R.Sarath Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: SRI R.SARATH BABU,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)

ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Wednesday, the 29 th day of APRIL, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.592/2026 in Cr.No.73/2026

of MANGALAGIRI RURAL PS.

Between:- Kalavakollu Gopi Raju @ Gopi S/o.Narasimha Rao, Hindu, Aged 33 years, Private Employee, R/o.Ramalayam Street, Bethapudi Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District.

...Petitioner/ A3 .

-And- State:The Inspector of Police, Mangalagiri Rural PS.

...Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came before me on 27.04.2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri Sri Rama Krishna Thokala, Advocate for the Petitioner/ accused No.3 and of Ms.S.Mubeena Begum, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made thefollowing:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners / Accused No.3 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

2.This SECOND bail application is filed by the petitioner /

Accused No.3 under Sections 480 and 483 of BNSS., to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.73/2026 of Mangalagiri Rural Police

Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 316(5) r/w.3(5) of BNS.

2

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor having received the notice opposed the pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioner/accused No.2.

4. In brief, the prosecution case is that:

The complainant viz. Immaneni Eswara Rao, Resolution

Professional of M/s. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited, in

CIRP ( Corporate Debtor or MTMPL) having its factory premises at

China Kakani Village, Mangalagiri Mandal. ON 31-07-2024 , Public

Announcement was issued in Financial Express in English ( All-Over

India Edition) and Eenadu in Telugu being vernacular language ( Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Editions) ,about commencement of

CIRP Proceedings and also invited the creditors of the corporate debtor to submit their claims to the Interim Resolution

Professional on or before 14-08-2024 . As per the provisions of the Insolvency and custody of the Corporate Debtor and all its assets at the factory premises were handed over to the complainant by Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao on 7-8-2024 .Since then,the factory has been under his control and custody in accordance.

With the prior consent of the Committee of Creditors ,M/s.Surya

Teja Services were appointed on30-09-2024 to provide security services at the factory premises. Additionally, a Dog Squad i.e.,

M/s.Gajanana Security Services, was also engaged from 2-10-2024 on wards to enhance the protection of the Corporate Debtor’s assets. On 24-02-2026 at 12-23 PM, the CAI Chaithanya Kiran received a phone call from Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao that plant and machinery had been theft from the factory premises during the night time using gas cutters and came to know that the Subba Rao had observed vehicles moving in and out of the factory premises 3 during recent days. Later, their staff reached at factory premises and inspected the external locks and doors. Further

Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao stated that one Mr.Bhaskar Reddy threatened

Mr.Subba Rao, warning him not to report stolen property handed over to control of the accused i.e., Gajjalakodna Gopal wo is the

Dog Squad Agency , Gajanana Security Services Proprietor and

Bhanu, who is the maintain the dog, watchmen of M/s.Surya Teja

Security Services Gopi Satyanarayana. Then, the complainant made a report to the police on 28-02-2026 at 10-00 hours and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.73/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 316(5) r/w.3(5) of

BNS. During the course of investigation, the police examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, as such, the police added the Sections in addition to 316(4), 305, 331(3), 331(4), 317(2), 61(2) r/w.3(5) of BNS. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioner / A3 on 23-03-2026 and sent him to judicial remand, since the petitioner / A3 is in judicial custody.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

“ Whether the petitioner / A3 is entitled for bail?”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused No.3 submitted various contentions, mainly such as:

a) the petitioner/ A3 is an innocent and he did not commit any offence; b) the petitioner / A3 is working as Watchman to the company of defacto complainant from last seven months and in these entire days no allegations against the petitioner / A3 at any point of 4 time; c) the respondent / police are nothing seized from the petitioner / A3 ; d) the petitioner / A3 have clean record in his entire life except the above said alleged crime; e) the petitioner / A3 is the sole bread winner of his entire family consisting his wife, children and aged parents. If the petitioner continuously is in jail and then his entire family will suffer for starvation; f) the petitioner / A3 is in

District Jail from last 12 days; g) the petitioner is permanent abode at Ramalayam Street, Bethapudi

Village, Mangalagiri Mandal; h) the petitioner is ready and willing to impose any condition for grant of regular bail by order of this Court;

7. It is trite law that a pre-trial incarceration shall be neither punitive nor preventive unless the facts and circumstances severely compel. What is germane for consideration of a bail application has been enunciated of a bail by a Apex Court in a number of cases including the Virupakshappa Gouda and another Vs. State of

Karnataka and others 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1028 (SC) = (2017) 5 SCC

406. A compilation of those prerequisites are :

(a) severity or gravity of the offence

(b) prima facie accusation against the offender.

(c) severity of punishment in the event of conviction

(d) the chances of accused absconding if granted bail.

(e) the propensity of accused repeating the crimes

(f) reasonable apprehension that the accused influencing the witness and thwart the course of justice.

8.As it could be seen from the record, this Court dismissed the previous bail application of the petitioner/ accused vide Crl.MP.NO.503/2026, dated 13-04-2026 by observing at Para 5

Nos.7 to 10 to that effect:

7. I have carefully perused the compliant reort, CD file and Remand Repor. The complainant viz. Immaneni Eswara Rao, Resolution Professional of M/s. Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited, in CIRP ( Corporate Debtor or MTMPL) having its factory premises at China Kakani Village, Mangalagiri Mandal. ON 31-07-2024 , Public Announcement was issued in Financial Express in English ( All-Over India Edition) and Eenadu in Telugu being vernacular language ( Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Editions) ,about commencement of CIRP Proceedings and also invited the creditors of the corporate debtor to submit their claims to the Interim Resolution Professional on or before 14-08- 2024 . As per the provisions of the Insolvency and custody of the Corporate Debtor and all its assets at the factory premises were handed over to the complainant by Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao on 7-8-2024 .Since then,the factory has been under his control and custody in accordance. With the prior consent of the Committee of Creditors ,M/s.Surya Teja Services were appointed on 30-09-2024 to provide security services at the factory premises. Additionally, a Dog Squad i.e., M/s.Gajanana Security Services, was also engaged from 2-10-2024 on wards to enhance the protection of the Corporate Debtor’s assets. On 24- 02-2026 at 12-23 PM, the CAI Chaithanya Kiran received a phone call from Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao that plant and machinery had been theft from the factory premises during the night time using gas cutters and came to know that the Subba Rao had observed vehicles moving in and out of the factory premises during recent days. Later, their staff reached at factory premises and inspected the external locks and doors. Further Dr.G.Nagasaina Rao stated that one Mr.Bhaskar Reddy threatened Mr.Subba Rao, warning him not to report stolen property handed over to control of the accused i.e., Gajjalakodna Gopal wo is the Dog Squad Agency , Gajanana 6

Security Services Proprietor and Bhanu, who is the maintain the dog, watchmen of M/s.Surya Teja Security Services Gopi

Satyanarayana.

8.In the complaint report, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner / A3 and other accused i.e.A4 are working as Watchman of Ms Surya Teja Security Services and they used to protect the machinery and valuable items of M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited and for that purpose A3 and A4 are working in M/s. Surya Teja Services also have to keep the property intact. As per the complaint, the total M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited is handed over to the A1 to A4 for the purpose of security and keep the property intact in the mill. But surprisingly , a theft was taken place from M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited and the same was noticed by the defacto complainant . Prior to the handover the M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited to the Security People, it is clearly valued in Annexure as Rs.22,36,88,450/- and now a theft was taken place in the factory and the investigation is going on how much worth of property was committed committed theft by the petitioner / A3 and other accused.

9. The CD file clearly goes to show that National Company Law Tribunal , Amaravathi Bench attached the properties and issued publication with a view to know about the creditors and void publication also published and the property was handed over to the accused for safe custody. But, however as per the CD file , the petitioner / A2 including other accused committed theft of machinery and other articles from the M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited and transported the said material from the mill in lorries and other mode. Now ,the investigation is pending and the investigation officer have to investigate how much worth of property was misappropriated by the A1 to A4 has to be investigated. In the meantime, after the 7 defacto complainant noticed that the accused committed theft of machinery , A1 thing that the defacto complainant may presented a report, as such, the A1 absconded from India and went to USA , as such, the investigation officer issued Lookout Notices. Which facts and circumstances are clearly goes to show that a prima facie case is made out that the petitioner / A3 and A1,A2 and A4 committed theft of machinery from M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited.

10.It is undisputed fact that the M/s.Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited and its machinery and other valuable property was entrusted to the A1 to A4 for safe custody, but however as per the complaint report and CD file, the petitioner / A3 and other accused committed theft of misappropriated the property worth of crores of rupees. If it is the case, the petitioner / A3 is enlarged on bail , certainly, he may managed the things as well as he may threatened the witnesses and also some of the accused yet to be arrested by the police and also the prosecution recover the theft material from the possession of the accused . Thereby, I fell that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner / A3 on bail

9.In recent citation, the Apex court in respect of successive bail applications in Mamatha Nair Vs. State of “ Denial/cancellation of bail on earlier occasion , the court has to see any change of circumstances sufficiently to warrant grant of bail”.Rasthan (2021) 7 SCC 442 it was held that :

“ Denial/cancellation of bail on earlier occasion , the court has to see any change of circumstances sufficiently to warrant grant of bail”.

10.There are no major change of circumstances in between the dismissal of the previous bail application and present petition as per the CD submitted to the court as on today. There is a gravity and seriousness in the matter.

8

11.The record clearly discloses that the investigation is not yet completed. At this juncture , the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor submit that if the petitioner / accused NO.3 is enlarged on bail, certainly there is every chance that the petitioner / accused No.3 may threaten the witnesses and tamper the evidence and some more witnesses have to be examined. There is force in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and I also accepted the contention of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

So, considering the case facts and above circumstances,

I am of the opinion, the petitioner / accused No.3 is not entitled for bail.

12.In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of APRIL, 2026.

SD/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to: The Addl.Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Mangalagiri .

1

IN THE COURT OF X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: GUNTUR

Present:­S RI R.SARATH BABU, IV Additional District Judge, Guntur.

FAC. X ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,GURAZALA.

Monday, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

E.P.No.49/2024 in AOP.No.131/2016

Between:

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Vinukonda Branch, Rep.by its Power of Attorney Holder, V.Ravi Sankar. … DHR

And

1. Kotha Vara Prasada Rao S/o.Narasimha Rao Door No.3­15, Vinukonda.

2. Tummalapalli Sai Ram S/o. Satyanarayana (Died)

3. Tummalapalli Malleswari W/o.Sai Ram, R/o.Ramulavari Veedhi, Tripuranthakam. … JDRs.

This Execution Petition coming up before me on 13.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Vamsi Krishna, Advocate for D.Hr and of Sri

B.Kiran Babu, Advocate for Judgment Debtor NO.1 and no claim is made against

JDR NO.3 and JDR NO.2 died ; and upon perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Order­XXI Rules­22, 54,66 and 64

C.P.C with a request to issue Rule 22 notice to the Judgment Debtor

NO.1 and after allowing the same and issue Rule 54 CPC notice to the

JDR NO.1 and also attached the immovable property of JDR NO.1 and put the same in public auction for realization of EP amount of

Rs.24,46,481/­.

02.The brief facts of the Decree holder case is that the DHR

Company filed AOP.NO.131/2016 before sole arbirator and obtained

Award for recovery of an amount of Rs. 20,34,301 /­ and after passing of award, the JDRs have not paid the award amount , even though 2 the Decree Holder demanded the JDRs and the JDRs have not filed any appeal basing on the award passed in AOP.NO.131/2016, dated 30­06­2018 , thereby, the award passed in AOP.No.131/2016 is became final and the JDRs are liable to pay the award amount , but, the JDRs intentionally neglected to pay the said amount , as such, this application for realization of EP amount of Rs.24,46,481/­.

03.After receipt of the Notices, the Judgment debtor Nio.1 made his appearnce and filed a counter , wherein he denied the material allegations in the petition and contended that he is having no capacity to pay the amount and the DHR know the said facts, as such only, the

DHR have not filed execution petition within two years after passing of the award. The JDR NO.1 further contended that he mortgaged the

EP schedule property with the DHR , but, the DHR suppressed the same and get the simple money award from the sole arbitrator , as such, the said award cannot be executed and it is liable to be dismissed and requested to dismiss the petition at the stage of Order XXI

Rule.22 CPC.

04. Heard both sides.

5.Now the point for consideration is, 

Whether the objections raised by the Judgment debtor No.1 are tenable?

06. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

07.Perused the material papers.

08.The counsel for the Decree holder vehemently argued that the Judgment Debtor No.1 having sufficient means to pay the award 3 amount but the Judgment Debtor have not paid the award amount after passing of award dated 30­06­2018 and the Judgment Debtor

No.1 is intentionally avoiding to pay the award amount, and further contended that the Judgment Debtor No.1 was owned and possessed movable and immovable properties and having means to pay the award amount , but, the JDR No.1 intentionally neglected to pay the same, as such, the DHR is entitled to file this execution petition and the DHR having a right to attach the immovable property of the JDR NO.1 and brought the said attached property for sale and requested to allow the petition under Order XXI Rule.22 CPC.

09.The counsel for Judgment debtor No.1 vehemently argued that the JDR NO.1 mortgaged the EP schedule property with the DHR company ,but, the DHR company without mentioned the same and obtained award by suppressing the real facts , as such, the DHR having no right to attach the mortgaged property and filed this petition with false averments with a view to harass the Judgment debtor No.1 and requested to dismiss the petition at the stage of Rule 22 notice.

10.I carefully perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the decree holder obtained decree against the judgment debtor No.1 for recovery an amount of Rs.24,46,481/­ .

11. It is an undisputed fact that this E.P was filed by the decree holder on 06­01­2021 i.e., after two years of passing of award.

Undoubtedly, the judgment debtor No.1 raised so many objections with regards to executability of award, as well as passing of award.

4

Undoubtedly, now the point is whether the petition under Rule.22 can be allowed or not. Undoubtedly, the judgment debtor is taken so many objections and requested to dismiss the petition at the stage of U/Or.21

R.22. Undoubtedly, at the stage of U/Or.21 R.22 we cannot discuss the merits of the case and the stage is whether this court can proceed further or not. Undoubtedly, the issuance of notice U/Or.21 R.22 is mandatory, but it is nominal and all the objections raised by the

Judgment debtor No.1 can be decided at the appropriate stage i.e. at the time of passing of orders in Or.21 R.54,66 and 64 of CPC. 

12.Now the stage is whether the decree holder is permitted to proceed in an execution and whether the petition U/Or.21 R.22 is allowed. Undoubtedly, the said permission is mandatory and the judgment debtor No.1, has not mentioned anything in his counter to dismiss the petition U/Or.21 R.22. The judgment debtor has taken pleas with regards to passing of award and the means of the Judgment

Debtor No.1 to pay the award amount. To substantiate his contention the Judgment Debtor did not filed any documents. However, those issues can be adjudicated in main E.P. Hence, the Judgment debtor is at liberty to take his defences with regards to passing of award and the

DHR having a right to brought the mortgaged property for sale in the main enquiry to prove his defences, but not at this stage.

13.On carefully gone through the record, as the Judgment debtor No.1 , has not denied about filing of the execution petition after lapse of two years of passing of awad, with delay. The means of the JDR for payment of decree amount cannot be conducted at this Rule­22 of 5

C.P.C stage. Therefore, without hesitation, I hold that there are no grounds to stop further proceedings in the execution petition and the

Judgment debtor is at liberty to project his case in the main enquiry under Order 21 Rule­ 54, 66 and 64 of C.P.C. stage. Accordingly, the point is answered.

14.In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed at Rule­22 of

C.P.C. stage and issue Rule 54 CPC notice to the JDR No.1 and also issue attachment against the EP schedule property on payment of process.

Typed to my dictation to the  Stenographer Grade­II, and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Sd/­ R.Sarath Babu, IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. FAC. X Addl.District Judge, Gurazala.

Appendix of Evidence

NIL

Sd/­ R.Sarath Babu,

IV ADJ,GNT.

FAC. X ADJ, Gurazala.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES

(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.

Present: SRI R.SARATH BABU,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCHEDULED

CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)

ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.

Wednesday, the 29 th day of APRIL, 2026.

Crl.M.P.No.575/2026 in Cr.No.105/2026

of Sattenapalli Town Police Station

Between:- Gujjarlapudi Kalyan Babu @ Pandu S/o.Kishore, Hindu, Aged 23 years, Caste- Madiga, R/o.8th Ward, Christian Peta, Sattenapalli Town and Mandal, Palnadu District.

.. Petitioner /Accused.

-And- The State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Town P.S.,

...Respondent/Complainant.

This petition came before me on 27-04-2026 for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Narasimha Rao, for the Petitioner /Accused and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent, and upon perusing the petition, the Case Diary, and the entire material on record, this Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner / accused as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

2.This bail application is filed by the petitioner / accused under Sections 480 and 483 BNSS., to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.105/2026 of Sattenapalli Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 109 (1), 118(1) and 351(2) of BNS , 2

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor received the notice, and vehemently opposed the bail of the petitioner /accused.

4.In brief, the case of prosecution is that:

The complainant viz. Jatavath Nandya Naik S/o. Goriya

Naik of Sattenapalli Town mentioned in his statement that he has been working as a waiter at Vahini Bar and Restaurant , the petitioner / accused used to frequently visit the bar in an intoxicated condition and create disturbances. About ten days prior to the incident , the staff had sent him out from misbehaving with customers, upon which he left abusing and threatening to kill the complainant. On 15-04-2026 at 6-45 PM, the petitioner / accused again came to the bar in drunken condition and created nuisance by falling on customers, w hen the complainant asked him to leave the , then, the petitioner / accused abused him, threatened to kill him and suddenly attacked him with a beer bottle , causing swelling injury tohis head and also he attempted to stab him with the broken beer bottle, during which the complainant sustained a bleeding cut injury between his left hand thumb and index finger, while trying to defend himself. As the accused attempted to attack again co- workers Saida Naik, Gopi Naik , Samba and Raja Nayak intervened and rescued the complainant, then, the petitioner / accused fled the scene and threatened the complainant with dire consequences to kil the complainant, then, the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli. The complainant made a report to the police on 15-04-2026 and the 3 same was registered as a case in Cr.NO.105/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) and 351(2) of BNS. During the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioner / accused 16-04-2026 and sent him to the judicial remand , since then, the petitioner / accused is in judicial custody.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner / accused is entitled for bail as prayed for?”

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused submitted various contentions, mainly such as:

a) The petitioner / accused did not commit any offence ; b) as seen from the remand report, the investigation officer examined L.Ws.

1 to 6 and confession statement of the accused; c) the petitioner / accused has no intention to kill the complainant since there is no pre-enimity between the complainant and the petitioner / accused; and the investigation officer has foisted the case against the petitioner / accused, though he did not commit any offence; d) there is no scope either for tampering with the evidence of prosecution or for absconding of the petitioner / accused; e) the petitioner / accused has got solvent sureties to the entire satisfaction of this Court; 4

7.I have carefully gone through the complaint report, remand report and CD file. The complainant viz. Jatavath

Nandya Naik S/o. Goriya Naik of Sattenapalli Town mentioned in his statement that he has been working as a waiter at Vahini

Bar and Restaurant , the petitioner / accused used to frequently visit the bar in an intoxicated condition and create disturbances.

About ten days prior to the incident , the staff had sent him out from misbehaving with customers, upon which he left abusing and threatening to kill the complainant. On 15-04-2026 at 6-45

PM, the petitioner / accused again came to the bar in drunken condition and created nuisance by falling on customers, w hen the complainant asked him to leave the , then, the petitioner / accused abused him, threatened to kill him and suddenly attacked him with a beer bottle , causing swelling injury tohis head and also he attempted to stab him with the broken beer bottle, during which the complainant sustained a bleeding cut injury between his left hand thumb and index finger, while trying to defend himself. As the accused attempted to attack again co- workers Saida Naik, Gopi Naik , Samba and Raja Nayak intervened and rescued the complainant, then, the petitioner / accused fled the scene and threatened the complainant with dire consequences to kil the complainant, then, the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital, Sattenapalli.

5

8. On carefully gone through the complaint report , in which the defacto complainant clearly mentioned that the petitioner / accused suddenly attacked with a beer bottle, causing swelling injury to his head and he also attempted to stab him with the broken beer bottle. Thereby, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/ accused for the offence punishable under Section 109(1) of BNS.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner / accused vehemently argued that the defacto complainant was discharged form the hospital and further argued that the material part of investigation is completed . On carefully gone through the CD file , it is clearly goes to show that so far as investigation officer officer examined six witnesses. The material part of investigation is completed, except filing of charge sheet. The petitioner / accused is in judicial custody since 16-04-2026 i.e., 14 days. The petitioner / accused is permanent resident of

Sattenapalli Town and he is having movable and immovable properties. If it is the case, the petitioner / accused enlarged on bail, there is no possibility to tamper the evidence and threatened the witnesses. So, in those circumstances, I feel that it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner / accused on bail.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

6

10.In the result, this petition is allowed, the petitioner / accused is enlarged on bail on furnishing of bonds of

Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned I Addl.Civil Judge ( Junior Division),

Sattenapalli.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, and

pronounced by me on this the 29hday of APRIL, 2026.

SD/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. Copy to:

1. The I Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Sattenapalli.

2. Sri B.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner/ accused.

Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu, IV-Additional District Judge, Guntur.

FAC. X ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,GURAZALA.

Monday, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Execution Petition Execution Petition No.74 of 2024 No.74 of 2024

AOP.No.10/ARB/CHOLA/KSEN/MAY,2022.

Between :

M/s.Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited,M/s.Cholomandalam Investment & Finance Company Limited, Rep.by its Authorized Signatory.Rep.by its Authorized Signatory.

...Petitioner/AHR

And

1. Megugumalla Raju S/o.Daniyelu, D.NO.4 ,1. Megugumalla Raju S/o.Daniyelu, D.NO.4 , Peta Sannegandla Village, Palanadu District.Peta Sannegandla Village, Palanadu District.

2. Merugumalla Prasanthi W/o.Issac, D.NO.42. Merugumalla Prasanthi W/o.Issac, D.NO.4 Peta Sannegandla Village, Palanadu District.Peta Sannegandla Village, Palanadu District.

... Respondent/Judgment Debtors

This petition is coming on 13.09.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the AHR, and JDR NO.1 called absent and set exparte; and no claim against JDR NO.2 ; and upon hearing the arguments, and on perusing the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

01. This petition is filed under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 to 66 C.P.C., with a request to attach the E.P. schedule immovable property of 1st Judgment debtor and put the same in public auction for realization of the Execution petition amount of Rs.2,00,430/-.

02.The brief facts of the Decree holder’s case are that :-

The Decree Holder is a company under the name and style of M/s.Cholamandal Investment and Finance Ltd., The D.Hr

Page No.2 companyfileaArbitrationCaseNo.

10/ARB/CHOLA/KSEN/MAY,2022 before arbitrator against the judgment debtors and obtained Award on 26-10-2022 for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,690/-, but after passing of the award the

Judgment Debtors have not paid the award amount even though the D.Hr company people requested the judgment debtors. The further case of the decree holder is that the judgment debtor No.1 having a means and capacity to discharge the award amount at once but he intentionally avoid to pay the award amount. The further case of decree holder is that the judgment debtor No.1 having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-75 cents in D.NO.443 of SRO of Piduguralla and the said property is the absolute property of 1st judgment debtor and the said property i.e., E.P schedule property attached by the Court Amin on 21-08-2024, the said attachment can be made absolute by this Court and the

E.P schedule property can be put for sale in public auction for realization of award amount. Hence, this petition.

03.The Judgment debtor No.1 made his appearance personally and report no counter, but submit that the property not belongs to him.

04. Heard both sides.

05.Now the point for consideration is,

Whether the E.P schedule property of the Judgment

Debtor No.1 can be attached and put for sale in public auction?

Page No.3

06.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

07.Perused the material papers.

08.The counsel for the Decree holder vehemently argued that the Judgment Debtor No.1 having sufficient means to pay the award amount but the Judgment Debtor No.1 have not paid the award amount after passing of award dated 26-10-2022 and the Judgment Debtor No.1 is intentionally avoiding to pay the award amount, and further contended that the Judgment Debtor No.1 is the absolute owner of the

E.P schedule property and the said property can be attached and put for sale for realization of E.P amount of Rs.2,00,430/-.

09.I have carefully perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the decree holder obtained award against the

Judgment debtors No.1 and 2 for recovery of an award amount of

Rs.1,50,690/- with subsequent interest.

10.After filing of this petition, this Court ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule property. On that, the Court Amin went to the E.P schedule property and attached the same in the presence of mediators and filed his report before this Court. I have carefully gone through the report filed by the Court Amin. Undoubtedly, the property attached by the Court Amin is tallied with E.P schedule property. It is undisputed fact that at the time of attachment of property, the Judgment Debtor No.1 has not made any objections. Undoubtedly, the property attached by the

Amin is tallied with the E.P schedule property with regards to Survey number and door number for the site and extent of property and so also boundaries and the Judgment debtor have not made any objection at the time of attachment of property.

11.As per the contention of the DHr and as per the averments in execution petition the E.P schedule property is belongs to Judgment

Page No.4 debtor No.1. Undoubtedly, the Judgment Debtor NO.1 is also not denied about the owner-ship of the property. The E.P schedule property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-75 cents in D.NO.443 of Piduguralla

SRO . The J.Dr No.1 has not denied about ownership over the property.

Thereby, it can be safely hold that since the E.P schedule property is the absolute property of the Judgment debtor No.1, he did not made any objection. If it is so, the E.P schedule property can be attached and put for sale.

12.After careful consideration of the material on record and basing on my above discussion, without hesitation, I hold that Judgment debtor No.1 is the absolute owner of the E.P schedule property. If it is so, the E.P schedule property can be attached and put for sale.

Accordingly , point is answered.

13.In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. The attachment against the E.P schedule property dated 21.08.2024 is made absolute for filing Sale Papers and Encumbrance Certificate, call on 21-10-2024.

Typed my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu,

IV ADDL. District Judge, Guntur. FAC. X Addl.District Judge,Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu,

IV A.D.J. Guntur.

FAC.X ADJ, Gurazala.

Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

GURAZALA.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu, IV-Additional District Judge, Guntur.

FAC. X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GURAZALA.

Monday, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Execution Petition Execution Petition No.61 of 2020 No.61 of 2020

AOP.No.306 of 2018

Between :

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep.by Authorized Division Execute & Rep.by Authorized Division Execute & Power of Attorney Holder Power of Attorney Holder

...Petitioner/AHR

And

1. M.Ratna Naik S/o.Sevya Naik.1. M.Ratna Naik S/o.Sevya Naik.

2. M. Dwali Bai W/o.Meghavath Sevya Naik2. M. Dwali Bai W/o.Meghavath Sevya Naik

3. Meghavath Nagunaik S/o.Hanuma Naik3. Meghavath Nagunaik S/o.Hanuma Naik

... Respondent/Judgment Debtors

This petition is coming on 23.08.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.A.Dinarayana, Advocate for the AHR, and JDR NO.2 is called absent and set exparte, no claim made against JDR Nos. 1 and 3; and upon hearing the arguments, and on perusing the material papers available on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

01. This petition is filed under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 to 66 C.P.C., with a request to attach the E.P. schedule immovable property of 2nd Judgment debtor and put the same in public auction for realization of the Execution petition amount of Rs.8,41,080/-.

02.The brief facts of the Decree holder’s case are that :-

The Decree Holder is a company under the name and style of M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., The D.Hr company file a

Arbitration Case No.306/2018 before arbitrator against the

Page No.2 judgment debtors and obtained Award on 16-11-2018 for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,40,248/-, but after passing of the award the

Judgment Debtors have not paid the award amount even though the D.Hr company people requested the judgment debtors. The further case of the decree holder is that the judgment debtor No.2 having a means and capacity to discharge the award amount at once but she intentionally avoid to pay the award amount. The further case of decree holder is that the judgment debtor No.2 having RCC Building with Door NO.16-758 in S.NO.293/A1 of

Piduguralla and the said property is the absolute property of 2nd judgment debtor and the said property i.e., E.P schedule property attached by the Court Amin on 22-10-2022, the said attachment can be made absolute by this Court and the E.P schedule property can be put for sale in public auction for realization of award amount. Hence, this petition.

03.The Judgment debtor No.2 made her appearance personally and report no counter, but submit that the property not belongs to her.

04. Heard both sides.

05.Now the point for consideration is,

Whether the E.P schedule property of the Judgment

Debtor No.2 can be attached and put for sale in public auction?

06.No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

07.Perused the material papers.

Page No.3

08.The counsel for the Decree holder vehemently argued that the Judgment Debtor No.2 having sufficient means to pay the award amount but the Judgment Debtor No.2 have not paid the award amount after passing of award dated 16-11-2018 and the Judgment Debtor No.2 is intentionally avoiding to pay the award amount, and further contended that the Judgment Debtor No.2 is the absolute owner of the

E.P schedule property and the said property can be attached and put for sale for realization of E.P amount of Rs.8,41,080/-.

09.I have carefully perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the decree holder obtained award against the

Judgment debtors No.1 to 3 for recovery of an award amount of

Rs.7,40,248/- with subsequent interest.

10.After filing of this petition, this Court ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule property. On that, the Court Amin went to the E.P schedule property and attached the same in the presence of mediators and filed his report before this Court. I have carefully gone through the report filed by the Court Amin. Undoubtedly, the property attached by the Court Amin is tallied with E.P schedule property. It is undisputed fact that at the time of attachment of property, the Judgment Debtor No.2 has not made any objections. Undoubtedly, the property attached by the

Amin is tallied with the E.P schedule property with regards to Survey number and door number for the site and extent of property and so also boundaries and the Judgment debtor have not made any objection at the time of attachment of property.

11.As per the contention of the DHr and as per the averments in execution petition the E.P schedule property is belongs to Judgment debtor No.2. Undoubtedly, the Judgment Debtor NO.2 is also not denied about the owner-ship of the property. The E.P schedule property i.e., RCC

Page No.4

Building in Door NO.16-758 of Piduguralla. The J.Dr No.2 have not denied about ownership over the property. Thereby, it can be safely hold that since the E.P schedule property is the absolute property of the

Judgment debtor No.2, she did not made any objection. If it is so, the E.P schedule property can be attached and put for sale.

12.After careful consideration of the material on record and basing on my above discussion, without hesitation, I hold that Judgment debtor No.2 is the absolute owner of the E.P schedule property. If it is so, the E.P schedule property can be attached and put for sale.

Accordingly , point is answered.

13.In the result, the Execution Petition is allowed. The attachment against the E.P schedule property dated 22.10.2022 is made absolute for filing Sale Papers and Encumbrance Certificate, call on 21-10-2024.

Typed my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of SEPTEMBER, 2024.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu,

IV Addl. District Judge, Guntur.

FAC. X Addl.District Judge, Gurazala.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu,

IV A.D.J. Guntur. FAC. X ADJ, Gurazala.