined PW.1 and PW.2 at length did not elicit from their mouth with respect to his denial as alleged in his written statement. Moreover, defendant taken forgery plea but did not file any application to compare signatures to send expert for opinion.

15. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and written statement made by the defendant during his cross-examination establishes that on 25.03.2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a Ex.A.1-promissory note and the defendant failed to repay the debt under Ex.A.1-promissory note. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

In view of the above discussion, it can be said that the suit promissory note dt.25.03.2019 is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for. Accordingly, issues Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.

APCH0F0001602021 8

16.Issue No.3 :

“ To what relief”?

In view of the discussion on the issue Nos 1 and 2 the suit is decreed with costs.

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

Rs.3,75,000/- with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW.1 : K.Ramamurthy NaiduDW.1 : M.Venugopal PW.2 : N.Umakantha Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 : Promissory note dt. 25.03.2021 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 15.04.2021.

APCH0F0001602021 9 Ex.A.3 : Postal Receipt/acknowledgment.

DEFENDANT: - nil -

Sd/-P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

FAIR JUDGMENT

OS NO. 57/2021

OS/127/2025

Canara Bank, Pakala branch vs M/s Krupa Enterprises

14 May 2026

APCH0F0002432025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), PAKALA.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pakala.

Thursday, this the 14 th (Fourteenth) day of May, 2026

O.S.No.127 OF 2025

Between:

Canara Bank, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1970 with its Head Office at J.C. Road, Bangalore and among others branches having one such Branch office at Pakala Town, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District, represented by its Branch Manager, S.Manasa.

… Plaintiff.

And:

M/s Krupa Enterprises, represented by its proprietor K.Gangaiah, S/o Vedanamdam, Hindu, aged about 39 years, Business, situated at Opposite Old Court, Chittoor Road, Pakala Town, residing at Door No.15-37, Adusupalli Village, Near Ushodaya High School, Pakala town, Pakala Post and Mandal, Tirupathi District …… Defendant

This Suit is coming on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before this court and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J.M.Gowri Sankara Raju,

Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

APCH0F0002432025 2

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff bank filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money directing him to pay a sum of Rs.7,15,221/- to the plaintiff bank together with future interest at 11.90% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff bank and for costs of the suit.

02.The case of the plaintiff bank in brief is that:-

(a) The case of the plaintiff bank is that the defendant is the original borrower and he is the Guarantor and he approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance of the defendant and submitted application to that effect. The plaintiff herein sanctioned cement business loan to

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Loans to the defendant on 02.03.2023 to a tune of Rs.8,55,000/- under loan account

No.170007691735 and the defendant had executed documents on the even date promising to repay the said sum together with interest at 11.90% per annum.

(b) The plaintiff bank further submits that defendant is stood as guarantor for the said loan transaction and relevant documents for due repayment of the said loan amount by the defendant and also agreed to repay the said amount to the plaintiff bank. Thus, the loan transaction is joint and several and the defendant is jointly liable to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan application and documents and the defendant not repaid the loan amounts as agreed upon and made only part payments to the plaintiff Bank and committed default in payment of the loan amounts due demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not pay the loan amounts regularly and

APCH0F0002432025 3 committed default in payment of the loan amount. As per the loan ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff bank pertaining to the defendant account that the defendant is found liable to pay the above said amount.

Hence, this suit.

03. Defendant received suit summons on and he did not appear

before this court, hence defendant set ex parte on 17.11.2025.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff bank one Manasa examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On behalf of the defendant, no one was examined and no documents are marked.

05. Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for”?

07. POINT:

The contention of the plaintiff’s bank is that the defendant availed the loan for Rs.8,55,000/- on 30.07.2014 promising to repay the same with interest at 11.90% per annum and in that regard, defendant stood as guarantor and inspite of repeated demands the defendant did not paid the loan amounts regularly and committed default in payment of loan amount. As per the loan ledger extract maintained by the plaintiff bank pertaining to the defendant account that the defendant is found liable to pay the above said amount. Ex.A.1 is the application form loans

MSME submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank dt. 02.03.2023,

APCH0F0002432025 4 Ex.A.2 is the certificate of loan papers obtained from the defendant by the bank dt. 01.03.2023, Ex.A.3 is the PMEGP Sanction communication letter, Ex.A.4 is the letter of undertaking re-loan/advances executed by the defendant admitting the liability dt. 02.03.2023, Ex.A.5 is the take delivery letter to DPN dt. 02.03.2023 executed by the defendant, Ex.A.6 is the commercial credit information report executed by the defendant in favour of the branch, Ex.A.7 is the Udyam Registration certificate submitted by the defendant in favour of the branch, Ex.A.8 is the disbursement request format for loans executed by the defendant in favour of the bank, Ex.A.9 is the letter of proprietorship form executed by the defendant in favour of the bank and Ex.A.10 is the statement of account dt. 04.06.2025, hence, the plaintiff bank filed this suit and the defendant remained ex parte and they did not choose to contest the suit and to file written statement.

08.The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents under

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.10 proved the execution of loan amount and consideration thereunder. Further more, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff bank, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the suit amount. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff bank is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this point is answered.

09. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.7,15,221/- directing the defendant to pay the suit amount together with

APCH0F0002432025 5 interest @ 6% per annum on the outstanding loan amount of

Rs.7,15,221/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW 1: S.Manasa.-Ex parte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 :Application form for loans MSME submitted by the defendant to the plaintiff bank dt. 02.03.2023

Ex.A.2 :Certificate of loan papers obtained from the defendant by the bank dt. 01.03.2023 Ex.A.3 : PMEGP Sanction communication letter.

Ex.A.4 : Letter of undertaking re-loan/advances executed by the defendant admitting the liability dt. 02.03.2023. Ex.A.5 : Take delivery letter to DPN dt.02.03.2023 executed by the defendant, Ex.A.6 : Commercial credit information report executed by the defendant in favour of the branch. Ex.A.7 : Udyam Registration certificate submitted by the defendant in favour of the branch. Ex.A.8 : Disbursement request format for loans executed by the defendant in favour of the bank.

APCH0F0002432025 6 Ex.A.9 : Letter of proprietorship form executed by the defendant in favour of the bank. Ex.A.10 : Statement of account dt. 04.06.2025.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

Fair Judgment in

OS No.127/2025.

OS/183/2025

Prasadam Sri Vidya vs K.Reddeppa

11 May 2026

APCH0F0003862025 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), PAKALA.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pakala.

Monday, this the 11 th (Eleventh) day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 183 OF 2025

Between:

Prasadam Sri Vidya, S/o P.Venkataramanaiah, Hindu, aged about 39 years, working as Teacher, residing at High School Gate, Damalacheruvu Town, Post and Pakala Mandal,Tirupathi District. Native of Door No.1-1199/2, Piler town, Post and Mandal.

… Plaintiff.

And:

K.Reddeppa, S/o K.Reddeppa, Hindu, aged about 50 years, residing at Sainik Nagar, Piler town, Post and Mandal, working as School Assistant, Minamareddygaripalle High School, K.V.Palle Mandal, Annamaiah District.

… Defendant

This Suit is coming on 01.05.2026 for final hearing before this court and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and of Sri J.M.Gowri

Sankara Raju, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

APCH0F0003862025 2

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money directing him to pay a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- to the plaintiff together with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

02.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that:-

(a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.02.2024 for his family necessities and in consideration of the same, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not paid the amount due under the promissory note and postponed the same day to day and finally gave evading answers to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

03. Defendant called absent. Summons served to defendant on 25.10.2025, inspite of serving of summons defendant did not turn up to prosecute the suit, hence the defendant set ex parte on 26.12.2025.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendant, no one was examined and no documents are marked.

05. Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

APCH0F0003862025 3

06. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for”?

The present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,78,000/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note dated 10.02.2024 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% P.A. The defendant did not choose to contest the case on merits and to file his written statement in order to prove his case and he remained ex parte.

To establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents under Ex.A1, proved the execution of Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dt.10.02.2024 and consideration passed thereunder.

Furthermore, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

In view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

Accordingly, this point answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,78,000/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per

APCH0F0003862025 4 annum on the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW 1: Prasadam Sri Vidya. -Ex parte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 :Suit promissory note dt. 10.02.2024 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

Fair Judgment in

OS No.183 OF 2025.

OS/9/2026

M.Krishnamurthy naidu vs V.Subramanyam

13 May 2026

APCH0F0000132026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), PAKALA.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pakala.

Wednesday, this the 13 th (Thirteenth) day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 9 OF 2026

Between:

M.Krishna Murthy Naidu, S/o M.Viswanadha Naidu, Hindu, aged 56 years, living by cultivation, residing at High School Street, Pakala Village and Post, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District.

… Plaintiff.

And:

V.Subramanyam, S/o V.Narasimhulu, Hindu, aged years, living by business, residing at Gadanki Village and Post, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District.

… Defendant

This Suit is coming on 12.05.2026 for final hearing before this court and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff and of Sri

G.Guruswamy Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Defendant remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of money directing him to pay a sum of Rs.3,61,200/- to the plaintiff

APCH0F0000132026 2 together with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

02.The case of the plaintiff in brief is that:-

(a) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01.03.2025 and in evidence thereof, he executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and promising to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not paid the amount due under the promissory note. Finally on 02.09.2025 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant, the defendant received the said legal notice, but he has not paid the promissory note amount. Hence, the suit.

03. Defendant called absent. No representation, he sufficient, hence, the defendant set ex parte on 23.03.2026.

04. To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3. On behalf of the defendant, no one was examined and no documents are marked.

05. Heard arguments on behalf of the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

06. Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount as prayed for”?

APCH0F0000132026 3

The present suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,61,200/- being the principal and interest due on promissory note

dated 01.03.2025 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for

Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. The defendant did not choose to contest the case on merits and to file his written statement in order to prove his case and he remained ex parte. To establish the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the documents under Ex.A1, proved the execution of Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note dt.01.03.2025 and consideration passed thereunder. Furthermore, the evidence of PW.1 remains unchallenged.

Accordingly, this point answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

07.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,61,200/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest @ 6% per

APCH0F0000132026 4 annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PW 1: M.Krishna Murthy Naidu. -Ex parte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 :Promissory note dt. 01.03.2025 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.2 : Office copy of legal notice dt. 02.09.2025.

Ex.A.3 Postal acknowledgment.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

Fair Judgment in

OS No.9 OF 2026.

OS/13/2026

Venkiteela Padmavathamma vs Raya Subramanyam Naidu

11 May 2026

APCH0F0000172026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION), PAKALA.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi

Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Pakala.

Monday , this the Eleventh (11 th ) day of May, 2026.

O.S.No. 13 OF 2026

Between:

Venkiteela Padmavathamma, W/o V.Ramachandra Naidu, Hindu, aged 80 years, living by Cultivation, residing at Kothuru Village, Peddagorpadu Post, Chinnagorpadu Grama Panchayat, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District.

… Plaintiff.

And:

01.Raya Subramanyam Naidu, S/o late.R.Chinnaswamy Naidu, aged 75 years,

02.Raya Damodhar Naidu, S/o late.R.Chinnaswamy Naidu, aged 65 years,

03.R.Radha, W/o Damodhar Naidu, aged 58 years,

04.R.Varun Kumar, S/o Damodhar Naidu, aged 40 years,

Nos.1 to 4 are residing at Kothuru Village, Peddagorpadu Post, Chinnagorpadu Grama Panchayath, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District.

05.K.Lakshmi, W/o late.Subramanyam, aged 45 years, D.No.1-60/1- Ground Floor, Kampegowda Layout, ( Old Madras Road), Avaka

APCH0F0000172026 2 Halli, Hoskota Taluk, Bangalore-49.

06.S.Annapoorna, W/o late.Janardhan Naidu, aged 52 years,

07.S.Lalitha, W/o late.Bhupathi Naidu, aged 45 years,

Nos.6 and 7 are residents of Peddagorpadu Village and Post, Pakala Mandal, Tirupathi District.

…… Defendants

The suit is filed by the plaintiff and against the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 to divide the plaint schedule property into four equal shares taking into consideration its good and bad qualities and allot one such share to the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property if necessary through process of law by passing a Preliminary decree and for costs of the suit.

This Suit is coming on 04.05.2026 for final hearing before this court and of Sri G.Guruswamy Naidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

G.Chandra Mohan, Advocate for Defendants Nos.2&3 and defendant

No.1 have been remained ex parte and Batta not paid against Defendants

Nos.4,5,6 and 7 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following :

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff called present and filed requisition stated that she not press the suit which was filed by her against D1 to D7 and counsel for

G.G.N on behalf of plaintiff also not press his vakalath on behalf of

APCH0F0000172026 3 plaintiff, hence at request of plaintiff suit is dismissed as not pressed by the counsel for plaintiff and plaintiff memo is recorded.

Pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of

May, 2026.

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

- Nil -

Sd/- P.Poornima Devi

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PAKALA.

Fair Judgment in

OS No.13 OF 2026

Order Record 811 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/127/2025	Canara Bank, Pakala branch vs M/s Krupa Enterprises	14 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/9/2026	M.Krishnamurthy naidu vs V.Subramanyam	13 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/13/2026	Venkiteela Padmavathamma vs Raya Subramanyam Naidu	11 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/183/2025	Prasadam Sri Vidya vs K.Reddeppa	11 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/57/2021	Krishnamaneni Ramamurthy Naidu vs M.Venugopal	08 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/177/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Pakala vs Sangeetham Vinayaka	08 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/213/2024	K.Janardhana Naidu vs P.Naveen	06 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/95/2022	The SHO Kallur P.S vs Shaik Ayub	06 May 2026	Judgement	—
OS/13/2021	Busipalli Chengal Reddy vs S.Masthan	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/224/2019	D.Mohan Naidu vs J.Naveen Kumar	04 May 2026	Judgement	—
CC/90/2020	State Rep by SI of Police, Pakala vs K V Ashok	29 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/80/2023	Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Nendragunta Branch, General Manager, Head Office, Chittoor At Present. vs D.Kumaraswamy Naidu	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/100/2021	State represented by the SI of Police, Kallur vs A.Venkatadri	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/105/2022	Sub-Inspector of police Kallur P.S. vs Gundrathikuppam Chandra	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/147/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru PS vs Mullaguri Sai Darama Teja	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/150/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru vs Shaik Masthan valli	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/152/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru vs P Durga Prasad	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/318/2021	Chinnabba Avulamadugu vs A.Krishnamurthy	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
STC/3/2023	Rayapati Thyagarajulu naidu vs Bolineni Rajesekhar Chowdary	27 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/23/2022	Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Nendragunta Branch, Regional Manager, Regional Office, Tirutathi. vs K.Pandurangaiah Naidu	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/71/2022	Andhra Pradesh vs Mangili Gangaiah	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/116/2023	The SHO, Pakala PS,Andhra Pradesh vs Derangula Challapuri@ Chalapuri	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/144/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru PS vs Peram Surendra Reddy	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/181/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Pakala vs Kolathur Ravi Kiran	24 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/73/2021	Sub Inspector of Police, Kallur Ps vs Derangula Sahadeva	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/146/2020	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru vs Sompalli Chandrasekhar alias chandra	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/268/2021	SHO of Kallur P.S,Andhra Pradesh vs C. Manikanta	23 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/95/2024	Kodela Surendra Kumar vs B.Susila	22 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/130/2023	SHO, Pakala PS,Andhra Pradesh vs Pathiputhuru Sudharsan Reddy	20 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
CC/3/2023	The SHO Pakala P.S vs D.Rammurthi	16 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/183/2023	Sapthagiri Grameena bank, Nendragunta Branch. vs M.Timma Reddy	10 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/65/2025	Chenupati Sumathi vs Vajja Lamshumamma	09 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/28/2026	T.Aruna vs T.Viswanath	08 Apr 2026	Judgement	—
OS/94/2019	K.Subramanyam Naidu vs G.Madhava Reddy	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/13/2024	The SHO, Pakala P.S,Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh vs Chella Naresh	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/370/2021	A Raja Reddy(Assistant Sub-Inspector) vs K.Venkata Rohith Kumar	31 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/23/2021	K.Yuvarajulu Naidu vs P.Venkatesh	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/93/2019	G.Ramamoorthy vs S.Rasool	30 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/120/2019	State Rep by the SI of Police, Kalluru vs Dudekula Dastagiri	25 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/44/2022	C.Hema Sundaram vs P.Jagadeesh	24 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/26/2019	Thenepalli Raghunadha Reddy vs Gurramkonda Shajahan	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/101/2023	S.Siva vs B.Venugopal Reddy	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/102/2023	B.Jyoshna vs B.Venugopal Reddy	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/209/2025	Anatgha neni Reddeppa Chowdary vs Derangula Geetha	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/233/2025	K.Bala Gurunadham Naidu vs K.Sathyanarayana murthy	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
MC/3/2023	M.Sravya vs D.Sabareesh	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/69/2021	P.Bhaskara vs P.Chandra	20 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/179/2025	K.Subramanyam vs K.Sivaiah Naidu	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/287/2022	Poola Hari vs D.Munikrishnama naidu	18 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/55/2021	E.Umamaheswar Reddy vs K.Subramanyam	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/122/2025	B.Gunavathi vs D.Mohan Naidu	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/261/2023	Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Damalcheruvu Branch, vs V.Govindamma(1st Group Leader)	17 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/97/2024	Pokala Sandhya @ A.Sandya vs Singamsetty Krishnaiah	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/154/2025	M.Eswaramma vs K.Venkatamaiah	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
OS/230/2025	P.Bhasskar vs K.Lakshman Babu	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
CC/133/2022	The Insspector of police pakala P.S vs K.B.Ramachandra	16 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
EP/46/2025	P.Sreenath vs V.Muni Rathnam	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/8/2024	K.Janardhana Naidu vs K.Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/14/2025	Canara Bank Kallur Branch Kallur vs A.Anasuyamma	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/24/2026	Canara bank Pakala Branch vs M/s Pavitha Fashions	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/29/2020	G Subramanyam Reddy vs N Ramamurthy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/30/2020	G Subramanyam Reddy vs N Ramamurthy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/41/2022	K.Chinnaswamy Naidu vs G.Manohar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/42/2022	K.Chinnaswamy Naidu vs G.Manohar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/48/2017	M.Lakshminarasamma vs Rajeswaramma	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/120/2022	Koduru Vijayalakshmi vs Sampalli Venkatrama Naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/126/2019	V.Balaji Naidu vs V.Nethaji Naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/132/2023	M.Srinivasulu Reddy vs N.Reddeppa naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/139/2024	Canara Bank, Kalluru Branch, Kalluru, vs K.Sheshadri Naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/145/2024	Canara Bank, Kalluru Branch, Kalluru, vs A.Konda Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/152/2022	M.Chandramma vs B.Rajesh Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
OS/226/2025	V.Jayamma vs S.Sumiya	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/16/2026	Prohibition and Excise stationChandragiri vs V.Suresh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/17/2026	Prohibition and Excise stationChandragiri vs N.Venkataramana	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/18/2026	Prohibition and Excis P.S Chandragiri. vs C.Munirathnam	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/19/2026	Prohibition and Excis P.S Chandragiri. vs Potluru Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/37/2024	The S.I of police, Kalluru P.S. vs Peeddaboyina Sreehari	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/43/2025	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs Shaik Haroon Basha	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/56/2025	Probhitation and Excise Station Pulicherla vs G.Chenchu Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/69/2025	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs Y.Nagmuni	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/77/2024	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs Kanchana Lakshmi Devi	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/79/2023	The SHO, Kallr PS,Andhra Pradesh vs G.Gunasekhar Naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/80/2025	The SHO Pakala P.s. Tirupati District Andhra Pradesh vs P.Maraiah	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/81/2024	The SHO, Kallur P.s, Chittoor ,Andhra Pradesh vs K.Ramachanraiah alias Chandra	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/88/2019	Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu rep. by its Branch Manager Sudhi Kumar Dubey vs MJR Education Society rep. by its Chairman M.Venkataramana Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/88/2025	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs Ravuri lokesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/90/2025	The SHO Pakala P.s. Tirupati District Andhra Pradesh vs B.NarayanaMoorthy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/98/2023	The SHO, Kallur P.S,Andhra Pradesh vs Padamati kona Rajitha	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/98/2024	The SHO Pakala P.s. Tirupati District Andhra Pradesh vs Pathan Khaja Moinaddin	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/126/2024	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs K.S.Khadar Valli alias Gundu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/129/2024	The SHO Kallur P.s. Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh vs S.Nasir	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/226/2022	Inspector of Police, Pakala vs Depa Hari Babu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/234/2019	A.Bhaskar Reddy vs Y.Muni Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/319/2021	Sri K.Rajasekhar vs Nannuri Jagadeesh	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
CC/344/2021	S.Vamsidhar vs K.Rahul Varma	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
DVC/2/2022	Velakaturi Thejovathi vs Velakaturi Kishore	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
MC/3/2021	V.Thejovathi vs Velakaturi Kishore	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
STC/3/2025	B.Maheswar Reddy vs Moorthi Dhana Sekhar	14 Mar 2026	Order	—
STC/6/2023	K.Janardhana Naidu vs K.Sudhakar	14 Mar 2026	Other	—
STC/13/2023	M.Sreenivasulu Reddy vs N.Reddeppa naidu	14 Mar 2026	Other	—

Showing 100 of 811 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		10
Apr 2026		23
Mar 2026		69
Feb 2026		36
Jan 2026		29
Dec 2025		110
Nov 2025		37
Oct 2025		37
Sep 2025		65
Aug 2025		23
Jul 2025		128
Jun 2025		4

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI handled?

Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI has handled 823 court orders since 2024 at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 45 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI hear?

Based on available records, Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka).

Where is Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI currently posted?

Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI is posted as Junior Civil Judge at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI dispose cases?

Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI disposes approximately 45 cases per month, based on 823 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka).

Since when is Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI serving?

Smt. P. POORNIMA DEVI has been serving at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka) since 2024. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

OS 47%

CC 40%

EP 5%

STC 3%

MC 2%

DVC 1%

PRC 1%

Posting History

Nov 2024 — Present

Junior Civil Judge · 823 orders

← View all judges at Court of Junior Civil Judge,, Pakala (Taluka)