Smt R.Aseervadam Paul

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram. Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No.118 OF 2019

Between : Pemmireddi Nagendra Vara Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 41 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o D.No.1-179/1, Annaipeta Village, Ramachandrapuram (M), East Godavari District.… Plaintif

And

1. Mosya Rama Rao, S/o Jeena Bhandu, 50 Years, Hindu, S.G.T., (H.M)., M.P.P.School, Sarabiguda Village, Arakuvalley Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Kambidi Vara Prasad, S/o Kondappa, 55 Years, Hindu, S.G.T., Government Tribal - Welfare Girls Asrama School, Nandivalasa Village, Dumbriguda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.…Defendants

The suit is coming before me on 12.04.2023 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Lova Raju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the

Plaintif and Sri B.Ramesh, Advocate forthe 1st Defendant and 2nd defendant remained exparte and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filedby the plaintif against the defendants for recovery of

Rs.4,29,500/- due under the promissory note dt.24.04.2016 said to have been jointly executed by the defendants in favour of plaintif for a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @ 24% p.a.

2.The everments of the plaintif in brief are :

The defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintif on 24.04.2016 for thepurpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. and the defendants after receipt of consideration from the plaintif jointly executed on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif in the presence of two attesters and scribe at Annaipeta Village. In spite of several oral demands made by the plaintif the defendants had not paid any amount and dragged on the repayment on some pretext or other. After repeated demands made by the plaintif 2nd defendant issued a cheque bearing No.147297, dt.03.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, 2 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

Arakuvally Branch, Arakuvally in favour of the plaintif towards part satisfaction of the aforesaid promissory note debt amount and the said cheque was dishonoured and the plaintif got issued legal notice to the 2nd defendant under section 138 of N.I Act. But the defendants not paid any amount to the plaintif. Hence, the plaintif is entitled to file the suit against the defendants for recovery of the suit debt.

3.2nd defendant remained exparte. 1st Defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that of 1st defendant that he along with 2nd defendant never approached the plaintif at his native place Annayipeta, Ramachandrapuram Mandal and never jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.04.2016 and never executed any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif at any point of time. He further contended he belongs to Schedule Tribe and have been working as

Teacher as such he is having sufficient means to maintain his family and getting good salary from his employment and there is no necessity to borrow an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintif or any other person. The plaintif and attesters in suit promissory note are strangers to defendant and he never received any consideration under suit promissory note. There is no cause of action to the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing on the pleadings and on hearing the counsels for both parties, the following issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover of the suit claim as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

5.On behalf of plaintif he himself examined as PW1 and 2nd attester as

PW2 and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of defendants, the 1st defendant himself examined as DW1 and the 2nd defendant remained set exparte and no documents were marked.

6.Heard arguments.

7.Issues No.1 :

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendants ?

The plaintif filed the suit for recovery of amount basing on the promissory note said to have been executed by defendants. The 1st defendant is denying the execution of promissory note and took a plea that he along with 2nd defendant never approached the plaintif at his native place Annayipeta, 3 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

Ramachandrapuram Mandal and never jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.04.2016 and never executed any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif at any point of time. He further contended he belongs to Schedule Tribe and have been working as Teacher as such he is having sufficient means to maintain his family and getting good salary from his employment and there is no necessity to borrow an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintif or any other person. The plaintif and attesters in suit promissory note are strangers to defendant and he never received any consideration under suit promissory note. So the initial burden is on the plaintif to prove his case.

8.To substantiate his case the plaintif, himself examined as PW1 and 2nd attester as PW2. He deposed that on 24.04.2016 the defendants has jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him for the purpose of their family expenses and discharge of sundry debts and jointly executed the promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum in the presence of attesters and scribe at Annayipeta Village. Inspite of repeated oral demands, as the defendants failed to discharge the debt and dragged on the payment on some or other pretext. On 03.03.2019 2nd defendant/Kambidi Vara Prasad issued cheque bearing No.147297 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Arakuvalie branch,

Arakuvalie in his favour towards part satisfaction of the above said promissory note debt amount and the said cheque was dishonoured and plaintif got issued legal notice to the 2nd defendant under section 138 N.I Act, but both the defendant not paid any amount to the plaintif as such he constrained to file this suit. Ex.A.1 is the Original demand Promissory note jointly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif, dt.24.04.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- was marked through him.

9.The plaintif examined the 2nd attester as PW2. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is cogent, consistent and corroborating with each other. There is nothing in their Cross examination to discredit their testimony. Their evidence is consistent and stood to cross examination.

In Ponuganti Subba Rao Vs. Sikakollu Pulla Rao reported in 1999 (3)

ALT 144 their Lordships held that :

The plaintiff proved execution of suit promissory note by examine himself and witness and the plaintiff having discharged his burden then the burden shifted to the defendant to prove his plea.

Thus the plaintif examining himself, the 2nd attester has proved the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under it. On the other hand under section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the 4 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019 presumption is that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, then it follows that it is supported by consideration. Hence this court concurrently held Ex.A1 is supported by consideration and defendants are liable to pay the suit amount.

10.When once the plaintif discharges his initial burden, the burden shifts on to the defendants to prove his/her contention. In this case 2nd defendant remained set exparte. The 1st defendant himself examined as DW1 and reiterated the contents of the written statement. It is the contention of 1st defendant that he along with 2nd defendant never approached the plaintif at his native place Annayipeta, Ramachandrapuram Mandal and never jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 24.04.2016 and never executed any demand promissory note in favour of the plaintif at any point of time. He further contended he belongs to Schedule Tribe and have been working as

Teacher as such he is having sufficient means to maintain his family and getting good salary from his employment and there is no necessity to borrow an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from plaintif or any other person. The plaintif and attesters in suit promissory note are strangers to defendant and he never received any consideration under suit promissory note. They never borrowed any amount from plaintif and never jointly executed Ex.A1 in his favour. In cross examination DW1 denied his signatures on Written statement, Vakalat filed by him as well as on Ex.A1/promissory note. Though DW1/Mosha

Ramarao denied his signature on Ex.A1/promissory note, but surprisingly he denied his signatures on his written statement as well as Vakalath also. Mere denial of signatures not belongs to him is not enough to prove the contention of defendant, unless he took any steps to prove his contention by sending the same to Expert opinion or in any other mode. Since the plaintif has proved the execution of promissory note the burden shifts to the defendants to prove the contention by resorting to any other modes. The defendants took a plea that

Ex.A1/suit promissory note is created and got filed by plaintif to get wrongful gain, but no witness and no evidence was adduced by the defendants to prove the same. Except examining 1st defendant himself as DW1 no other evidence was adduced by them to prove their contention. Thus the 1st defendant failed to prove his contention. On the other hand the plaintif by examining himself and 2nd attester has proved execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under the promissory note. The issue is answered accordingly.

11.Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover of the suit claim as prayed for ?

In view of finding of Issue No.1 this Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for decree as prayed for. The issue is answered accordingly.

5 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

12.Isue No.3: To What relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants for an amount of Rs.4,29,500/- (Rupees Four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) with future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree as thereafter @ 6% per annum till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Pemmireddy Nagendra Vara Prasad, dt.01.08.2022

P.W.2 : Chinnam Sundara Rama Reddy, dt.28.11.2022

FOR DEFENDANT:

D.W.1 : Mosya Ramarao, dt.28.02.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory note jointly executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif for sum of Rs.2,50,000, dt.24.04.2016.

FOR DEFENDANT: Nil.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

6 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

Date of presentation:22.04.2019 Date of filing:25.04.2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No.118 OF 2019

Between s Pemmireddi Nagendra Vara Prasad, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 41 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o D.No.1-179/1, Annaipeta Village, Ramachandrapuram (M), East Godavari District.… Plaintif

And

1. Mosya Rama Rao, S/o Jeena Bhandu, 50 Years, Hindu, S.G.T., (H.M)., M.P.P.School, Sarabiguda Village, Arakuvalley Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Kambidi Vara Prasad, S/o Kondappa, 55 Years, Hindu, S.G.T., Government Tribal - Welfare Girls Asrama School, Nandivalasa Village, Dumbriguda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.…Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs.4,29,500/- due under the promissory note dt.24.04.2016 said to have been jointly executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @ 24% p.a.

Plaint presented on 22.04.2019

Cause of action arose on 24.04.2016 when the defendants are jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a. and jointly executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendants and the 2 nd defendant herein issued cheque bearing No.147297, dt.03.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Arakuvalley Branch, Arakuvally in favour of the plaintiff towards part satisfaction of the aforesaid promissory note debt amount. But the defendants neither gave any reply nor paid any amount to the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for the relieves as prayed for and at Annaipeta Village, where the suit promissory note was executed and are all within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount under dt.24.04.2016 ... Rs.2,50,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 24.04.2016 to 21.04.2019 ... Rs.1,79,500-00 ----------------------- ... Rs.4,29,500-00 ----------------------- A Court fee of Rs.6,726/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.1 Art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act.

7 Fair Judgment in O.S.118/2019

The suit is coming before me on 12.04.2023 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Lova Raju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the

Plaintif and Sri B.Ramesh, Advocate for the 1st Defendant and 2nd defendant remained exparte and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1.That the defendants do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.4,29,500/- (Rupees Four lakhs twenty nine thousand and five hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs and fifty thousand only) from the date of suit till the date realization.

2. That the defendants do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.21,458/- (Rupees Twenty one thousand four hundred and fifty eight only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalath2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on Plaint6,726-00

Process fee45-00

Advocate fee14,585-00

Typing Charges100-00

Costs allowed21,458-00

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

// True copy //

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram,

Thursday, the 20th day of April, 2023.

C.C.145/2022

Between: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police Station.…. Complainant

And

Chinta Sridhar Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, 39 Years, C/Padmasalli, Kotipalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, Rider of Honda Active bearing No.AP 5 CM 6635..… Accused

This case is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for complainant and of Sri K.V.Krishna, Sri K.Rahul and Sri K.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocates for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police station has filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Sec.338 I.P.C.

in Crime No.128/2019 of Draksharama Police Station.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet filed by the prosecution are that the LW1/de-facto complainant/injured/Rayudu Venkata Ramana is a resident of Nallacheruvu Puntha, H/o Pekeru Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal.

LW1 is doing Mechanic in Sugar Factory at Kakinada. On 04.08.2019 at about 5.00 PM LW1 left on Hero Honda Splendor Pro bike bearing No.AP 5 C 8385 and while going to Kakinada and when reached near Bhimeswara Petrol Bunk at Thotapeta Village the rider of Honda Activa Bearing No.AP 5 CM 6635 drove the bike in rash and negligent manner hit him due to which he fell down sustained injury on his right knee joint and the bike rider escaped. His younger brother Rayudu Srinu and Veerababu shifted him to Area Hospital,

Ramachandrapuram for treatment.

On receipt of Intimation from Area Hospital, Ramachandrapuram,

LW7/Ch.Bosu Babu, ASI., Ramachandrapuram P.S visited the Hospital and recorded the statement of LW1 on 04.08.2019. LW7 forwarded the statement 2 of LW1 to the SHO., Draksharama P.S on point of jurisdiction. Accordingly

LW8/S.Durgabai, Woman ASI 638, Draksharama P.S registered a case in

Cr.No.128/2019, U/Sec.337 IPC on 05.08.2019. During the course of investigation LW8 examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed statements and obtained the wound certificate of injured from LW6/Medical

Officer. LW8 examined the scene of offence and prepared Rough sketch.

Basing on the medical opinion LW9/J.James Ratna Prasad, Sub Inspector of

Police, Draksharama P.S. altered the section of law from 337 IPC into 338 IPC.

During the course of investigation LW10/S.Tulasi Ram, Sub Inspector of Police,

Draksharama P.S., trace out the accused and served 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to accused and after completion of investigation LW10/S.Tulasi Ram, Sub

Inspector of Police, Draksharama P.S filed charge sheet against accused.

Hence the charge.

3.On perusal of the charge sheet and other documents filed by the police under Sec.173 Cr.P.C., this case is taken on file for the offence under Sec.338

IPC. The copies of this case documents furnished to the accused as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under Sec.338 IPC, to which the accused denied the commission of the offence by him and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to substantiate his case against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and also the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked.

6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining him the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the prosecution side evidence as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

3

8.Now the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Sec.338 I.P.C beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

9. P O I N T:-

To prove the prosecution case prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 ad got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.

In this case PW3 alleged to be direct witness to the incident did not support the case of prosecution. He deposed he do not know anything about the case facts. As he resiles from his previous version the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor cross examined him with the permission of Hon’ble Court. In

Cross examination, PW3 denied the suggestion that he stated before Police as in Ex.P2. In view of contradiction of Ex.P2, the evidence of PW3 is not believable.

With regard to grievous injury over PW1, he has deposed that on 04.08.2019 at about 5.00 PM while he was going to Kakinada from Pekeru on his Hero Splendor Pro bike bearing No.8385 and reached near Petrol bunk at

Thotapeta Village and stopped beside the road. In the meantime one rider of

Honda Active bearing No.6635 coming from Kotipalli from his back side and hit

his bike with high speed without blowing horn. As a result, PW1 fell down on the ground and sustained fracture injury on his right leg and the bike riders escaped. PW2 shifted him to Area hospital, Ramachandrapuram and admitted for treatment. Police recorded his Ex.P1/statement. PW1 identified accused in open Court as driver of the crime vehicle.

To prove injuries over PW1 the prosecution examined PW4/Consultant

Orthopedist at Sidhartha Hospital, Kakinada and got marked Ex.P3/Wound certificate. PW4 deposed on 05.08.2019 at 12.15 PM he examined

PW1/R.Venkata Ramana and found fracture right proximal tibia and opined the above injury is grievous injury. Hence prosecution proved that PW1 sustained grievous injury in accident alleged to be happened on 04.08.2019.

4

With regard to rash or negligent act of accused the version of prosecution is that the accused is driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Honda Active bearing No.6635, drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed behind

PW1 motorcycle in high speed without blowing horn and caused greivous injuries to him in the accident.

To prove the rash or negligent act of accused the prosecution has examined PW1 and PW2. PW1 is injured/defacto complainant. PW2 is alleged to be direct witnesses of the incident. Ex.P1 is Statement of PW1. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement f PW3. Ex.P3 is Wound certificate. Ex.P4 is MLC intimation. Ex.P5 is FIR. Ex.P6 is Rough sketch.

PW2 alleged to be direct witness deposed on 04.08.2019 at about 3.30

PM he started on his Honda Unicorn Motorcycle to go to Mamidigunta. At about 3.30 PM he return back from Mamidigunta and reached Bheemeswara

Petrol Bunk, Draksharama and witnessed while PW1 crossing the road one rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP05 66 35 came in rash and negligent manner without blowing horn hit motorcycle of PW1. As a result, PW1 sustained fracture injuries on his leg and PW2 shifted him to Area Hospital,

Ramachandrapruam and admitted for treatment and PW2 identified accused as the driver of crime vehicle in open Court on the day of alleged accident.

In Cross examination PW2 admitted he did not stated before Police when he return back from Mamidigunta and reached Bheemeswara Petrol

Bunk, Draksharama to fill Petrol. PW6/Investigating Officer also admitted PW2 did not stated before her he went to Mamidigunta and return back to

Draksharama and reached Petrol bunk. The evidence of PW2 clearly established he was planted witness by the prosecution and his evidence did not elicited his presence on the day of alleged incident in scene of offence.

Hence his evidence is not believable. Furthermore PW1 did not whishper about the rash and negligent act of accused.

It is the contention of learned defence counsel that PW5/Assistant Sub

Inspector of Police recorded Ex.P1/statement in Area Hospital, 5

Ramachandrapuram is doubtful. In cross examination PW5 admitted

Ex.P1/statement contains the Doctor certified as patient is unconscious and incoherent. Hence the evidence of PW5 is not believable when the patient is unconscious and incoherent how he recorded Ex.P1/statement is doubtful.

PW6/Investigating Officer investigated the case in casual manner nothing was elicited to prove the accusation against accused from his investigation.

In view of the above stated circumstances it is not safe to believe the evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to the rash and negligent act of accused.

In view of the above said reasons this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

10.In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.338 IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. No property received in this Court, hence, no orders passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1 : Rayudu Venkata Ramana, dt.18.01.2023 P.W.2 : Rayudu Srinu, dt.15.02.2023 P.W.3 : Venna Srinivas Rao, dt.24.02.2023 P.W.4 : Dr. Aditya Krishna Motta, dt.28.03.2023 P.W.5 : Ch.Bosu Babu, dt.28.03.2023 P.W.6 : S.Durgabai, dt.28.03.2023 P.W.7 : J.James Ratna Prasad, dt.10.04.2023 6

FOR DEFENCE:None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Statement of P.W.1, dt.04.08.2019 Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, dt.Nil.

Ex.P.3 : Wound certificate of PW1, dt.05.08.2019 Ex.P.4 : MLC intimation, dt.04.08.2019 Ex.P.5 : F.I.R in Cr.No.128/2019 of Draksharama P.S., dt.05.08.2019 Ex.P.6 : Rough Sketch, dt.Nil

FOR DEFENCE : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

// True Copy //

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

7

ABSTRACT: EAST GODAVARI

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SMT. R. ASEERVADAM PAUL, ADDL. JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE: RAMACHANDRAPURAM

C.C.No.145/2022

Date of Offence : 04.08.2019 Date of Complaint or Report : 05.08.2019 Date of Taken on file: 26.04.2022 Apprehension of the accused: 06.06.2022 Released on bail : 41-A Cr.P.C notice served Commencement of trial : 18.01.2023 Closure of Trial : 10.04.2023 Sentence or Order : 20.04.2023 Explanation for delay : Due to non production of of witnesses by the prosecution.

Name of the complainant: State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police Station.

Name of accused: Chinta Sridhar Rao, S/o Satyanarayana, 39 Years, C/Padmasalli, Kotipalli Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, Rider of Honda Active bearing No.AP 5 CM 6635.

Nature of offence: U/Sec.338 IPC Plea of accused : Not guilty Finding : Not guilty ORDER:-

In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec.338 IPC, thereby he is acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be remained in force for a period of six months from the date of the Judgment. No property received in this Court, hence, no orders passed.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

Copy submitted to the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

// True Copy //

Addl. J.F.C. Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram.

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.308/2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 308 OF 2022

Between : Kanikella Akhil, S/o Subba Rao, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o D.No.2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.… Plaintif

And

Padala Sathish, S/o Appa Rao, 30 Years, Hindu, Jr.Assistant, O/o Commercial Tax Office, Narasannapeta Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District.…Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri P.Bharath Babu and Sri P.V.K.S.Vittal, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.5,07,200/- due under the promissory note dt.15.12.2019 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

2.Written statement not filed though mandatory period is completed.

Defendant called absent. No representation. Hence Defendant set exparte.

3.Chief Examination affidavit of PW1 filed. Ex.A1 is the Original

Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for

Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 15.12.2019. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.14.09.2022. Ex.A3 is postal receipt dated.15.09.2022. Ex.A4 is Postal Tracking copy, 21.09.2022 were marked.

4.Heard counsel for the plaintif. Perused the material available on record.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree, as prayed for?

2) To what relief ?

2 Fair Judgment in O.S.308/2022

6.POINT No.1:

To substantiate his case, the plaintif filed his Chief examination affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked through him. Written statement not filed though mandatory period is completed.

Defendant called absent. No representation. Hence Defendant set exparte.

As such the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Thus, the plaintif with his unchallenged oral testimony coupled with the documentary evidence produced under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 have proved his case. So, this Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To What Relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.5,07,200/- (Rupees Five lakhs seven thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 :Kanikella Akhil, dt.17.04.2023NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 15.12.2019.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.14.09.2022.

Ex.A3 is postal receipt dated.15.09.2022.

Ex.A4 is Postal Tracking copy, 21.09.2022

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL –

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

3 Fair Judgment in O.S.308/2022

Date of presentation:01.11.2022 Date of filing:03.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 308 OF 2022

Between : Kanikella Akhil, S/o Subba Rao, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o D.No.2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.… Plaintif

And

Padala Sathish, S/o Appa Rao, 30 Years, Hindu, Jr.Assistant, O/o Commercial Tax Office, Narasannapeta Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District.…Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.5,07,200/- due under the promissory note dt.15.12.2019 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

Plaint presented on 01.11.2022

Cause of action for the suit arose on 15.12.2019 when the defendant borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a. and on the same day when he executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant orally and on 14.09.2022 the plaintiff got issued Regd. legal notice to the defendant and the same was received was reecived by the defendant and at Malapadu Village of Ramachandrapuram

Mandal where the suit promissory note was executed and where the transaction took place are all within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount under dt.15.12.2019 ... Rs. 3,00,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 15.12.2019 to 31.10.2022 ... Rs. 2,07,200-00 ------------------------ ... Rs. 5,07,200-00 ----------------------- A Court fee of Rs.7,526/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.1 Art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act.

4 Fair Judgment in O.S.308/2022

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri P.Bharath Babu and Sri P.V.K.S.Vittal, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1.That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.5,07,200/- (Rupees Five lakhs seven thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date realization.

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.16,131/- (Rupees Sixteenthousand one hundred and thirty one only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalath2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on Plaint7,526-00

Process fee45-00

Advocate fee8,458-00

Typing charges100-00

Costs allowed16,131-00

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

// True copy //

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.33/2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 33 OF 2023

Between : Polinati Madhu Sunil, S/o Swaminanda, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o 2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.District.… Plaintif

And

Moyyi Prabhudas Kumar, S/o Sadananda Rao, 53 Years, Office Sub Ordinate, Veterinary Dispensary, Lolugu Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District.…Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri K.Lovaraju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.3,83,200/- due under the promissory note dt.05.12.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

2. Summons served to defendant. Defendant called absent. No representation. Hence Defendant set exparte.

3.Chief Examination affidavit of PW1 filed. Ex.A1 is the Original

Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for

Rs.3,00,000/-, dated 05.12.2021. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.24.12.2022. Ex.A3 is postal receipt dated.24.12.2022. Ex.A4 is Postal acknowledgement from defendant dt.26.12.2022 were marked.

4.Heard counsel for the plaintif. Perused the material available on record.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree, as prayed for?

2) To what relief ?

2 Fair Judgment in O.S.33/2023

6.POINT No.1:

To substantiate his case, the plaintif filed his Chief examination affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked through him. Defendant called absent though summons served, No representation. As such the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Thus, the plaintif with his unchallenged oral testimony coupled with the documentary evidence produced under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 have proved his case. So, this Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To What Relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,83,200/- (Rupees Three lakhs eighty three thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 :Polinati Madhu Sunil, dt.17.04.2023NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.3,00,000, dated 05.12.2021.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.24.12.2022.

Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt dt.24.12.2022

ExA4 is Postal acknowledgement from defendant dt.26.12.2022

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL –

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

3 Fair Judgment in O.S.33/2023

Date of presentation:02.02.2023 Date of filing:04.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 33 OF 2023

Between : Polinati Madhu Sunil, S/o Swaminanda, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o 2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.District.… Plaintif

And

Moyyi Prabhudas Kumar, S/o Sadananda Rao, 53 Years, Office Sub Ordinate, Veterinary Dispensary, Lolugu Village, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District.…Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.3,83,200/- due under the promissory note dt.05.12.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

Plaint presented on 02.02.2023

Cause of action for the suit arose on 05.12.2021 when the defendant borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a. and on the same day when he executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant orally and on 24.12.2022 the plaintiff got issued Regd. legal notice to the defendant and the same was received by the defendant and at Malapadu Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal where the suit promissory note was executed and where the transaction took place are all within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount under dt.05.12.2021 ... Rs. 3,00,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 05.12.2021 to 01.02.2023 ... Rs. 83,200-00 ------------------------ ... Rs. 3,83,200-00 ----------------------- A Court fee of Rs.6,326/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.1 Art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act.

4 Fair Judgment in O.S.33/2023

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri K.Lovaraju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1.That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.3,83,200/- (Rupees Three lakhs eighty three thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date realization.

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.13,071/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand and seventy one only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalath2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on Plaint6,326-00

Process fee45-00

Advocate fee6,598-00

Typing charges100-00

Costs allowed13,071-00

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

// True copy //

1 Fair Judgment in O.S.31/2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 31 OF 2023

Between Polinati Madhu Sunil, S/o Swaminanda, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o 2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.District.… Plaintif

And

Thalachintala Rambabu, S/o Padalu, 29 Years, Hindu, Office Subordinate, O/o A.D., A.P. Animal Husbandary Department, Srikakulam Town and District.…Defendant

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri K.Lovaraju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintif against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.4,24,200/- due under the promissory note dt.09.05.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintif for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

2. Summons served . Defendant called absent. No representation. Hence

Defendant set exparte.

3.Chief Examination affidavit of PW1 filed. Ex.A1 is the Original

Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for

Rs.3,00,000, dated 09.05.2021. Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.24.12.2022. Ex.A3 is postal receipt dated.24.12.2022 Ex.A4 is Postal Tracking copy, dt.28.12.2022 were marked.

4.Heard counsel for the plaintif. Perused the material available on record.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree, as prayed for?

2) To what relief ?

2 Fair Judgment in O.S.31/2023

6.POINT No.1:

To substantiate his case, the plaintif filed his Chief examination affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the contents of plaint. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked through him. Defendant called absent though summons served, No representation. As such the evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged. Thus, the plaintif with his unchallenged oral testimony coupled with the documentary evidence produced under Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 have proved his case. So, this Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the decree as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2: To What Relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.4,24,200/- (Rupees Four lakhs twenty four thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 :Polinati Madhu Sunil, dt.17.04.2023NONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the Original Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs.3,00,000, dated 09.05.2021.

Ex.A2 is the Office copy of Registered Legal notice got issued to the defendant, dt.24.12.2022.

Ex.A3 is the Postal receipt dt.24.12.2022

ExA4 is Postal tracking copy dt, 28.12.2022

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL –

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

3 Fair Judgment in O.S.31/2023

Date of presentation:31.01.2023 Date of filing:04.02.2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-A.J.F.C. MAGISTRATE::

RAMACHANDRAPURAM

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Addl.J.C.J.-Cum-A.J.F.C. Magistrate.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023.

O.S.No. 31 OF 2023

Between Polinati Madhu Sunil, S/o Swaminanda, 28 Years, Hindu, Business & Cultivation, R/o 2-14, Malapadu Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.District.… Plaintif

And

Thalachintala Rambabu, S/o Padalu, 29 Years, Hindu, Office Subordinate, O/o A.D., A.P. Animal Husbandary Department, Srikakulam Town and District.…Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,24,200/- due under the promissory note dt.09.05.2021 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- agreeing to repay with an interest @24% p.a.

Plaint presented on 31.01.2023

Cause of action for the suit arose on 09.05.2021 when the defendant borrowed sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family expenses and to discharge sundry debts and agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ 24% p.a. and on the same day when he executed an on demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and on all subsequent dates when the plaintiff demanded the defendant orally and on 24.12.2022 the plaintiff got issued Regd. legal notice to the defendant and the same was received by the defendant and at Malapadu Village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal where the suit promissory note was executed and where the transaction took place are all within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

Value of the suit:-

Principal amount under dt.09.05.2021 ... Rs. 3,00,000-00

Interest thereon @ 24% p.a. from 09.05.2021 to 30.01.2023 ... Rs. 1,24,200-00 ------------------------ ... Rs. 4,24,200-00 ----------------------- A Court fee of Rs.6,726/- is paid U/Sec.20 Sch.1 Art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act.

4 Fair Judgment in O.S.31/2023

This suit is coming on 17.04.2023 before me for Plaintif’s evidence in the presence of Sri K.Lovaraju and Sri G.Malleswara Rao, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant remained exparte and having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1.That the defendant do pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.4,24,200/- (Rupees Four lakhs twenty four thousand and two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., on the principal amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakhs only) from the date of suit till the date realization.

2. That the defendant do also pay to the plaintif a sum of Rs.14,086/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand and eighty six only) towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on the 20th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For defendant:

Stamp on Vakalath2-00No costs memo is filed

Stamp on Plaint6,726-00

Process fee45-00

Advocate fee7,213-00

Typing charges100-00

Costs allowed14,086-00

Sd/- R. Aseervadam Paul,

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMACHANDRAPURAM.

// True copy //