Sri P. Pradeep Naik

1 SC 395 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

AT: HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SRI P. PRADEEP NAIK,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO.395 of 2015

(On committal made by the Learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad vide PRC No.25/2015)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Inspector ofPolice,HuzurabadP.S. (Cr.No.234/2015 of P.S. Husnabad) Name of the Accused :Lankadasari Sampath, S/o Ilaiah, age: 35 years, R/o Ammanagurthi village of Saidapur Mandal of Karimnagar Dist. Charges:U/ss 354 & 354-D IPC Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “ Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty“ Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 & 354-D IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. Prosecution conducted by:Sri G.Raji Reddy, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri M.Rajamouly, Advocate, Huzurabad

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Raji Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri M.Rajamouly, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Inspector of Police, Huzurabad Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.234 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 354 & 354-D of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”).

2.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the alleged incident took place prior to 03.09.2015 at 18.00 hours at RTC bus stand,

Huzurabad. L.W.1 - More Mamatha is the complainant and victim, 2 SC 395 of 2015 whereas, accused is resident of Ammanagurthi village; that complainant and accused do coolie works under masons, due to which accused kept evil eye over the complainant and he was waiting for a chance to fulfill his lust over her and he started harassing and insisting her to have sexual desire and he used to follow her. When the complainant refused his sexual desire, he developed grudge on her and beat her on two occasions; that on 03.09.2015 at 1800 hours, when L.Ws.1 and 2/More

Mamatha and More Ravi got down from the bus at Huzurabad Bus

Station and when L.W.2 – More Ravi went to the conductor to get due amount, at that time, L.W.1 – More Mamatha was alone, accused went near to her, caught hold her hand forced her to come with him and on seeing L.W.2 – More Ravi, the accused managed to escape from the scene.

On receipt of the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, P.S.,

Huzurabad registered a case in Crime No.234/2015 under Sections 354 & 354-D IPC. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1 –

More Mamatha and then he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at RTC Bus Stand, Huzurabad, then, he secured the presence of L.Ws.5 and 6/T.Laxminarayana and M.Rajender and drafted the rough sketch of crime scene on crime details form. While the efforts were in progress, on 05.09.2015, he apprehended the accused at 0900 hours at the house of accused and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence, and effected his arrest and sent him to the court for judicial remand. After completion investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/secs.354 & 354-D IPC against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Huzurabad vide PRC No.234/2015 and on appearance of the

3 SC 395 of 2015 accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. and as the offences is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar U/s. 209 Cr.P.C and

subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.The charges under Sections 354 & 354-D IPC is framed against the accused and the contents of charges are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.5 marked on behalf of defense.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported no defense evidence on behalf of the accused.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354 & 354­D IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.In this case, the prosecution cited and examined 07 witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and accused are working as coolies under masons and the accused used to follow her wherever she works and he used to insist her to fulfill his sexual desire with her, he started harassing her mentally and when the complainant 4 SC 395 of 2015 refused his sexual desire, he developed evil eye over her and he waited for a chance to fulfill his lust and on 03.09.2015 at about 1800 hours, when L.Ws.1 and 2/More Mamatha and More Ravi got down from the bus at Huzurabad Bus-Station, when L.W.2 – More Ravi went near to the conductor to get due amount, then, accused came to L.W.1 – More

Mamatha and caught hold her hand and on seeing L.W.2 – More Ravi, he managed to escape from the scene of offence and thereby accused assaulted her with intent to outrage her modesty, by following her and committed the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D IPC.

10.It is the testimony of P.W.1 that about four years ago, when she was working near Sambasiva Talkies, Huzurabad, accused called her to work along with him and on her refusal, he beat her in the presence of

P.W.3 and PW-3 admonished accused. P.W.1 further deposed that after a week, while she was working at Jagruthi College, then accused asked her to come down from the 2nd floor of the building and on her refusal, accused went there and beat her indiscriminately, due to which she sustained simple injuries. P.W.1 further deposed that on 03.09.2015 at about 6.30 p.m., her husband (P.W.2) and she got down from the bus at the Bus-Station, Huzurabad, accused came there and caught hold of her hand and requested her to come with him, when her husband was talking with the Conductor for taking due amount and her husband saw the accused and admonished the accused as to why he caught hold of his wife’s hand, then, accused left the place, on the next day, they gave

Ex.P.1 complaint.

11.In cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that prior to alleged incident, she lived with the accused at Ammanagurthi village for about a month, later, panchayats were held between P.W.1 and her husband/P.W.2 and a 5 SC 395 of 2015 resolution was reduced into writing. P.W.1 admitted that her husband does not know that she lived with the accused at his house and at that time, her husband gave complaint about her missing and it was withdrawn due to compromise. P.W.1 further admitted that while she was working near Sambasiva Talkies and Jagruthi College, the mason was Bixapathi, but not accused. P.W.1 further stated that at the time of the alleged incidents, the said mason – Bixapathi was not present. P.W.1 admitted that accused and P.W.1 took one photograph in Reshma Digital

Photo Studio at Huzurabad on 22.04.2019, which is marked under

Ex.D.1. P.W.1 further stated she lived with the accused for a month, due to unbearable harassment of her husband, she consumed poison and she spent Rs.10,000/- for her medical expenses and later she underwent hysterectomy operation in the Karunasri Hospital, Huzurabad, with the help of accused. P.W.1 further admitted that when she visited various hospitals, accused took the medical prescriptions for taking medicines.

She further admitted that she went to drop her elder sister at

Nizamabad in a bus and returned with the accused. She further stated that when she lived with the accused at his house, he stated that he would marry her, but, his villagers obstructed to marry her. She further stated that she is ready to withdraw this case against the accused, if her husband has no objection.

12.It is the evidence of P.W.2 that about five or six years ago, accused beat P.W.1 near Sambasiva Talkies, Huzurabad in the presence of P.W.3 and again accused beat P.W.1 near Jagruthi College, Huzurabad, then, she informed him about the incident. P.W.2 further deposed that when

P.W.1 and P.W.2 were returning from their work from Uppal to Huzurabad in a bus, when they got down from the bus at Bus-Station, Huzurabad, when he was taking money from the conductor, accused caught hold 6 SC 395 of 2015 the hand of P.W.1, then, he asked accused as to why he caught hold of her hand, then, accused skulk away.

13.In cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that he does not know about the discussion of P.W.1 and accused at the time of alleged incident and he does not know as to why accused caught hold of hand of P.W.1 and he does not know the intention of the accused. He further admitted that on 04.06.2015, their community elders held panchayat between himself and his wife and a panchayat resolution was reduced into writing and it was withdrawn. He further admitted that he gave a complaint to the police about missing of his wife. He further stated that about a month prior to said panchayat, P.W.1 lived with the accused at his house. P.W.2 further stated that one Edla Ravi and Kantrapalli Raju were present at the time of incident occurred at Jagruthi College, Huzurabad. P.W.2 further stated that he never asked P.W.1 as to why she went to the village of accused and lived there-at.

14.P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, P.Ws.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for preparation of crime details form panchanamas, they are declared as hostile and when they were cross- examined, nothing was elicited in favor of prosecution.

15.It is the evidence of P.W.7 that on 04.09.2015 at 10.00 a.m., he received complaint from P.W.1, basing on the same, he registered a case in Cr.No.234 of 2015 under Sections 345 and 354-D IPC, then, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W.1, proceeded to the scene of offence, conducted crime details form panchanama in the presence of

P.Ws.5 and 6 and on 05.09.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., he apprehended the accused and sent him to the court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. In cross- 7 SC 395 of 2015 examination, P.W.7 stated that he did not record the confessional statement of the accused, except that nothing is elicited in favor of prosecution.

16.On perusal of entire evidence on record, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 that she did not state the intention of accused, who alleged to have caught hold her hand at the bus-station, Huzurabad in the presence of several passengers, but, the Investigating Officer did not choose to cite any one of the eye witnesses who was present near the bus-station, Huzurabad. P.Ws.1 and 2 stated that when P.W.1 was working near Sambasiva Talkies, Huzurabad, accused beat her in the presence of P.W.3, but, P.W.3 deposed nothing in favor of prosecution case and he was declared as hostile. The Investigation Officer cited

P.W.4 as eye-witness to the alleged incident, but, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state that P.W.4 was present at that time. Moreover, P.W.4 also declared as hostile. P.W.1 stated that accused beat her near Jagruthi College,

Huzurabad and she informed the same to P.W.2, P.W.2 stated in his cross-examination that one Edla Ravi and Kantranapalli Raju were present at the time of the alleged incident, but, the Investigating Officer did not choose to cite them as witnesses of the said alleged incident, as such, the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and the above witnesses is doubtful and they failed to support the case of prosecution.

P.W.1 herself admitted that while she was working near Sambasiva

Talkies and Jagruthi College, the mason was Bixapathi, but not accused and further stated that at the time of the alleged two incidents, the said mason – Bixapathi was not present, which gives a cloud of doubt whether the said two alleged incidents have actually taken place or not and the Investigating Officer did not choose to cite the said mason as a witness in this case to establish the guilt of the accused, instead, he 8 SC 395 of 2015 cited P.Ws.4 and 5 as eye-witnesses, but, they did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.2 clearly stated that he does not know the intention of accused and as to why the accused caught hold of hand of P.W.1, accordingly the intention of accused to commit the alleged offense is not established through his evidence.

More-over, P.W.1 stated that she is ready to compromise the matter with the accused, if her husband has no objection. P.W.1 stated that her husband/P.W.2 harassed P.W.1, due to that she consumed poison and she went to the house of accused and lived with him for a month, at that time, P.W.2 did not question P.W.1 about her stay with the accused. P.W.2 admitted that he never asked P.W.1 as to why she went to the house of accused and lived with him for a period of one month and in such circumstances, the main intention of accused is not established through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 did not ask

P.W.1, since when she lived with the accused for one month and P.W.2 did not explain the reason for withdrawing the complaint of woman missing case, after one panchayat resolution was reduced into writing between P.W.1 and P.W.2.

In the instant case, the ingredients of Sections 354 and 354-D IPC is not attracted through the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

17.On considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case,

I am of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of

Sections 354 and 354-D IPC. Hence, for the reasons discussed above, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thereby the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

9 SC 395 of 2015

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 354-D IPC and he is acquitted

U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Typed to my dictation directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 30th day of October,

2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

P.W.1: More mamatha, – Nil – P.W.2: More Ravi, P.W.3: Sk.Kasim, P.W.4: Midivelli Raju, P.W.5: Thatipamula Laxminarayana, P.W.6: Manchikatla Rajender, P.W.7: Ch.Srinivas, the then Inspector of Police.

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:28.08.2019Complaint of P.W.1 to Police. Ex.P2:04.09.2019Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3:04.09.2019Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P4:06.09.2019Signature of P.W.5 on CDF panchanama Ex.P5:06.09.2019Signature of P.W.6 on CDF panchanama Ex.P6:24.10.2019First Information Report by P.W.7. Ex.P7:24.10.2019Crime Details Form by P.W.7.

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1:28.08.2019Is the photograph of P.W.1 and accused. Ex.D2:28.08.2019Is the medical prescription, dated 19.09.2018. Ex.D3:28.08.2019Is the medical prescription, dated 20.02.2019. Ex.D4:28.08.2019Is the medical prescription, dated 27.02.2019 Ex.D5:28.08.2019Is the receipt, dated 21.05.2018.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -Nil-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURABAD.

1 HMOP 44 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HUZURABAD

PRESENT: SRI.P. PRADEEP NAIK,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

HUZURABAD

Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2019

HMOP No.44 of 2019

Between:­

Poodari @ Puli Swathi, W/o Poodari Kiran Kumar (D/o Puli Thirupathaiah), age: 26 years, Occ: Household, R/o Office Road, Husnabad, now at parents house at H.No.12­10­63, Pragathinagar, Sircilla Town and Mandal of Rajanna­Sircilla District. … Petitioner

A N D Poodari Kiran Kumar, S/o Rajaiah, age: 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o H.No.19­12, Gandhi Road, Husnabad Town & Mandal of Siddipet District. …. Respondent

This petition coming on today before me for final hearing in the presence of Chithari Hanumaiah, Advocate for the petitioner and respondent remains ex­parte; having been heard, having stood over for consideration to this day this court made the following:­ :: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent.

The brief averments of the Petition are as follows:­

The petitioner and respondent are the legally wedded wife and husband and their marriage was performed on 28.05.2015 at Function

Hall, at Sircilla, as per caste customs; that at time of marriage, petitioner’s parents presented some gold and silver articles towards Streedhana to the petitioner and their marriage was consummated; that thereafter, they lived happily for a month in the house of respondent; that petitioner came to know that respondent has been suffering from kidney disease and he has been chewing medicines since long time; that petitioner questioned 2 HMOP 44 of 2019 about his health, respondent started domestic violence on petty issues and that she left the house of respondent on 15.06.2015 and since then she has been staying with her parents, for which several panchayats were held at Husnabad, but, in­vain; that respondent has no interest on the petitioner and he is intentionally to give divorce to the petitioner and started harassing her cruelly and mentally. Hence this petition.

2.No counter filed by the respondent. In spite of giving ample of opportunity, respondent failed to file counter and as such respondent remains ex­parte.

3.Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3. No documents are marked on behalf of respondent.

4.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce, as prayed for?”

5.POINT

The petitioner/wife was examined as PW1. P.W.1 stated that their marriage was solemnized on 28.05.2015, Function Hall at Sircilla, as per caste customs, after their marriage, they lived happily for a month and later, some differences arose between them, for which several panchayats were held, but in­vain. More over, respondent has been suffering from kidney disease and he has been chewing medicines since long time and he did not disclose this problem to the petitioner. P.W.1 further stated that when she inquired and questioned about his health problem, then, he along with his parents started harassing her on petty issues and he is not interested to lead the marital life with the petitioner. P.W.1 further stated that there is no hope to reunion, they agreed to get dissolved of their marriage and filed the suit for divorce. 

6.Once the parties have separated and the separation has been continued for a sufficient length of time and one of them has presented a petition for divorce, it can be well presumed that the marriage has broken down. The Court, no doubt, should seriously make an endeavor to 3 HMOP 44 of 2019 reconcile the parties yet, if it is found that the breakdown is irreparable, then divorce should not be withheld. The consequences of preservation in law of the unworkable marriage which has long ceased to be effective are bound to be a source of greater misery for the parties.

7. In such circumstances, petitioner/wife cannot be expected to live with the respondent/husband under the said circumstances. The evidence of P.W1 and respondent and with their own admissions, both parties clearly show that there is no chance of reunion between the parties and also there is no amicable relationship between the parties. It is further submitted that after filing this case, her husband compromised with her and paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/­ to her through Demand

Draft bearing No.040080, dated 03.10.2019 drawn on Axis Bank,

Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad, as full and final settlement and permanent alimony. From the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the petitioner is able to establish that the respondent treated with cruelty. Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 28.05.2015 is hereby dissolved, by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR THE PETITIONER:­ FOR THE RESPONDENT:­

PW1: Poodari @ Puli Swathi. ­Ex­Parte­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:­

Ex.P1 is the Wedding Invitation Card, dated 28.05.2015. Ex.P2 is the digital photograph of marriage of petitioner & respondent. Ex.P3 is the Aadhaar Card No.5026­6213­9314 of petitioner.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:­

­Nil­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

 HUZURABAD.

1 HMOP 50 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: P. PRADEEP NAIK,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

HUZURABAD.

Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2019

H.M.O.P.No.50 OF 2019

Between:­

Jannu Mahalaxmi @ Mula Laxmi, W/o Santhosh Reddy, age: 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o Dichpally village and mandal of Nizamabad District.

….. First Petitioner

And

Jannu Santhosh Kumar @ Santhosh Reddy, S/o Saya Reddy, age: 23 years, Occ: Business, R/o Dichpally village and mandal of Nizamabad District. ….. Second Petitioner

PETITION U/SEC. 13(B) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Bhagawan Reddy, advocate and Smt.K.Vijaya Reddy, advocate for the 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively, and having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­ :: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners for divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. As per the averments of the petition, the marriage of both the petitioners was taken place on 21.06.2018 at Huzurabad Function Hall, as per caste customs and their marriage is also registered on 07.09.2018, within the jurisdiction of this court, their marriage was consummated and thereafter they lived together for three months and then differences arose between them and hence they decided to take mutual divorce and hence this joint petition is filed for divorce.

3.This petition was presented on 16.04.2019 and the petitioners waited for mandatory period of a year. The reconciliation talks were held, but failed. Both the petitioners stated they have not withdrawn from the petition and represented that there is no chance for re­union and prayed for grant of divorce.

4. The Petitioners themselves examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P1 to P4 are marked.

2 HMOP 50 of 2019

5. Now the point for determination is :

“ Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek divorce, as prayed

for” ?

6. POINT:­ The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 reveals that bitter misunderstandings took place between them, it became impossible for them to live under one roof, as husband and wife. During the reconciliation talks also they did not turn up for amicable settlement and stated to proceed as per law. They have also stated that they have not withdrawn petition which is filed under Sec.13­B of H.M.Act for grant of divorce by mutual consent. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are willing to take divorce by mutual consent and that P.W.2 paid an amount of Rs.17,50,000/­ to

P.W.1 as full and final settlement and permanent alimony and she returned their gold ornaments of 72 grams. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have proved their claim and they are entitled for the relief of dissolution of marriage by granting of decree of divorce by mutual consent. Accordingly, this point is answered.

7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage took place between the petitioners No.1 and 2 dated 21.06.2018 is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs. 

Typed to my dictation directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31st day of October,

2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the petitioners:

P.W.1 : Jannu Mahalaxmi @ Mula Laxmi, P.W.2 : Jannu Santhosh Kumar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the petitioners:

Ex.P1 is the Wedding Invitation Card/Paper dated 21.06.2018. Ex.P2 are the two marriage digital photographs of petitioners 1 and 2. Ex.P3 is the Aadhaar Card No.6452­8165­7980 of petitioner No.1. Ex.P4 is the Aadhaar Card No.7768­8122­5068 of petitioner No.2.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT: : HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. P. PRADEED NAIK,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Wednesday, the 30th day of October, 2019

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.01 of 2017

Between:­

Jakkula Bhagyalaxmi, W/o Ravi Kumar, Aged: about 32 years, Occu: Agriculture and house hold, R/o Metpalli village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ….Appellant/Plaintiff. A N D Veeraboina Suguna, W/o Sampath, Aged: not known, Occu: House hold, R/o Metpalli village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

….Respondent/defendant.

(On appeal against the Order and Decree dated 28­11­2016 passed by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad in I.A.No.86 of 2015 in O.S.No.22 of 2015) Between:­

Jakkula Bhagyalaxmi, W/o Ravi Kumar, Aged: about 32 years, Occu: Agriculture and house hold, R/o Metpalli village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ….Appellant/Plaintiff. A N D

Veeraboina Suguna, W/o Sampath, Aged: not known, Occu: House hold, R/o Metpalli village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

….Respondent/defendant Claim: Memorandum of Appeal Under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC R/w to set aside the Order and Decree passed dated 28­11­2016 passed by the Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Huzurabad in I.A.No.86 of 2015 in O.S.No.22 of 2015.

This appeal coming on today before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Bhagavan Reddy, advocate for appellants/plaintiff and of Sri. A.Srinivas Rao, advocate for the respondent/defendant, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: ORDER ::

Since counsel for Appellant not pressed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is recorded. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

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

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :WITNESS EXAMINED: ….Nil…

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT: : HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: SRI. P. PRADEED NAIK,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

Thursday, the 31st day of October, 2019

E.P.No.21 of 2018

Between:­ Veeraveni Shankar, S/o Narsaiah, age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o Korkal village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar District. ….Decree­Holder. A N D

1. Dasari Narsaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah, age: 55 years, R/o Korkal village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar District.

2. Manthena Mallesh, S/o Banaiah, age: Major, R/o Q.No.99 Krishna colony, Srirampoor village and Revenue of Adilabad District. ….Judgment Debtors.

This suit coming before me on 31.10.2019 for hearing in the absence of Sri G.Krishna Reddy, advocate for Decree­Holder and Sri M.Rajamouli, advocate for judgment debtors, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: JUDGMENT ::

Salary Attachment Warrant of Judgment Debtor is served and the Execution

Petition is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 31 st day of October, 2019. 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: :WITNESS EXAMINED: ….Nil…

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.