Smt.S.Bhargavi

1

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

Present : Sri.M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy ,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pulivendula.

Tuesday, the 01st day of April, 2025

O.S.No.38 of 2020

Between: - Canara Bank Pulivendula branch, represented by its Branch manager. … Plaintiff

And

Devi Reddy Rama Devi W/o. D.Siva Prasad Reddy, aged about 40 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing in D.No.1/65, Dondlavagu village, Lingala Mandal. …Defendant * * * This suit coming on this day i.e. on 21.01.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Prathap Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants having remained exparte respectively and the matter having stood over for consideration on today, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of

Rs.12,71,734/- from the defendant, with subsequent interest and for other reliefs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 31.07.2017 the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance to his agricultural operations. The defendant by pledging the 430 bags of

Bengal Gram kept in the Godown under the name and style of DSR Rural Farmers

Warehouse at Dondlavagu Village of Lingala Mandal. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant on 31.07.2017 and the defendant has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff bank on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest. The defendant also executed a take delivery letter to demand promissory note and he accepted to repay the entire loan within 12 months in lumpsum from the date of sanction of loan. But the defendant did not turn up and as such the plaintiff bank filed this suit for recovery of suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3.Defendant remained exparte to the suit proceedings.

2

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the loan application executed by the defendant Dated 31.07.2017. Ex.A2 is the Sanction memorandum issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Dated 31.07.2017.

Ex.A3 is the letter for loans dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the take delivery letter dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the Pronote dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.A6 is the attested copy of extract of

Ledger account of produce loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant being the borrower is liable to pay the outstanding debt amount of Rs.12,71,734/- under Pronote dated 31.07.2017. To substantiate the same, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1. His evidence is just replica of the pleadings. It shows that the defendants made an application to the plaintiff bank on 31.07.2017 for availing loan under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the same under Ex.A2. The defendant executed Ex.A3 letter for loans, Ex.A4 Take delivery letter and Ex.A5 pronote dated 31.07.2017 in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest within 12 months. But inspite of demands the defendant failed to repay the same to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit amount. As seen from the Ex.A6 attested copy of ledger account, which shows that the defendant indebted an amount of Rs.12,71,734/-. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Ex.A1 to A6 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to discard the same.

3

8.In such circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of

Rs.12,71,734/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Ex.A5 pronote. Since the defendant did not pay the loan amount and did not even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding his liability, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendant and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,71,734/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Seventy

One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Four only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of suit till the date of realization on adjudged sum of Rs.12,71,734/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs

Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Four only.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR defendant :

PW.1: - Gajing SrinivasNONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Loan application executed by the defendant Dated 31.07.2017.

Ex.A2 : Sanction memorandum issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant

Dated 31.07.2017.

Ex.A3 : Letter for loans dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

4

Ex.A4 : Take delivery letter dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Pronote dated 31.07.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A6 : Attested copy of extract of Ledger account of produce loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank.

FOR defendants: NIL

Sd/- M.C.S.R

CJ.,(JD)., PLVD.

1

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

Present : Sri.M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy ,

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pulivendula.

Tuesday, the 01st day of April, 2025

O.S.No.27 of 2020

Between: - Canara Bank Pulivendula branch, represented by its Branch manager. … Plaintiff

And

Araveti Sivaiah S/o.Araveti Chennaiah, aged about 45 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing in D.No.2/69, Dondlavagu village, Lingala Mandal. …Defendant * * * This suit coming on this day i.e., on 21.01.2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Prathap Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendants having remained exparte respectively and the matter having stood over for consideration on today, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank for recovery of a sum of

Rs.12,52,968/- from the defendant, with subsequent interest and for other reliefs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 05.09.2017 the defendant approached the plaintiff bank for financial assistance to his agricultural operations. The defendant by pledging the 600 bags of

Bengal Gram kept in the Godown under the name and style of DSR Rural Farmers

Warehouse at Dondlavagu Village of Lingala Mandal. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to defendant on 05.09.2017 and the defendant has executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff bank on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest. The defendant also executed a take delivery letter to demand promissory note and he accepted to repay the entire loan within 12 months in lumpsum from the date of sanction of loan. But the defendant did not turn up and as such the plaintiff bank filed this suit for recovery of suit amount. Hence, the suit.

3.The Defendant remained exparte to the suit proceedings.

2

4.On behalf of the plaintiff bank, its Manager representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the loan application executed by the defendant Dated 05.09.2017. Ex.A2 is the Sanction memorandum issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant Dated 05.09.2017.

Ex.A3 is the letter for loans dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the take delivery letter dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A5 is the Pronote dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.A6 is the attested copy of extract of

Ledger account of produce loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank.

5.Heard the arguments of learned Advocate for Plaintiff. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is that:

Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of entire suit

amount from the defendant as prayed for ?

7. POINT :

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant being the borrower is liable to pay the outstanding debt amount of Rs.12,52,968/- under Pronote dated 05.09.2017. To substantiate the same, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank who is representing the said bank was examined as P.W.1. His evidence is just replica of the pleadings. It shows that the defendants made an application to the plaintiff bank on 05.09.2017 for availing loan under Ex.A1 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the same under Ex.A2. The defendant executed Ex.A3 letter for loans, Ex.A4 Take delivery letter and Ex.A5 pronote dated 05.09.2017 in favour of plaintiff bank agreeing to repay the same with interest within 12 months. But inspite of demands the defendant failed to repay the same to the plaintiff bank and the plaintiff bank constrained to file this suit for recovery of the suit amount. As seen from the Ex.A6 attested copy of ledger account, which shows that the defendant indebted an amount of Rs.12,52,968/-. Since the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Ex.A1 to A6 are undisputed and unrebutted by the defendant, the Court finds no reason to discard the same.

3

8.In such circumstances, the court holds that the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is liable to pay the outstanding balance amount of

Rs.12,52,968/- with subsequent interest, as agreed under Ex.A5 pronote. Since the defendant did not pay the loan amount and did not even turn up to disprove the contentions of the plaintiff bank, regarding his liability, the court is inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendant. Therefore, the Court holds that the plaintiff bank is able to establish that the suit documents relied upon by the plaintiff bank are true, valid and binding on the defendant and thus, the plaintiff bank is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

10.In the result, suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff bank, directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,52,968/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs Fifty

Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight only) to the plaintiff bank with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of suit till the date of realization on adjudged sum of Rs.12,52,968/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs

Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight only).

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

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 01 st day of April, 2025.

Sd/- M.Chandrasekhara Reddy

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

PULIVENDULA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR defendant :

PW.1: - Gajing SrinivasNONE

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Loan application executed by the defendant Dated 05.09.2017.

Ex.A2 : Sanction memorandum issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant

Dated 05.09.2017.

Ex.A3 : Letter for loans dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

4

Ex.A4 : Take delivery letter dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A5 : Pronote dated 05.09.2017 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

Ex.A6 : Attested copy of extract of Ledger account of produce loan account maintained by the plaintiff bank.

FOR defendants: NIL

Sd/- M.C.S.R

CJ.,(JD)., PLVD.

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.70/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php?appFlag=kiosk#

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula

Case No. :CC/0000126/2025 SHO Vemula P.S. Vs kODAVATH Lakshmi prasad naik and 1 other

Date : 13-09-2025

Business: Accused nos.1 and 2 filed an Application under Section 290(1) of BNSS 2023(265-B Cr.P.C.) along with Sworn Affidavit. Notice given to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Enquiry was conducted and found that accused nos.1 and 2 voluntarily filed the Application for Plea Bargaining. Accused nos. 1 and 2, De facto Complainant / Investigation Officer and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor are present. After having discussed on the aspects of (1) Quantum of Punishment and (2) On the question of releasing Accused nos.1 and 2 on Probation of Good Conduct after Admonition as contemplated under Section 401 BNSS (360 of Cr.P.C) or (3) On the aspect of dealing with the Accused under the Provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, a Mutual Satisfaction Disposition Report has been prepared and it has been decided to Impose Fine on Accused nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the Judgment pronounced in terms of Section 299 BNSS(265-F of Cr.P.C.) Accused A1 and A2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment till raising of this court and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each for the offence under section 7(1) of essential commodities act in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 day.Total fined amount of Rs.6000/- Fine amount collected as per the office note crime vehicle shall be released to the registered owner under due knowledgment after lapse of appeal time accordingly proceedings closed Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 13-09-2025 Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula 1 of 11/3/26, 3:53 PM

Case Historyhttp://172.17.71.70/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no.php?appFlag=kiosk#

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula

Case No. :OS/0000057/2024 Bukke Kale Naik Vs Mude Dasharath Naik

Date : 13-09-2025

Business: The plaintiff and withe defendant present before the lokadalath the and as per the settle.cement reader by both the parties in accordance with the terms of comprise, the award is passed with tyhe foll0wing terms. 1. that the plaintiff has agreed to receive a sum of Rs 5,00,000/- from the defendant and execute the registered sale deed for the part of the schedule mentioned property Ac 1.10 cents in favour of the defendant. 2. that the deterrent has paid a sum of Rs 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff being part of the agreed amount before the lok adalath and further agreed to partie the balance amount of Rs 2,50,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 31.12.2025 and the registered sale deeed fromn the plaintiff for part of the schdule mentined property Ac 1.10 cents. 3. That the plaintiff agreed to receive the aalance amountof Rs 2.50.000 from the plaintiff and execte tghe registered sale for part of scnedule mentioned propery Ac 1.10 cents in favour of the defendant by 31.12.2025 Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 13-09-2025 Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendula 1 of 103/01/26, 11:33 am

Back

Daily Status

In the Court of :II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Case No. :CC/0000019/2025 Enforcement Sub Inspector SEB Station Proddatur Vs Chowdam Kesava Narayana

Date : 08-03-2025

Business: Accused submitted a written representation to this Court stating that he is willing to compound and ready to pay the prescribed compounding fee. Perused the record. The quantity involved in this case is less then 10 liters. The accused paid compounding fee of Rs.8,100/- vide Challan No.81432797262024 as per G.O.Ms.No.283, dated 09.12.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.284, dated 09.12.2024 REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT the quantity of contraband liquor i.e., Indian Made Foreign liquor / Foreign liquor (whether duty paid in A.P. or not) and beer (whether duty paid in A.P. or not) can be compounded by collecting the prescribed compounding fee. In view of the same, the case against the accused is compounded as he paid fine an amount of Rs.8,100/-. Hence compromise is recorded. That accused is acquitted under section 359(8) of BNSS for the offence punishable under section 7 r/w 8(b) (i) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 (Amended 2020). The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed forthwith. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 08-03-2025 II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur