S.Jayalakshmi

1 C.C.No.91/2017, dt.28-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::NAIDUPET

Present:-Smt.S. Jayalakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet.

Monday, this the 28 th day of October, 2019.

C.C.No.91/2017

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S. … Prosecutor.

Vs.

Chimmula Santhosh Reddy, S/o. Maallareddy, Aged 33 years, Reddy by caste, 1-10, Uppalphad Vangur, Mahaboob Nagar district, Telangana State.

Driver of mini lorry bearing no. TS 06 UB 2579 ... Accused.

This case is coming up before me for Judgment today i.e., on 28-10- 2019 in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and learned counsel for the accused Sri.K.Dasaiah Modaliar, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. Accused was tried for the offence U/Sec. 304-A, 337 and 338 of

Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C) under the summons Procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity Cr.P.C).

2. Case of the Prosecution in precise form is that, on 26-11-2016 at about 8 a.m., while P.W.1 /P.Prabhavathi, deceased/Ashok Kumar and their two children were proceeding on Hero Passion Pro bearing no. AP 26 AV 0621 to go to Thimmannnagaripalem village, Chillakur Mandal and when reached

Veeraraghavula Swamy temple on Naidupet -Venkatagiri road, accused being the driver of mini lorry bearing no. TS 06 UB 2579 drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed, without blowing horn, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, deceased, PW1 and their children fell on the ground and sustained injuries. Deceased sustained grievous injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Basing on the report of PW1/ P.Prabhavathi, LW13/K.Sankar Raju, Asst. Sub Inspector of

Police, of Naidupet P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.312/16 U/Sec. 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. During investigation, LW13/K.Sankar Raju, Asst. Sub Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S., examined the witnesses, visited the scene, drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. LW14- K.Maruthi Krishna, SI of

Police, served Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. After completion of the investigation, LW14/K.Maruthi Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet

2 C.C.No.91/2017, dt.28-10-2019

P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.'s. 304- A, 337 and 338 of IPC.

3. After perusing the record, Cognizance is taken for the offence

U/Sec.304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C., against the accused and issued summons to secure his presence before the Court.

4. Accused when appeared before the court, copies of documents was furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. When accused is examined U/sec. 251 of Cr.P.C., stating the substance of accusation against him, for the offence U/Sec. 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. a) Prosecution to establish its case, got examined P.W.'s.1 and 2 and exhibited Ex.'s.P1 to P3 viz., Signature of P.W.1 in the statement, sec.161

Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1 and sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W. 2.

b) The evidence of L.W.'s.3 to 10 namely, P.Nujjamma, G.Radhamma,

T.Muneiah, S.Sivakumar, D.Ravi, T.Murniraja, B.Raja, A.Challaiah, is given up by the learned A.P.P., in view of the evidence of P.W.'s. 1 and 2. The evidence of LW.'s. 11 to 14 namely Dr.Srinivasa Yadav, Medical officer, V.Jaya Prakash,

Motor Vehicle Inspector, K.Sankar Raju, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, and K.Maruthi Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S., is closed by this court, as P.W.1 /injured/eye witness, failed to support the case of prosecution.

No material objects were marked.

6. Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C examination is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of P.W.'s. 1 and 2.

7. Heard. Perused the material on record.

8. NOW, THE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:

1. Whether the accused is the driver of crime vehicle mini lorry bearing No.TS 06 UB 2579 on the date of the accident ?

2. Whether the accused drove the crime vehicle mini lorry

bearing no. TS 06 UB 2579 in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased?

3. Whether the accused is responsible for the death of

deceased/ P.Ashok Kumar @ Kiran, not amounting to culpable

homicide, simple and grievous injuries to PW1 and her children?

9. Let us examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, got examined P.W.'s.1 and 2.

P.W.1 is the injured/eye witness. PW.2 is hearsay witnesses to the occurrence.

POINTS NO-1 to 3:

10. P.W.1 deposed that, she does not know the cause and manner of the accident except stating that, she sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 26-11-2016. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 it is obvious that,

3 C.C.No.91/2017, dt.28-10-2019

P.W.1/eye witness/injured turned hostile and failed to support the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned APP with the permission of the court cross- examined P.W.1. But, nothing material was elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused, except marking her sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement as Ex.P2. Hence, the evidence of P.W1 is not considered.

11. P.W.2 is hearsay witness. He deposed that, he do not know the cause and manner of the accident and that, he came to know about the accident. Thus, there is no incriminating evidence against accused in the testimony of PW2. Though, the learned APP with the permission of the court cross- examined P.W.2, nothing material was elicited to bring home the guilt of the accused, except marking his 161 Cr.P.C., statement as Ex.P3.

12. Thus, the appreciation of the evidence of P.W.'s.1 and 2 on record disclose that, their evidence is not suffice to drive home the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the fact that, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased, not amounting to culpable Homicide, simple and grievous injuries to P.W.1 and her children.

13. For the reasons assigned above, this Court holds that, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, Points No-1 to 3 are decided.

14. RESULT:- In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Hence, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the same.

15. Bail bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 (six) months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

16. No order as to property as required U/Rule 227 of Criminal

Rules of Practice is passed, as no property was seized and produced by the police before the court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me the operative portion of the judgment in the open court on this the 28th day of October 2019.

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Naidupet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:-

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Prosecution:- For Defence :- NONE P.W.1: P. Prabhavathi. P.W.2: P.Krishnaiah.

4 C.C.No.91/2017, dt.28-10-2019

EXHIBITS MARKED :-

For Prosecution:- For Defence :- NIL Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 in the statement. Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS :- - NIL -

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

J.M.FC, Naidupeta.

5 C.C.No.91/2017, dt.28-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, NAIDUPETA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT : NELLORE. C.C.NO.91/2017 DATE OF

Offence FilingApprehension of ReleasedCommencement Closure Sentence accusedon bailof trialof trial 26-11-16 26-11-16– –24-10-1924-10-19 28-10-19

Explanation for the delay :- This case was taken on file on 22-03-2017 U/sec.

304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. On 07-11-2017, copies were furnished to the accused. On 23-07-2018, accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C.

On 24-10-2019, P.W.'s 1 and 2 were examined, Ex.'s.P1 to P3 were marked.

The evidence of L.W.'s. 3 to 10 was given up by the learned A.P.P., in view of compromise and hostile evidence of PW.'s.1 and 2. Evidence of LW.'s. 11 to 14 was closed by this court, as P.W.'s. 1 and 2 / the material witnesses failed to support the case of prosecution. Prosecution side evidence is closed on 24- 10-2019. Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., examination is dispensed with.

Accused had complied Sec.437-A Cr.P.C on 28-10-2019 and arguments are heard on 28-10-2019. On 28-10-2019, Judgment is pronounced.

Prosecutor :- The State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Naidupet P.S.

Name of the accused Father’s Name Calling Religion Age Village Chimmula Santhosh Reddy, S/o. Maallareddy, Aged 33 years, Reddy by caste, 1-10, Uppalphad Vangur, Mahaboob Nagar district, Telangana State. Driver of mini lorry bearing no. TS 06 UB 2579 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nature of Offence :- Causing death by rash or negligent act, not amounting to culpable homicide Punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, causing hurt and grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others,

Punishable U/Sec. 337 and 338 of I.P.C.

Plea of accused :- Not guilty. Finding :- Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ODER :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Hence, he is acquitted U/Sec.

255(1) of Cr.P.C., for the same.

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

NAIDUPET.

Copy submitted to :- The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum- Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nellore.

1 O.S.NO: 85 OF 2019 Dt: 23­10­2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAIDUPETA.

Present: Smt. S.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta.

Wednesday, this the 23 rd day of October, 2019.

O.S.No. 85 of 2019

Between : Parasa Surendra Babu, s/o.Balaramaiah, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Agriculturist, Gottiprolu village, Naidupet Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.… Plaintiff.

And:

1. Chennuru Surekha, w/o.late Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 45 years,

2. Chennuru Dimple Reddy, D/o.late Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 26 years,

3. Chennuru Nikhitha Reddy, D/o.late Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, aged about 19 years,

Defendants No. 1 to 3 are doing Hotel business, residing at, Upstair of Amaravathi Hotel, OPP: RTC bus stand, Naidupet Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Chennuru Sarojanamma, W/o.Radhakrisha Reddy, aged about 80 years,C/o. Manju Hotel Chandra Reddy, Kalahasti By-pass Road, Naidupet Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

… Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for Judgment today i.e., on 23-10-2019 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Smt.J.Vani and of defendants being exparte, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. Suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money, basing on the strength of

Promissory note.

2. The brief case of the plaintiff is that, the husband of 1st defendant, father of 2nd and 3rd defendants and son of 4th defendant by name Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, borrowed an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- from him on 19-03-2016 and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour on the same day. Later, the said Chennuru Sudhakar

Reddy died intestate on 08-05-2016, leaving behind defendants no.1 to 4 as his legal 2 O.S.NO: 85 OF 2019 Dt: 23­10­2019 heirs. Despite repeated oral demands and legal notice dated 01-02-2018,defendants no.1 to 4 failed to discharge the suit promissory note amount. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons of defendants no.1 to 4 by post is returned as refused. Hence it is deemed to be sufficient service and D1 to D3 are set exparte on 15-10-2019 and D4 is set exparte on 18-07-2019.

4. Plaintiff to substantiate his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited

Ex.’s.A1 to A3, namely, Suit Promissory note, dt: 19-03-2016 for Rs. 3,80,000/- executed by the husband of 1st defendant late Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy in favour of the plaintiff; office copy of legal notice dated 01-02-2018 and returned postal cover of

D1.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6. Now, the points for the determination are:-

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Suit amount as prayed for?

and

2) To what relief ?

7. POINT NO -1:- a) It is the case of the plaintiff in nutshell that, late Chennuru

Sudhakar Reddy ( the husband of 1st defendant, father of D2 and D3 and the son of D4) borrowed a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- from him on 19-03-2016 under promissory note (Ex.A1) and later died without repaying the promissory note amount, leaving behind D1 to D-4 as his legal heirs. As defendants no.1 to 4, despite oral demands and legal notice

dt. 01-02-2018, failed to repay the suit pronote amount, he was constrained to file the

suit.

b) It is well established law that, the estate of the deceased if any in the hands of his legal heirs, is binding towards realization of the debt borrowed by the deceased.

Defendants No.1 to 4 are not personally liable for the amount borrowed by the deceased. Be that as it may, Now, it is to be seen whether the suit promissory note is executed by the deceased Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, to bind his estate if any lying in the hands of defendants No.1 to 4.

c) To prove the case of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as P.W.1. He filed his chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the plaint contents by stating about borrowing of an amount of Rs.3,80,000/- from him on 9-03-2016 by late Chennuru

Sudhakar Reddy ( the husband of 1st defendant, father of D2 and D3 and the son of D4) under promissory note (Ex.A1), death of Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy without repaying the suit pronote amount, leaving behind defendants no.1 to 4 as his legal heirs, failure of D1 to D4 to repay the promissory note amount despite legal notice dt.01-02-2018, 3 O.S.NO: 85 OF 2019 Dt: 23­10­2019 resulting in filing of the suit. As there is no other evidence on record to rebut the said testimony of PW.1, it becomes unchallenged evidence and the same has to be relied on. Thus, by relying upon the uncontrovorted testimony of PW.1, coupled with Ex.A1

Suit Promissory note, this Court holds that, deceased Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy ( the husband of 1st defendant, father of D2 and D3 and the son of D4) executed the suit promissory note infavour of the plaintiff.

d) As already stated above, defendants No.1 to 4 are not personally liable for

Ex.A1/suit promissorynote amount, but the estate of the deceased borrower Chennuru

Sudhakar Reddy, if any lying in the hands of defendants No.1 to 4 is liable.

e) Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim against the estate of deceased

Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined.

8. POINT NO -2:- In view of findings in Point No-1, the suit is to be decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.6,51,351/- only, against the estate of deceased/Chennuru Sudhakar

Reddy. Costs of demand notice of Rs.1,000/- can not be included in the adjudged sum, as the said amount will be included in the Costs.

9. RESULT :- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.6,51,351/-,

(Rupees Six Lakh Fifty- One Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty- One only),

together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the

Suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on the principal sum of

Rs. 3,80,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and Eighty Thousand only) from the date of the decree, till the date of realization of the decree.

The plaintiff has to recover or realize the above said amount from the estate of the deceased/ Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, if any lying in the hands of defendants No.1 to 4.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 23rd day of October, 2019.

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :-

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Plaintiff :- For Defendants:- NONE.

P.W.1: P.Surendra Babu.

4 O.S.NO: 85 OF 2019 Dt: 23­10­2019

DOCUMENTS MARKED :-

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1: Suit Promissory note, dt: 19-03-2016, for Rs. 3,80,000/- executed by the husband of 1st defendant Late Chennuru Sudhakar Reddy, in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 01-02-2018.

Ex.A3: Returned postal cover of D1.

For Defendants:- - NIL-

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

J.C.J., Naidupet.

1 O.S.No.143/2019 dt:31­10­2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAIDUPET.

Present: Smt. S.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet.

Thursday, the 31 st day of October, 2019.

 O.S.No.143/2019

Between: Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Kurugonda Branch, represented by  its Manager, Vakati Subrahmanyam, S/o. V. Chenchuramaiah, aged about 58 years, Hindu, Kurugonda Village & Post, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiff.

 And:

1. Devella Venkata Ramanamma, W/o Haraiah, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Manamala village, Kurugonda Post, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Devella Haraiah, S/o D.Yerraiah, aged about 49 years, Cultivation, Manamala village, Kurugonda Post, Ozili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.  … Defendants.

 This suit is coming before me for judgment today, i.e., on 31­10­2019 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank Sri. D.Haranadh Reddy and defendants being exparte, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­

 :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1. NATURE OF THE SUIT :­ This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank seeking the relief of recovery of money basing on loan Agreement and for costs.

2. PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF:­ It is the case of the plaintiff bank that,

Defendant No­1 availed crop loan of Rs.30,000/­ under Pragathi Kisan Credit Card Scheme on 18­07­2016 from the bank under Agreement for Agricultural advance, for which defendant

No­2 stood as guarantor by executing Agreement of Guarantee on 18­07­2016. Defendants failed to repay the loan amount, despite several oral demands and hence, the suit. 

3) Summons of defendant no.1 and 2 was served on them by post. But, defendants failed to appear before the court either in person or through advocate. Hence, defendants are set exparte on 06­09­2019.

4) Plaintiff bank to substantiate its case got examined its Manager as P.W.1, apart from exhibiting Ex.'s.A1 to A7 viz., Agreement of agricultural advances dt. 18­07­2016 executed by defendant No.1 ; deed of guarantee dt. 18­07­2016 executed by D2; Debt slip dt. 18­07­2016 passed by D1; office copy of legal notice dt. 03­06­2019; postal receipt dt. 03­06­2019 relating to D1; Postal receipt dt. 03­06­2019 relating to D2; and On­ line copy of loan account bearing 2 O.S.No.143/2019 dt:31­10­2019

No.P K C C 91074451609 of D­1 for the period from 18­07­2016 to 26­06­2019.

5) Heard. Perused the material on record.

6) Now, the points for the determination are:­

1) Whether the Plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as sought for.

and

2) To what relief.

7) POINT NO ­1:­ a) It is the specific case of the plaintiff bank that, defendant No.1 availed crop loan of Rs. 30,000/­ under Pragathi Kisan Credit Card Scheme by executing loan agreement dated 18­07­2016 from the bank, for which defendant No.2 stood as surety for the said loan amount by executing deed of guarantee on 18­07­2016 under Ex.A2. As defendants failed to discharge the loan amount. Hence, the suit.

b) To prove the case of the plaintiff bank, it got examined its Branch manager as

PW1. He filed his chief­examination affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint by stating about the availing of crop loan amount of Rs.30,000/­ by defendant No.1 on 18­07­ 2016 from the bank, acting as guarantor by defendant no.2 and failure of the defendants to repay the loan amount, despite several oral demands, resulting in filing of the suit. Thus, PW1 reinforced the plaintiff's bank case.

c) As there is no other evidence on record to rebut the testimony of PW1, it becomes uncontroverted evidence and the same has to be relied on. Hence, this court by relying on the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.'s.A1 to A7, holds that, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as sought for.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined.

8) POINT NO­2:­ In view of findings in point No­1, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

9) RESULT :­ In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.32,398/­ (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and ninety­ eight Only), together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the Suit, till the date of the decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realization of the decree, in the interests of justice. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 31st day of October, 2019.

Sd/- S. Jayalakshmi,

 Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :­ WITNESSES EXAMINED:­ For Plaintiff :­ For Defendants:­ None. P.W.1: B.Rajesh, Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kurugonda.

3 O.S.No.143/2019 dt:31­10­2019

DOCUMENTS MARKED :­ For Plaintiff :­

Ex.A1: Agreement for Agricultural advances dt. 18­07­2016 executed by D1. Ex.A2: Deed of guarantee dt. 18­07­2016 executed by D2. Ex.A3: Debt slip dt.18­07­2016 passed by D1 Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice dt. 03­06­2019 Ex.A5: Postal receipt dt. 03­06­2019 relating to D1 Ex.A6: Postal receipt dt. 03­06­2019 relating to D2 Ex.A7: On­ line copy of loan account No.P K C C 91074451609 of D­1 for the period from 18­07­2016 to 26­06­2019.

For Defendants:­ ­ NIL­ Sd/­ S. Jayalakshmi, J.C.J., Naidupet.

//True copy//

Junior Civil Judge,

Naidupet.

1 O.S.No.118/2019 dt:30­10­2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAIDUPET.

Present: Smt. S.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet.

Wednesday, the 30 th day of October, 2019.

 O.S.No.118/2019

Between: Syndicate Bank, Naidupet rep. by its Manager, S.N. Haresh, S/o Nethi Murali Prasad, aged about 31 years, Naidupet Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintiff.

 And:

1. Kandriga Suresh, S/o Subrahmanyam, aged about 43 years, Bangarampet village, Venumbaka Post, Pellakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Kandriga Subrahmanyam, S/o. Narayana Swamy, aged about 68 years, Bangarampet village, Venumbaka Post, Pellakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.  … Defendants.

 This suit is coming before me for judgment today, i.e., on 30­10­2019 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff bank Sri.M.Soma Sekhar and defendants, being exparte, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:­

 :: J U D G E M E N T ::

1. NATURE OF THE SUIT :­ This is a suit filed by the plaintiff bank seeking the relief of recovery of money basing on Agreement, dated 06­03­2010 and for costs.

2. PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN BRIEF:­ It is the case of the plaintiff bank that,

Defendant No­1availed loan of Rs.72,000/­ on 06­03­2010 from the bank under Agreement for Agricultural advances for which defendant No.2 stood as guarantor by executing

Agreement of Guarantee on the same day. 1st Defendant did not pay the loan amount, but on 04­03­2013, 02­03­2016 and 01­08­2018, acknowledged the said loan. Defendants failed to repay the loan amount. Hence, the suit. 

3) Summons was served on defendants by post, but they failed to appear before the court. Hence, defendants are set exparte on 23­09­2019.

4) Plaintiff bank to substantiate its case got examined its Manager as P.W.1, apart from exhibiting Ex.'s.A1 to A6 viz., Agreement for agricultural advances dt.06­03­2010 executed by defendant No.1 ; deed of guarantee dt.06­03­2010 executed by D2, Acknowledgment of Debt by defendant No.1, dt. 04­03­2013, 02­03­2016 and 01­08­2018 and On­ line copy of statement of account No. 34638010000114 of D1, from 01­01­2008 to 31­03­2019. 

5) Heard. Perused the material on record.

2 O.S.No.118/2019 dt:30­10­2019

6) Now, the points for the determination are:­

1) Whether the Plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as sought for.

and

2) To what relief.

7) POINT NO ­1:­ a) It is the specific case of the plaintiff bank that, defendant No.1 availed a loan of Rs. 72,000/­ under agreement dated 06­03­2010 for which defendant No.2 stood as guarantor, but subsequently failed to repay the said loan amount inspite of acknowledging the debt by defendant No.1 on 04­03­2013, 02­03­2016 and 01­08­2018 under Ex.'s.A3 to A5. Hence, the suit.

b) The Manager of plaintiff bank is examined as P.W.1 to prove the case of the plaintiff bank. He filed his chief­examination affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint by stating about obtaining of loan amount of Rs. 72,000/­ by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff bank, execution of loan agreement by defendant no.1, acting as guarantor by defendant no.2, acknowledgement of debt by defendant No.1 on 04­03­2013, 02­03­2016 and 01­08­2018 under Ex.'s.A3 to A5 and failure of the defendants to repay the loan amount, despite several oral demands, resulting in filing of the suit. 

c) As there is no other evidence on record to rebut the testimony of PW1, it becomes uncontroverted evidence and the same has to be relied on. Hence, this court by relying on the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.'s.A1 to A5, holds that, the plaintiff bank is entitled for the relief as sought for.

Accordingly, Point No.1 is determined.

8) POINT NO­2:­ In view of findings in point No­1, the suit is to be decreed with costs.

9) RESULT :­ In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.1,20,093/­ (Rupees One lakh Twenty thousand and ninety three Only), together with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from the date of the filing of the Suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realization of the decree, in the interests of justice. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of October, 2019.

Sd/­S.Jayalakshmi  Junior Civil Judge, Naidupet.

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :­ WITNESSES EXAMINED:­ For Plaintiff :­ For Defendants:­ None. P.W.1: S.N.Haresh, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Naidupet. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED :­ For Plaintiff :­ Ex.A1: Agreement for agricultural advances, dt.06­03­2010 executed by defendant No.1. Ex.A2: Deed of guarantee dt.06­03­2010 executed by D2. Ex.A3: Acknowledgment of Debt by defendant No.1, dt. 04­03­2013.

3 O.S.No.118/2019 dt:30­10­2019

Ex.A4: Acknowledgment of Debt by defendant No.1, dt. 02­03­2016. Ex.A5: Acknowledgment of Debt by defendant No.1, dt. 01­08­2018. Ex.A6: On line copy of statement of account No. 34638010000114 of D1, from 01­01­2008 to 31­03­2019.

For Defendants:­ ­ NIL­ Sd/­S.Jayalakshmi J.C.J., Naidupet.

1 O.S.NO: 139 OF 2019 Dt: 29­10­2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NAIDUPETA.

Present: Smt. S.JAYA LAKSHMI,

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta.

Tuesday, this the 29 th day of October, 2019.

O.S.No. 139 of 2019

Between : Darsi Ramesh, S/o. Subramanayam, Hindu, aged about 45 years, Resident of Bank street, Naidupet town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.… Plaintiff.

And: Thadagala Lakshmamma, W/o. Subramanyam Achari, Hindu, aged about 54 years, Pellakur Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Now, working at T.T.D. Administrative Building, staff I.D.No. 8787, Opposite to Polytechnic College, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. … Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for Judgment today i.e., on 29-10-2019 in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Sri.K.Dasaiah Modaliar and of defendant being exparte, having heard and after perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

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

1. Suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money, basing on the strength of

Promissory note.

2. Case of the plaintiff in precise form is that, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.90,000/- from him on 18-07-2016 and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour on the same day. Despite repeated oral demands and legal notice dt.

06-07-2019, the defendant failed to discharge the suit promissory note amount. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons of the defendant was served on her by Post. But, defendant failed to enter appearance either in person or through advocate. Hence, the defendant is set exparte on 24-09-2019, by this court.

4. Plaintiff to substantiate his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited

Ex.’s.A1 to A3, namely, Suit Promissory note, dt:18-07-2016 for Rs. 90,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; office copy of legal notice dated 06-07-2019 and Postal receipt dt. 06-07-2019.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

2 O.S.NO: 139 OF 2019 Dt: 29­10­2019

6. Now, the points for the determination are:-

1) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of Suit amount as prayed for?

and

2) To what relief ?

7. POINT NO -1:- a) It is the case of the plaintiff in nutshell that, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.90,000/- from him on 18-07-2016, under promissory note (Ex.A1), but failed to repay the promissory note amount, despite oral demands and legal notice dt 06-07-2019 under Ex.A2. Hence, the suit.

b) To prove the said case of the plaintiff, he got examined himself as P.W.1. He filed his chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the plaint contents by stating about borrowing of an amount of Rs.90,000/- from him on 18-07-2016 by the defendant under promissory Note (Ex.A1) and failure of the defendant to repay the promissory note amount despite legal notice dt.06-07-2019, resulting in filing of the suit. As there is no other evidence on record to rebut the said testimony of PW.1, it becomes unchallenged evidence and the same has to be relied on. Thus, by relying upon the uncontrovorted testimony of PW.1, coupled with Ex.A1 Suit Promissory note, this Court holds that, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

8. POINT NO -2:- In view of findings in Point No-1, the suit is to be decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,54,800/- only. Costs of demand notice of Rs.500/- can not be included in the adjudged sum, as the said amount will be included in the Costs.

9. RESULT :- In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.1,54,800/-, (Rupees one Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Eight hundred only), together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the Suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.90,000/- (Rupees

Ninety Thousand only) from the date of the decree, till the date of realization of the decree.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

Junior Civil Judge, Naidupeta.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :-

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Plaintiff :- For Defendant:- NONE.

P.W.1:D.Ramesh.

3 O.S.NO: 139 OF 2019 Dt: 29­10­2019

DOCUMENTS MARKED :-

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Suit Promissory note, dt:18-07-2016 for Rs. 90,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A2: Office copy of legal notice dated 06-07-2019.

Ex.A3: Postal receipt dt. 06-07-2019.

For Defendant:- - NIL-

Sd/-S.Jayalakshmi

J.C.J., Naidupet.