Sri P.V.Prasad Rao., B.A., LL.B.,

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA

Present: - Sri P.V.PRASADA RAO I Additional Senior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.72/2016

Between:

Anne Sri Krishna Rao, S/o.Anne Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.2-16/1, Kolavennu Village, Kankipadu Mandalam, Krishna District. … Plaintiff. A n d

Elaprolu Lakshmi Annapurna, W/o.Late E.Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 50 years, R/o.MRO Office Road, Penamaluru Village, Mandalam, Krishna District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 10.4.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Sambasiva Rao and Smt D.Nagalakshmni, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri Kosanam Srinivasa Rao and Smt M.Manemma, Advocates for the defendant, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,83,333/- basing on a promissory note, dt.20.5.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.5,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

That the defendant herein borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.5.2015 from the plaintiff for her domestic expenses in the presence of PWs.2, 3 and another attestor-P.Samuel Ravi by executing Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. But subsequently, she failed to repay the debt amount to the plaintiff on repeated demands of the plaintiff. In order to discharge the debt amount, the defendant issued cheque bearing No.488105, dt.20.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.5,80,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Poranki Branch,

Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. When the plaintiff presented the

2

same before Banker, it was dishonoured. The defendant not chosen to repay the amount, contrary the defendant is trying to sell away the property situated in RS.Nos.252 and 254/2 in Chikkavaram Village,

Gannavaram Mandal behind the back of the plaintiff to avoid the payment and to cause loss to the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed her written statement, by denying all the material allegations made in the plaint that are not true and correct.

The defendant submits that she never borrowed any amount, much less Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.5.2015 by executing promissory note and the promissory note is nothing but fabricated and forged document. She further submits that she was doing sarees business and the mother in law of the plaintiff, viz., Vallabhaneni Jhansi also doing the same business, who came to her house and told her that she is selling costly sarees and requested the defendant to sell the sarees on commission basis, for which the defendant accepted and both of them were doing sarees business as per their understanding. During the course of their understanding, the said Vallabhaneni Jhansi has given 2 sarees worth of Rs.17,000/-, one saree worth of Rs.25,000/-, one saree worth of Rs.11,000/- and one saree worth of Rs.6,000/-, in total 5 sarees, worth of Rs.76,000/-. The defendant noted the value and number of sarees given by Jhansi in her Diary on 30.11.2011. Though, she received sarees, but she is unable to sell those sarees for about 3 months. At last, in the month of March, 2012 through one Sirisha, the defendant sold 5 sarees to a family, who are residing in Visakhapatnam and gave Rs.25,000/- to the defendant by promissing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.51,000/- to the defendant in 2 or 3 instalments.

But unfortunately, in the first week of April, 201 the husband of the defendant admitted in the hospital due to injuries caused in the electric shock and she expended the above Rs.25,000/- for the treatment of her husband. Even after two months, her husband not recovered and discharged from the hospital and living on the bed. As such, she used to spend Rs.7,00,000/- for the treatment of her husband. The balance amount paid by the family of Visakhapatnam also expended by the

3

defendant. As such, she was indebted an amount of Rs.76,000/- only to

Vallabhaneni Jhansi @ 2% interest.

The defendant further submits that as she is unable to repay the amount of Rs.76,000/- due to ill-health of her husband, the said

Vallabhani Jhansi came to the defendant in the month of May, 2014 and demanded and compelled her to give blank cheque for the security purpose of the said amount of Rs.76,000/-. On that she issued blank cheque bearing No.488105 drawn on State Bank of India, Poranki

Branch. Due to ill-health condition of her husband, the defendant stopped her business and unable to pay the interest to the Vallabhani

Jhansi. At last, her husband died. After the death of her husband, the said Vallabhaneni Jhansi and her son in law, i.e., the plaintiff, and his wife came to the house of the defendant in a car on 10.4.2015. The plaintiff and his wife were sat in the car, the Vallabhaneni Jhansi alone came to the defendant by holding with blank printed promissory note in her hand and compelled to sign on the promissory note for security purpose of the said amount of Rs.76,000/- stating that her daughter and son in law were in the car. Due to compulsion of the said Vallabhaneni

Jhansi, she signed on the blank printed promissory note brought by

Vallabhaneni Jhansi. Thereafter, the said Vallabhaneni Jhansi and the plaintiff are frequently coming to her house and harassing by abusing her in filthy language and demanded to execute Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her property with an intention to grab the property. As she is unable to bear the harassment of the plaintiff and

Vallabhaneni Jhansi, she presented report on 30.1.2016 against them

before the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada by narrating the incident,

who issued acknowledgment S.No.361/CCC/VJY/2016 to the defendant about receiving of the complaint and she was informed by the

Commissioner of Police to approach Deputy Commissioner of Police,

Vijayawada who is the concerned Officer to deal with Call money cases.

On that, she approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police and in turn, he directed her to approach the Circle Inspector of Police. Though, she approached the C.I. of Police, but no action was taken. By taking advantage of non taking action by the said police, the said Vallabhaneni

Jhansi and her son in law conspired together and with the help of their men, filled the blanks in the promissory note by mentioning the date 20.5.2015, which was received from her on 10.4.2015 and filed the suit

4

and obtained attachment before the Judgment by filing Interlocutory application. After receiving the summons from the Court, she informed the same to the CI of Police. Even after that also, the CI of Police has not taken any action.

The defendant further submits that she has given reply to the notice given by the plaintiff narrating the things happened between the said Vallabhaneni Jhansi and the defendant. Due to non action of the police on her complaint, the Vallabhaneni Jhansi and her son in law filed the suit, taking advantage of blank signed promissory note, which was taken from her for unlawful gain, to grab her property and to cause loss to the defendant. Hence, there is no debtor and creditor relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Hence, the suit may be dismissed with costs.

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

i)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, forged, fabricated and binding on the defendant?

ii)Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

iv)To what relief?

5.In order to prove their respective contentions, the plaintiff besides examining himself as PW.1, he also got examined one Gadde Sudhir, who is the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note as PW.2 and one Donepudi

Praveen, who is the 2nd attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 documents. On the other hand, in order to prove the defence of the defendant, the defendant besides examining herself as DW.1, she also got examined one Kilaru Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, who is the mother of the defendant as DW.2 and one Lanka Bujji, who is

District President of MRPS Mahila Sangham and Social Service examined as DW.3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4 documents.

6.Heard both sides.

5

7.ISSUE NO.1: As it is the defence of the defendant that the suit promissory note is fabricated after obtaining her signature forcibly on the unfilled promissory note, even she had not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and there is no debtor and creditor relationship between them, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him by executing Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of PWs.2, 3 and another attestor-

P.Samuel Ravi and Ex.A1 promissory note is not fabricated one. There is no dispute regarding the signature of the defendant on the promissory note, why because she herself admitted in her evidence during her cross- examination at first line that the signature on the promissory note belongs to her. More so, she stated in her written statement that the

Vallabhani Jhansi forcibly obtained her signature on the blank printed forms. Therefore, whether either Vallabhaneni Jhansi obtained the signature of the defendant on the unfilled promissory note forcibly or the defendant issued the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff is to be decided.

8.It is clear and crystal that Ex.A1 contains the signature of the defendant. Therefore, the contention of the defendant at one stage that her signature was forged, is not tenable. Whether her signature was forcibly obtained on the promissory note by Vallabhaneni Jhansi or not will also be discussed. As per the contention of the defendant that on 10.4.2015 the said Vallabhaneni Jhansi along with her son in law and daughter came to the house of defendant in a car and forced her to sign on blank printed promissory note. If that was happened, what made prevented her to present report to the police on the day itself or at least on the next date of the incident. As seen Ex.B2 report and Ex.B3 FIR, the defendant had presented report on 3.3.2016 under Call money case, i.e., gap of more than 10 months, or else she had to issue notice to

Vallabhaneni Jhansi for obtaining unfilled signed promissory note from her. But she did not issue any notice to her till the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant demanding for repayment of debt under Ex.A1 promissory note. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant that the mother in law of the plaintiff, i.e., Vallabhaneni Jhansi obtained signed promissory note from the defendant is not tenable, as there is no evidence on that aspect, like the evidence of neighbours, who are the

6

proper witnesses about visiting of said Vallabhaneni Jhansi to the house of defendant for obtaining her signature by force.

9.Though, the defendant got examined DW.2, who is her mother. But her evidence cannot be taken into consideration through the documentary evidence and the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, naturally she may support her daughter. Further, the defendant examined Social Worker as

DW.3. Though, she supported the contention of the defendant, but she stated in her cross-examination that she does not know the contents of the plaint as well as written statement and she does not have personal knowledge about the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Just on the information given by the defendant only, she came to know the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant and she has not seen any document in that transaction filed by the defendant in this suit.

After the moment, she signed on her chief affidavit, it was filed into the

Court as such she does not know what was written in her chief affidavit, and that she does not know anything about the case facts, except information passed by the defendant. So, her evidence is not useful to the defendant to prove her defence.

10.As it was the initial burden of the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, genuine and not fabricated, in order to discharge her burden, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 by filing chief affidavit by reiterating the facts mentioned in the plaint that on the even date, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him in the presence of PWs.2, 3 and another attestor. In support of his evidence, he also got examined PWs.2 and 3, who are the scribe and attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note and the evidence of scribe and attestor is totally corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 regarding the execution of the promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, place of transaction, passing of consideration and presence of witnesses etc., as

PWs.2 and 3 categorically stated that the transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant at Kolavennu (V) in between 10.00 a.m., to 11.00 a.m., and PW.3 signed as 2nd attestor on the promissory note.

PW.2 scribed the promissory note and signed on it.

11.Though, the defendant suggested to the witnesses that the mother in law of the plaintiff forcibly obtained the signature of the defendant on

7

unfilled promissory note and taking advantage of the signature of the defendant on the promissory note and with the help of PWs.2, 3 and another attestor, the plaintiff got filled the promissory note and filed this suit. The same was denied by the witnesses. The defendant further suggested to the witnesses that the plaintiff and his mother in law forcibly obtained GPA from the defendant to grab the property, then the defendant filed call money case and to escape from the Call money case, the plaintiff filled the promissory note, which was taken earlier from the defendant and got filed the suit. The same was also denied by the witnesses. The rest of the suggestions put to the witnesses-PWs.1 to 3 are not material things, as those are who came first and who came later, mode of conveyance to reach the house of the plaintiff and location of the house of the defendant etc. When the learned Counsel for the defendant disputed the identity of the defendant, almost all the 3 witnesses identified the defendant in the Court hall, as PW.3 stated that he saw her several times, as she used to visit his shop. PW.2 stated that he saw her in the police station. Though, the learned Counsel for the defendant cross-examined PWs.1 to 3 at length, but he could not elicit any material in support of her defence of fabrication of the promissory note or to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

12.Further, if really had it is the defence of the defendant that the suit promissory note is fabricated one, what made prevented her to send the document to the Handwriting Expert to prove her defence. But the defendant did not take any steps by filing petition under Section 45 of

Indian Evidence Act to send the document to the Handwriting Expert to prove her defence. Even the scribe and attestor also categorically stated that the suit promissory note was scribed on 20.5.2015 in the presence of the defendant at the house of the plaintiff. The non taking steps to send the document to the Handwriting Expert by the defendant, even the plaintiff discharged his initial burden stating that the suit promissory note is not fabricated but scribed at the time of transaction, so the defence taken by the defendant is formal defence without any subsistence.

13.In order to say that as she was due of amount of Rs.76,000/- to the mother in law of the defendant in the sarees business transaction,

8

the mother in law of the plaintiff obtained the promissory note, she filed

Diary. But Ex.B4 Diary does not disclose anything about the transaction between the mother in law of the plaintiff and the defendant, except the entry, i.e., 30-11-2011,

Vuyyuru Jhansi Akkaku, 17000 x 2: 25000 – 1 : Jareekotaalu 11000 x 1 : 6000 x 1:

14.Though, the Diary relates to the year 2005, no other matter discloses in respect of the transaction between the defendant and the mother in law of the plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.B4 is no way helpful to the case of the defendant in order to prove her defence. Though, the plaintiff proved his initial burden of proving that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid, genuine, not forged and fabricated and also binding on the defendant, but the defendant failed to produce any relevant, cogent evidence to suit her defence or to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, though she had taken specific plea of fabrication of promissory note and indebted to the mother in law of the plaintiff, in that connection the mother in law of the plaintiff obtained signed promissory note from her and later filled it with her wish and will and filed this suit. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his case. Hence, the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.ISSUE NO.2:

When questioned about the denomination of cash passed from the plaintiff to the defendant towards consideration, PW.3 who is the 2nd attestor categorically stated about denomination that 3 bundles of

Rs.1,000/- notes and 4 bundles of Rs.500/- notes, each bundle contains 100 notes. PW.2 also supported PW.3 about passing of consideration of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the defendant. Though, the learned

Counsel for the defendant suggested to the witness-PW.1 that no consideration was passed to the defendant, the same was denied by the witness. Though, the plaintiff proved through his evidence and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that the consideration was passed to the defendant from him, the defendant failed to rebut the evidence of plaintiff regarding passing of consideration. Therefore, we can safely said that the

9

consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant. Hence, the

Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.ISSUE No.3: Since the plaintiff proved that the Ex.A1 is true, valid, genuine and not forged and fabricated and binding on the defendant and the consideration was also passed to the defendant and no payment was made by the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Hence, the Issue No.3 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

17.ISSUE NO.4:

In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

18.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.5,83,333/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Anne Sri Krishna RaoDW.1: Elaprolu Lakshmi Annapurna P.W.2: Gadde SudhirDW.2: Kilaru Jhansi Lakshmi Bai P.W.3: Donepudi PraveenDW.3: Lanka Bujji

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.20.5.2015, Ex.A2: Report given by the defendant against the plaintiff, dt.3.3.2016, Ex.A3: FIR

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, dt.18.3.2016,

10

Ex.B2: Acknowledgement cards (7 in number) Ex.B3: Served copy of the reply notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, dt.4.4.2016, Ex.B4: Diary pertaining to the year 2005 of 20th October, relevant entry at the date column, dt.30.11.2011.

IASCJ/VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI P.V. PRASADA RAO

I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

Wednesday, this the 10th day of May, 2017

SESSIONS CASE No.256/2016

(P.R.C.No.17/2016, Order dt.18.8.2016 on the file of the II Addl., Junior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada, FAC/Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mylavaram

committed by Sri P.Ramana Reddy, connected with Cr.No.66/2016 of Reddigudem Police Station)

Name of the Complainant:TheStationHouseOfficer, Reddigudem PS, Krishna District.

Name of the Accused:Podeti Babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 39 years, Mala, Driver of Tavera Car AP 20 Y 4848, Mittagudem, H/o.Tatakuntala Village, Vissannapet Mandal.

Offence with which charged:For the offence punishable under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC.

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty for the offence U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC.

Order passed by the Court:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.376 r/w. 511 IPC and he is Acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused if any., shall stands canceled. MO.1-Car which was already given to PW.3 towards interim custody holds good after appeal time is over. MOs.2 and 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

SdSd

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

This Sessions Case coming on 08.05.2017 for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri L.China Israiel, Addl., Public Prosecutor for the prosecution, and of Sri P.Ravi Kishore and Sri D.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocates for the accused, and on perusal of the entire material on record and on hearing both sides, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The State represented by its Sub-Inspector of Police, Reddigudem

Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.66/2016 of Reddigudem PS under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution at the outset is that:

2

i)The accused is resident of Mittagudem, H/o.Tatakuntala Village,

Reddigudem Mandal and is driver of Tavera Car AP 20 Y 4848. PW.1-

Mandipudi Naga Lakshmi, W/o.Krishna is also resident of same village.

About 13 years back, her marriage was performed with one Krishna of

V.M.Banzaru (V) (M) of Khammam District. She blessed with two children. Due to harassment of her husband, 2 months back she came to the house of her grand parents, i.e., LWs.3 and 4-Bommina

Venkateswarlu and Bommina Adilakshmi at Reddigudem and is living with them. On 4.7.2016, as her mother-PW.2 is residing in Thukkuluru (V), PW.1 went there along with her mother and gave report at Nuzvid

Town PS at 8.30 p.m., against her husband. Later, PW.1 came to

Vissannapet on a bus at 9.15 p.m., and when she is waiting for conveyance at Ambedkar center to go to Reddigudem, meanwhile the accused, who is driver of Car AP 20 Y 4848 came there, asked her that where she was going and when she answered, the accused stated that he is also going on the same way and asked her that he will drop her in his

Car. On which, she boarded the said car. When the accused driver of car is moving slowly, she asked him why moving slowly, on which he behaved harshly on her and locked the door by touching her body. Due to fear about the illegal acts of the accused driver, she called her mother over phone and informed that she is alone going in a car and she felt fear about the acts of the driver. All of sudden, the accused diverted his car towards Kunaparajuparva earth road, near Seetharampuram stage on

Vissannapet-Reddigudem main road, due to fear when she questioned him and sprinkled chilly powder on him and tried to escape from his hands, but he caught her hand, pulled her and fallen her. On which, she forcibly opened the door of car and escaped from the hands of the accused. Meanwhile, on the phone message of her mother, police came there and she narrated the incident and presented report to the police on the intervening night of 4/5.7.2016 at 00.30 hours.

ii)Basing on the report of PW.1, a case in Crime No.66/2016 U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC was registered on 4/5.7.2016 at 00.30 hours by PW.9-SI of

Police and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, inspected the same in the presence of mediators-PW.8, LWs.10 and 12-Pulavarthi Ravindra Babu and Majeti

Potha Raju, got drafted mediators report on 5.7.2016 and noticed one

Silver colour Tavera Chevrolet L.S.2.5 car bearing No.AP 20 Y 4848 and in it he found chilly powder sprinkled on driver seat, steering and driver 3 side dash board. Ozomen luxury dotted condoms packet found at driver seat and one empty raper of the condom and he seized them from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, photographed the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch. On 7.7.2016 at about 17.00 hours on credible information, PW.9 arrested the accused at Mittagudem center, Reddigudem in the presence of mediators-PW.8 and LW.12-Majeti

Potha Raju under the cover of mediators report. After completion of investigation in this case, PW.9 filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After filing of the charge sheet before the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram, the learned Magistrate after

verifying the charge sheet against the accused, has taken on file under

Sections 376 r/w.511 IPC against the accused and numbered as

PRC.No.17/2016.

4.On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Mylavaram furnished copies of documents to him as required

under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mylavaram on perusal of the documents, found prima-facie case against the accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, and as such the learned Magistrate of First Class,

Mylavaram committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division,

Krishna, Machilipatnam under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Krishna on receipt of the record and on satisfying about the prima-facie case, numbered the case as Sessions Case

No.256/2016 under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC and made over the case to this Court to try that case according to law.

6.On appearance of the accused before this Court, the accused was examined U/s.228 (2) Cr.P.C. A charge U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

7.Schedule was fixed. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, on behalf of the prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 3. Ex.P1 is signature on the report of M.Naga Lakshmi, Exs.P2 to P5 are the 161 Cr.P.C.

4 statements of PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5. Ex.P6 is 7 photographs, Ex.P7 is corresponding CD, Ex.P8 is scene observation report, Ex.P9 is mediators report, Ex.P10 is report of PW.1, Ex.P11 is FIR and Ex.P12 is rough sketch. MO.1 is Car bearing No.AP 20 Y 4848, MO.2 is Two condom packets (used and unused) and MO.3 is Chilly powder and the prosecution side evidence is closed. The learned Addl., Public Prosecutor has given the evidence of LWs.4, 10 and 12-Bommina Adilakshmi,

Pulavarthi Ravindra Babu and Majeti Potha Raju. LW.3-Bommina

Venkateswarlu died.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appeared against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl., Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is that : - “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

11.POINT:-

In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 376 r/w.511 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused attempted to commit rape PW.1 by touching her body and by caught her hand.

12.In order to establish the offence U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9. PW.1 who is the victim and defacto-complainant did not speak about the facts of the incident and about giving report to the police, as she deposed that she does not know the accused and did not file any report against him and the accused never tried to commit rape against her at any time by taking her in a car. She completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW.2 is the mother of PW.1 also did not speak anything about the incident.

She deposed that her daughter never informed to her either about the accused or about the incident. PWs.4 and 5 who are the neighbours to the scene of offence, they too did not speak about the incident because they deposed that they do not know PWs.1 to 3 as well as accused.

5 Further, PW.5 deposed that police never asked him to remove the car by using his tractor, as he never drove any tractor.

13.As PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5 did not speak anything against the accused, they were declared as hostile by the learned APP and he cross-examined them at length after taking permission from the Court. But he could not elicit any incriminating material against the accused in support of the prosecution case, except marking the signature of PW.1 as Ex.P1 and their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to P5 respectively.

14.Further, PW.3 is the owner of car bearing No.AP 20 TY 4848, which is alleged in the commission of the offence by the accused. But he simply deposed that one Babu Rao is the opting driver of their car and one Chittibabu was the original driver to his car. In the month of 16th

June, the said Babu Rao drove the car as opting driver and police informed him that his car was caught hold by them, then he went to

Reddigudem police station and there from to the place by the side of road, there he found his car under MO.1. PW.6 is the Photographer who took the photos of MO.1 car on the request of police on 5.7.2016 around 10.00 a.m., at the scene of offence, which are marked as Ex.P6.

15.PW.7 is the Woman Police Constable, in whose presence, Sub-

Inspector examined the victim lady, i.e., PW.1, who narrated the whole incident. PW.8 is one of the mediators, who deposed that in his presence and in the presence of another mediator-RAvindra Babu, VRO of

Rangapuram, the Sub-Inspector of Police took to the scene of offence and observed one car, chilly powder and condom packets and preparation of

Ex.P8 scene observation report and seizure of MOs.2 and 3 and also about arrest of the accused in their presence under the cover of Ex.P9 mediators report by obtained their signature on it including the accused.

16.PW.9 who is the Investigating Officer, who went to the scene of offence on receipt of phone call, and he received the written report of the victim under Ex.P10 and returned to the police station and then register the Ex.P10 report of PW.1 as Ex.P11 FIR and took up investigation, and went to scene of offence, got photographed the same, preparation of scene observation report, rough sketch, seizure of MOs.1 to 3, and examining the witnesses. Further, his evidence reveals about arresting of accused and later filing of the charge sheet.

6

17. In over all considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to

P12 and MOs.1 to 3 on the side of prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the accused attempted to commit rape PW.1. Except marking MOs.2 and 3, the prosecution did not produce any other evidence connecting the accused to the commission of offence. Here, the injured herself and the other neighbouring witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they completely turned hostile. Even the prosecution got examined most of the eye witnesses, but their evidence is not at all supported to the case of the prosecution, as they too turned hostile. When once injured-defacto complainant (PW.1) and other witnesses not supported case of prosecution, mere sole testimony of mediator, Women Constable and Investigating Officer, though supported to prosecution, it is unsafe to convict the accused. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused for the alleged offence levelled against him. Therefore, the prosecution utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376 r/w.511 IPC.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/s.376 r/w. 511 IPC and he is Acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail

Bonds of the accused if any., shall stands canceled. MO.1-Car which was already given to PW.3 towards interim custody holds good after appeal time is over. MOs.2 and 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 10th day of May, 2017.

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution:For defence:

PW1Mandipudi Naga Lakshmi - None - PW2Badisa Seetha Mahalakshmi PW3Reddy Nataraju PW4Chakiri Gopi Raju PW5Kummari Nagaraju PW6Kalapala Prasad PW7Ch.Aruna, WPC PW8Chatla Chanda PW9B.Abhimanyu, SI of Police 7 Documents marked

For prosecution:For defence: Nil.

Ex.P1 :Signature of PW.1 on the report Ex.P2 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P5 :161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P6 :Photographs (7 nos) Ex.P7:Corresponding CD Ex.P8:Scene observation report Ex.P9:Mediators report Ex.P10: Report of PW.1 Ex.P11: FIR in Cr.No.66/2016 Ex.P12:Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked

MO.1: Silver colour Tavera Chevrolet Car bearing No.AP 20 Y 4848, MO.2: Two condom packets (used and unused) MO.3: Chilly powder packet.

I AASJ/VJA 8 Tabular form to be appended for the Judgment as per Rule 67 of Criminal Rules of Practice in Sessions Case No.256/2016 on the file of I Addl., Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Vijayawada.

1.Serial No.:

2.Sessions Case No.:256/2016

3.P.R.C.No.:17/2016

4.Name of the Police Station :Reddigudem P.S. in Cr.No.66/2016 Crime No. and offence.U/s.376 r/w.511 IPC against accused.

5.Description of the accused.:Podeti Babu Rao, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 39 years, Mala, Driver of Tavera Car AP 20 Y 4848, Mittagudem, H/o.Tatakuntala Village, Vissannapet Mandal.

6.Date of offence.:04.07.2016 Date of complaint.:05.07.2016 Date of apprehension of :08.07.2016 accused. Date of release on bail:29.07.2016 Date of committal order in :18.08.2016 lower Court. Date of commencement of :2.5.2017 trial. Closure of trial:5.5.2017 Date of Judgment in this :10.5.2017 Court

7.Result: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.376 r/w. 511 IPC and he is Acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The Bail Bonds of the accused if any., shall stands canceled. MO.1-Car which was already given to PW.3 towards interim custody holds good after appeal time is over. MOs.2 and 3 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

8.Explanation for delay:

In Committal Court: The case was taken on file on 23.7.2016. On 10.8.2016 copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. On 18.8.2016 the case was committed to the Court of sessions under Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C. Hence the delay.

In this Court: This case was made over to this Court by the Hon’ble District &

Sessions Judge, Krishna, MTM on 4.2.2017. Accused was present in

this Court on 20.3.2017. Charge was framed against the accused on 6.4.2017. On 2.5.2017 PWs.1 to 5 were examined. On 4.5.2017 PWs.6 to 8 were examined. On 5.5.2017 PW.9 was examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. On 8.5.2017 the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C and on the same day defence evidence was closed and arguments heard. On 10.5.2017 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd

I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

VIJAYAWADA

9 Copies submitted to:

1.The Hon’ble Registrar High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P. Through the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2.The Hon'ble District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Copies to:

1.The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mylavaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Vijayawada.

4.The Inspector of Police, Mylavaram Circle, Mylavaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:-SRI PV PRASADA RAO,

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA

Tuesday, this the 14th day of February, 2017

O.S.No.1130/2013

Between:

Central Bank of India, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada, Rep.by its Senior Manager-Bejji Venkata Ramana, S/o.Pydaiah, Hindu, aged 57 years, R/o.Vijayawada. … Plaintiff. A n d 1.Nimmagadda Chinappa, S/o.Lokasu, Hindu, aged 55 years, Working as Headmaster, RCM Primary School, Kankipadu Mandalam, Krishna District.

2.Vangavolu Kanaka Rao, S/o.Bapanayya, Hindu, aged 44 years, R/o.D.No.24-2-5, B.R.P.Road, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada.

3.Vudathu Karuna, W/o.Late Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 42 years, R/o.C/o.Sri Balaji Diagnostics, D.No.29-23-23, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

4.Vudathu Bhanu Priya, D/o.Late Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 15 years, Minor, rep. by Guardian mother- Vudathu Karuna, R/o.C/o.Sri Balaji Diagnostics, D.No.29-23-23, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

5.Vudathu Pujitha, D/o.Late Jagan Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 13 years, Minor, rep. by Guardian mother- Vudathu Karuna, R/o.C/o.Sri Balaji Diagnostics, D.No.29-23-23, Tadepallivari Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada.

… Defendants

This suit come up before me on 10.2.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ketineni Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ravindra Nath Tagore, Advocate for the 2nd defendant and the defendants 1, 3 to 5 called absent, set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed against the 1st and 2nd defendants jointly and severally and against the defendants 3 to 5 from out of the estate of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao, lying in their hands, for recovery of an amount of Rs.6,36,341/- being the principal and interest due

2

under the loan, agreeing to repay the same together with interest @ 12.5% p.a., with monthly rests and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that: -

At the request of one Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao as Proprietor of

Sree Balaji Diagnostics, Vijayawada, the plaintiff Bank sanctioned a loan facility to him during his life time for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for his diagnostic business and executed a Term Loan Agreement,

Hypothecation Agreement in favour of the plaintiff Bank on 12.10.2010, agreeing to repay the said amount along with interest at 12.5% p.a., compounded with monthly rests, to be repaid in 57 monthly instalments at Rs.10,600/- p.m., commencing from December, 2010 and hypothecated the machinery/lab equipment in favour of the plaintiff

Bank as security for the repayment of the loan amount along with interest thereon and the plaintiff Bank has got a first charge over the same. The 1st and 2nd defendants stood as guarantors and separate executed Guarantee Agreements, dt.12.10.2010 in favour of the plaintiff

Bank, undertaking to repay the said loan amount along with interest thereon to the plaintiff Ban, which is a continuing guarantee till the loan is fully discharged and the liability of the guarantors-1st and 2nd defendants is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, i.e., the said

Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao. The plaintiff Bank opened an account in the name of Sree Balaji Diagnostic, Prop:Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao.

All the incidental charges have been debited to the said account. The said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao and the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly, severally and also personally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,36,341/-, which remained unpaid by the defendants as per account as on 22.6.2013. The said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao and the defendants 1 and 2 have contravened the terms and conditions of the loan agreements and did not follow the repayment programme as agreed, in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff Bank. The plaintiff Bank reliably learnt that the said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao died intestate leaving behind him the defendants 3 to 5 as his legal heirs and the entire estate of the deceased- Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao was devolved upon them and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and as such the defendants 3 to 5 as well as the 1st and 2nd defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said debt incurred by the said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao during his life time. In spite of repeated

3

demands and personal contacts made by and on behalf of the plaintiff

Bank, the defendants did not choose to clear off the loan amount due. As such, the plaintiff Bank got issued a registered notice, dt.29.3.2013 to the defendants demanding the payment of due amount along with interest. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 received the same under their postal acknowledgments. In spite of the said notice, the defendants neither gave any reply nor paid the suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant who contested the suit filed his written statement by denying all the material allegations made in the plaint and further contending that he never signed as guarantor as alleged by the plaintiff Bank, who obtained his signatures on some blank papers and the amounts were not filled up in all the documents in which he signed on the same. The plaintiff Bank conveniently converted the said documents as suit documents and got filed the suit against this defendant along with other defendants. He is no way concerned with the amounts paid to the Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao. As the said Vudathu

Jagan Mohana Rao died, the guarantee given by this defendant is automatically cancelled and he is no way liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff Bank. If at all the plaintiff Bank intends to recover the same, they may recover from the defendants 3 to 5, as they being the legal heirs of the deceased, but the plaintiff Bank has no right to claim against this defendant. More over, the estate of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan Mohana

Rao got right on the ancestral properties and the same were lying in the hands of the defendants 3 to 5, who also received nearly 20 lakhs from

ICICI Bank, Vijayawada towards insurance amount and they are having capacity to pay the amount to the plaintiff Bank and as such the plaintiff

Bank can recover the same from out of the estate of the deceased and the plaintiff Bank wantonly got filed the suit against this defendant, even though this defendant is not liable to pay any amount. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit against this defendant.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

i)Whether the 2nd defendant is a guarantor and his liability existed even after the death of V.Jaganmohana Rao who is the principle borrower or not?

ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount or not?

4

iii)To what relief ?

7.In order to prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the plaintiff Bank, their Chief Manager was examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A9 documents. Ex.A.1 is original term loan agreement executed by Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao as Proprietor of Sree

Balaji Diagnostics in favour of the plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.2 is original Hypothecation agreement executed by Vudathu Jagan Mohana

Rao in favour of the plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.3 is original guarantee agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff

Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.4 is original guarantee agreement executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.5 office copy of regd., notice got issued by plaintiff to defendants, dt.29.3.2013,

Ex.A6 is postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant, dt.13.4.2013, Ex.A7 is postal acknowledgment of 2nd defendant, dt.13.4.2013, Ex.A8 is postal acknowledgment of 4th defendant, dt.12.4.2013 and Ex.A9 is certified copy of account from 12.10.2010 to 22.6.2013. On the other hand, none were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the 2nd defendant to prove his defence.

8.The arguments on both sides is treated as heard.

9.ISSUE NOs.1 and 2:

It is the case of the plaintiff Bank that on application of one

Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao as Proprietor of Sree Balaji Diagnostics, their Bank sanctioned an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the said Vudathu

Jagan Mohana Rao, who executed Exs.A1 and A2 term loan agreement and hypothecation agreement in favour of the plaintiff Bank, agreeing to repay the said loan amount in 57 monthly instalments at Rs.10,600/- per month, for which the defendants 1 and 2 stood as guarantors for the said loan amount availed by the Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao, who executed Exs.A3 and A4 guarantee agreements in favour of the plaintiff

Bank. Later the, said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao died intestate leaving behind the defendants 3 to 5 as his legal heirs and the entire estate of the deceased- Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao was devolved upon the defendants 3 to 5. Later, their Bank requested all the defendants to pay the loan amount, but they failed to discharge the loan amount in spite of issuance of Ex.A5 legal notice, which was received by the defendants 1, 2

5

and 4 under Exs.A6 to A8 postal acknowledgments. So, as per Ex.A9 certified copy of account, the defendants are liable to pay an amount of

Rs.6,36,341/-. In order to support their contention, the Chief Manager of the Plaintiff Bank examined as PW.1 by way of filing chief evidence, which is nothing but replica of plaint averments.

10.In his cross-examination, PW.1 stated that he is giving evidence as per the documents available and basing on the documents. Their Bank sanctioned loan to the Jagan Mohan Rao without taking any security by way of property from him. He denied the suggestion that only the legal heirs of Jagan Mohana Rao has to pay the entire loan amount due by him and that generally they used to obtain the signatures of the borrower on unfilled papers and filled subsequently. He also denied that they have not mentioned the name that who executed Ex.A1 term loan agreement.

He denied that as the original borrower died, no liability on the guarantor in paying the loan and that the sureties are not liable to pay the loan amount. The 2nd defendant cross-examined PW.1 in a formal way, but not seriously regarding contentions of his written statement.

11.In order to prove the contention of the 2nd defendant, he did not come to the witness box to put forth his defence or produce any documentary proof to show that the plaintiff Bank obtained his signatures on the blank printed papers and he is not liable to pay the loan amount and the alleged loan documents are not binding on the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant further contended in his written statement that he never signed as guarantor, and he is no way concerned with the amounts paid to Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao. It is further contention of the 2nd defendant that as the said Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao died, his guarantee will automatically cancelled and the plaintiff Bank can recover the suit claim from the legal heirs of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan

Mohana Rao, i.e., the defendants 3 to 5, as they got the ancestral properties and they also received the insurance premium of Rs.20 lakhs and further the 2nd defendant has no capacity to pay the loan amount, as he did not possess any property in his name. But no prudent man will sign the blank documents without gone through the same.

12.But as per the plaint averments and as per Ex.A4 original guarantee agreement, the 2nd defendant jointly executed the same in favour of the plaintiff Bank by putting his signature. His liability is co-

6

extensive along with the other defendants. Even the original borrower , i.e., Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao died, his guarantee is existed after his death along with the legal heirs of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan Mohan

Rao, i.e., the defendants 3 to 5. Even though the 2nd defendant received

Ex.A5 legal notice under Ex.A7 postal acknowledgment, but he did not issue any reply notice by mentioning the same defence. As per the terms and conditions of Ex.A1 term loan agreement and Ex.A2 hypothecation agreement, even the 1st defendant was set exparte, but both the defendants 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount along with interest as stipulated by the RBI Rules. When the defendants signed on the relevant documents at the time of availing loan amount, they have very cautious to see the terms and conditions and filling the columns there under. The plaintiff Bank is a nationalized Bank constituted under the Banking Companies Act. They have no necessity to fill up the blanks and filed the suit. Being a guarantor, the 2nd defendant is also liable to pay the loan amount. The incapacity of the 2nd defendant will be taken into consideration at the time of execution only, but not at this juncture. So, all the pleas taken by the 2nd defendant are only formal one in order to escape from his liability.

13.So, as per the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A9 documents, it clearly and clinchingly prove that the defendants failed to pay the loan amount to the plaintiff Bank. As the 2nd defendant failed to examine himself as a witness to put forth his defence, it is assumed that he is ready and willing to pay the due amount to the plaintiff Bank along with interest. As such, the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from the defendants 3 to 5 from out of the estate of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan

Mohana Rao, lying in their hands. Hence, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff Bank and against the defendants.

14.ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the discussion on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff Bank is liable to be decreed with costs and defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and defendants 3 to 5 from out of the estate of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao, lying in their hands, liable to pay the suit claim.

7

15.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.6,36,341/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on Rs.4,50,000/-. The plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally and from the defendants 3 to 5, out of the estate of the deceased-Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao, lying in their hands.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14th day of February,

2017.

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Ambadas Dwivedi- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -

Ex.A.1: Original term loan agreement executed by Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao as Proprietor of Sree Balaji Diagnostics in favour of the plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.2: Original Hypothecation agreement executed by Vudathu Jagan Mohana Rao in favour of the plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.3: Original guarantee agreement executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.4: Original guarantee agreement executed by 2nd defendant in favour of plaintiff Bank, dt.12.10.2010; Ex.A.5: Office copy of regd., notice got issued by plaintiff to defendants, dt.29.3.2013, Ex.A.6: Postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant, dt.13.4.2013, Ex.A.7: Postal acknowledgment of 2nd defendant, dt.13.4.2013, Ex.A.8: Postal acknowledgment of 4th defendant, dt.12.4.2013, Ex.A.9: Certified copy of account from 12.10.2010 to 22.6.2013.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil

IASCJ/VJA. FAC/PSCJ, VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT:-SRI PV PRASADA RAO,

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,VIJAYAWADA

Wednesday, this the 1st day of March, 2017

O.S.No.187/2014

Between:

M/s.Amar Chemicals, Rep. by its Partner-Piyush P.Desai, S/o.Praveen P.Desai, Hindu, aged 40 years, Business at D.No.11-52-33, 1st Floor, Imampanja Street, Vijayawada-1. … Plaintiff. A n d

M/s.Sai Friends Alltech, Rep. by E.S.Rami Reddy, Father's name not known to the plaintiff, Hindu, aged 54 years, Business, Near Nagendra ITI College, Vidyanagar, Miryalagudem – 508 207. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 17.2.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohammad Aarif, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Paul.P, Advocate for the defendant, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,09,059/- being the principal and interest due by the defendant to the plaintiff towards Khata dealings in between the parties from 1.4.2012 to 29.11.2013 and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

That the plaintiff herein has been carrying wholesale business in paints chemicals etc., and the defendant opened his account in the name and style of 'Sai Friends Alltech' in the year 2009-2010 in the books of the plaintiff and made credit purchases of paint chemicals from time to time and made part payments as per his convenience. As such, the defendant has made two last part payments, i.e., Rs.20,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- on 25.4.2013 and 29.5.2013 respectively through online

Bank payment. According to the defendant's account in the books of the plaintiff, there is an outstanding amount of Rs.97,791/-. In spite of

2

repeated demands made by the plaintiff to clear the above said Khata debt with interest, but the defendant without paying the said debt amount with interest at 21% p.a., the defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other and gave evasive and formal replies. On that the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt.9.1.2013 through registered post by demanding for outstanding amount. Having received the same under postal acknowledgment, the defendant got issued reply notice with false contentions and made defamatory allegations against the plaintiff.

As the defendant failed to pay the outstanding Khata debt, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement, by denying most of the material allegations made in the plaint that are not true and correct, as the defendant not opened any account in the books of the plaintiff in the year 2009-2010 at any time. However, the defendant used to purchase chemicals from the plaintiff on credit basis only and used to pay back the amounts to the plaintiff for discharging his liability under the said credit purchases.

The defendant submits that as the plaintiff sent substandard quality material, viz., 'Binder' by stating that it is of Bondex Company, keeping trust with the plaintiff, he used the said material in the manufacturing activity and the defendant sold the said material to his customers. The customers on usage, they made complaint against the defendant, as the said material is not up to the mark and thereby, the defendant sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. On knowing the same, the defendant informed the same to the plaintiff about substandard material.

The father-in-law of the plaintiff, Mukesh visited the unit of the defendant enquired the matter and inspected the material sent by the plaintiff and expressed his regrets for the same and assured the loss sustained by the defendant will be recouped. During the discussion, the

Proprietor of the defendant concern also expressed his readiness to pay the amount for such substandard material sent by the plaintiff subject to condition by taking special oath in front of Goddess Kanakadurga in the temple at Vijayawada and assuring that the plaintiff did not send any substandard material to the defendant in future.

The defendant further submits that the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Mukesh requested the Proprietor of the defendant to continue his business in the firm, but he did not agree the same in stead of

3

supplying of substandard material. As the defendant denied to continue the business, the plaintiff got issued legal notice, dt.9.11.2013. On that he issued reply notice, dt.23.11.2013 and then the plaintiff issued re- joinder notice, dt.28.11.2013 by reiterating the facts mentioned in the legal notice. He further submits that the plaintiff got executed receipt with his own handwriting, dt.31.10.2012 by stating that the defendant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,62,279/-. But the defendant paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 27.11.2012, Rs.25,000/- on 16.1.2013,

Rs.30,000/- on 23.2.2013, Rs.49,000/- on 7.3.2013, Rs.30,000/- on 21.3.2013, Rs.20,000/- on 25.4.2013 and Rs.15,000/- on 29.5.2013, i.e., total amount of Rs.2,14,000/- and the defendant is due an amount of Rs.48,791/- only, but no due of any amount as mentioned in the plaint. As the plaintiff suppressed the real facts, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

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

i)Whether there is any account opened by the defendant in the year 2009-2010? ii)Whether the plaintiff has executed any receipt, dt.31.10.2012 or not? iii)Whether the payments mentioned in para No.9 of the written statement are correct and whether they were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff or not? iv)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the entire suit amount or not?

v)To what relief?

5.In order to prove their respective contentions, the Partner of the

Plaintiff Firm examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 documents. Ex.A1 is self attested computerized statement of account copy of the defendant, Ex.A2 is copies of bunch of credit invoices for the material purchased in the name of the defendant (14 in number), Ex.A3 is office copy of legal notice, Ex.A4 is reply, Ex.A5 is rejoinder to Ex.A4,

Ex.A6 is acknowledgment of Ex.A5, Ex.A7 is bunch of way bills (12 in number), Ex.A8 is certified copy of Form-A of the Partnership Firm under

Indian Partnership Act and Ex.A9 is notary attested copy of Partnership

Deed. On the other hand, the Proprietor of the defendant Firm examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is bunch of counterfoils issued by SBI, Mirialaguda (8 in number), Ex.B2 is receipt issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant, Ex.B3 is statement prepared by the

4

defendant in respect of plaintiff Company and Ex.B4 is calculation letter sent by the plaintiff Company in favour of the defendant.

6.Heard both sides.

7.ISSUE NOs.1 to 3:

In order to prove the case of the plaintiff about opening of the account by the defendant, execution of receipt by the defendant and issuance of legal notice, the Partner of the plaintiff Firm examined as

PW.1 by filing chief affidavit by reiterating the facts mentioned in the plaint that the defendant opened account in the books of the plaintiff in the year 2009-2010 in the name and style 'Sai Friends Alltech' and made credit purchases of chemicals, as such there was an outstanding due of

Rs.97,791/- as per Ex.A1 after payments of Rs.20,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- on 25.4.2013 and 29.5.2013. As the defendant failed to pay the amount, they issued Ex.A3 legal notice to the defendant. In support of his contention, he got filed bunch of invoices under Ex.A2 and Ex.A7 bunch of way bills. He filed documents-Exs.A8 and A9 to say plaintiff is a registered Firm. When questioned the legality of the Firm by the defendant, the plaintiff himself also stated that he himself and Mukesh are the Partners of the Firm.

8.It is the contention of the defendant that he did not open the account in the year 2009-2010. Whereas, the plaintiff stated in his cross- examination that he has filed documents to show that there was transaction between themselves and the defendant in the year 2009- 2010. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A2 bunch of invoices and

Ex.A7, i.e., Way bills issued by the Government. Even as per the contention of the defendant also in his written statement, he purchased the material from the plaintiff Company in the year 2012 on the credit basis worth of Rs.1,50,000/- and not denied that there is no business transaction between him and the plaintiff.

9.As the defendant stated in the written statement that he purchased the material, i.e., Binder from the plaintiff Company, it is clear that there was business transaction between the plaintiff Company and the defendant. It is the contention of the defendant that the substandard material was supplied to him by the plaintiff, as such he sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. If really, he sustained loss of

5

Rs.1,50,000/-, he would have issued prior notice to the plaintiff or filed suit for damages, but no such evidence is placed by the defendant that he issued prior notice or filed suit about sustaining loss or damages for the substandard material supplied by the plaintiff. Further, there is no other reliable and acceptable evidence from the defendant to believe that the defendant sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/- for the substandard material supplied by the plaintiff. Except his oral evidence that the father-in-law of the plaintiff, namey Mukesh gave assurance to the defendant that he will not supply the substandard material in future and asked him to continue his business with them, but there is no other written understanding between them admitting that he will not supply the substandard material from the plaintiff Company.

10.It is the contention of the defendant that Ex.A2 invoices and Ex.A7 way bills are false and created for wrongful gain. It is suggested to PW.1 that Ex.A2 bunch of invoices are prepared subsequent to Ex.A3 legal notice, the same was denied by the witness.

11.During the cross-examination, DW.1 admitted that he used to purchase the chemicals from the plaintiff on credit basis and used to pay back the amounts to the plaintiff for discharging his liability under the said credit purchases. According to the credit invoices, he received the stocks and also the interest clause is 21% p.a., as per credit invoice.

Though, it is the contention of the defendant that he purchased the chemicals on credit basis, but there is no proof to show that he purchased the material on credit without opening account in the books of the plaintiff. Unless and until the account of the defendant in the books of the plaintiff is opened, no material will be supplied to the defendant on credit basis, as there is no rebuttal evidence from the defendant that he received the material on credit basis without opening the account in the books of the plaintiff and the plaintiff Firm through

Ex.A1 statement of account that the defendant opened the account in the books of the plaintiff to purchase the materials on credit basis and paying the amounts and there was outstanding amount of Rs.97,791/-.

It is suggested to the witness-DW.1 that the stock worth of Rs.49,000/- received in the way bill No.M 0565109, dt.8.3.2013. He received the said stock through vehicle No.AP 74 TB 2966. But the same was denied by the witness.

6

12.It is the further contention of the defendant that he paid the amounts as mentioned in Para No.9 of the written statement. In support of his evidence, he filed bunch of counterfoils. Whereas, during the cross-examination, the defendant admitted that the payments under

Ex.B1, i.e., counterfoils were reflected in the account copy filed by the plaintiff. Since the defendant admitted during the cross-examination that the payments under Ex.B1 were shown in account copy filed by the plaintiff, after deducting the payments under Ex.B1, the account copy was prepared. So, asking the deductions of payments under Ex.B1 from account copy does not arise as mentioned in written statement at Para

No.9. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to ask the relief at Para

No.9 of his written statement for deduction of the amounts paid under

Ex.B1 from the outstanding amount of Rs.97,791/-. Further, it is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has executed a letter with his own handwriting under Ex.B4 showing that he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,62,279/- as on 31.10.2012. But the said letter was written on a white paper, which has no legal sanctity. Therefore, the contentions raised by the defendant are not correct. Hence, in view of the above discussion the Issue Nos.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

13.ISSUE NO.4:

Since the plaintiff proved the opening of the account by the defendant by purchasing the material from the plaintiff on credit basis and failed to pay the balance outstanding amount to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Hence, the Issue No.4 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14.ISSUE NO.5:

In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

15.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,09,059/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of

Rs.97,791/-.

7

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 1st day of March, 2017.

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Piyush P.DesaiDW.1: E.S.Ramireddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -

Ex.A1: Self attested computerized statement of account copy of the defendant, dt.28.9.2013, Ex.A2: Copies of bunch of credit invoices for the material purchased in the name of the defendant (14 in number), Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, dt.9.11.2013, Ex.A4: Reply got issued by the defendant, dt.23.11.2013, Ex.A5: Rejoinder to Ex.A4, dt.28.11.2013, Ex.A6: Acknowledgment of Ex.A5, dt.3.12.2013, Ex.A7 Bunch of way bills (12 in number), Ex.A8: Certified copy of Form-A, dt.23.1.2005 of the Partnership Firm under Indian Partnership Act, dt.20.1.2016, Ex.A9: Notary attested copy of Partnership Deed, dt.17.1.2005.

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1: Bunch of counterfoils issued by SBI, Mirialaguda (8 in number), Ex.B2: Receipt No.354 issued by the plaintiff in favour of defendant, dt.31.10.2012, Ex.B3: Statement prepared by the defendant in respect of plaintiff Company, dt.7.2.2011, Ex.B4: Calculation letter sent by the plaintiff Company in favour of the defendant, dt.30.10.2012.

IASCJ/VJA.

FAC/PSCJ,VJA.

1

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

VIJAYAWADA

Present: - Sri P.V.PRASADA RAO I Additional Senior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 28th day of April, 2017

O.S.No.677/2016

Between:

Koneru Bala Ramakrishna Vara Prasad, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Hindu, aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.7-68, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. … Plaintiff. A n d

Devireddy Siva Nagireddy, S/o.Sambi Reddy, Hindu, aged 48 years, R/o.D.No.9-58, Loyabata, Nunna Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 27.4.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.K.Jaya Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Goli Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the defendant, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon hearing both sides and on perusal of entire case material on record, the Court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,43,974/- basing on a promissory note, dt.9.9.2013 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.6,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

That the defendant herein borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 9.9.2013 for the purpose of his business expenses and having received the consideration from the plaintiff, he executed promissory note in his favour at Prasadampadu in the presence of scribe and attestor, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff and on his behalf, the defendant did not choose to discharge the above suit debt and postponing the same on one way or the other. Finally, the defendant issued cheque bearing No.724462, dt.25.6.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India,

2

Vidyadharapuram Branch, Vijayawada in favour of the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt. Believing the same, the plaintiff presented the said cheque, but it was dishonoured. On that the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 18.7.2016 to the defendant. Some how, the defendant got returned the said notice on 28.7.2016. Then the plaintiff filed complaint

before Criminal Court against the defendant under Negotiable

Instrument Act and the same is pending. Further, as the defendant failed to pay the debt amount in spite of giving notice to him, he is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note debt.

3. On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement, by denying all the material allegations mentioned in the plaint by stating that he never borrowed any amount much less Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 9.9.2013 for the purpose of his business expenses by executing the promissory note on the even date at Prasadampadu in the presence of attestor and scribe and failed to repay the same even the plaintiff demanded him and issued cheque for Rs.6,00,000/-, the same was dishonoured.

The defendant further submits that the plaintiff is stranger to him, as he has not seen at any time and no relationship of creditor and debtor between them. When he is travelling in No.5 city bus from Stella College bus stop to Sunnapu Batteela centre, Vijayawada by carrying hand bag containing his Savings Bank account pass book of State Bank of India,

Bhavanipuram Branch, Vijayawada and blank signed cheque, bearing

Nos.724451 to 724500, blank signed documents and Car insurance papers. After reaching the destiny, he noticed that his hand bag containing the above said documents were found missing. On that he made efforts to trace the said bag, but in vain. Then, he got published by way of public notice in Telugu daily and also he presented report to

Machavaram police about missing of bag and documents. On thorough enquiury, police issued Non tracing Certificate. Might be the plaintiff secured the blank signed cheques and promissory notes, which were lost by the defendant on the above said date and taking advantage of the possession of those cheques and promissory notes, some how the plaintiff by taking the assistance of attestor and scribe, fabricated the blank signed promissory note and cheque, filed this suit and Negotiable

Instrument Act case for wrongful gain. He further submits that, no

3

consideration was passed to him, and no notice was served on him and there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

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

i)Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid or fabricated and binding on the defendant?

ii)Whether the suit promissory note is supported by consideration?

iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim from the defendant as prayed for?

iv)To what relief?

5.In order to prove their respective contentions, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and no other witnesses were examined and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 documents. Ex.A1 is promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.9.9.2013 and Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice, dt.18.7.2016. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

6.The arguments on both sides is treated as heard.

7.ISSUE NOs.1 and 2:

The admitted facts are that the suit promissory note contains the signatures of the defendant, as the defendant himself admitted in his written statement as well as in his cross-examination that the signature on Ex.A1 promissory note belongs to him. As such, there is no dispute with regard to the signature of the defendant on the promissory note.

Here, the disputed point is that whether the suit promissory note either in blank nature or filled was given to the plaintiff or when the defendant lost the suit promissory note while he was travelling in the bus and by securing the same promissory note, the plaintiff fabricated the promissory note with the help of attestor and scribe.

8.As it is the defence of the defendant, fabrication of suit promissory note, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the suit promissory note is not fabricated and it is true, genuine and it is executed by the defendant himself in the presence of the plaintiff,

4

attestor and scribe. In order to prove the execution of promissory note by the defendant, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 by filing his chief affidavit by reiterating the facts mentioned in the plaint. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove the defence of the defendant, i.e., fabrication, the defendant cross-examined PW.1 at length to elicit the material in his favour. But he elicited from the witness that the promissory note was scribed on 9.9.2013. He himself, the defendant and his two friends were present at the time of transaction.

The defendant, scribe and attestor signed on the promissory note and the promissory note was scribed in Telugu. At first, the defendant signed in

English twice on the promissory note. Later one, the witness signed on the promissory note. These facts were elicited from the witness, which support the contention of the plaintiff in stead of disproving the case of the plaintiff. Besides that the defendant suggested to the witness that he got prepared the promissory note with the help of scribe and attestor, the same was denied by the witness. Further, it was suggested to the witness that the defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount and no transaction took place between him and the plaintiff. The same was also denied by the witness.

9.As the plaintiff through his evidence coupled with Ex.A1 document proved that Ex.A1 promissory note was not fabricated document, it is for the defendant to prove his defence. In order to prove his defence, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 by filing his chief affidavit by reiterating the same facts mentioned in the written statement. During the cross-examination, he admitted that the signatures on the promissory note belong to him. Besides this case, there are 5 or 6 suits are pending against him in Vijayawada Courts and he was convicted in two N.I.Act cases and he filed Insolvency petition No.55/2016 on the file of Hon'ble VIII Addl., District Judge, Vijayawada by showing the plaintiff here in as 12th respondent stating that he has indebted Rs.16,00,000/- to the plaintiff, though he borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-. He further admitted that he has not filed Non tracing Certificate obtained from the police in this suit. He further stated that he has not filed paper publication in this case.

10.By admitting about filing of Insolvency petition in Hon'ble VIII

Addl., District Judge's Court, Vijayawada by showing the plaintiff herein

as 12th respondent, it itself shows that the defendant borrowed the

5

amount from the plaintiff and by admitting his signatures on the promissory note, it itself shows that the defendant himself executed the promissory note from the plaintiff at the time of borrowing the amount.

Even it is the contention of the defendant that he lost his promissory note while he was travelling in the bus on the even date, he ought to have filed Non tracing Certificate or paper publication. For non filing of the said documents, it indicates that the defence taken by the defendant about missing of documents while travelling in the bus is only a formal defence to defend his case and to avoid the payment. More over, the plea taken by the defendant is not sufficient, unless it is supported by any cogent or relevant evidence, i.e., either oral or documentary. Here, except his oral testimony, there is no other evidence on record to believe that he lost signed promissory note while he was travelling in the bus.

11.Further, it is the contention of the defendant that there was no financial capacity to the plaintiff to lend the amount to the defendant. In order to elicit the financial capacity of the defendant, he cross-examined

PW.1 at length. Wherein, during the cross-examination, he elicited that earlier the plaintiff used to work as Manager in Finance Company by getting with a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and his wife is a retired employee. He secured the amount from his savings and from the retirement benefits of his wife, who worked as Teacher. He secured the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by drawing some amount from the Bank and some amount from his house, which was kept and secured from the financial transactions.

12. When the plaintiff categorically stated about his financial transaction, when questioned his financial capacity during the cross- examination by the defendant, but the defendant did not produce any rebuttal evidence that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such amount. Therefore, the plea taken by the defendant that the plaintiff has no financial capacity is also not tenable.

13.In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is able to prove that

Ex.A1 suit promissory note is true, valid and not fabricated and binding on the defendant.

6

14.Regarding the consideration, once the defendant admitted his signature on the Ex.A1 promissory note, and shown the plaintiff as 12th respondent in the Insolvency petition stating that he was indebted of

Rs.16,00,000/- to the plaintiff, but there is presumption under Section 118 of N.I.Act regarding passing of consideration is in favour of the plaintiff, unless and until it is rebutted by producing legal admissible evidence. Once the execution of promissory note is proved, it is deemed that the consideration was passed from the plaintiff to the defendant.

Hence, the Issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15.ISSUE No.3:

Since the plaintiff proved the execution of the promissory note by the defendant in his favour and passing of consideration from him to the defendant and proved that the defendant failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Hence, the Issue No.3 is also decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

16.ISSUE NO.4:

In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed with costs.

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

Rs.11,43,974/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realization on the

principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Koneru Bala Ramakrishna DW.1: Devireddy Siva Vara Prasad Nagireddy

7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: -

Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dt.9.9.2013, Ex.A2: Office copy of the legal notice, dt.18.7.2016.

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

IASCJ/VJA.