Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

Warangal, PDJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is posted at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 85 court orders on record since 2015. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SCC, EP cases.

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/1111/2013

CHANDRAGIRI SHIVAIAH vs MADASU LINGAIAH

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

Present :- Sri R. Raghunath Reddy, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S. No. 1111 of 2013

Between:

Chandragiri Shivaiah, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Age: 60 Years, Occu: Mason, R/o. Gopalpuram (V), Hasanparthy (M) Warangal District. … Plaintiff

And

Madasu Lingaiah, S/o. Madasu Uppalaiah, Age: 45 Years, Occu: Mastri, H.No.3-15/1, Gundla Singaram (V), Hanamkonda (M) Warangal District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming before me for hearing on 25.04.2017 in the presence of Sri B. Rajendra Kumar, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri D. Sudhakar, Advocate for the defendant and upon hearing and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of Rs.62,200/- with future interest thereon and costs from the defendant stating that the defendant has borrowed a hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from him on 22.11.2010 for his family and personal necessities by executing a promissory note promising to repay the said amount with interest at 2% per month as and when demanded, but, he did not keep up the said promise and thereby he became due of Rs.62,200/- by the date of filing of the suit.

2.The defendant filed written statement inter alia denying his borrowal of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff on 22.11.2010 and executing a promissory note thereof. It is pleaded by him that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff - 2 - and execute any promissory note in his favour and that the alleged promissory note is a forged and fabricated document and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. He, accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

3.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount covered by the promissory note dt.22.11.2010 ?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is a fabricated one and devoid of any consideration as alleged by the defendant ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest as prayed for ?

4) To what relief ?

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 and

A2 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defendant.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Since the defendant did not turn up and there was no representation for him, the arguments on his behalf were treated heard.

6.Issues No.1 and 2 : The case of the plaintiff is that on 22.11.2010 the defendant has availed a hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from him to meet his family and personal necessities by executing a promissory note, promising to repay the said amount with interest at 2% per month as and when demanded. The plaintiff in his evidence as PW1 has reiterated his case. Ex.A1 is original promissory note

dated 22.11.2010 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for

Rs.35,000/-. PW2 has stated that he knows the plaintiff and the defendant and on - 2 - 22.11.2010 the defendant has obtained a hand loan of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff to meet his family and personal necessities by executing a promissory note and that he and two other persons were present at that time and he attested the promissory note as a witness.

7.As seen from the written statement, the case of the defendant is a total denial. It is specifically pleaded by him that he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff and execute any promissory note in his favour and that the alleged promissory note is a forged and fabricated document. But, except pleading so, he did not choose to enter into the witness box to speak his case. He also did not attribute any mala fides or grudge against the plaintiff for alleged creation of promissory note against him. He did not even choose to cross- examine PWs.1 and 2 though ample time was given for the said purpose and thereby he has allowed to remain the said evidence of PWs.1 and 2 unchallenged.

It appears that the defendant has taken such a plea in a routine and casual manner without there being any substance in it. From the unchallenged evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A1, it is manifest that on 22.11.2010 the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- from the plaintiff by executing Ex.A1 promissory note. These issues are, therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that the suit promissory note i.e., E.A1, is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant.

8.Issue No.3 : The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant did not repay the amount borrowed under Ex.A1 promissory note though he demanded him to repay the same orally as well as by a written notice dated 05.11.2013.

Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice dated 05.11.2013 along with postal receipt.

This case of the plaintiff remained unchallenged, as, as noticed above, the - 2 - defendant did not choose to cross-examination the plaintiff/PW1. Since, it is held in issues No.1 and 2 that Ex.A1 promissory note is true, valid, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant and since the defendant did not repay the amount covered by Ex.A1 to the plaintiff as agreed, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. This issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9. Issue No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of Rs.62,200/- (Rupees Sixty two thousand two hundred only) to the plaintiff with interest on the principal sum of Rs.35,000/- at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017).

Sd/-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For the Plaintiff :For the Defendant :

PW1 – Chandragiri Shivaiah -None- PW2 – Pothuganti Yellaswamy

Exhibits Marked

For the Plaintiff : Ex.A1 – Original Promissory note, dt. 22.11.2010 for Rs.35,000/- Ex.A2 - Office copy of Legal Notice, dt. 5.11.2013

For the Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

OS/847/2016

Shivarathri Venkataiah vs Bommishetty Rajaiah and 17 others

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S. No.847 of 2016

Between:

1. Shivarathri Venkataiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged about : 60 Years, Occu: Agriculture,

2. Shivarathri Rajaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged: 49 Years, Occu: Agriculture, Both are residents of Waddegudem village, Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon District.

…Plaintiffs

And

1. Bommishetty Rajaiah, S/o. late Iylaiah, Aged: 45 Years,

2. Collena Komuraiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged: 50 Years,

3. Shivarathri Shivaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged: 65 Years,

4. Shivarathri Bixapathi, S/o. Shivaiah, Aged: 30 Years,

5. Shivarathri Shivaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged: 45 Years,

6. Shivarathri Murali, S/o. Shivaiah, Aged: 28 Years,

7. Kasthuri Rajaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged: 48 Years,

8. Kasthuri Bala Kumar, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged: 22 Years,

9. Shivarathri Peddi Ramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged: 35 Years,

10. Shivarathri Kumaraswamy, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged: 42 Years,

11. Gollena Paramesh, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged: 24 Years,

12. Shivarathri Komuraiah, S/o. Iylaiah, Aged: 48 Years,

13. Shivarathri Komuraiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged: 50 Years,

14. Shivarathri Ravi, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged: 25 Years,

15. Gollena Rajanikanth, S/o. Rajaiah, Aged: 22 Years,

16. Shivarathri Gattaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged: 55 Years,

17. Pallapu Raju, S/o. Ramulu, Aged: 32 Years,

18. Shivarathri Komuraiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged: 36 Years

All are residents of Waddegudem, Chilpur Village and Mandal, Jangaon District. …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 26.04.2017 in the presence of Sri K. Yella Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 18 remained ex parte and upon hearing the advocate for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- 2 O.S.N.847 of 2016

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The plaintiffs are brothers. They filed this suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, etc., from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property or passing through the said property by laying a road.

2.The suit schedule property is agricultural lands in survey No.92/M to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas, survey No.93/A to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts., survey

No.92/H to an extent of 0-30 guntas, survey No.92/J to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas, survey No. 95/A to an extent of Ac.0-11 guntas, survey No.95/B to an extent of

Ac.0-11 guntas and survey No.205/E/అ to an extent of Ac.1-01 gunta, totally

Ac.4-13 guntas, forming one compact block, situated at Chilpur village, Station

Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District.

3.The case of the plaintiffs is that they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as owners having inherited the same from their ancestors, but, the defendants, who are third parties and in no way concerned with the said property, have been trying to lay a road through the said property for their way and hence they may be restrained from by doing so by granting permanent injunction.

4.In response to the process issued, all the defendants made their appearance through an advocate on 13.12.2016. But, thereafter they did not turn up and file their written statement though the matter was adjourned from time to time for the said purpose. Consequently, their right to file written statement was forfeited on 22.03.2017.

5.The plaintiffs are examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. They got examined a neighbour to the suit schedule property also as PW3. EXs.A1 and A2 are also marked on their behalf.

3 O.S.N.847 of 2016

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

7.PWs.1 and 2 in their evidence have reiterated their case that they got the suit schedule property from their ancestors, but, the defendants are illegally trying to lay a road through the said property and hence, they may be restrained from doing so by granting permanent injunction. Ex.A1 is pattedar passbook, which shows that plaintiff No.1 is pattedar of the land in survey No.92/M to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas, survey No.93/A to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas and survey

No.205/E/అ to an extent of Ac.1-01 gunta. Ex.A2 is another pattedar pass book, which reveals that plaintiff No.2 is pattedar of the land in survey No.92/H to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas, survey No.92/J Ac.0-30 guntas, survey No.95/A to an extent of 0-11 guntas and 95/B to an extent of 0-11 guntas.

8.PW3, who stated to have agricultural lands and residential house in the vicinity of the suit schedule property, has stated that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, but, the defendants have been trying to lay a road through the said property illegally and highhandedly.

9.As noticed above, the claim of the plaintiffs remained unopposed as the defendants did not choose to file their written statement. They also did not choose to cross-examine PWs.1 to 3 and thereby they have allowed to remain the said evidence of PWs.1 to 3 unchallenged.

10.From the unchallenged evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, it is obvious that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. If the defendants succeed in their attempt of laying the road through the suit schedule property, as rightly submitted by the plaintiffs, they would be put to great loss and injury. Hence, it is just and expedient to grant injunction as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

4 O.S.N.847 of 2016

11.In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering, in any manner, with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property or passing through the said property by laying any road.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2017).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

(Witnesses Examined)

For the Plaintiffs : For the Defendants :

PW1 : Shivarathri Venkataiah-None- PW2 : Shivarathri Rajaiah PW3 : Gollena Raju

Exhibits Marked

For the Plaintiffs :

Ex.A1 - Original Pattedar Pass Book of Shivarathri Venkataiah (plaintiff No.1) ExA2 - Original Pattedar Pass Book of Shivarathri Rajaiah (plaintiff No.2)

For the Defendants : - Nil -

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

OS/552/2016

Teniti Padma vs Bomineni Ravinder Reddy

26 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S. No. 552 of 2016

Between:

Smt. Teniti Padma, W/o. Samba Reddy, Aged: 55 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. H.No.3-18, Gudeppad Village of Athmakur Mandal of Warangal. …Plaintiff

And

Bomineni Ravinder Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Age: 50 Years, Occu: Business, R/o. II Bank Colony, Gowthaminagar, Warangal. …Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 25.04.2017 in the presence of Sri Ch. Swamy Nathan, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex parte and upon hearing the advocate for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The plaintiff filed this suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, etc., from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property i.e., agricultural land in survey No.792 (old), 792/A (new) to an extent of Ac.5-29 guntas, situated at Gudeppad Village,

Athmakur Mandal, Warangal District stating that she got the said property from her father Raji Reddy at the time of marriage towards 'pasupu kumkuma' and since then she has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property, but, the defendant, who is her brother and nothing to do with the said property, has been trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the said property.

2.The defendant was served with summons through substituted service, but, he did not choose to appear before the Court. Hence, he was set ex parte.

2 of 3O.S.No.552 of 2016

3.On behalf of the plaintiff, she herself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. She got examined one Chidirala Srinivas Reddy, who stated to have land adjacent to the suit schedule property, also as PW2 on her behalf.

4.The plaintiff/PW1 in her evidence has reiterated her case that she got the suit schedule property from her father towards 'pasupu kumkuma', but, the defendant, who is her brother and who has no manner or right, title or interest over the said property, has been interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the said property. Ex.A1 is 1-B form (ROR) and Ex.A7 is original title deed. In these documents, the name of the plaintiff is shown as pattedar of the suit schedule property. Exs.A2 to A6 are the certified copies of pahanies for the faslies 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424 and 1425 respectively. In all these pahanies, the plaintiff is shown as pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property. PW2 has also stated that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. This evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged, as, as noticed above, the defendant did not choose to appear before the Court and cross-examine PWs.1 and 2.

5.From the above unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is obvious that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is also obvious that the defendant has been trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is just and necessary to grant injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

6.In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering, in any manner, with the 3 of 3O.S.No.552 of 2016 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of April, 2017).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

(Witnesses Examined)

For the Plaintiff : For the Defendants :

PW1 : Teniti Padma,-None- PW2 : Chidirala Srinivas Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For the Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 - 1B Form (ROR) dt. 28.06.2016 Ex.A2 - CC of Pahani for the fasli 1421 Ex.A3 - CC of Pahani for the fasli 1422 Ex.A4 - CC of Pahani for the fasli 1423 Ex.A5 - CC of Pahani for the fasli 1424 Ex.A6 - CC of Pahani for the fasli 1425 Ex.A7 - Original title deed

For the Defendants : - Nil -

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

OS/889/2016

Oddula Ramadevi vs Sudula Raji Reddy

27 Apr 2017

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

Present: Sri R.Raghunath Reddy,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S. No.889 of 2016

Between:

Smt. Oddula Ramadevi, W/o. Ravinder Reddy, Aged about : 33 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Lakanpelly Village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal. …Plaintiff

And

Sudula Raji Reddy, S/oVenkatramaiah, Aged about : 50 Years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Seetha Nagaram Village, Mucherla Revenue Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal. …Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 26.04.2017 in the presence of Sri D. Ramakanth, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained ex parte and upon hearing the advocate for the plaintiff and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

No.395/A/1, to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas, situated at Seethanagaram, Mucharla revenue village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.

2.The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint, in brief, is :

Originally, the father of the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from one

Gogula Kanakaiah long back and he, in turn, sold the said property to the plaintiff in the year 2012 through a simple sale deed and ever since the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of said property by getting mutated her name in the 2 of 3 O.S.N.889 of 2016 revenue records as pattedar and possessor against the said property, but, the defendant, who is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and who has no manner of right, title or interest over the said property, has been trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment over the said property. Hence, the suit.

3. In response to the process issued, the defendant, initially, appeared

before Court through an advocate and sought time for written statement. But, he

did not turn up later and file his written statement. Hence, he was set ex parte.

4.The plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and

A2. She got examined her father also as PW2 on her behalf.

5.The plaintiff/PW1 in her evidence has reiterated her case. Ex.A1 is original pattedar pass book and Ex.A2 is original title deed. These documents reveal that the plaintiff is the owner and pattedar of the suit schedule property.

PW2 has stated that he purchased the suit schedule property from one Gogula

Kanakaiah long back and thereafter he sold the said property to the plaintiff and now the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of said property. He has further stated that the defendant, who is his younger brother, has been trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

6.The above evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged, as, as noticed above, the defendant remained ex parte. From this unchallenged evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it is obvious that she is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. It is also obvious from the said evidence that the defendant has been trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is just and necessary to grant injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, granting permanent 3 of 3 O.S.N.889 of 2016 injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of April, 2017).

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

:: Appendix of Evidence ::

(Witnesses Examined)

For the Plaintiff : For the Defendant :

PW1 : Oddula Rama Devi-None- PW2 : Sudula Sammi Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For the Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 - Original Pattedar Pass Book ExA2 - Original Title deed.

For the Defendant : - Nil -

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

OS/701135/2015

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Vemula Laxmaiah

27 Apr 2016

1 of 3 O.S.No.1135 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

WARANGAL

Wednesday, the 27th day of April, 2016

Present: R.Raghunath Reddy, VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. FAC. VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

Original Suit No. 1135 of 2015

Between:

Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda Branch represented by its Branch Manager K.Nagendrakumar, S/o.Late K.Venkateshwar Rao, Aged: 52 Years, R/o.Hanamkonda, Warangal. …Plaintiff

And

1. Vemula Laxmaiah, S/o.Komuraiah, Age: 49 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.1-7-1547, Srinivasa Nagar, Advocates Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

2. Madikanti Mallaiah, S/o.Late Bondaiah, Aged: 53 Years, Occ: R.T.C Driver, R/o.H.No.2-9-181/3, Vikasnagar, N.G.O's Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

… Defendants

This suit is coming before me 13.04.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Seshadri, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants were set ex parte; and upon hearing the advocate for the plaintiff and perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

:: J U D G M E N T ::

Plaintiff is a bank. It has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,24,156/- with future interest thereon and costs from defendants No.1 and 2 stating that defendant No.1 has availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from it on 25.05.2004 under

B.C. Corporation Scheme for Kirana and General Stores business against the guarantee of defendant No.2, promissing to repay the said amount with interest in 60 equated monthly instalments, but, he did not follow the repayment schedule and thereby he became due of Rs.1,24,156/- by the date of filing of the suit and defendant No.1 being the borrower and defendant No.2 being the guarantor are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount.

2.Both the defendants remained ex parte.

2 of 3 O.S.No.1135 of 2015

3.On behalf of the plaintiff-bank, its Branch Manager is examined as

PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked.

4.PW.1 in his evidence has reiterated the case of the plaintiff-bank.

Ex.A.1 is loan application dated 15.05.2004 submitted by defendant No.1.

Ex.A.2 is sanction letter dated 18.05.2004 given by the plaintiff-bank. Ex.A.3 is demand promissory note dated 25.04.2004 executed by defendant No.1 for

Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff-bank. Ex.A.4 is hypothecation agreement

dated 25.04.2004 executed by defendant No.1. Ex.A.5 is letter of repayment

dated 25.04.2004 given by defendant No.1. Ex.A.6 is letter of guarantee dated

25.04.2004 executed by defendant No.2. Exs.A.7 to A.9 are acknowledgments of liability dated 31.02.2007, 24.12.2009 and 08.11.2012 respectively, executed by defendant No.1. Ex.A.10 is statement of account maintained by the plaintiff-bank in the name of defendant No.1.

5.The above evidence adduced by the plaintiff-bank remained unchallenged.

6.From the said evidence adduced by the plaintiff-bank, it is obvious that defendant No.1 having availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- on 25.05.2004 from the plaintiff-bank against the guarantee of defendant No.2, did not repay the same as agreed and thereby he became due of Rs.1,24,156/-. Defendant No.1 being the borrower and defendant No.2 being the guarantor are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff-bank.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed, with costs, directing defendants

No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,24,156/- to the plaintiff-bank with interest thereon at 13.5% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, and after transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2016).

Sd/- R.Raghunath Reddy

FAC VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge Warangal.

3 of 3 O.S.No.1135 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: PW.1 - B.Dhananjay.

FOR DEFENDANTS: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Loan application dated 15.05.2004. Ex.A-2 : Sanction letter dated 18.05.2004. Ex.A-3 : Demand promissory note dated 25.04.2004. Ex.A-4 : Hypothecation agreement dated 25.04.2004. Ex.A-5 : Letter of repayment dated 25.04.2004. Ex.A-6 : Letter of guarantee dated 25.04.2004. Ex.A-7 : Acknowledgement of liability dated 31.02.2007. Ex.A-8 : Acknowledgement of liability dated 24.12.2009. Ex.A-9 : Acknowledgement of liability dated 08.11.2012. Ex.A-10 : Statement of account.

FOR DEFENDANTS: Nil

Sd/- R.Raghunath Reddy

FAC VII Addl. Junior Civil Judge Warangal. *

Order Record 84 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/957/2016	Aitha Mahesh vs Munigala Srinivas	28 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/847/2016	Shivarathri Venkataiah vs Bommishetty Rajaiah and 17 others	27 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/889/2016	Oddula Ramadevi vs Sudula Raji Reddy	27 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/552/2016	Teniti Padma vs Bomineni Ravinder Reddy	26 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/1111/2013	CHANDRAGIRI SHIVAIAH vs MADASU LINGAIAH	26 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/925/2013	T.KRISHNA MOHAN vs SMT.KOMMU LALITHA	24 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/933/2013	CANARA BANK, ATHMAKUR BRANCH vs KOMMU LALITHA	24 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/1270/2015	Revuri alias Chittireddy Arun Jyothi vs Bollikonda Srinivas and 5 others	21 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/1720/2012	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD REP BY S.NAGENDER vs N. KRISHNA	21 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/700549/2009	PINGILI PADMA vs P.ASHOK REDDY	20 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/332/2012	BRANCH MANAGER,SHRIRAM CHITS LTD vs PARKALA VENKATESH	13 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/1788/2012	KAPIL CHIT FUNDSPVT LTD vs P.KESHAVA REDDY	13 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
SCC/52/2013	M.SHIVA PRASAD vs SMT.K.SUSHEELA AND 2 OTHERS	13 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/500943/2007	Raparthy Mallaiah vs Raparthy Ilaiah	12 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/338/2015	Kola Vivekanandam vs Gulla Sandya	11 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/358/2014	TINGULKAR JAGANNATH vs K.RAVI KANTH	11 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/701046/2011	KOMMERA NAGAMALLESHWARI vs KEERTHI SATYNARAYANA	10 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/1027/2008	Gaddam Rajalingam alias Rajeeraiah vs Gatti Rajender	07 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/569/2013	M.Shiva Prasad vs K.Raghupathi Reddy and 10 others	03 Apr 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/811/2016	Earla Uppalaiah vs Teegala Mahender	31 Mar 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/760/2016	Pallerla Raji Reddy vs Bellam Srishailam	27 Mar 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/610/2015	Vemunoori Laxmaiah vs Vemunoori Laxmi Narayana	24 Mar 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/36/2017	Mupparapu Kanakaraju vs Mupparapu Sambaiah	22 Mar 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/40/2017	DEshineni Satyanarayana Rao vs Sandra Kumar	22 Mar 2017	copy of judgment	—
OS/992/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Vsshabana	27 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/997/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs T.CHINNA VINAYKUMAR	27 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/1078/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs T.VASANTHA	27 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/700733/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Donikena Sujatha	27 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/701135/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Vemula Laxmaiah	27 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/1407/1999	M SURYANARAYANA RAO vs P SAMPATH	21 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/700789/2009	Banoth Saradha vs Bhukya Yamuna	12 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/1102/2015	Kappala Bakki Spandana vs Bakki Sathyamma	06 Apr 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/701257/2015	Mohd Faizuddin vs Md. Nawaz	31 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/736/2015	JALLY SUNANDA vs ICICI BANK REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGER	30 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/700080/2012	Nakka Leaven Manahori vs D Pandurangam Shankar	28 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/701024/2011	Canara Bank, Madikonda Branch vs Ginnarapu Mogili,	24 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/700550/2009	Narlagiri Pralaya Meena Kumari vs Devarakonda Anil	22 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/700683/2015	Giragoni Sarangapani vs Gurram Venu	17 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/654/2015	Thumula Rajani Kanth vs Smt. Merugu Punyavathi @ Punyamma	16 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/701191/2011	Smt.AKULA BHARATHI vs SMT.A.THIRUMALA	14 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/701185/2015	Akula Thirupathi vs Pogaku Chandramallu	01 Mar 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/323/2009	Fathima Sulthana vs Mohd.Abdul Azeem	29 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700823/2015	Thathari Sucharika vs The Supdet , Proh and Excise,Mahabubabad,Wgl	24 Feb 2016	copy of judgment	—
OS/1036/2015	S.SADANANDAM vs ENUMULA BABU	23 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700556/2015	Kapil Chits Kakatiya Pvt. Ltd. vs M.Jayanth Reddy	18 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701796/2012	Kapil Chit Funds vs A Ashok Kumar	18 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/937/2015	S.DEVENDER REDDY vs VELPULA SHANKER	17 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701799/2012	Kapil Chit Funds vs Vsm Rama Krishna	15 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700571/2015	MOHAMAD ALI vs P.LAXMI KANTHAM	03 Feb 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700085/2015	Cholleti Venkatamma vs The State of Telangana	20 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700401/2015	Kalavala @ Thoutam Lavanya vs The state of Telangana	20 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1061/2015	M.PREMALATHA vs P.MOGILAIAH	19 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/753/2015	VIJAYA BANK vs R.RAVINDRA CHARY AND ANOTHER	18 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/897/2015	VIJAYA BANK vs HALEEMA BEE	18 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/932/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Vszabeen sulthana	18 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701758/2012	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt., Ltd vs U. Dwarakan Prasad	06 Jan 2016	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/934/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs S.LAVAN KUMAR	30 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700055/2015	V.Nagendrakumar vs V.Srinivas	30 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700822/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs J.Gopalakrishna	30 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/701790/2012	Kapil Chit Funds pvt Ltd Rep by S Nagender vs G.Mahender	29 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700179/2015	Anumala Mallikamba vs Anumala Veeraiah	23 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700190/2015	Rapolu Laxmi vs Bejugam Madhavi	23 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700299/2014	BHANUMURTHY BUSAKALA vs TO WHOM SO EVER	22 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700785/2015	B.Malla Reddy vs Bedudham Srinivas	17 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700205/2012	Domukuntla Shankar vs Smt Varsha	02 Dec 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/558/2015	Bojja Kishan Raj vs Boda Dinna	30 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700001/2015	Katanguri Savithri Devi vs Vsstate of telangana	30 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700726/2015	Davu Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Tejavath Venkanna	19 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700254/2015	Kanukuntla Sudhakar vs The State of Telangana	18 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700277/2015	Kandagatla Vijaya Kumari vs P.Vijaya Laxmi	09 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700687/2015	Vijaya Bank, Hanamkonda rep. by it branch manager vs Nagapuri Manjula	09 Nov 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700120/2014	KATLA BHANDRAIAH vs KOLA ANAND ALIAS ANANDAM	26 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700129/2011	Canara Bank, Athmakur rep. by Br. Manager vs Boddu Ilaiah	14 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700376/2015	Nathi Cheralu vs Devulapalli Padma	14 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700641/2012	balguri kona rao vs PINGILI MALLA REDDY	14 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
EP/449/2015	SHRIRAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, KAZIPET vs Y.VENU AND OTHERS	07 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700756/2009	Thumula Nikhitha vs Thumula Mallaiah	05 Oct 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700392/2009	Shanigaram Veeralaxmi vs Gajala Govardhan	30 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700299/2015	K.V.Kamala Nadhudu vs Boinapally Ranjith Rao	29 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700379/2015	P.Ramadevi vs Mula Bharathi	28 Sep 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700079/2009	KALLEPU VIKRAM RAO vs ADE MONDAIAH	27 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700091/2015	Pallepadu Damoder vs The state of Telangana	19 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700364/2015	Gaddam Bharath Kumar vs Kandikkonda Sudershan	06 Aug 2015	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/700297/2015	P.Sumalath vs Aleti Sudhakar	07 Jul 2015	Order On Exgibit	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2017		19
Mar 2017		5
Apr 2016		8
Mar 2016		9
Feb 2016		8
Jan 2016		7
Dec 2015		9
Nov 2015		6
Oct 2015		6
Sep 2015		3
Aug 2015		4
Jul 2015		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy handled?

Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy has handled 85 court orders since 2015 at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (SCC) at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy currently posted?

Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy dispose cases?

Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 85 orders handled over their tenure at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy serving?

Sri.R.Raghunath Reddy has been serving at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex since 2015.

Case Types

OS 98%

SCC 1%

EP 1%

Posting History

Mar 2017 — May 2017

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal · 24 orders
May 2015 — Oct 2016

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 61 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

405 orders

Smt M.padmaja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal

0 orders

Smt J.Maithreyi

I Addl District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

0 orders

Smt. Kshama Deshpande

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Warang...

14 orders

Smt. K. Pooja

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

161 orders

Ms. Ritika Nandikonda

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial M...

64 orders

Ms. Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial...

0 orders

Ms. Elluturi Harika

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judici...

135 orders

Smt. Raj Nidhi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial...

191 orders

Sri A.Pradeep

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

331 orders

← View all judges at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex