Sri Prakya Venkata Harish

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :

DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : SRI P.VENKATA HARISH

Ist ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

Original Suit No.82/2022

Between : Y. Sravani, W/o Y. Sai Ganesh, Aged about 28 yrs, Occ: House Wife, R/o. D.No.20-935, Kotakurba Street, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Anantapur District.

… Plaintiff

And

S. Paramesh, S/o. S. Kristappa, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.7/295, Geethanagar, Dharmavarm Town and Mandal, Ananthapur District. … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 11.05.2026 in the presence of Sri D. L. N. Murthy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri B. Narayana and Sri S. Dasthagiri, learned Counsels for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and on perusing the material available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.1,52,400/- (Rupees One Lakh

Fifty Two thousand and Four hundred only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 28.07.2019 and 06.07.2020 respectively executed by the defendant for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 2

Ten Thousands only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

02.On 28.07.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under ‘A’ marked suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand from the plaintiff and executed the ‘A’ marked suit promissory note. Further, on 06.07.2020 defendant has borrowed a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh only) under ‘B’ marked suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand from the plaintiff and executed the ‘B’ marked suit promissory note. The plaintiff further submit- ted that in spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount either towards principal or interest due under the above said two promissory notes. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

03.The defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the material allegations made against the defendant by the plaintiff and further stated that he never borrowed amount under suit documents and not executed the suit documents in favour of plain- tiff and the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated by the defendant in collusion with the attestor and scribe. The defendant further submits that suit promissory notes are not valid and enforceable documents against the defen- dant and the defendant further submitted that there is no cash consideration

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 3 under the suit documents hence he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and prays to dismiss the suit.

04. Basing upon the above pleadings the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues for Trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, genuine and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as prayed for?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.During the course of Trial, plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 and A2 and she further examined PW2. On the other hand, in spite of several opportunities the defendant failed to adduce ev- idence on his behalf. Hence defendant side evidence was closed.

06. Heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused the ma- terial available on record.

Issue No.1:

07. In order to prove that the defendant borrowed the amount from her, plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 by filing her chief affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. PW.1 in her chief examination reiterated the contents of the plaint and further deposed that on 28.07.2019, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) on 06.07.2020 from her agree- ing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and exe- cuted the ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes in her favour and same are

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 4 marked as Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2. PW.1 further stated that in spite of re- peated oral demands the defendant has failed to repay the suit debt.

08. PW.1 in her cross examination stated that she lent an amount of Rs.10,000/- in July, 2019 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in July, 2020 to the defendant. She further stated that the defendant himself brought the promissory notes and called the attestors for execution of Exhibits A1 and A2.

PW1 further admitted that the documents were scribed by her husband, noth- ing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testi- money or to probabilise the defense version. PW1 further deposed that PW1 also explained that no legal notice was issued prior to filling of the suit as the defendant was her relative. PW1 denied the suggestion that Exhibits A1 and

A2 were fabricated in collusion with the attestors.

09. PW2 – K.Lakshmikanth (Attestor of Exhibits A1 and A2) supported the version of PW1 in all aspects in his examination in chief stating that defen- dant received Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from plaintiff on 28.07.2019 and 06.07.2020 respec- tively and executed Exhibits A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiff in his pres- ence. PW2 in his cross examination consistently supported the case of the plaintiff and nothing material was elicited to discredit his testimony. PW2 de- posed that he knew the defendant for the past 7 to 8 years and that he was called by the defendant himself to act as attestor for Exhibits A1 and A2. He further stated that the promissory notes were scribed in the house of PW1 in the presence of PW1, defendant and scribe Ganesh. PW2 also specifically satetd that he was present on both occasions on 19.07.2019 and 06.07.2020 when the transactions took place. Further PW2, admitted that the defendant paid interest amounts to PW1 between 2019 and 2020 and that on account of

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 5 such conduct, PW1 again lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant in the year 2020. Though some minor discrepancies were elicited regarding the number of revenue stamps and signatures on the promissory notes, the same are trivial in nature and do not affect the substratum of the plaintiffs case. PW2 denied the suggestion that PW1 never lent any amount to the defendant and that PW2 was deposing falsely at the instance of PW1. There fore the evi- dence of PW2 lends corroboration to the testimony of PW1 and supports the execution of Exhibits A1 and A2 as well as passing of consideration thereun- der. PW2 denied the suggestion that defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that he along with PW1 colluded with each other and cre- ated false promissory notes against the defendant.

10. On the other hand the defense of the defendant is that he never bor- rowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and suit promissory notes were forged and fabricated ones. However, in spite of several opportunities, the defendant did not turn up

before this court and did not choose to adduce evidence on his side and

hence defendant side evidence was closed.

11.On perusing of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is established that the defendant borrowed the amount from plaintiff under Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2 promissory notes and accordingly executed the same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per an- num on demand to the plaintiff. Exhibit A1 promissory note clearly discloses that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands only) and Exhibit A2 clearly discloses that the defendant borrowed a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs only) from the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit any evidence in favour of the defendant during the cross examination of PW1 and PW2. Moreover, the de-

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 6 fendant failed to adduce any evidence in order to rebut the evidence of PW1.

The defendant simply filed the written statement and cross examined PW1 and PW2 without coming forward to establish that the Exhibit A1 and Exhibit

A2 were not executed by the defendant and no consideration was passed, by producing proper, cogent oral or documentary evidence. The defendant sim- ply stood away from the doors of the court just by filing the written statement and he did not turn up to adduce any evidence or entered into witness box to speak about the facts known to him.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & anr., Their Lordships held that, “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross ex- amined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Counsel, moreover if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an in- ference adverse against him. Similarly, the court can drew a presump- tion under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence as per the conduct of the defen- dant who did not turn up, to adduce evidence on his behalf, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff's contention”.

13.Under present circumstances and of case in hand and by apply- ing law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can take adverse inference

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 7 against the defendant, who abstains from entering the witness box. Similarly, the court can draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence, as per the con- duct of defendant, who did not turn up to adduce any evidence on his behalf and entered into witness box, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff case.

Hence, as per the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and available documentary evi- dence on record and on conjoint reading of the written statement, this court observed that the defense taken by the defendant against the plaintiff is noth- ing but the allegations against the plaintiff without any proof.

14. As the defendant failed to prove his case and as per the evidence of PW1, PW2 and available documentary evidence and as per the cross ex- amination of PW1 and PW2 by the learned counsel of the defendant, the plaintiff proved the execution of Exhibits A1 and A2 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, Exhibits A1 and A2 are true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:

15.Plaintiff established his case by examining himself as PW.1 and examining one of the attestors of Exhibits A1 and A2 as PW2. The defendant only made allegations relating to non execution of Exhibits A1 and A2 and non passing of consideration under Exhibits A1 and A2. The learned counsel for defendant failed to elicit any evidence in favour of defendant in their cross ex- aminations. The defendant did not take any steps to establish his defense and failed to produce any evidence i.e., oral or documentary to succeed his case.

Hence plaintiff has succeeded in proving her case by examining herself as

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 8

PW1 and examining one of the attestors of suit promissory notes as PW2 to substantiate her contention and by marking Exhibits A1 and A2. Hence plain- tiff is entitled to the relief as prayed by her. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

Issue No.3:-

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,52,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty

Two thousand and Four hundred only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and there- after at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization on the principal sum of

Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Ten Thousands only) under A and B marked suit promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation to my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : Y. Sravani -None- PW.2 : K. Lakshmikanth

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1: Original ‘A’ marked suit promissory note dated 28.07.2019. Ex.A2: Original ‘B’ marked suit promissory note dated 06.07.2020.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

I.A.C.J.(J.D)

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Thursday, the 25 th day of July, 2024

Original Suit No.142/2020

Between :

B.Bayanna, S/o B.Pakkeerappa, Aged about 49 yrs, Business, D.No.12/486, SLV Market, Dharmavaram, temporarily residing at Ananthapuramu Town. … Plaintiff

And

Padachur Nagabhsudhanam, S/o P.V.Ramappa, Aged about 55 yrs, Business, Padachur Sweets, D.No.15/690, Near Mayura Lodge, Ananthapuramu town.

… Defendant

Suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,90,260/- (Rupees Three lakh Ninety Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ and ‘B’ marked suit promissory notes dated 13.05.2019 and 01.8.2019 respec- tively executed by the defendant for Rs.2,60,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs and Sixty thousand only) under ‘A’ marked suit promissory note and Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) under ‘B’ marked suit promissory note agreeing to re- pay the same with interest @ 24% p.a with future interest and with costs from the defendant. Plaint presented on: 03.03.2020

Plaint Numbered on: 06.03.2020

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.3,90,260/-(Rs.3,10,460/- + Rs.79,800/-) and a court fee of Rs.8,652/- (Rs.5,626/- + Rs.3,026/-) is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 10

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed the amounts from the plaintiff and executed two promissory notes on the date referred supra at the residence of plaintiff and all the dates of oral demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of the notice all arose at

Dharmavaram, within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 24-06-2024 in the presence of Sri D.Visweswara Rao, Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra, Smt.

J.Sumalatha, learned Counsels for the plaintiff and for Sri D.L.N.Murthy, learned Counsel for the defendant, this court doth order and Decree:-

i) that the defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,90,260/-with subsequent interest at 12 % P.A.on

Rs.3,30,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 03.03.2020 till the date of decree ie. on 25.08.2024 and thereafter at 6 % p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation; and ii) that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.27,562/-towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 25th day of July, 2024.

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Table of costs for Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaintRs. 8,652-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00Rs.2-00

Stamp on processRs. 100-00Rs. ---

APAN0E0001582022OS.82/2222 dt.15.05.2026 11

Commissioner Fee Rs.-- Rs.--

Pro.wrt.chargesRs. 200-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on PetitionRs.--Rs. ---

Typing chargesRs. 200-00Rs. ---

Publication chargesRs. ---Rs. ---

Advocate’s fee Rs.13,408-00Rs. ---

Junior Advocate Fee Rs. 5000-00Rs.----

TOTAL:- Rs.27,562-00 Rs.2-00

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintiff)

A.J.C.J./DMM.

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :

DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : SRI PRAKYA VENKATA HARISH

Ist ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

Original Suit No.324/2023

Between : S. Subhadra Bai, W/o Late S. Vijay Kumar Naik, Occ: House Wife, R/o. D.No.24/1/629, Siddaiahgutta, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai district. …Plaintiff

And

M.Anand Naik, S/o Late Munenaik, Aged about 54 yrs, Occ: Business and Document Writer, R/o. D.No.5-6-98/13C, Lakshmipuramu, Hindupuram Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. … Defendant

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 11.05.2026 in the pres- ence of Sri D. L. N. Murthy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri K. Gun- dachari, Sri A. Krishna Mohan, learned Counsels for the defendant and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and on perusing the mate- rial available on record this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The suit is filed for recovery of Rs.4,65,100/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Sixty Five thousand and One Hundred only) being principal and interest due under ‘A’ to ‘D’ marked suit promissory notes dated 15.12.2021 executed by the defendant for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note, Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ‘B’

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 2 marked promissory note, Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ‘C’ marked promissory note, Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two Thousand only) upon ‘D’ marked promissory note, total Rs.3,42,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs and Fourty Two Thousand only), agreeing to repay the same with inter- est at the rate of 24% per annum with future interest and with costs from the defendant.

Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

02. On 15.12.2021 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ’A’ marked promissory note, Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ‘B’ marked promissory note, Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand only) upon ‘C’ marked promissory note and

Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Seventy Two only) upon ‘D’ marked promissory note, totalling to Rs.3,42,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs and Fourty Two Thousand only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory notes. Inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount due under the promissory note. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note.

03.The defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed written statement denying the material allegations made against the de- fendant by the plaintiff and further contended that the suitpromissory notes are forged, fabricated and created documents brought into existence by the plain- tiff for wrongful gain and plaintiff is put to strict proof of execution and passing of consideration and he further contended that he had no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff, being a housewife, had no

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 3 financial capacity to lend such huge amounts and the signatures found on the revenue stamps of the suit promissory notes do not belong to him. The defen- dant admitted that receipt of legal notice dt.05.05.2023, but he denied any prior demands, it was further pleaded that disputes existed between the fami- lies of plaintiff and defendants and due to such disputes the plaintiff filed this present false suit with the collusion of alleged attestors. Thus, the defendant contended that there was no valid consideration, no legally enforceable debt and no cause of action for the suit, and prayed for dismissal of the saith with exemplary costs.

04. Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for Trial:

1. Whether the ‘A’ to ‘D’ marked suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amounts as prayed for?

3. If so, to what relief?

05.During the course of Trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exhibits A1 to A6. On the other hand, inspite of several opportunities, the defendant failed to adduce any evidence on his behalf.

Hence defendant side evidence was closed.

06. Heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused the ma- terial available on record.

Issue No.1:

07. In order to prove that the defendant borrowed amount from her, plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 by filing her chief examination affidavit which is nothing but replica of the plaint. PW1 in her chief examination reiter- ated the contents of the plaint and deposed that on 15.12.2021, the defendant

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 4 borrowed a total sum of Rs.3,42,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Two

Thousand only ) from her agreeing to repay the same with interest and exe- cuted the ‘A’ to ‘D’ marked suit promissory notes in her favour and same are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. Exhibits A5 and A6 shows that the plaintiff got issued legal notice demanding the defendant for repayment of the promissory note debt. Thereafter it seems that in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff under Exhibit A1 to A4.

08. PW1 in her cross examination stated that the she is an illiterate, unemployed and carrying money lending busines without license or income tax returns. She further admitted that she owns no property and the defendant is her relative working only as a coolie. PW1 further stated that the alleged suit amount belonged to her deceased husbands’ rice business, but no proof or li- cense was produced. She also admitted that the suit promissory notes were written in her house buy known persons and different inks were used in the document and for attestation. These admissions create doubt regarding PW1s financial capacity but no evidence is produced by the defense to corroborate the same.

09. On the other hand, the defense of the defendant is that, he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and suit promissory notes were forged and fabri- cated ones. However, inspite of several opportunities the defendant did not turn up before this court and did not choose to adduce evidence on his side and hence defendant side evidence was closed.

10.On perusing of oral and documentary evidence available on record it is established that the defendant borrowed amounts from plaintiff un- der Exhibits A1 to A4 suit promissory notes and accordingly executed the

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 5 same, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on demand to the plaintiff. Exhibits A1 to A4 suit promissory notes clearly dis- closes that on 15.12.2021, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- (Ru- pees Ninety Thousands only), Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousands only),

Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousands only) and Rs.72,000/- (Rupees Sev- enty Two Thousands only), total amount of Rs.3,42,000/-(Rupees Three

Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only ) from him agreeing to repay the same with interest and executed the ‘A’ to ‘D’ marked suit promissory notes in her favour and same are marked as Exhibits A1 to A4. The learned counsel for the defendant failed to elicit any evidence in favour of the defendant during the cross examination of PW1. Moreover, the defendant failed to adduce any evi- dence in order to rebut the evidence of PW1. The defendant simply filed the written statement and cross examined PW1 without coming forward to estab- lish that the Exhibits A1 to A4 are not executed by the defendant, by produc- ing proper, cogent oral or documentary evidence. The defendant simply stands away from the doors of the court just by filing the written statement and he did not turn up to adduce any evidence or entered into witness box to speak about the facts known to him.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 1441 in between Vidhyadhar Vs. Manikrao & anr. :Their Lordships held that, “ where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross ex- amined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Counsel, moreover if a party abstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an in- ference adverse against him. Similarly, the court can drew a presump-

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 6 tion under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence as per the conduct of the defen- dant who did not turned up, to adduce evidence on his behalf, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff's contention”.

12.Under present circumstances and of case in hand and by apply- ing law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court can take adverse inference against the defendant, who abstains from entering the witness box. Similarly, the court can draw a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not enter into the witness box. Hence, as per the con- duct of defendant, who did not turned up to adduce any evidence on his behalf and entered into witness box, can be treated as admitting the plaintiff case.

Hence, as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence on record and on conjoint reading of the written statement court observed that the defense taken by the defendant against the plaintiff is nothing but the alle- gations against the plaintiff without any proof.

13. As the defendant failed to prove his case and as per the evidence of PW1 and available documentary evidence and as per the cross examina- tion of PW1 by the learned counsel of the defendant, the plaintiff proved the execution of Exhibits A1 to A4 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Thus,

Exhibits A1 to A4 are true, valid and binding upon the defendant. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue No.2:

14.Plaintiff established her case by examining herself as PW1 and marking ‘A’ to ‘D’ marked promissory notes as Exhibits A1 to A4 and legal no- tice and acknowledgment which are marked as Exhibits A5 and A6.

15.The defendant only made allegations relating to non execution of

Exhibits A1 to A4 and non-passing of consideration under Exhibits A1 to A4.

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 7

The learned defendant counsel failed to elicit any evidence in favour of defen- dant in the cross examination of PW1. The defendant did not take any steps to establish his defense and failed to produce any evidence i.e., oral or docu- mentary to succeed his case. Hence plaintiff has succeeded in proving his case by examining himself as PW1 to substantiate his contention and by marking Exhibits A1 to A6. Hence plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed by him accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defen- dant.

Issue No.3:-

16.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.04,65,100/- (Rupees Four Lakhs

Sixty Five thousand and One Hundred only) with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization on the principal sum of

Rs.3,42,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) under A to

D marked suit promissory notes.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : Subadrabai -None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

1.Ex.A1 is the original ‘A’ marked promissory note dated 15.12.2021.

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 8 2.Ex.A2 is the original B marked promissory note dated 15.12.2021.

3.Ex.A3 is the original C marked promissory note dated 15.12.2021.

4.Ex.A4 is the original D marked promissory note dated 15.12.2021.

5.Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice dated 05.05.2023.

6.Ex.A6 is the acknowledgment dated 08.05.2023.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

I.A.C.J.(J.D), D MM

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : KUM K.RAMYA SAI,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAVARAM

Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 2023

Original Suit No.158/2019

Between :

V.Narasimha Murthy, S/o Bala Obilesu, Aged about 50 yrs, Hindu,Business, D.No.8/556, Shanthi Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal.. … Plaintiff

And

A.Dhanunjaya, S/o Munaiah, Aged about 58 yrs, Hindu, Business, D.No.27/663, Sundaraiah Nagar, Dharmavaram Town and mandal. … Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs.1,52,050/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote, Dt.05.06.2016 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/- repayable with interest at 18% p.a. and claimed at the same rate as the defendants are not an agriculturists and hence the defendants are not entitled for any benefits under debt relief

Act.

Plaint presented on: 27.04.2019

Plaint Numbered on: 29.04.2019

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 10

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is

Rs.1,52,050/- and a court fee of Rs.4026/- is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV

Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff on 05.6.2016 and when plaintiff made oral demands on defendant and plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant through his counsel on 08.03.2019 all arose at Dharmavarm

Town and mandal, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit came up for final hearing before me on 27-01-2023 in the presence of Sri S.Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of

Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the defendant, this court doth order and Decree:-

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.1,52,050/-with subsequent interest at 12% P.A.on

Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 27.04.2019 till the date of decree ie. on 31.01.2023 and thereafter at 6% p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation; and ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9393/-towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 31th day of January, 2023.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram. Table of costs for

APAN0E0009182023OS.324/2023 dt.15.05.2026 11

Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaintRs. 4026-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00Rs.2-00

Stamp on processRs. 65-00 Rs. ---

Commissioner Fee Rs. --- Rs.--

Pro.wrt.chargesRs.100-00 Rs. ---

Stamp on Pet itionRs.--Rs. ---

Typing chargesRs.---Rs. ---

Publication chargesRs.--Rs. ---

Advocate’s fee Rs. 5200-00 Rs. ---

Junior AdvocateRs . -- Rs.---- Fee

TOTAL:- Rs. 9393-00 Rs.2-00

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintiff)

A.J.C.J./DMM.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARM.

PRESENT:: SRI P.VENKATA HARISH

I st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.1670 of 2022

Between: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town PS … Complainant

And

1.Duddebanda Mukunda @ David, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 32 yrs, 2.Duddebanda Muthayalappa, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 63 yrs, 3.Duddebanda Thimmakka, W/o D. Muthayalappa, Aged about 53 yrs, All are residents of Balepalyam Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal.

… Accused no.1 to 3

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. C. Nallappa, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town P.S. filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in crime No.247/2022 for the offences under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.03.2017, marriage of one Duddebanda Gayathri i.e., LW1 was performed with accused no.1 by her parents. Their marriage was held according to their traditions at Grace of Jesus Prayer House Church, Maruthi Nagar,

Dharmavaram town in the presence of both side elders and at the time of

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 2 marriage, LW1’s parents gave dowry to A1. A1 earns his livelihood by running auto. After marriage they led a happy life for 3 years. Later A1 to

A3 started harassing LW1 mentally and physically by saying that she was not beautiful. LW1 informed the same to her parents and complained at police station. Police gave counseling to the accused, but they did not change their attitude. A1 got acquaintance with Lakshmi through the phone and developed an illicit relationship with her. Lakhsmi is resident of Vijayawada. Further LW1 came to know that A2 and A3 were planning to perform A1’s marriage with the said Lakshmi for the second time.

Unable to bear the torture, LW1 gave a complaint in Dharmavaram I

Town PS on 22.07.2022.

03.Basing on the complaint of D. Gayathri, S.I of Police, registered the case in Cr.No.247/2020 for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

04.During the course of investigation, LW7 secured the presence of LW1 to 6 namely D. Gayathri, M. Sankaraiah, M. Ademma, K.

Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa and M. Mallikarjuna, recorded their statements and seized the wedding card and marriage photographs under the cover of police proceedings and he served notices under section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code to A1 to A3. After completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3.

05.The case was taken on file against A1 to A3 section 498A r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 3

06. On appearance of A1 to A3 before this Court, case copies were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

07.A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charges under section 498A read with section 34 of

Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused no.1 to 3. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

08.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. The learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor chose not to examine LW.s 3 to 8 namely

M.Ademma, K.Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa, M.Mallikarjuna,

N.Raghuramulu and T.Subramanyam as Pws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

09. As there is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

10.Heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

11.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code?

POINT:

12.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, examined

PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. PW.1 who is the de-facto

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 4 complainant deposed in her evidence that A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are her in laws. LW2 is her father, LW3 is her mother. She deposed that she know LW4 and LW5. She stated that she do not know anything about this case. A1 to A3 did not harass her mentally or physically in demand of additional dowry. At the instance of elders, she put her signatures on white papers. She does not know the contents of those papers. She identified her signature on the police report and the same is marked as Exhibit P1. In the cross-examination by the learned APP, her statement which was recorded under Section 161 of the code of criminal procedure was marked as Exhibit P2.

13.PW2, who is the father of PW1, stated that, PW1 is his daughter, A.1 is his son-in-law, A2 and A3 are parents of A1. He deposed that he do not know anything about the case. Police did not examine him nor recorded his statement. PW2 was cross-examined by the learned APP and his statement which was recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was marked as Exhibit P3. As the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

14.The learned APP has rightly given up the evidence of LWs 3 to 8 namely M.Ademma, K.Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa, M.Mallikarjuna,

N.Raghuramulu and T.Subramanyam as no purpose would be served by examining them.

15.As observed from the evidence of the material witnesses

PWs.1 and 2, who are victims of harassment for additional dowry in the hands of accused, did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. PW1, who is the wife of A1 and as well as victim of the offence, did not state anything against any one of the accused, as she

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 5 might have compromised with the accused. Hence, absolutely there is no material against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian

Penal Code.

16. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A r/w section 34 of Indian

Penal Code and they are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, Accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-P.Venkata Harish,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : D. Gayathri -None- PW.2 : M. Sankaraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 : Statement of PW.1 recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P3 : Statement of PW.2 recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

-Nil-

ID/- P.V.H., I.A.J.M.F.C. //True Copy //

Ist Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM Calendar cases tried by the Ist Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close of trialSentence of Accusedbailment of trial 22.07.2222.07.22------08.04.2611.05.2614.05.26

Judgment in C.C.No.1670/2022 on the file of Ist Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Dharmavaram.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Cr.No: 247/2022 Sl.Name of theAgeFather’sCallingReligionResidenceMandal NoAccusedName 1.Duddebanda Mukunda @ David, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 32 yrs, 2.Duddebanda Muthayalappa, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 63 yrs, 3.Duddebanda Thimmakka, W/o D. Muthayalappa, Aged about 53 yrs, All are residents of Balepalyam Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. Offence :- U/sec 498-A, r/w 34 IPC

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence :- In the result, A1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/ss 498-A r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) CrPC for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. for their appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed.

Sd/-P.Venkata Harish,

Ist ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram

Dis No. Dt.

//True Copy //

Ist Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: DHARMAVARM.

PRESENT:: SRI P.VENKATA HARISH

I st ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

Thursday, the 14 th day of May, 2026

Calendar Case No.1670 of 2022

Between: State rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town PS … Complainant

And

1.Duddebanda Mukunda @ David, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 32 yrs, 2.Duddebanda Muthayalappa, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 63 yrs, 3.Duddebanda Thimmakka, W/o D. Muthayalappa, Aged about 53 yrs, All are residents of Balepalyam Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal.

… Accused no.1 to 3

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. C. Nallappa, Advocate for the accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town P.S. filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 in crime No.247/2022 for the offences under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.03.2017, marriage of one Duddebanda Gayathri i.e., LW1 was performed with accused no.1 by her parents. Their marriage was held according to their traditions at Grace of Jesus Prayer House Church, Maruthi Nagar,

Dharmavaram town in the presence of both side elders and at the time of

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 2 marriage, LW1’s parents gave dowry to A1. A1 earns his livelihood by running auto. After marriage they led a happy life for 3 years. Later A1 to

A3 started harassing LW1 mentally and physically by saying that she was not beautiful. LW1 informed the same to her parents and complained at police station. Police gave counseling to the accused, but they did not change their attitude. A1 got acquaintance with Lakshmi through the phone and developed an illicit relationship with her. Lakhsmi is resident of Vijayawada. Further LW1 came to know that A2 and A3 were planning to perform A1’s marriage with the said Lakshmi for the second time.

Unable to bear the torture, LW1 gave a complaint in Dharmavaram I

Town PS on 22.07.2022.

03.Basing on the complaint of D. Gayathri, S.I of Police, registered the case in Cr.No.247/2020 for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and took up investigation.

04.During the course of investigation, LW7 secured the presence of LW1 to 6 namely D. Gayathri, M. Sankaraiah, M. Ademma, K.

Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa and M. Mallikarjuna, recorded their statements and seized the wedding card and marriage photographs under the cover of police proceedings and he served notices under section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code to A1 to A3. After completion of investigation LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3.

05.The case was taken on file against A1 to A3 section 498A r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 3

06. On appearance of A1 to A3 before this Court, case copies were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

07.A1 to A3 were examined under Section 239 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charges under section 498A read with section 34 of

Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused no.1 to 3. Read over and explained to them in Telugu for which, A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

08.During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. The learned Senior

Assistant Public Prosecutor chose not to examine LW.s 3 to 8 namely

M.Ademma, K.Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa, M.Mallikarjuna,

N.Raghuramulu and T.Subramanyam as Pws 1 and 2 did not support the case of prosecution. Hence, prosecution evidence was closed.

09. As there is no incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with.

10.Heard on both sides and perused the material available on record.

11.Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution

proved the guilt of accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable

under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code?

POINT:

12.The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, examined

PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. PW.1 who is the de-facto

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 4 complainant deposed in her evidence that A1 is her husband, A2 and A3 are her in laws. LW2 is her father, LW3 is her mother. She deposed that she know LW4 and LW5. She stated that she do not know anything about this case. A1 to A3 did not harass her mentally or physically in demand of additional dowry. At the instance of elders, she put her signatures on white papers. She does not know the contents of those papers. She identified her signature on the police report and the same is marked as Exhibit P1. In the cross-examination by the learned APP, her statement which was recorded under Section 161 of the code of criminal procedure was marked as Exhibit P2.

13.PW2, who is the father of PW1, stated that, PW1 is his daughter, A.1 is his son-in-law, A2 and A3 are parents of A1. He deposed that he do not know anything about the case. Police did not examine him nor recorded his statement. PW2 was cross-examined by the learned APP and his statement which was recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was marked as Exhibit P3. As the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, the learned APP has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

14.The learned APP has rightly given up the evidence of LWs 3 to 8 namely M.Ademma, K.Krishnamurthy, Sake Adeppa, M.Mallikarjuna,

N.Raghuramulu and T.Subramanyam as no purpose would be served by examining them.

15.As observed from the evidence of the material witnesses

PWs.1 and 2, who are victims of harassment for additional dowry in the hands of accused, did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. PW1, who is the wife of A1 and as well as victim of the offence, did not state anything against any one of the accused, as she

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 5 might have compromised with the accused. Hence, absolutely there is no material against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian

Penal Code.

16. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 498A r/w section 34 of Indian

Penal Code and they are entitled for acquittal.

17.In the result, Accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal

Code and they are acquitted under section 248(1) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Directly typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-P.Venkata Harish,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dharmavaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1 : D. Gayathri -None- PW.2 : M. Sankaraiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW.1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 : Statement of PW.1 recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ex.P3 : Statement of PW.2 recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 6

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOS MARKED FOR

-Nil-

ID/- P.V.H., I.A.J.M.F.C. //True Copy //

Ist Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

APAN0E0025842022 CC.1670 of 2022 of IAJFCM, DMM 7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District :: ANANTAPURUM Calendar cases tried by the Ist Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram. Date of OffenceReportApprehensionReleased onCommence-Close of trialSentence of Accusedbailment of trial 22.07.2222.07.22------08.04.2611.05.2614.05.26

Judgment in C.C.No.1670/2022 on the file of Ist Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Dharmavaram.

Complainant :: Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram I Town Police Station Cr.No: 247/2022 Sl.Name of theAgeFather’sCallingReligionResidenceMandal NoAccusedName 1.Duddebanda Mukunda @ David, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 32 yrs, 2.Duddebanda Muthayalappa, S/o Muthayalappa, Aged about 63 yrs, 3.Duddebanda Thimmakka, W/o D. Muthayalappa, Aged about 53 yrs, All are residents of Balepalyam Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal. Offence :- U/sec 498-A, r/w 34 IPC

Finding :- Found not guilty.

Sentence :- In the result, A1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/ss 498-A r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 248(1) CrPC for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. for their appearance before the Honorable Appellate Court as and when directed.

Sd/-P.Venkata Harish,

Ist ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

DHARMAVARAM

Submitted to the Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuram

Dis No. Dt.

//True Copy //

Ist Addl. Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 1

IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

DIVISION): DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : SRI PRAKYA VENKATA HARISH,

IstADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

DHARMAVARAM

Friday, the 15 th day of May, 2026

Original Suit No.100 of 2025

Between: P.Gangi Reddy, S/o Lakshmi Reddy @ Lakshmanna, Aged about 58 yrs, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Chinna Mogalaiahpalli Village, Medapuramu, C.K.Palli Mandal. … Plaintiff

And

V.Veera Reddy, S/o V.Nagi Reddy, Aged about 36 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. Venkatampalli Village, C.K.Palli Mandal. … Defendant

This suit came before me on 11.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D. Vijaya Raghavendra, Smt. J. Suma Latha, Smt. D. Bhargavi, Sri M. Narasimha Murthy and Sri M. Peddanna, Learned Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte on 28.03.2025 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this date, the court delivers the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Two Thousands only) being the principal and interest due under the suit Promissory note and for costs.

02. The brief averments of the plaint are that on 18.01.2022 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In spite

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 2 of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount either towards the principal or interest. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note.

03. On the other hand, the defendant failed to appear before this court in spite of service of summons. Hence, the defendant was set ex-parte on 28.03.2025.

04. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as

PW1 and got marked Exhibit A1 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

06. Now the points for consideration are:

(i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

(ii)If so, to what relief ?

POINT (i):

07. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from him on 18.01.2022 and executed suit promissory note in his favour. Later In spite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff the defendant has not paid any amount either towards the principal or interest.

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 3

08. In order to prove his contention the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 by way of filing chief affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Exhibit A1. Exhibit A1 is the promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) on 18.01.2022 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same at the interest of 24% per annum.

This shows that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed Exhibit A1 in favour of the plaintiff. It seems in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant has not paid any amount to the plaintiff under Exhibit A1.

09. The evidence of PW1 is unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendant in spite of having knowledge about the suit, did not turn up before this court to put forth his defence. As the defendant did not make his appearance before this court, and as the plaintiff proved his case by adducing evidence on his side, it can be taken as the defendant admitted the case of the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff by adducing oral and documentary evidence proved his case and hence in view of above discussion, this court believes the version of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT (ii):

10. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,72,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs and Seventy Two Thousands only) to the plaintiff with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum from the date

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 4 of decree till its realization on principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh only) under suit promissory note.

Directly typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

I Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1 : P. Gangi Reddy -None-

Exhibits marked for plaintiff

Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dated 18.01.2022.

Exhibits marked for defendant

-Nil-

IAddl.CJ(Jr.D)/DMM

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 5

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION):

DHARMAVARAM

PRESENT : SRI P.V HARISH,

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

DHARMAVARAM

Tuesday, the 25 th day of March, 2025

Original Suit No.328 of 2024

Between: M.Hemalatha, W/o M.Ramamohan, Aged about 42 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o D.No.26-C-151, Kethireddy colony, Dharmavarm Town and Mandal. Sri Sathya Sai District … Plaintiff

And

K.Sreenivasa Achari, S/o K.Krishnama Achari, Aged about 55 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.27-485, Indiramma colony, Dharmavaram Town and Mandal. Sri Satya Sai District. … Defendant

Suit for recovery of Rs,1,69,000/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dt.08.08.2021 for Rs,1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p,a. and claimed at the same rate as the defendant is not an agriculturist, he is a businessman.

Plaint presented on: 24.06.2024

Plaint Numbered on: 07.08.2024

Value for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,69,000/- and a court fee of Rs.4,126/- is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 6

Cause of action for the suit arose whenthe defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08.08.2021 and executed suit pronote and all dates of demands at Dharmavaram, within the Jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit came before me on 24.03.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. D.N.L.Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex-parte, this court doth order and Decree:-

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,69,000/-with subsequent interest at 12 % P.A. on Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit i.e., on 24.06.2024 till the date of decree ie. on 25.03.2025 and thereafter at 6 % p.a., from the date of decree till the date of realisation; and ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,778/-to- wards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 25th day of March, 2025.

Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Dharmavaram.

Table of costs for Plaintiff Defendant

Stamp on plaintRs. 4126-00Rs. ---

Stamp on vakalatRs. 2-00Rs.---

Stamp on processRs. 65-00Rs. ---

Commissioner FeeRs.--Rs.--

Pro.wrt.chargesRs. 100-00Rs. ---

Stamp on PetitionRs.--Rs. ---

Typing chargesRs. 100-00Rs. ---

Publication chargesRs. ---Rs. ---

APAN0E0002712025OS.100/2025 dt.15.05.2026 7

Advocate’s feeRs.3385Rs. ---

Junior Advocate FeeRs. --Rs.----

TOTAL:- Rs.7,778-00 Rs.--

(FC memo filed on behalf of plaintiff)

A.J.C.J./DMM.