Smt S.Bhargavi

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Smt S.Bhargavi, Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 401 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

401

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/131/2021

Syed Mahaboob Basha vs Syed Mahaboob Basha

01 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KANIGIRI.

PRESENT :- Smt. S.Bhargavi,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

Monday, this the 1st day of August, 2022.

O.S.No. 131/2021

Between:

1) Syed Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Late Kaja Miyaa and Imambee, Muslim, aged about 57 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2) Syed Ramthulla, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 76 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3) Syed Hajrat, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 74 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

4) Syed Nayab Rasool, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 72 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1) Syed Mahaboob Basha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 59 years, Tailor by profession, Resident of Door No.6-1662, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

2) Syed Gouse Basha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 57 years, Business by profession, Resident of Door No.6-1662, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

3) Syed Shahimsha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 55 years, Tailor by profession, Resident of Door No.6-745, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

4) Gajula Beebijan, D/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 53 years, Housewife, Resident of Door No.6-74/1, Udayagiri Village and Mandal of Prakasam District.

….Defendants

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.Subbarayudu, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and no counsel for the Defendants, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following.

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

This is a suit filed by plaintiffs against the defendants for restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering or causing obstructions for the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs, their men, and their legal heirs from cultivating and enjoying the plaint schedule land by a permanent injunction and to award costs of the suit.

Batta not paid. Therefore, suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 1st day of August,

2022.

S.Bhargavi,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

Appendix of Evidence - N I L -

S.Bhargavi,

JCJ.,PODILI.

FAC: J.C.J.,KANIGIRI.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KANIGIRI.

PRESENT :- Smt. S.Bhargavi,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI,

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

Monday, this the 1st day of August, 2022.

O.S.No. 131/2021

Between:

1) Syed Mahaboob Basha, S/o. Late Kaja Miyaa and Imambee, Muslim, aged about 57 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

2) Syed Ramthulla, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 76 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3) Syed Hajrat, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 74 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

4) Syed Nayab Rasool, S/o. late Kaja Miyaa and Imam Bee, Muslim, aged about 72 years, Coolie by profession, Resident of Door NO.6-468/2, Peta Street, Pamur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

….Plaintiffs

Vs.,

1) Syed Mahaboob Basha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 59 years, Tailor by profession, Resident of Door No.6-1662, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

2) Syed Gouse Basha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 57 years, Business by profession, Resident of Door No.6-1662, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

3) Syed Shahimsha, S/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 55 years, Tailor by profession, Resident of Door No.6-745, Peta Street, Pamur town and Mandal of Prakasam District.

4) Gajula Beebijan, D/o. late Mahaboob Saheb, Muslim, aged about 53 years, Housewife, Resident of Door No.6-74/1, Udayagiri Village and Mandal of Prakasam District.

….Defendants

Plaint presented on : 21.06.2021 Plaint filed on : 21.06.2021

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 01.10.1977 when the suit schedule land was assigned in favour of the mother of plaintiffs and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land obtaining pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour, in or above the year 1998 when the assignee died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs and successors of the suit schedule property by the plaintiffs, on the dates when the revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed for Ac. 0.76 cents in favour of 1st plaintiff for his share and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the 2nd plaintiff for Ac. 2.28 cents towards their three shares, on 20.01.2021 when the defendants attempted to obstruct the plaintiffs at

Pamur within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs. 30,000/- and on which a court fee of Rs. 1,786/- is paid u/sec.36(c) of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act.

1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed for default,

2.That the suit be batta not paid. Therefore, suit is dismissed for default, and

3.that there is no order as to costs.

- Plaint schedule is hereto attached -

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 1st day of August, 2022.

S.Bhargavi,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

// Table of Costs //

(Cost memo not filed on either side)

S.Bhargavi,

JCJ.,PODILI.

FAC: J.C.J.,KANIGIRI.

OS/282/2021

Shaik.Meravali vs Marella Subba Rao

04 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KANIGIRI.

Present:- Smt. S.BHARGAVI, Junior Civil Judge, Podili. FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri.

Thursday, this the 04th day of August, 2022.

O.S.No.282 of 2021

Between:

Shaik Meeravali, s/o. Madar Saheb, 54 years, Muslim, Business, r/o. D.No.9-287, Perumallavari street,

Kanigiri Village & Mandal, Prakasam district. ... Plaintiff

And

Marella Subba Rao, s/o. Gurubrahmam, 43 years, Hindu, Business, r/o. D.No.2-52, Paletipalli (V),

PC Palli Mandal, Prakasam district.... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 29-07-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri Abdul Gafoor Shaik, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

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

1) The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale

dated 17.7.2020 and direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed

and grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the schedule property and for costs.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows : The suit schedule property is self acquired property of the defendant and the defendant offered to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, for which, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,85,000/- on 17.7.2020 and the defendant received the same and executed agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to receive the balance consideration of

Rs.15,000/- on or before 16.10.2020 and also agreed to make regular register sale deed either in favour of the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

2 Thereafter, inspite of several requests the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract in view of raising of house site value, then the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 01.02.2021, but the defendant did not come forward to execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3) The defendant was set exparte.

4) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1, Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on his behalf. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5) Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled the relief of specific

performance of contract from the defendant?

6) POINT :

As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-, for which, the plaintiff paid Rs.4,85,000/- towards advance and the defendant received the same and entered into agreement of sale with a condition that the plaintiff has to pay Rs.15,000/- on or before 16.10.2020. Thereafter, inspite of repeated requests the defendant did not come forward to perform his part of contract after receipt of balance sale consideration, though, the plaintiff issued Ex.A2 legal notice. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 remained unchallenged and as such the plaintiff proved the claim of specific performance only, but the plaintiff cannot entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7) In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs in favour of the 3 Plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to execute regular registered sale deed after receipt of Rs.15,000/- balance sale consideration, within three months from the date of this Judgment, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed according to law. The relief of permanent injunction is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Shaik Meeravali -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : Agreement of sale deed dated 17.7.2020 executed by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A-2 : Office copy of legal notice dated 01.02.2021. Ex.A-3 : Returned cover.

DEFENDANT: Exparte

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

J.C.J., PODILI.

FAC: J.C.J., KANIGIRI

OS/129/2022

Konda Venkateswarlu vs Deviereddy Siva Reddy

04 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KANIGIRI.

Present:- Smt. S.BHARGAVI, Junior Civil Judge, Podili. FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri.

Thurday, this the 04th day of August, 2022.

O.S.No.129 of 2022

Between:

Konda Venkateswarlu, s/o. Chenna Reddy, 48 years, Agriculturist and Business, r/o. Avulavaripalli (V), HM Padu (M),

Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Devireddy Siva Reddy, s/o. Venu Gopal Reddy @ Venu Gopal, Aged 41 years, Business, r/o. Near MNM Degree College, Kanigiri Nagara Panchayat,

Prakasam District.... Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 29-07-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

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

1) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,28,790/- basing on the Promissory notes dated: 02-06-2018.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows :

The defendant has totally borrowed an amount of Rs.2,13,500/- on 02.06.2018 for the purpose of his family expenses from the Plaintiff and on the same day, executed three promissory notes viz., two promissory notes each for Rs.70,000/- on 2.6.2018 and one promissory note for Rs.73,500/- on 2.6.2018 for the said amount in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 18% p.a. either to the Plaintiff or his transferee at Avulavaripalli village and subsequently the plaintiff made repeated demands to discharge the suit pronote debt and but the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintiff is constrained 2 to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of suit claim amount.

3) The defendant was set exparte.

4) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on his behalf. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5) Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount

as prayed for ?

6) POINT :

As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.2,13,500/- from the plaintiff on 02.06.2018 from the plaintiff and executed three suit promissory notes each for Rs.70,000/-,

Rs.70,000/- and Rs.73,500/- and subsequently he failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory note in spite of repeated demands made by PW1.

It is also evident from the chief affidavit of PW1 that the defendant did not choose to pay the amount in spite of demands made by the plaintiff personally . The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3 remained unchallenged and as such the plaintiff proved the claim. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,28,790/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till realization upon the

principal amount of Rs.2,13,500/-.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

PW-1: Konda Venkateswarlu -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 : A marked suit promissory note dated 02.06.2018. Ex.A-2 : B marked suit promissory note dated 02.06.2018. Ex.A-3 : C marked suit promissory note dated 02.06.2018.

DEFENDANT: Exparte

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

J.C.J., PODILI.

FAC: J.C.J., KANIGIRI

OS/169/2022

Kethineni Ramu vs Bonam Ankalaiah

04 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KANIGIRI.

Present:- Smt. S.BHARGAVI, Junior Civil Judge, Podili. FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri.

Thursday, this the 04th day of August, 2022.

O.S.No.169 of 2022

Between:

Sriramulu Gudi Variki, Rep. by its Manager, Kethineni Ramu, s/o. Nallaiah, 51 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o. Punugodu (V),

Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District.... Plaintiff

And

Bonam Ankaiah, s/o. Lakshmaiah, 48 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o. Punugodu (V),

Kanigiri (M), Prakasam District.... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 29-07-2022 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Prapulla Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant is remained exparte and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

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

1) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,095/- basing on the Promissory notes dated: 14-04-2019.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows :

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.8,800/- on 14.04.2019 for the purpose of his family expenses from the Plaintiff and on the same day, executed promissory note for the said amount in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 24% p.a. either to the Plaintiff or his transferee at Punugodu village of

Kanigiri Mandal and subsequently the plaintiff made repeated demands to discharge the suit pronote debt. Inspite of repeated demands, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of suit claim amount. Act IV of 1938 will 2 not apply to the defendant.

3) The defendant was set exparte.

4) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1, Ex.A1 was marked on his behalf. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5) Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount

as prayed for ?

6) POINT :

As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.8,800/- from the plaintiff on 14.04.2019 from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note for Rs.8,000/- and subsequently he failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory note in spite of repeated demands made by PW1. It is also evident from the chief affidavit of

PW1 that the defendant did not choose to pay the amount in spite of demands made by the plaintiff personally . The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 remained unchallenged and as such the plaintiff proved the claim.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

7) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.15,095/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till realization upon the

principal amount of Rs.8,800/-.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI 3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PW-1: Kethineni Ramu -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF: Ex.A-1 : Suit promissory note dated 14.04.2019.

DEFENDANT: Exparte

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

J.C.J., PODILI.

FAC: J.C.J., KANIGIRI

OS/101/2020

Mukku Venkata Narasasreddy vs Gadam Narayana

05 Aug 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: KANIGIRI.

Present : Smt.S.BHARGAVI Junior Civil Judge, Podili. FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri.

Friday, this the 05 th day of August, 2022.

Original Suit No. 101 of 2020

Mukku Venkata Narasa Reddy, s/o. Narayana Reddy, 69 years, Hindu, Landlord, r/o. Motupalli (V), Veligandla Mandal of Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

Vs., Gadam Narayana, s/o. China Narayana, 48 years, Hindu, Business, r/o. Motupalli (V), Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming on 29.07.2022 before me for consideration in the presence of Sri Abdul Gafoor Shaik, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and defendant having remained exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1) The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,77,504/- basing on the Promissory note dated: 12.07.2017.

2) The brief averments in the plaint are as follows :

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,03,200/- for the purpose of his family expenses from the Plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 12.07.2017 in favour of the Plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum either to the Plaintiff or his transferee at Podili village and subsequently the plaintiffs made repeated demands to discharge the suit pronote debt, the defendant failed to discharge the debt inspite of legal notice. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit against the 2 defendant for recovery of suit claim amount. The defendant is not entitled any benefits under section Act 4 of 1983 or other any acts.

3) The defendant was set exparte.

4) To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1, Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on his behalf. Heard the counsel for plaintiff.

5) Now the point for determination is :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit

amount as prayed for ?

6) POINT :

As per the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1, the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,03,200/- from the plaintiff on 12.07.2017 and subsequently he failed to discharge the debt due under the Promissory note in spite of repeated demands made by PW1. It is also evident from the chief affidavit of PW1 that the defendant did not choose to pay the amount in spite of demands made by the plaintiff personally. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 remained unchallenged and as such the plaintiff proved the claim. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs infavour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,77,504/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter, @ 6% per annum from the date of decree, till realization upon the principal amount of Rs.1,03,200/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 04 th day of August, 2022.

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PODILI.

FAC: JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KANIGIRI.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW1 : M. Venkata Narasa Reddy None

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff For Defendant

Ex.A1 : Promissory note dated: 12.07.2017. Nil. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A3 : Postal acknowledgment.

Sd/- S.Bhargavi

J.C.J.,Podili.

Order Record 398 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/19/2022	Avula Srinivasulu. vs Guluguluri Venkata Reddy	05 Aug 2022	Order	—
OS/101/2020	Mukku Venkata Narasasreddy vs Gadam Narayana	05 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
MC/7/2020	Shaik Reshma vs Shaik Khaja Masthakn	05 Aug 2022	Order	—
OS/129/2022	Konda Venkateswarlu vs Deviereddy Siva Reddy	04 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
OS/169/2022	Kethineni Ramu vs Bonam Ankalaiah	04 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
OS/282/2021	Shaik.Meravali vs Marella Subba Rao	04 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
OS/131/2021	Syed Mahaboob Basha vs Syed Mahaboob Basha	01 Aug 2022	Judgment	—
EP/39/2019	Darapaneni Chennaiah vs Vangapati Vengaiah	29 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/146/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri vs Sangala Jagadeesh	29 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/147/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri vs Sangala Jagadeesh	29 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/148/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Sangala Jagadeesh	29 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/154/2022	Prohibition and Excise Station, Kanigiri vs Tippuluri Konda Reddy	29 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/156/2022	Prohibition and Excise Station, Kanigiri vs Golla Mallikarjuna	29 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
MC/26/2019	Salikineeti Reetaa vs Salikineeti Kishore Alias Babu	29 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/254/2021	Dondapati Ramadevi vs Macha Nagamalleswari	27 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
EP/44/2019	Kandula Ramarao vs Virigineni Malyadri	22 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/73/2022	Ravulapalli Seenaiah vs Malineni Kondamma	22 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/115/2020	Mudiyala Venkateswarareddy vs Kunapuli Krishnaveni	22 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/205/2021	Indla Narasaiah vs Masapalli Venkateswarlu	22 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
OS/264/2021	Kambala Srinivasa Reddy vs Sakam Subba Reddy	19 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
EP/7/2020	Kandula Ramarao vs Devaki HaranathBabu	16 Jul 2022	Order	—
EP/25/2019	Gadde Kistaiah vs Nagi Srinu	16 Jul 2022	Order	—
EP/7/2020	Kandula Ramarao vs Devaki HaranathBabu	15 Jul 2022	Order	—
EP/25/2019	Gadde Kistaiah vs Nagi Srinu	15 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/82/2021	Ambari Krishna Reddy vs Rojukari Malakondaiah	15 Jul 2022	Decree	—
OS/106/2022	Nallapati Venkateswarlu vs Chappidi Lakshamma	15 Jul 2022	Decree	—
CC/142/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Shaik Habeeb	15 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
PRC/10/2020	A.P.State vs Kodavatikanti Kondaiah	15 Jul 2022	Order	—
CC/312/2022	The Inspector, Special Enforcement bureau, kanigiri. vs Godhina Bala Koteswara Rao	13 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
EP/15/2019	Yeruva Ramanamma vs Maram Pitchireddy	08 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/131/2022	Ragipindi Thirupathaiah vs Velthurla Ramana Reddy	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/26/2021	The inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Prohibition and Excise, Kanigiri vs KanaganiChinna Alluraiah	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/29/2021	The inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Prohibition and Excise, Kanigiri vs Kanagari Thimmayya	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/30/2021	The inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Prohibition and Excise, Kanigiri vs Kanagari Rama Lingaiah	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/148/2021	The sub inspector of Police, C.S. Puram P.S. vs Dupati Vinod	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
CC/308/2021	The sub inspector of Police, Pamuru P.S. vs Siddamurthy Bhaskar	08 Jul 2022	Judgment	—
PRC/2/2022	The Inspector of Police, kanigiri vs Peruboina Siva Krishna	08 Jul 2022	Order	—
OS/95/2021	Gadde Srinivasulu vs Pobbaraju Chinna Malakondaiah	28 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
OS/134/2022	Mukku Papi Reddy vs Chintapureddy Konda Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/19/2021	The sub inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Lekkala Nagurjuna	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/25/2020	The Sub Inspector of Police, Pamuru P.S. vs Shaik Ansar	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/52/2018	A.P.State Sub-Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram P.S. vs Balabadra Peddaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/61/2022	SI of Police, C.S.Puram P.S. vs Sangisetty Sreenivasulu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/69/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Shaik Mahaboob Basha	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/75/2020	The sub inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Shaik Mastan Vali	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/86/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Udarapu Srinu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/97/2022	SI of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Shaik Arief	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/100/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Mithikala Ravanamma	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/102/2021	The sub inspector of Police, P.C. Palli P.S. vs Kondavatikanti Immaniyelu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/103/2021	The sub inspector of Police, P.C. Palli P.S. vs Kodavatikanti Izrayal	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/122/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, C.S.Puram P.S. vs Jagannadam Pullaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/128/2016	State Sub-Inspector of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Addanki Sreenivasulu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/149/2022	SI of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Podili Venkateswarlu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/156/2020	A.P.State vs Papabathina Nagaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/163/2022	SI of Police, H.M.Padu vs Lakkireddy Prathap reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/166/2019	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Mekala Srinivasulu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/168/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Pallepogu Kishore	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/172/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Jennepogu Atchaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/178/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Surapureddy Venkata Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/181/2022	SI of Police, P.C.Palli P.S. vs Vunnam Vengal Rao	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/193/2022	SI of Police, H.M.padu vs Bobburi Pedda Guravaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/199/2022	SI of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Murari Manohar	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/202/2020	A.P.State vs Bareddy Thirupathi reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/206/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri P.s. vs Mandla Malyadri	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/222/2022	SI of Police, Kanigiri vs Pottella Malakondarayudu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/223/2022	SI of Police, Veligandla P.S. vs Chagamredy Ramasubba Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/237/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C Palli. vs Ganeshuni Mallikarjuna Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/242/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, kanigiri vs Yarraballi Philip	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/249/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C Palli P.S vs Peddireddy Sambaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/256/2022	The Sub Inspector Of Police, Pamur P.S. vs Chenchani Venkata Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/260/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, C.S Puram. P.S vs Thota Venkateswarlu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/261/2020	The sub inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Nelaturi Nagaraju @ Nathaniyel	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/263/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C Palli, P.S vs Yarragorla Malakonda Rayudu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/266/2020	The sub inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Nelaturi Thalitha	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/275/2022	The Sub Inspector of policel, kanigiri P.s. vs Sagamreddy Sekher Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/276/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police. P.C.palli P.S. vs Kotapati Subbanaidu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/277/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, P.C Palli P.S. vs Mannam Rambabu	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/278/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police,P,C palli p,s vs Guduri Malyadri	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/279/2022	The Sun Inspector of Police, Veligandla P.S. vs Pidathala Dattatreya Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/280/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, Veligandla P.S. vs Yeruva Papi Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/281/2022	The Sub Inspector of police, Veligandla P.S. vs Perurui Sidda Rao	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/283/2022	The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Parisapogu Yasoda	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/284/2022	The Sub inspector of Police, kanigiri P.S. vs Parisapogu Yohan	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/348/2020	A.P.State vs Thuthuri Ankaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/479/2021	SHO, Kanigiri vs Vakumalla Peddi Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/480/2021	SHO, Kanigiri vs Shaik Mabu Subhani	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/544/2021	SHO, Kanigiri P.S. vs Gurunadham Narayana	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/570/2021	SI of Police, Pamur vs Nagi Prasad	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/623/2021	SI of Police,C.S.Puram vs Jagannadham Pullaiah	26 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
MC/11/2020	Shaik Shajida alias Muddpati Shajida vs Shaik Masthan Vali	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
MC/14/2020	Smt Gudipati alias Minumula Krishnaveni vs Gudipati Ravi	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
MC/19/2022	Malapati Prathyusha vs Chinthalapudi Hemanth Reddy	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
MC/21/2022	Konda Narasamma vs Dammu Srinivasulu	26 Jun 2022	Order	—
OS/30/2021	Ganta Mallikarjuna vs Varra Siva Reddy	24 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/191/2017	A.P.State Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Vemavarapu Yesaiah	24 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/270/2016	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Kattulapalli Ramanareddy	24 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
EP/13/2021	Gutti venkata Raja vs Koduri venkataRamana	17 Jun 2022	Order	—
EP/27/2020	Gonuguntla Subrahmanyam vs Mora venkata Ramireddy	17 Jun 2022	Order	—
CC/72/2017	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigiri P.S. vs Chiyadri Nagesh	17 Jun 2022	Judgment	—
CC/160/2021	The inspector of Police, prohibition and Excise Station, Kanigiri vs Jampani Nagi Reddy	17 Jun 2022	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 398 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2022		7
Jul 2022		30
Jun 2022		70
May 2022		19
Apr 2022		34
Mar 2022		80
Feb 2022		20
Jan 2022		18
Dec 2021		109
Nov 2021		9
Oct 2021		5

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt S.Bhargavi handled?

Smt S.Bhargavi has handled 401 court orders since 2021 at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 59 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt S.Bhargavi hear?

Based on available records, Smt S.Bhargavi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka).

Where is Smt S.Bhargavi currently posted?

Smt S.Bhargavi is posted as Junior Civil Judge, Darsi at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt S.Bhargavi available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt S.Bhargavi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt S.Bhargavi dispose cases?

Smt S.Bhargavi disposes approximately 59 cases per month, based on 401 orders handled over their tenure at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka).

Since when is Smt S.Bhargavi serving?

Smt S.Bhargavi has been serving at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka) since 2021.

Case Types

CC 65%

OS 21%

EP 5%

MC 4%

PRC 3%

STC 2%

DVC 0%

Posting History

Apr 2022 — Apr 2022

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi
Oct 2021 — Aug 2022

Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri · 401 orders

Other Judges at this Court

Sri S.Siva Sankar Reddy

Senior Civil Judge, Darsi

756 orders

Ms.k.nikhitha

Junior Civil Judge, Darsi

1,703 orders

← View all judges at Senior Civil Judge, Darsi (Taluka)