Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul

II Addl Junior Civil Judge

X Addl District Court Narasaraopet · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul, II Addl Junior Civil Judge, is posted at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2,169 court orders on record since 2023. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

2,169

Total Orders

Judgments

335

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/66/2019 Acquitted

Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram P.S. vs Shaik Mahamunnisa and 2 others

16 Nov 2023

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF II Addl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-cum-II Addl. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt.R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

FAC II A.J.C.J-cum-II A.J.M.F.C, Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 16th day of November, 2023.

C.C.No.66/2019

[Cr.No.269 of 2018 of Phirangipuram Police Station.]

Between

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Phirangipuram Police Station. ... Complainant.

And

1. Shaik Mahamunnisa, W/o Mabula, Age : 32 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipura Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Shaik Masthani, W/o Hussain, Age : 55 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

3. Shiak Fathima, W/o Hussain Shareef, Age : 35 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

... Accused.

This case is coming on 16.11.2023 before me for disposal in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri.Melam Sri Krishna, Advocate for accused persons and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Sub Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.269 of 2018 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

[2.] The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows.

Lw.1/Shaik Mabula is the injured defacto-complainant he is resident of

Varavakatta of Narasaraopet Town. Lw.1/Shaik Mabula eking his lively hood by

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.2 doing Tinkering works Fifteen years ago. Lw.1/Shaik Mabula married A.1 and blessed with three male children. There are some conjugal disturbances in between A.1 and Lw.1/Shaik Mabula and A.1 residing at her parental house from last 4 months. From the day of marriage A.1 not co-operating with Lw.1/Shaik

Mabula in leading conjugal life, A.1 used to quarrel with Lw.1/Shaik Mabula on petty issues and used to go to parental house months together and giving report on Lw.1/Shaik Mabula to the police. From last 4 months A.1 residing with A.1 and

A.2 at Gundalapadu Village. On 11.12.2018 Lw.1/Shaik Mabula went to

Gundalapadu Village along with injured son to show A.1 to his on in an auto. At

Gundalapadu Village, there are some arguments taken place in-between his wife and him, all of the sudden him at about 03.30 pm., A.1 to A.3 attacked on

Lw.1/Shaik Mabula and beaten on head with chutney pounder and caused bleeding injury on his head. A.2 caught hold of hands of Lw.1/Shaik Mabula and stopped movements A.3 also beaten with stick on the right side shoulder of

Lw.1/Shaik Mabula. Shaik Sharmila aged about 13 years and Sharimila did not interfered in this matter. But due to grudge on their family Lw.1/Shaik Mabula stated in statement as the both juveniles beaten him with sticks but it is not true.

Only A.1 to A.3 had beaten Lw.1/Shaik Mabula with stick. Due to those injuries he fell on the road, in the meantime Lw.2/Shaik Masthani and Lw.3/Shaik Nagma reached the spot and shifted Lw.1/Shaik Mabula to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet.

[3.]On 11.12.2018 Lw.7/Marka Srinivasa Rao, Head constable recorded the the statement of Lw.1/Shaik Mabula forwarded the same to Lw.8/Shaik Aslam,

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, on point of jurisdiction. Lw.8/Shaik Aslam,

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the same as a case in

Cr.No.269/2018, U/sec.324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation Lw.9/S.Ujval Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police examined Lw.1/Shaik

Mabula, Lw.2/Shaik Masthani and Lw.3/Shaik Nagma, LW.4/Shaik Saleem @ Imam,

Lw.5/Shaik Adambee, recorded their statements U/sec.161 Cr.P.C and also inspected the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene.

Lw.6/Dr.Sudheer Chandra issued wound certificate of injured are “Simple in

Nature”. Lw.9/S.Ujval Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, served notices U/sec.41-A

Cr.P.C, Lw.10/M.Narayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, continued further investigation and filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

[4.] Cognizance was taken under Sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. Copies of the documents were furnished to the accused persons under section 207 Cr.P.C. on his appearance.

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.3 [5.] When examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. the for the offence punishable under sections 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the accusation read over and explained to them in Telugu, in which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

[6.] The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.W.1 to Pw.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to P7.

[7.]After closure of the evidence the accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating material against them from the persecution evidence. He denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.

[8.]Heard both sides.

Point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the charge

under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused

persons beyond all reasonable doubts?

[9.]POINT:

To prove the prosecution case of the prosecution must establish that PW1 sustained simple injuries in the incident in the hands of all accused. Accused has committed the offense and caused injuries with deadly or dangerous weapons.

[10.] The learned APP argued that the evidence of PW1 is consistent and trust worthy. PW1 is victim in the hands of accused and injured person in the incident PWs.2 to 5 are alleged to be direct witnesses to the incident. Though

PW4 and 5 turned hostile but the evidence PWs.1 to Pw.3 is confident, cogent and corroborated with Ex.P1. The prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt hence prays to convict the accused.

[11.] The learned defense counsel argued that the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated with Ex.P1 Statement. Pw.1 filed false case keeping in view of matrimonial disputes between him and A.1. Further more Pw.2 and Pw.3 are

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.4 planted witnesses by the prosecution. There is a delay of 2 days in lodging report from the date of alleged incident and prosecution failed to explain the reason for delay. Hence it is fatal to the case of prosecution. There are several exaggerations omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their evidences are not believable hence prays to acquit the accused.

[12.] In this case PW4 and Pw.5 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Pw.4 and Pw.5 deposed they do not know anything about this case. As they resiles from their previous version, the learned App has cross examined them with the permission of the court. In the cross examination of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor they have denied the suggestion that they stated before police as in

Ex.P2 and P3 and deposing false to favour the accused. The cross examination of PW4 and Pw.5 did not elicited any material supporting the case of prosecution.

In view of Ex.P2 and P3 contradiction the evidence of PW4 and Pw5 is not believable.

[13.] In this case PW1/injured and defacto complainant, Pw.2 and Pw.3 are alleged to be direct witnesses to the incident.

[14.] Pw.1 deposed on 10-12-2018 at about 3.30 p.m., while he was present at his house. At that time his third son by name Shaik Mohammad Ashraff, aged about 8 years was fell down on the ground while playing and received head injury. Pw.1 made a phone call to A1 and informed about injury received by their son and asked her to come to the house to look after the welfare of their son.

Then A1 abused him in filthy language over phone call. On the next day Pw.1 and his three children went to the house of A2 in an auto and reached her house and get down from the auto. At that time without any reasons A2 picked up a stick and abused him in filthy language and beat him with a stick on his right shoulder and on his head due to that his right shoulder was dislocated and also he received head injury in the hands of A2. A3 caught hold of him, A1 beat him with stick on his head due to which he received head injury. The alleged juvenile also beat him with chetney ponder on back side of his head due to which he received head injury. The another alleged juvenile by name Shar vali beat him with chetney ponder (Rokali banda) due to which he received fracture injury to little finger of his right hand and also received bleeding injury on his middle finger of his right hand. PW.1 received 23 switches to his head injuries. The alleged juvenile by name Sharmila beat him with stick on his head due to which he received bleeding

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.5 injury on his head. PW.2, Pw.3 and one Salma rescued him from the hands of A1 to A3 and alleged juvenile and shifted him to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet for treatment there doctor treated him to his injuries. The reason for the incident was that A1 frequently picked up quarrels with Pw.1 and used to visit her parents house and went to the house of A2 even though he take back A1 to his house to lead marital life. On the date of incident also he went to the house of A2 to take back A1 to lead marital life with him. But at that time A1 to A3, alleged juvenile made galata with him and beat him. Police came to him and recorded Ex.P1

Statement while he was undergoing treatment at Area Hospital, Narasaraopet.

[15.] With regard to injuries over Pw.1 he deposed on 10.12.2018 at 03.30 pm., while he was present at his house, his third son by name Shaik Mohammad

Ashraff aged about 8 years fell down on the ground and received head injury.

Then PW.1 made a phone call to A.1 and informed about the injury received by their son and requested her to come to the house to look after the welfare of their son in which A.1 abused him in filthy language over phone. On the next day Pw.1 and his 3 children went to the house of A.2 in an auto and reached her house.

While he get down from the auto without any reasons A.2 picked up a stick and abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick on his right shoulder and on his head. Due to that his right shoulder was dislocated and also he received head injury. A.2 and A.3 caught hold of him, A.1 beat him with stick on his head due to which he received head injury. He further deposed he received 23 stiches to head injury.

[16.] To prove injuries over Pw.1 prosecution produced Ex.P4 Wound

Certificate by examining Pw.6 medical officer, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet. Pw.6 deposed on 11.12.2018 he examined Pw.1 and found following injuries.

1) A Laceration of size 7 X 3 X 2 cm present over the Right Parital Region of Head.

2) A Laceration of size 6 X 1 x ½ cm present over the left Parital Region of Head.

3) A Vertical Laceration over the Occipital Bone on the right side of Size 6 X 2 X 2 cms. 4) A Laceration over Left Posterior Region of Partial Bone. Though the oral evidence of Pw.1 is corroborated with the medical evidence that he sustained head injury but the evidence of Pw.1 exaggerated that he received fracture injury to his little finger and middle finger of his right hand is not believable.

[17.] With regard to the manner of incident Pw.1 deposed when he reached house of A.2 and get down from auto, at that time without any reasons A.2 picked up a stick and abused him in filthy language and beat him with stick on his right

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.6 shoulder and head. Pw.2 deposed while she reached house of A.2 at that time one Shrevali, Shermila and A.2 beating Pw.1 with Pestle. She further deposed A.2 beat Pw.1 with stick while A.1 and A.2 caught hold of him. Pw.3 deposed when she and Pw.2 reached house of A.2 one Shrevali, Shermila and A.2 beating Pw.1 with Pestle. But in Ex.P1 Pw.1 stated A.1 and A.2 caught hold of him A.3 beat him on his right shoulder but he did not stated the weapon used by A.3 to beat him.

Furthermore the evidence of Pw.1 is not corroborated with regard to manner of incident in Ex.P1 statement. In cross examination also Pw.1 admitted A.3 caught hold of him A.2 and A.1 beat him with sticks and caused injuries to him. Hence the evidence of Pw.1 to PW.3 is not believable with regard to the manner of incident. The cross examination of Pw.1 has clearly elicited that there are matrimonial disputes between him and A.1 the admission of Pw.1 that he got divorce on 14.12.2018 by way of Talak clearly established he filed this false case against his wife A.1 and her mother and sister with after thought keeping in view of matrimonial disputes.

[18.] The learned counsel for accused contended that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging FIR from the date of incident. On perusal of the record the version of prosecution is the alleged incident happened on 11.12.2018 but Ex.P5 FIR is registered on 13.12.2018. In cross examination Pw.9 Investigating officer admitted that he did not mentioned the reasons for delay in a column No.8 of

Ex.P5. The admission of Pw.5 clearly established that the delay in lodging report is fatal to the case of prosecution.

[19.] Further more the evidence of PW1 is not consisting with Ex.P1 statement with regard to overt acts of accused over him. Moreover PW.4 and 5 alleged to be direct witnesses did not supported the case of the prosecution.

The evidence of PW5 shows about he conducting investigation in this case. No incriminating material against accused was present from his evidence.

[20.] In view of the above foregoing discussion it is not believable the evidence of PW1 to PW.3 that accused caused assaulted against PW1 and it is not safe to convict the accused without proper material or evidence, hence the accused are entitled for acquittal, the point is answered accordingly.

[21.] In the result, the A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.7 and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C., Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation and that no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly, and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 16th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

FAC II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMIEND

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw 1: Shaik Mabula -Nil- PW 2: Shaik Masthani PW 3: Shaik Nagma PW 4: Shaik Saleem @ Imam P w 5: Shaik Adambee PW.6 : Dr.Sudheer Chandra PW.7 : Marka Sreenivasa Rao PW.8 : Shaik Aslam PW.9 : S.Ujval Kumar PW.10 : M.Narayana, Sub-Inspector of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution

Exhibit P1 : Report of Pw.1, dt.13.12.2018 Exhibit P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4, dt.11.12.2018 Exhibit P3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5, dt.11.12.2018 Exhibit P4 : Wound Certificate, dt.11.12.2018 Exhibit P5 : First Information Report, dt.13.12.2018 Exhibit P6 : Hospital Intimation, dt.11.12.2018 Exhibit P7 : Rough sketch, dt.13.12.2018,

For Defence

Exhibit D1 : 161 Cr.P.C Statement of Pw.2 Exhibit D2 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.8

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--NIL--

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

FAC II ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.9

ABSTRACT: GUNTUR

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SMT. R. ASEERVADAM PAUL,

FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE NARASARAOPET.

C.C.No. 66/2019

Date of Offence: 11.12.2018

Complaint: 13.12.2018

Apprehension of the accused: 05.01.2019

Released on bail: 41-A Cr.P.C Notices served

Commencement of trial: 11.02.2021

Closure of Trial: 25.08.2023

Sentence or Order: 16.11.2023

Explanation for delay : The case was taken on file under Sections Under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, on 06.03.2019. On 11.06.2019 Case copies furnished to the accused persons and on the same day accused persons were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and an accusation for the offence punishable under sections Under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was explained, for which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 09.06.2022 Pw.1 chief examined, on 13.07.2022 cross examined, on 18.11.2022 Pw.2, Pw.3, on 25.11.2022 Pw.4, Pw.5, on 10.03.2023 Pw.6, Pw.7, on 27.03.2023 Pw.8, on 10.04.2023 Pw.9, on 18.08.2023 Pw.10 were examined, Ex.P1 to P7 marked. On 18.08.2023 prosecution evidence is closed. On 25.08.2023 accused persons examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which accused denied and reported they have no defence evidence. On 16.10.2023 Heard arguments of both sides. On 16.11.2023 Judgment pronounced.

Hence, the delay.

Name of the complainant:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Phirangipuram Police Station.

And

Name of accused:

1. Shaik Mahamunnisa, W/o Mabula, Age : 32 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipura Mandal, Guntur District.

C.C.No.66/2019 Page No.1

2. Shaik Masthani, W/o Hussain, Age : 55 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

3. Shiak Fathima, W/o Hussain Shareef, Age : 35 years, Caste : Muslim, R/o Gundlapadu Village, Phirangipuram Mandal.

Nature of offence : U/ Sec.324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty

ORDER:- In the result, the A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons and their sureties shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months as per under section 437 (A) Cr.P.C., Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation and that no order as to property.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant

Sessions Judge, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

OS/22/2024

Parchuri Sambasiva Rao vs Kothuri Shathrughnudu

27 Feb 2026

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

O.S. No. 22 of 2024.

Between:- Parchuri Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, 60 years,

R/o. Dr.No.3-1-6/1, Pathuru Sivalayam Veedhi,

Narasaraopet town. . . . . Plaintif

And

1) Kothuri Shathrughnudu, S/o. Masthan Rao, 55 years, R/o. Dr.No.19-5-177, Arekshethram Street,

Railpet, Guntur district.

2) Kothuri Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Masthan Rao, Hindu,

R/o. Dr.No.19-5-177, Arekshethram Street Railpet,

Guntur district.

3) Murikipudi Seshapadmaja, D/o. Purnachandrarao,

R/o. Krishna Nagar, Guntur district. . . .Defendants.

This suit came before me on this day, for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Butchidanta Chary, Advocate for plaintif and defendants remained set exparte, upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for plaintif, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.]This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants for declaration of the plaintif’s title over the schedule property and for 2 consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

[2.]The brief averments of the plaint are that the shedule house site is the absolute property of the plaintif. He purchased the schedule house site an extent of 213.33 sq yards from parchuri Sivakumari under the regi. Sale deed doc No.16532/2012 dated 06-11-12 and on the same she delivered the vacant possession to the plaintif and handed over the original documents to the plaintif. Since then the plaintif has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights without any obstruction from anybody much less the defendants till date.

i)It is submitted that originally the plaint schedule property and some other properties are absolute properties of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant purchased the schedule property from Mukkamala Mayuri D/o.

UmamaheswaraRao under a regd. sale deed dated 10-2-2005 an extent of 213.33 Sq yards vide document no. 684/2005. The 1st defendant gifted the schedule property under a regd. gift deed dated 12-07-2005 vide document no. 6453/2005 an extent of 26.66 square yards and gifted the schedule property under a regd. gift deed dated 10-3-2006 an extent of 186.67 square yards vide document no. 2090/2006 total extent of 213.33 Sq.yards infavour of Parchuri Siva Kumari who is the vendor of the plaintif. She had been in possession and enjoyment of the above said property without any obstruction from anybody till the delivery of the said property to the plaintif. The lst defendant with an evil intention and wrongful gain without intimation to P.Sivakumari, The gift infavour of P.Sivakumari was revoked on 19-02-2008 vide document no. 1909/2008. In turn on the same day the 1st defendant executed a regd. gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant vide document no. 1925/2008 dated 19-02-2008 regarding the schedule property and other properties. Later the 2nd defendant executed a regd. sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant vide document no. 10331/2008 dated 30-07-2008 3 regarding the schedule property. The said Parchuri Siva Kumari who is the vendor of the plaintif filed a suit against the defendants 1&2 for seeking permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property and other properties before the Hon'ble prl. Junior civil judge court, Narasraopet in

OS. 170/2012 and the same was decreed on 17-08-2012. In fact the 1st

defendant does not have any right, title, possession and interest over the suit schedule property. His rights in the suit schedule property were already divested, Therefore 1st defendant can not convey any better title to the 2nd defendant, than what he has. Moreover the 2nd defendant can not get any better title then what the lst defendant has. As on the date of gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant by 1st defendant he has no right, title, interest and possession over the schedule property. The 1st defendat has no right to execute any gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the schedule property. So the so called gift deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is void and not bind the rights of P.

sivakumari who is the vendor of the plaintif.

ii) while the matter stood thus, the 3rd defendant who have no right title and possession over the schedule mentioned property, and the other defendants are unnecessarily coming to the plaint schedule property of the plaintif and created a havac in the suit schedule property. Since few days the defendants are creating nuisance and havoc in the mind of the plaintif stating that he never executed any gift deed in favour of P.

Sivakumari and trying to cause obstruction to the enjoyment the schedule property by the plaintif. The defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintif to the detrimental to the rights and title of the plaintif. The defendants have no manner of right, title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

The plaintif is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights. Since 1st defendant executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the 2nd defendant without any manner of right, there are clouds cast upon the title of the plaintif. To wipe out the clouds cast upon the title of the plaintif, the plaintif is constrained to file the suit for declaration of his title as well as consequential relief of permanent 4 injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Since the plaintif is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property the alleged documents executed in favour of the defendants are not valid and the said document is void abintio and are not binding upon the plaintif. Hence the suit.

[3.] After receipt of the summons the defendant did not appear before the court and remained exparte.

[4.] On behalf of plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as

PW1 and got examined PW2 and PW3 and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked.

[5.] Heard the arguments of plaintif counsel. Perused the material on record.

[6.] Now, the point for consideration is “Whether the plaintif is entitled to grant permanent injunction as prayed for?

POINT:

[7.]In order to prove the case of the plaintif, the plaintif examined himself as P.W.1 and filed his chief examination afidavit reiterating the averments made in the plaint. In support of his case, the plaintif also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. Through the evidence of P.W.1, the documents

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. The defendants remained ex-parte and did not contest the matter.

[8.]However, it is a settled principle of law that even in an ex-parte case, the plaintif must prove his case by adducing satisfactory oral and documentary evidence. The case of the plaintif is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to the 1st defendant, who purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10-02-2005. It is further contended that the 1st defendant executed registered gift deeds in favour of his wife/ P.

Sivakumari in the years 2005 and 2006, covering the entire extent of the suit schedule property, and thereafter the said Sivakumari sold the property to the plaintif under a registered sale deed dated 06-11-2012 (Ex.A1).

According to the plaintif, since the date of the said purchase he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But the plaintif further contended that the 1st defendant with an evil intention and wrongful gain without intimation to P. Siva Kumari, the gift in favour of P.

Siva Kumari was revoked on 19-02-2008 vide document No.1909/2008. In turn on the same day the 1st defendant executed a registered gift deed in favour of 2nd defendant vide document No.1925/2008 dated 19-02-2008 regarding the schedule property and other properties. Later the 2nd defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant vide document No.10331/2008 dated 30-07-2008 regarding the schedule property.

[9.]The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 only shows that they are the attestors to the registered sale deed dated 06-11-2012 executed in favour of the plaintif. Their evidence is confined to the execution of the said sale deed. Except stating that they attested the document, they have not spoken about the earlier transactions relating to the property or about the circumstances surrounding the alleged revocation of the gift deed.

Therefore, the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 does not materially advance the case of the plaintif regarding the disputed title. It is also the specific case of the plaintif that the 1st defendant revoked the earlier gift deed on 19-02- 2008 and thereafter executed another gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant, who in turn executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 3rd defendant. When such pleadings are made, the burden lies upon the plaintif to produce the relevant documents and establish that the alleged revocation and the subsequent transactions are illegal and not binding upon him but the plaintif failed to prove the same.

[10.]It is a well settled principle that the plaintif must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case. In 6 the present case, the plaintif has failed to place complete and convincing evidence before the Court to establish his title over the suit schedule property and to remove the cloud cast upon it.

[11.]Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintif has failed to satisfactorily prove his title and entitlement to the relief of declaration and consequential injunction.

[12.]In the result the suit is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

Principal Civil Judge(Jr. Division)

Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for:

Plaintif:Defendant:

P.W.1: Parchuri Sambasiva Rao None

P.W.2:

P.W.3: Alla Mallikharujuna Rao

Documents marked for Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 06-11-2012 vide doc.No.16532/2012 executed by the P.Siva Kumari in favour of PW1.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 12-07-2005 vide doc.No.6453/2005 executed by 1st defendant in favour of Siva Kumari.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 10-03-2006 vide doc.No.2090/2006 executed by 1st defendant in favour of Siva Kumari.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 10-02-2005 vide doc.No.684/2005 executed by Mukkamala Mayuri in favour of 1st defendant.

Ex:A5: Valuation certificate issued by the SRO, Narasaraopet.

Documents marked for defendants:-Nil-

Principal Civil Judge(Jr. Division)

Narasaraopet.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Sri R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 27th day of February, 2026.

O.S. No. 22 of 2024.

Between:- Parchuri Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Kotaiah, 60 years,

R/o. Dr.No.3-1-6/1, Pathuru Sivalayam Veedhi,

Narasaraopet town. . . . . Plaintif

And

1) Kothuri Shathrughnudu, S/o. Masthan Rao, 55 years, R/o. Dr.No.19-5-177, Arekshethram Street,

Railpet, Guntur district.

2) Kothuri Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Masthan Rao, Hindu,

R/o. Dr.No.19-5-177, Arekshethram Street Railpet,

Guntur district.

3) Murikipudi Seshapadmaja, D/o. Purnachandrarao,

R/o. Krishna Nagar, Guntur district. . . .Defendants.

This suit is filed by the plaintif against the defendants for declaration of the plaintif’s title over the schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

The Plaint was presented on 08.01.2024 and filed on 08.01.2024

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action for the suit arose on 6-11-2012 when the plaintif purchased the schedule house site an extent of 213.33 Sq.yards from parchuri Siva Kumari vide document no. 16532/2012,and on 10-03-2006 when the 1st defendant gifted the schedule property under a registered deed vide document No 2090/2006 an extent of 186.67 and on 12-07-2005 under a regd. gift deed an extent of 26.66 Sq.yards and vide document no. 6453/2005 total extent of 213.33 Sq yards in favour of P. Siva Kumari who is the vendor of the plaintif and on 19-02-2008 when the gift was revoked by the 1st defendant and on 19-02-2008 the 1" defendant executed a regd. gift deed in favour of the 2nd defendant vide document 3rd defendant regarding the schedule property and other properties, and on 30-07- 2008 when the defendant executed a regd. sale deed in favour of 3rd defendant vide doc. No.10331/2008 regarding the schedule property and since few days when the defendants are trying to creating nuisance and trying to interfere with the schedule property of the plaintif and at Narasaraopet where the suit schedule property is situated is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

This being a declaration of the plaintif’s title over the schedule property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the f’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs. The suit is valued for Rs.21,33,300/-. Half value of the schedule property is Rs.10,66,650/-, on which court fee of Rs.13,126/- is paid under Section 24 (b) of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.10,66,650/-.

i) that the suit be and same is hereby dismissed; ii) that there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 27th day of February, 2026 .

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor PlaintifFor Defendant

Vakalat 2-00

Plaint fee13,126-00C.M & FC not filed either side

Process-

Pleader fee -

Writing Charges-

Typing Charges -

Total13,128-00 (Schedule copy attached to the decree)

Prl. Civil Judge(Junior Division) Narasaraopet.

OS/80/2024

Nuthalapati Padma Sekhara Rao vs Tupakula Penchalamma

06 Feb 2026

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

AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 6th day of February, 2026.

OS No.80/2024

Between:-

Nuthalapati Padma Sekhara Rao, S/o. Pondaiah @ Yesudasu,

Hindu, 75 years, retired employee, R/o. D.No.11-2-45,

Navodaya nagar, Narasaraopet Town. .... Plaintiff

AND

Tupakula Penchalamma, W/o. Ankayya, Hindu, 58 years, employee, Health workder, Panchayat karyalayam,

R/o. Karmachedu Village, Cheerala Mandal, Bapatla District.

..... Defendant

This suit came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.G.S.P. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Sri M.Sreeramulu, Advocate for defendant, hearing on both side counsels and upon perusing the material papers on record, having 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 filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.8,28,800/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note,

dated 06-07-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

[2.]The brief averments of plaint are that the suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.8,28,800/- being

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06-07-2022

executed by the defendant for Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the suit amount.

Hence this suit.

[3.]The learned counsel for defendant filed his written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended that she never borrowed any amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff at any point of time and she never executed any promissory note on 06-07-2022 from the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is a rank forgerd one and brought into existence to gain unlawfully with the help of the attestors and scribe at any point of time and the attestors and scribe are the close associates of the plaintiff. There are some dispute arose between the plaintiff and one Sandhya Rani who is working as Public

Health worker in Chilakaluripet Municipality and also the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff fabricated the alleged suit promissory note by foreging the thumb impression of her and goft filed this fale suit. Further she working as Health Worker in Panchayat Raj Department, karemchedu, she has no necessity to borrow such huge amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- for her family expenses and she received notice from the plaintiff and got issued the reply notice through her advocate with true and correct facts. The promissory note is not support by any consideration and there is no cause of action to file the suit by the plaintiff and against the defendant and there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and filed this false suit.

[4.] Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial;

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 06-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is true and valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant as prayed for?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit claim as prayed for ?

4) To what relief?

[5.] On behalf of plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and got examined scribe as PW2 and marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of defendant, defendant himself examined as DW1 and no documents were marked.

[6.] Heard the arguments. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE No.1: Whether the suit promissory note dated 06-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is true and valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant as prayed for?

[7.]To substantiate his case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 suit promissory note. He deposed on 06-07-2022 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from him for her family expenses and executed a demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with an interest @ of 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. In spite of repeated oral demands, the defendant failed to discharge the debt and has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Hence he filed the suit.

[8.]Ex.A1 original promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 06-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 Office copy of registered legal notice dated 14-07-2023 and Ex.A3 served copy of reply notice dated 18-08-2023 and Ex.A4 copy of rejoinder notice dated 28-12-2023 posted on 02-01-2024 were marked through him.

[9.]The plaintiff examined scribe 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. Thus the plaintiff examining himself as PW1 and examined scribe as PW2 has proved the execution of promissory note and passing of consideration under it.

[10.] It is the contention of defendant is that she never borrowed any amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff at any point of time and she never executed any promissory note on 06-07-2022 from the plaintiff. The suit promissory note is a rank forged one and brought into existence to gain unlawfully with the help of the attestors and scribe at any point of time and the attestors and scribe are the close associates of the plaintiff. There are some dispute arose between the plaintiff and one

Sandhya Rani who is working as Public Health worker in Chilakaluripet

Municipality and also the wife of the plaintiff. The plaintiff fabricated the alleged suit promissory note by forging the thumb impression of her and got filed this false suit. Further she working as Health Worker in

Panchayat Raj Department, Karemchedu, she has no necessity to borrow such huge amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for her family expenses and she received notice from the plaintiff and got issued the reply notice through her advocate with true and correct facts. The promissory note is not support by any consideration and there is no cause of action to file the suit by the plaintiff and against the defendant and there is no creditor and debtor relationship between the plaintiff and defendant and filed this false suit.

[11.]In order to rebut the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and

Ex.A1 promissory note, the defendant herself examined as DW1 and in cross examination she admitted the disputes between her and plaintiff were aroused with regard to amounts. So it is clear there is a creditor and debtor relationship between her and plaintiff. Further in cross examination she admitted that she never borrowed amount from plaintiff at any point of time. If really she did not borrowed any amount, why she could not send the Ex.A1 suit promissory note to the expert opinion. So, it is clear that the defendant came to the court with unclean hands.

Except denying about borrowing amount by defendant under Ex.A1 promissory note, she did not elicit nothing from PW1 and PW2 in her favour and also the evidence of defendant does not inspire any confidence that the defendant did not borrow Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff under

Ex.A1 promissory note. Hence the plaintiff is proved his case for passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Therefore the issue is answered in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.2: Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated one?

[13]In this case defendant raised several pleas in her written statement but she did not choose examine another witness and no documents were marked to prove her contention. Thus the defendant failed to prove her contention. So there is no evidence to say that the suit promissory note is forged by the plaintiff. On the other hand the plaintiff successfully proved execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by defendant by borrowing Rs.6,00,000/- by examining himself as PW1, scribe as PW2 and and by marking promissory note as Ex.A.1. So, it can not be said that the suit promissory note is a ranked forged one. Hence the issue is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendant.

ISSUE No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit claim as prayed for ?

[14.]In view of finding of issues No.1 and 2 this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree as prayed for. The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO.4: To what relief?

[15.]In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendant for an amount of Rs.8,28,800/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty eight thousand and eight hundered 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 the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Nuthalapati Padma Sekhara Rao

P.W.2: Borugadda Thomas

FOR DEFENDANT:

DW1: Tupakula Penchalamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 original promissory note executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff dated 06-07-2022 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-.

Ex.A2 Office copy of registered legal notice dated 14-07-2023.

Ex.A3 served copy of reply notice dated 18-08-2023.

Ex.A4 copy of rejoinder notice dated 28-12-2023 posted on 02-01-2024 were marked through him.

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL –

Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Narasaraopet.

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

AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Civil Judge(Junior Division), Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 6th day of February, 2026.

OS No.80/2024

Between:-

Nuthalapati Padma Sekhara Rao, S/o. Pondaiah @ Yesudasu,

Hindu, 75 years, retired employee, R/o. D.No.11-2-45,

Navodaya nagar, Narasaraopet Town. .... Plaintiff

AND

Tupakula Penchalamma, W/o. Ankayya, Hindu, 58 years, employee, Health workder, Panchayat karyalayam,

R/o. Karmachedu Village, Cheerala Mandal, Bapatla District.

..... Defendant

This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the defendant with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs.8,28,800/- being the principle and interest said to be due basing a promissory note,

dated 06-07-2022 said to be executed by the defendant in favour of

plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum.

The plaint presented on 08-02-2024 and filed on 20-02-2024.

CAUSE OF ACTION : Cause of action arose on 06-07-2022 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and in evidence of the said borrowing, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount, where the entire transaction took place and the plaintiff is residing is within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

The suit is valued for Rs.8,28,800/-, on which court fee of

Rs.10,726/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and S.V. Act. The value for the purpose of Jurisdiction is Rs.8,28,800/-.

This suit came before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.G.S.P. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for an amount of

Rs.8,28,800/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty eight thousand and eight hundered 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 the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs only).

ii) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.37,552/- towards institution costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 6thday of

February, 2026.

Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For DescriptionFor plaintiffFor defendant

Vakalat 2-00

Plaint fee10,726-00

Process 60-00

Pleader fee 26,564-00(CM & FC not filed )

Writing Charges 100-00

Typing Charges 100-00

Total37,552-00

Prl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Narasaraopet.

CC/153/2023 Acquitted

SEB NARASARAOPET vs SABHAVATH MUNI NAIK

15 Nov 2023

Page:1 C.C.No.153/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, the 15th day of November, 2023.

C.C.No.153/2023

Between

State: The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasaraopet. . . . Complainant.

And

Sabhavathu Muni Naik, S/o Swamy, Age : 31 years, Caste : Sugali, R/o D.No.8-268, Sivanagar Thanda, Nekarikallu Village and Mandal. . . . Accused.

This case is coming on 15-11-2023 before me for disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for State and of Sri Shaik Ali Basha, Advocate 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.] This case is filed by the Enforcement Bureau, Sub-Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Police Station, Narasaraopet, against the accused, for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act in Cr.No.169/2020 of Narasaraopet, Police

Station.

[2.] The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 19.09.2020

Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, left Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Narasaraopet along with LW.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable,

LW.2/M.Srinivasa Rao, Enforcement Constable, Lw.3/B.Veeranjaneyulu,

Enforcement Constable, for patrolling in the limits of the station to spot Illicit

Distilled Liquor, Illegal transport of sand and illegal offences. When

Page:2 C.C.No.153/2023

LW.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable, LW.2/M.Srinivasa Rao,

EnforcementConstable,Lw.3/B.Veeranjaneyulu,Enforcement

Constable,Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, reached Near NSP

Canal, Siva Nagar Thanda, Nekarikallu Panchayat, Nekarikallu Mandal, at about 05.30 pm., noticed one male person having possession of one green colour plastic can in his right hand and on seeing the SEB officials in uniform he tried to escape from that place. Then Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, detained him with the help of staff and questioned him why are you tried to escape from that place and what are the contents of the plastic can, for which the said person replied that he is having Illicit Distilled Liquor in the plasticcan.Lw.4/Ch.Vineela,EnforcementSub-Inspector,sent

Lw.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable, to Sivanagar Thanda village to get mediators, Lw.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable, returned to the spot after some time and informed that revenue officers are not available in the village and villagers are not came forward to act as mediators.

Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, decided to prepare special report and verified the can and noticed that it is in white colour of 5 liters capacity, contains full of white liquid, open the lid and came pungent smell of Illicit

Distilled Liquor from the can. Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, asked about his name and address particulars. He disclosed his name and address as accused. Lw.4/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, arrested the accused and seized 5 liters of ID Arrack, illegal prohibited by the Government and promulgating by Government rules and government to official orders.

Then P.W.2 separated the samples from seized contraband in separate bottle for sending the same to Excise Laboratory, Guntur for chemical examination and prepared occurrence report and registered the said occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.169/2020, U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP Prohibition (Amendment)

Act of Special Enforcement Bureau, Narasaraopet and investigated into.

[3.] During the course of investigation, Pw.2 sent the accused to Judicial custody for remand after that the accused enlarged on bail. On 04.01.2021,

Pw.2 obtained the chemical analysis report in this case from the Government

Chemical Examiner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur in which he opined that “The sample SI.No60569 is illicitly Distilled Liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.” Hence, charge sheet is filed against the accused for punishment Under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

Page:3 C.C.No.153/2023 [4.] The above case was taken on file U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(E) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were supplied as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and he denied the offence, Charges

U/section.7(A) r/w 8(E) of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused denied the contents of charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

[5.] To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P1 to P4 and M.O.1 Sample bottle.

[6.] After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution evidence and his case is that of a total denial of incident. Accused reported no defense evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP.

Prohibition Act (Amendment) beyond all reasonable doubt?

[8.] The learned APP argued that the evidence of P.W.1, Pw.2 and documents exhibited i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.4, M.O.1 are consistent, corroborative, cogent and proved the guilt of accused and therefore prays the court to convict the accused.

[9.] The learned counsel for accused argued that accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence and the prosecution failed to prove that the liquor bottles are seized from the possession of accused and the Police officials failed to secure any independent mediators at the time of search and seizure and P.W.2 did not follow the mandatory provision as envisaged

U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C and this case is filed only for statistical purpose. Hence,

Page:4 C.C.No.153/2023 he prayed this court to acquit the accused in the interests of justice by giving benefit of doubt.

[10.] Point: Prosecution examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and got marked Ex. P.1 to

P.4. Ex P.1 is the Police Proceedings, Ex.P.2 is F.I.R, Ex.P.3 is the letter of advice, Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis report and M.O.1 is Sample bottles.

[11.] In order to prove the case of prosecution examined the then

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Narasaraopet, deposed that on 19.09.2020 she along with Pw.1/M.Srinivasa

Rao, Enforcement Constable proceeded to NSP Canal, Siva Nagar Thanda,

Nekarikallu Mandal, at about 05.30 am., noticed one person having possession of white plastic can in his right hand and he was in hurry burry manner and tried to escape on seeing them in uniform. On suspicious, she detained him and on enquiry, the accused revealed his name as S.Muni Naik,

S/o Swamy, Age 31 years, accused in this case, and found 5 liters of Illicit

Distilled Liquor in a plastic can. She sent Pw.1 to secure mediators to Chejerla but in vain. She asked about the source of supply of I.D. Arrack for which accused admitted that he purchased from some unknown person from

Chejerla Village for selling the same at higher price. Pw.2 sent Pw.1 to secure mediators from Nekarikallu but in vain. Then she drawn one sample from out of 5 liters can for chemical analysis purpose and affixed identity slips, prepared Ex.P1 Police Proceedings duly signed by him, arrested the accused brought him to police station, registered case, investigated and filed charge sheet.

[12.] In his cross examination, P.W.1 admitted they mentioned in

Ex.P1 report that accused placed the 5 liters plastic can infront portion of vehicle and further admitted that he had not secured independent mediators and did not obtain signatures of VRO, VRA at place of seizure village. Further more the cross examination of Investigating Officer clearly established he had done his investigation in casual manner. Nothing was elicited to prove accusation against accused from his evidence. Hence, his evidence is no way useful to the case of prosecution and unbelievable.

[13.] Perused the record. It is observed that the witnesses who were cited in the charge sheet are police officials and no independent witnesses

Page:5 C.C.No.153/2023 were cited. P.W.1 and 2 are official witnesses and they are Excise officials.

Hence, their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish whether the Liquor bottles were seized from the possession of accused or not.

P.W.1 and 2 participated in the raid who arrested the accused while he was possessing Liquor bottles P.W.2 deposed she had not made any efforts to secure mediators. P.W.2 did not put any best or sincere efforts to secure independent mediators. P.W.2 failed to comply the mandatory provision envisaged under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C to prove that he seized the property from the possession of accused. P.W.2 did not prepare any rough sketch and the contention of the learned counsel for accused that Ex. P-1 is prepared in the Police station cannot be ruled out. Further it is the testimony of P.W.2 that accused had confessed that he is taking the I.D Arrack, but the said confession cannot be taken into consideration as it is made to PW.1 who is a

Police officer. Confession to police officer is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When the independent witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution version of seizing the property from the possession of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non-examination of independent mediators is fatal to the prosecution version.Hence, this court is of considered view that confession made by accused as alleged is inadmissible and of no worth to the case of prosecution.

[14.] Basing on the testimonies of P.W.1 and 2 who are none other than the excise officials and who is naturally interested in getting conviction to the accused, much credence cannot be given to his testimony in the absence of any independent corroboration. In the absence of independent mediator the seizure of the property from the possession of the accused becomes doubtful and it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the property was in the possession of the accused and the accused had committed the offence. Thus, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence.

Accordingly, the point is held against the prosecution.

[15.] In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP Prohibition (Amendment) Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as

Page:6 C.C.No.153/2023 contemplated U/sec. 437-A Cr. P.C. The case property involved vide CPR

No.143 of 2020 Material Object 1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-

P.W.1: Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable,

Pw.2 : Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector

For Accused:-NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

Ex.P.1 : Police Proceedings, dt.19.09.2020

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report, dt.19.09.2020

Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice, dt.19.09.2020

Ex.P.4 : Chemical analysis report, dt.04.01.2021

For Accused:- NIL.

Material Objects:-

M.O.1: One Sample bottle - 180 ml.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Page:7 C.C.No.153/2023

ABSTRACT : GUNTUR

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SMT. R. ASEERVADAM PAUL, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR

CIIVL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET, FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET

C.C.No. 153/2023

Date of Offence: 19.09.2020

Complaint: 19.09.2020

Apprehension of the accused: 19.09.2020

Released on bail: 25.09.2020

Commencement of trial: 07.07.2023

Closure of Trial: 07.11.2023

Sentence or Order: 15.11.2023

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses

Name of the complainant:

State: The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasaraopet. . . . Complainant.

Name of accused:

Sabhavathu Muni Naik, S/o Swamy, Age : 31 years, Caste : Sugali, R/o D.No.8-268, Sivanagar Thanda, Nekarikallu Village and Mandal. . . . Accused.

Nature of offence : U/ Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment)

Act.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty

ORDER:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted U/sec. 248(1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated

U/sec. 437-A Cr. P.C. The case property involved vide CPR No.143 of 2020

Page:8 C.C.No.153/2023

Material Object 1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

CC/147/2023 Acquitted

SEB NARASARAOPET vs MARUBOINA KONDALU

15 Nov 2023

Page: 1 C.C.No.147/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet,

FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, the 15th day of November, 2023.

C.C.No.147/2023

Between

State: The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasaraopet. . . . Complainant.

And

Maruboina Kondalu, S/o Manneyya, Age : 52 years, Caste : Mutharasi, R/o Chejerla Village, Nekarikallu Mandal. . . . Accused.

This case is coming on 15-11-2023 before me for disposal in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Advocate for State and of Sri G.V.S.Prasad, Advocate 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.] This case is filed by the Enforcement Bureau, Sub-Inspector,

Special Enforcement Bureau Police Station, Narasaraopet, against the accused, for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P.

Prohibition (Amendment) Act in Cr.No.139/2020 of Narasaraopet, Police

Station.

[2.] The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 30.07.2020

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, left Special Enforcement Bureau

Station, Narasaraopet along with LW.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable, for patrolling in the limits of the station to spot out Prohibition and Excise offences. When LW.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable, Inspector,

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, reached left side road margin of

NSP Canal of Chejerla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal, at about 10.00 am., noticed one person coming on two wheeler and having possession of one

Page: 2 C.C.No.147/2023 white plastic can at fuel tank of the vehicle and he was in hurry burry manner and tried to escape by turn back the vehicle on seeing the officials in uniform.

Then on suspicion Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, detailed him and asked him about his hurry burry manner. For which the said person replied that he is having Illicit Distilled Liquor in the plastic can. Then

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, sent Lw.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu,

Enforcement Constable to Chejerla to get mediators, LW.1/Ch.Anjaneyulu,

Enforcement Constable, returned to the spot after some time and informed that VRO/VRA are not available in the village and village elders are not came forward to act as mediators. Then Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, decided to prepare special report and verified the can and noticed that it is in white colour of 5 liters capacity, contains full of white liquid, open the lid and came pungent smell of Illicit Distilled Liquor from the can. Then

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, verified the vehicle and it is red and black colour Hero HF Deluxe bearing No.AP07 DH7190. Lw.2/Ch.Vineela,

Enforcement Sub-Inspector, asked about his name and address particulars.

He disclosed his name and address as accused. Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement

Sub-Inspector, arrested the accused and seized 5 liters of ID Arrack, illegal prohibited by the Government and promulgating by Government rules and government to official orders. Then Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-

Inspector, separated the samples from seized contraband in separate bottle for sending the same to Excise Laboratory, Guntur for chemical examination and prepared occurrence report and registered the said occurrence report as a case in Cr.No.139/2020, U/Sec.7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP Prohibition (Amendment)

Act of Special Enforcement Bureau, Narasaraopet and investigated into.

[3.] During the course of investigation, Pw.2 sent the accused to Judicial custody for remand after that the accused enlarged on bail. On 30.09.2020,

Pw.2 obtained the chemical analysis report in this case from the Government

Chemical Examiner, Prohibition & Excise, Guntur in which he opined that “The sample SI.No 54924 is illicitly Distilled Liquor, Unfit for human consumption and injurious to health.” Hence, charge sheet is filed against the accused for punishment Under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of A.P. Prohibition (Amendment) Act.

[4.] The above case was taken on file U/sec. 7(A) r/w 8(E) of Andhra

Pradesh Prohibition (Amendment) Act, against the accused. On appearance of

Page: 3 C.C.No.147/2023 accused, copies of documents were supplied as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and he denied the offence, Charges

[5.] To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and 2 and got marked Ex. P1 to P4 and M.O.1 Sample bottle.

[6.] After completion of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

[7.] Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material available on record.

Now the point that arise for determination is:

Whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused

for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(E) of AP.

Prohibition Act (Amendment) beyond all reasonable doubt?

U/Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C and this case is filed only for statistical purpose. Hence, he prayed this court to acquit the accused in the interests of justice by giving

Page: 4 C.C.No.147/2023 benefit of doubt.

[10.] Point: Prosecution examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and got marked Ex. P.1 to

P.4. Ex P.1 is the Police Proceedings, Ex.P.2 is F.I.R, Ex.P.3 is the letter of advice, Ex.P4 is Chemical analysis report and M.O.1 is Sample bottles.

[11.] In order to prove the case of prosecution examined the then

Lw.2/Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Narasaraopet, deposed that on 30.07.2020 she along with Pw.1 proceeded to

NSP Canal, Chejerla Village of Nekarikallu Mandal, at about 10.00 am., noticed one person having possession of white plastic can in his right hand and he was in hurry burry manner and tried to escape on seeing them in uniform. On suspicious, she detained him. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name as

M.Kondalu, S/o Mannaiah, Age 23 years, accused in this case and found 5 liters of Illicit Distilled Liquor in a plastic can. She sent Pw.1 to secure mediators from Chejerla but in vain. She asked about the source of supply of

I.D. Arrack for which accused admitted that he purchased from some unknown person from Chejerla Village for selling the same at higher price. Then she drawn one sample from out of 5 liters can for chemical analysis purpose and fixed identity slips, prepared Ex.P1 Police Proceedings duly signed by him, arrested the accused brought him to police station, and registered case, investigated and filed charge sheet.

[12.] In his cross examination, P.W.1 admitted they mentioned in

[13.] Perused the record. It is observed that the witnesses who were cited in the charge sheet are police officials and no independent witnesses were cited. P.W.1 and 2 are official witnesses and they are Excise officials.

Hence, their evidence is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish whether the Liquor bottles were seized from the possession of accused or not.

Page: 5 C.C.No.147/2023

Accordingly, the point is held against the prosecution.

No.87 of 2020 Material Object 1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Page: 6 C.C.No.147/2023

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:-

P.W.1: Ch.Anjaneyulu, Enforcement Constable,

Pw.2 : Ch.Vineela, Enforcement Sub-Inspector

For Accused:-NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-

Ex.P.1 : Police Proceedings, dt.30.07.2020

Ex.P.2 : First Information Report, dt.30.07.2020

Ex.P.3 : Letter of Advice, dt.30.07.2020

Ex.P.4 : Chemical analysis report, dt.30.09.2020

For Accused:- NIL.

Material Objects:-

M.O.1: One Sample bottle - 180 ml.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Page: 7 C.C.No.147/2023

ABSTRACT : GUNTUR

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SMT. R. ASEERVADAM PAUL, PRINCIPAL JUNIOR

CIIVL JUDGE, NARASARAOPET, FAC II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARASARAOPET

C.C.No. 147/2023

Date of Offence: 30.07.2020

Complaint: 30.07.2020

Apprehension of the accused: 30.07.2020

Released on bail: 31.07.2020

Commencement of trial: 15.09.2023

Closure of Trial: 07.11.2023

Sentence or Order: 15.11.2023

Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses

Name of the complainant:

State: The Enforcement Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Narasaraopet. . . . Complainant.

Name of accused:

Maruboina Kondalu, S/o Manneyya, Age : 52 years, Caste : Mutharasi, R/o Chejerla Village, Nekarikallu Mandal. . . . Accused.

Nature of offence : U/ Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of AP Prohibition (Amendment)

Act.

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Found not guilty

U/sec. 437-A Cr. P.C. The case property involved vide CPR No.87 of 2020

Page: 8 C.C.No.147/2023

Material Object 1 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Sd/-R.Aseervadam Paul,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

// True Copy //

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet. FAC II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Order Record 2,087 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/226/2025	Chagalamarri Venkata Koteswara Rao vs Yeddanapalli Papaiah and two others	06 May 2026	Others	—
EP/216/2025	Behara Himabindu vs Pattapu Solomon Raja Mersin Babu	25 Apr 2026	Others	—
EP/189/2025	Shaik Davood vs Pasapati Sivanjanea Nagaraju	15 Apr 2026	Others	—
EP/227/2025	Ms.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. LTD., Narasaraopet vs D.Tirupatirayudu and 6 others	15 Apr 2026	Others	—
EP/188/2025	Karri Veeravanjaneyulu vs Shaik Adil Basha	13 Apr 2026	Others	—
EP/234/2025	Medikonda Venkateswara Reddy(died) and 3 others vs Medikonda Siva Reddy	13 Apr 2026	Others	—
EP/101/2025	Kamireddy Ranga Reddy vs Madireddy Venkata Reddy	17 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/10/2026	Ms.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. LTD., Narasaraopet vs Vasimalla Jenniah and 4 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/12/2026	Sotupalli Alice Arunamai vs Pattapu Solomon Raja Mersin Babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/13/2026	Bellamkonda Nagamani vs Pattapu Solomon Raja Mersin Babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/15/2026	Ms.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. LTD., Narasaraopet vs Kumbha Koteswara Rao and 5 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/19/2026	Shaik Mastan Vali vs Boddu Gopal Krishna Murthy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/23/2026	Reddem Siva Reddy vs Mekathoti Nallaiah (Died)	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/71/2024	Yeruva Venkata Koti Reddy vs Mallavarapu Manoj Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/87/2025	Javvaji Mallikharjuna Rao vs Dhammavalam Ramanjaneyulu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/88/2025	Innamuri Madhava Rao vs Amruthapudi Devasahayam	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/92/2025	Gelli Anil Reddy vs Gottam Konda Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/121/2025	Paruvuri Prasad vs Komma Satyanarayana	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/134/2025	Ms.Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. LTD., Narasaraopet vs P.Usha Rani and 5 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/149/2023	Arvapalli Venkata Ramalakshmamma vs Shaik Mastan	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/149/2025	Kunchala Srinivasa Rao vs Balusupati Sujatha and 3 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/153/2025	Shaik Mahaboob Subhani vs Langesetty Nageswararao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/155/2025	Nandipati Madhavi vs Medikonda Sadananda Babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/169/2023	Vummalareddy Venkata Subbamma vs Kota Parvathi	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/169/2025	Sri Kapoteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Chejarla village, Rep. by its E.O, Y. Venkaiah vs Kasa Subba Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/171/2025	Sri Kapoteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Chejarla village, Rep. by its E.O, Y. Venkaiah vs Evuri Veera Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/172/2025	Sri Kapoteswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Chejarla village, Rep. by its E.O, Y. Venkaiah vs Kotla Nagendramma	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/190/2025	Vangeti Anuradha vs Dudari Srinivasarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/193/2025	Eedara Sambasiva Rao vs Kasa Lakshmi Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/201/2025	M/s.Sri Ram Chits India Pvt.Ltd. Narasaraopet vs Seelu Srinivasa Rao and 3 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/207/2025	Sri Alavalamma vari Devastanam vs Mondeddu Venkata Ramana Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/209/2025	Yadavalli Chandrasekhar vs Velagaturi Lakshmi and 2 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/231/2025	Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Nekarikallu Village and Mandal vs Rusumu Ramakrishna	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
EP/232/2025	Sri Kapoteswara Swamy vari Devasthanam, Chejarla village vs Evuri Srinivasa Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/19/2023	Thurlapati Vijaya Lakshmi vs Chowdam Suseela	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/25/2026	State Bank of India of India Narasaraopet Branch rep.by its Branch Manger vs Talluri Prem Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/89/2024	Mudra Lakshmi Gayathri vs Pusapati Seshanjaneyulu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/97/2023	Chowdam Nagaraju vs Chowdam Srinivasa Rao and Another	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/99/2022	Medam Rama Gopal Reddy vs Dokku Rama Krishna	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/105/2024	Padala Koteswaramma vs Kottamuru @ Kottamudi Srinivasarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/122/2024	Padala Koteswaramma vs Kaltamuru@Kattamudi Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/225/2025	Javvaji Mallikharjuna Rao vs Janapati Siva Ram	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/243/2025	Golamuri Venkata Reddy and another vs Sakhamuri Rama Murthy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/246/2025	Tanneru Lakhmipatheswara Royal Babu vs Devalla Subbarao and 10 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/248/2025	Duddukunta Venkateswara Reddy vs Yaraguti Prasanna Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/277/2025	Shaik Mahaboob Basha vs Shaik Fathimoon	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/342/2025	Jujjuri Sambaiah vs Bondalapati Peddarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/369/2025	Penimiti Yedukondalu vs Kondramutla Hari Babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/370/2025	Penimiti Yedukondalu vs Kondramutla Hari Babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/390/2025	Kanasani Bala Seshaiah vs Palnati Rajeswari and 2 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/397/2025	Gallepogu Prem Kumar vs Bontha Ravi Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/413/2025	G K Battery Agencies rep.by its Prop. Shaik Ghudu Khajavali vs New Naji Batteries rep.by its Prop.Shaik Mabhu Subhani	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/416/2025	Annapureddy Pedda Raghava Reddy vs Ganugapanta Narasimha Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/417/2025	Ganugapenta Kanakadurga Prasada Reddy vs Ganugapanta Narasimha Reddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/446/2025	Guttapalli Sambasivarao vs Chadalawada Rajyalakshmi and 2 others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/465/2025	Athukuri Manohara Rao vs Gunda Venkateswarlu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/471/2025	State Bank of india vs Jagrlamudi Veeranjaneyulu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/475/2025	State Bank of India vs Pammi Chinna Anjireddy	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/476/2025	State Bank of India vs Pallapu Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/486/2025	State Bank of India vs Modepalli Ramachandraiah	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
OS/500/2025	State Bank of India vs Peddinnedi Adi Lakshmi	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/49/2025	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Yudula Raju	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/60/2021	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Gera neelambaram	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/73/2022	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Challa Veeranjineyulu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/128/2021	Ramisetty Srinivasarao vs Mandagani Babiah	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/135/2019	Ramisetty Srinivasa rao vs Penumudi Gangaddara Srinivasa Gurkul	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/173/2022	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Vallepu Ankammarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/179/2021	Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Ambati siva nagendra babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/238/2022	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Bhuvanagiri Guravaiah	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/285/2025	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Muraboina Srinivasa Rao and another	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/287/2025	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Nerella Balaji and others	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/317/2021	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Gorrepati Ramesh and one other	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/319/2021	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Musuku Vijay Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/379/2023	Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Dara Srinivasarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/381/2022	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Shaik Kaleshavali	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/407/2024	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Tanniru Ankamma Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/409/2024	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Vallepu Srinivasa Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/422/2021	SHO, Narasaraopet, Rural P.S vs Vuyal veerendranadh Kumar	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/429/2024	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Ikkurthi Chinna Nagaiah @ Nagaiah	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/495/2019	Karasala Koteswara Rao vs M.L. Karuna Kumari	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/502/2023	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Charikollu Srinivasulu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/533/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Mudavath Srinunnaik	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/547/2023	Narasaraopet Rural P.S. vs Bandaru Mastan Rao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/587/2021	Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Shaik mohammad Basha	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/608/2018	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Pala Shiva @ Pothuraju @ Rajesh and one another	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/616/2019	Sajjarao Prasannanjaneya Swamy vs Mandagani Babaiah	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/629/2019	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Yakkala Malleswari	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/634/2019	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Yakkala Vijaya Kumar @ Vijay	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/642/2022	Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Tadikonda Chowdaiah @ Chinna @ abhi	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/674/2021	SHO, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Kanta Venkataratnam	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/678/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Pedala Chinna	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/684/2021	Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Krishnam setty Srinivasu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/722/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Uvyala Venkateswarlu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/726/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Nakka Thomas	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/780/2022	Sub-Inspector of Police, Narasaraopet Rural PS vs Shaik Nagur Basha @ Nagur babu	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/800/2021	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Garnepudi Subbarao	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/867/2021	Batchu Subrahmanyam vs Kolisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu @ Hanuma	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/911/2021	Mirompalli suhasini vs Palla Susila	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/913/2019	SHO NRT Rural PS vs Gaddam Raju	14 Mar 2026	Others	—
CC/914/2021	Chepuri suresh Babu vs Shaik Shabber Vali	14 Mar 2026	Others	—

Showing 100 of 2,087 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		1
Apr 2026		5
Mar 2026		124
Feb 2026		26
Jan 2026		38
Dec 2025		130
Nov 2025		62
Oct 2025		60
Sep 2025		105
Aug 2025		48
Jul 2025		70
Jun 2025		39

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul handled?

Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul has handled 2169 court orders since 2023 at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet. The average disposal rate is 335 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul hear?

Based on available records, Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet.

Where is Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul currently posted?

Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul is posted as II Addl Junior Civil Judge at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul dispose cases?

Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul disposes approximately 335 cases per month, based on 2169 orders handled over their tenure at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet.

Since when is Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul serving?

Smt. R. Aseervadam Paul has been serving at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet since 2023.

Case Types

OS 58%

EP 22%

CC 15%

STC 2%

MC 1%

PRC 1%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Jul 2023 — Nov 2023

II Addl Junior Civil Judge · 76 orders
May 2023 — Present

Prl Junior Civil Judge · 2,093 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

B Kiran Kumar

Prl Senior Civil Judge

0 orders

Sri K. Vasudeva Rao

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

Smt. V. Pallavi

II Addl Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

Ms. A.salomi

I Addl Junior Civil Judge

972 orders

Moguram Gayathri

II Addl Junior Civil Judge

611 orders

Sri K.Shyam Babu

XIII ADJ

129 orders

← View all judges at X Addl District Court Narasaraopet