Sri.S.Shiva Kumar

1

Crl.A.90-17

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: S. SHIVA KUMAR,

III-ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2023

Crl.Appeal No.90 of 2017

Between:-

G. Yadaiah S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.H.No.17-1-380/147, D.S.Nagar, Vaddera Basthi, Santhoshnagar,

Hyderabad. ...Appellant

AND

1.B.Suresh S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.15, H.No. 8-6-953, Christian Colony, Hasthinapuram, Ranga Reddy District.

2.The State of Telangana

Represented by Public Prosecutor. ...Respondents

Against the Judgment dated.05-01-2017 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar.

C.C.No.420 of 2015 (Old CC No.899/2015) Between:

B.Suresh S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Plot No.15, H.No. 8-6-953, Christian Colony, Hasthinapuram,

Ranga Reddy District. ...Complainant

AND

G. Yadaiah S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.H.No.17-1-380/147, D.S.Nagar, Vaddera Basthi, Santhoshnagar,

Hyderabad. ...Accused

This criminal appeal is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.V.Kishan., Counsel for the Appellant and Sri G.V.V.S.R.Subrahmanyam, Counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and upon perusal of the material

papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

2

Crl.A.90-17

J U D G M E N T

1.This is an Appeal filed by the accused challenging the Judgment of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar, in CC No.420 of 2015 (Old CC No.899/2015), dated 05.01.2017, wherein the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty

Thousand only) within 45 days, in default, three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent is the complainant and for the sake of convenience, they referred as arrayed in the

Court below.

3.The case of the complainant is that the complainant and the accused are known to each other and both are in civil contract works and in order to raise funds in his contract work, he joined the complainant as a partner in his contract works undertaken by the accused and the accused has written an undertaking letter, dt.03.04.2014 on Rs.100/- stamp paper in proof of the investment and after completion of the said contract work and after realization of the contract amount from the customer the accused has issued a cheque bearing No.000014, dated 25.04.2015 drawn at Andhra Bank, Santhosh

Nagar, Hyderabad towards settlement of the dues and on the instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the cheque on 25.04.2014 in his banker i.e., State Bank of Hyderabad, Haastinapuram Branch, R.R.District and same was dishonored with an endorsement of “insufficient funds” vide cheque returns memo dated 30.04.2015 and immediately the complainant approached the accused and the accused requested to represent the cheque on 01.07.2015

3

Crl.A.90-17

and as per the instructions of the accused the complainant presented the cheque on 02.07.2015 and the same was dishonoured for want of funds and thereafter the complainant issued a statutory legal notice on 13.07.2015 demanding the accused for repayment of the cheque amount within fifteen days and the said notice was received by the accused on 16.07.2015 and instead of repaying the cheque amount, the accused issued a reply notice on 06.08.2015 with false and baseless allegations and contended that the accused failed to repay the cheque amount within the mandatory period and in those circumstances the complainant was left with no other remedy except to approach this court by way of private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., and prayed for necessary action against the accused herein.

4.On appearance, all the documents relied upon by the complainant has been provided to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable

Instrument Act and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the claim, the complainant is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Ex.P1 is the original cheque for Rs.1,50,000/-, Ex.P2 is the original cheque deposit slip, Ex.P3 is the original cheque return memo,

Ex.P4 is the original cheque return memo, Ex.P5 is the original undertaking letter, dated 03.04.2014, Ex.P6 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 13.07.2015, Ex.P7 is the original postal receipt, Ex.P8 is the original

Acknowledgment, dated 16.07.2015 and Ex.P9 is the reply notice, dated 06.08.2015.

6.After closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was putforth to him and the same was denied and the accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor

4

Crl.A.90-17

marked any documents.

7.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below arrived at a conclusion holding that the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and delivered the “impugned judgment”.

8.Being aggrieved by the “impugned judgment”, the present appeal is filed by the accused on the ground that: i. The court below mechanically accepted the prosecution case without legal appraisal and logical deduction. ii. The court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record. iii. The court below failed to observe that

PW1 failed to examine any independent witness to corroborate his evidence. iv. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that the prosecution has not made out the ingredients of section 138 of NI Act. v. The learned Magistrate ought to have seen that PW1’s evidence is totally inconsistent.

9.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and there is no representation on behalf of the Respondent/Complaiant and treated the arguments as heard. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is “whether there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the court below?” 11.POINT No.1:-

On perusal of Ex.P5-undertaking letter, dated 03.04.2014, the complainant and accused entered into an agreement, wherein the accused has undertaken that the contract will be completed by both of them and after completion of the work they will share the amounts and in-pursuance of

Ex.P5/undertaking letter, the accused issued Ex.P1/cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- and the same was deposited in the complainant’s bank vide Ex.P2/cheque

5

Crl.A.90-17

deposit slip, which was dishonored vide Ex.P3 and P4/cheque return memos and the complainant issued Ex.P6/statutory legal notice, dt. 13.07.2015 vide

Ex.P7/postal recipt and the same was served upon the accused vide

Ex.P8/acknowledgment, dt.16.07.2015 and the accused issued Ex.P9/reply notice, dt. 06.07.2015 contending that the work was awarded to him on 03.04.2014 and the same has to be completed within a period of two months and the complainant and the accused invested the amount in the said work order and during the course of work for getting the material the Ex.P1/cheque was given to the complainant and by misusing the same the present case is filed and contended that the work order has been completed in the first week of July, 2014 itself, as such, question of issuing the cheque on 25.04.2015 does not arise.

12.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant failed to prove the source of income and contended that proof is required on the part of the complainant in order to draw presumption u/s 118 and 139 of

NI Act relied upon the judgment in John K. Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham and another (2014) 2 SCC 236 and K. Subramani Vs. K.Damodara Naidu (2015) 1 SCC 99 and K.Ashok Kumar Goud Vs. Sree Ramulu and another (2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 320).

13.In the present case execution of Ex.P-5/undertaking letter is not disputed by the accused and further in Ex.P-9/reply notice it is stated that accused and complainant invested amounts in the said contract work order and accused were settled and contended that cheques were issued for getting the material to complete the said work order. Having received the amount from the complainant for completion of contract and admitted the same, the

6

Crl.A.90-17

accused cannot contend that the complaint has no source of income or financial capacity to advance the amount. The judgments relied upon by the accused will not applicable to the present facts of the case and do not supports to the contention of the accused.

14.The burden is on the accused to prove that the amount was paid and settled and the accused failed to adduce any probable evidence to prove the payment covered under Ex.P-1/cheque. In the reply notice also the accused did not disputed the financial aspects of the complainant. If work is completed in two months and payment also received by the accused in pursuant to the work order no material is placed to rebut the presumptions under section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act.

15.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this court finds that there are absolutely no grounds warranting interference of this court with the impugned judgment passed by the court below. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16. As a result, criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment of the learned Special Magistrate, Hayathnagar, RR District in CC No.

420 of 2015, dated 05.01.2017 for the offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2023.

III-ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

Crl.A.301-19

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI S. SHIVA KUMAR,

III-ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Date this the 27th day of March, 2023

Crl. Appeal No.301 of 2019

Between:

Sri Mohd Sayeed Hassan Khan, S/o. Lal Mohammed Khan, Aged:Major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-24/3, Manchal Road, Ibrahimpatnam village

and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Appellant

AND

1. Akkali Malla Reddy, S/o. Alwal Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occu: Agriculture & Business, R/o.H.No.6-94/2, Pragathinagar Colony, Seriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.The State of Telangana through,

Additional Public Prosecutor....Respondents

Against the Judgment dated.13-03-2019 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatan

C.C.No.68 of 2018

Between:

Akkali Malla Reddy, S/o. Alwal Reddy, Aged 44 years, Occu: Agriculture & Business, R/o.H.No.6-94/2, Pragathinagar Colony, Seriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District. ...Complainant

AND

Sri Mohd Sayeed Hassan Khan, S/o. Lal Mohammed Khan, Aged:Major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-24/3, Manchal Road, Ibrahimpatnam village

and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Accused

This Criminal appeal is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Venkat Ram Reddy, counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri M. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the respondent/complainant and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delived the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The present appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C No.68 of 2018

dated 13-03-2019 passed by the learned Special Magistrate, Ibrahimpatan, Ranga

2

Crl.A.301-19

Reddy District, wherein, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and directed to pay compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment of six months.

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent is the complainant and for the sake of convenience, they referred as arrayed in the Court below.

3.The case of the complainant is that, the complainant and accused are acquainted with each other and due to the said acquaintance the accused approached the complainant for hand loan of Rs.6 lakhs to meet his urgent financial requirements and considering the same the complainant paid Rs.6,00,000/- on 22.01.2016 in the presence of witnesses by name A.Jagal Reddy and M.Mahesh and the accused executed an undertaking-cum receipt (Hamipatram) and promised to repay the said amount within three months and also issued a cheque bearing

No.733935 drawn on State Bank of India, Ibrahimpatnam Branch, towards discharge of hand loan amount and the complainant presented the said cheque on 10.10.2017 in his bank, The Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Uppariguda village and the same was dishonoured with an endorsement as “Funds insufficient and

Drawers signature differs” vide cheque return memo dt.20.10.2017 and after informing the same to the accused the complainant issued a legal notice on 08.11.2017 and the same was received by the accused on 27.11.2017 and did not give any reply and in those circumstances the complaint is filed under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act to punish the accused and to award compensation.

4.On appearance, all the documents relied upon by the complainant has been provided to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and accused was examined under

Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the claim, the complainant is examined as PW1 and PW2 and marked Ex.P1 to P14 i.e Ex.P1 is the original undertaking-cum-receipt (Hami patram),

3

Crl.A.301-19

dt.22.01.2016, Ex.P2 is the original cheque bearing No.733935 for Rs.6,00,000/-, dt.09.09.2017, Ex.P3 is the original pay in slip, dt.10.10.2017, Ex.P4 is the original cheque return memo, dt. 20.10.2017, Ex.P5 is the office copy of legal notice, dt.08.11.2017, Ex.P6 is the original postal receipt, dt.08.11.2017, Ex.P7 is the original postal acknowledgment card, dt.27.11.2017, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of complaint in CC No.102/2014, Ex.P9 is the certified copy of promissory note executed by accused in favour of Srinivas Reddy, Ex.P10 is the certified copy of cheque bearing

No.468322, Ex.P11 is the certified copy of cheque return memo, dt.28.03.2013,

Ex.P12 is the certified copy of legal notice, dt.10.04.2013, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of postal acknowledgment card and Ex.P14 is the certified copy of docket order in CC

No.102/2014, dt.03.10.2018.

6.After closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was putforth to him and the same was denied and the accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below arrived at a conclusion holding that the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and delivered the “impugned judgment”.

8.Being aggrieved by the “impugned judgment”, the present appeal is filed by the accused on the ground that: i. The court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also failed to appreciate the legal aspects. ii. The court below passed the judgment based on assumptions and presumptions. iii. The complainant failed to prove his financial capacity to give huge amount to the appellant and did not give any details from where he brought such a huge amount to lend the appellant. iv. The court below ought to have consider that PW2 is planted to support the complainant as he is his relative. v. The lower court failed to consider that the signature on the cheque not belongs to accused and the return of cheque as “Drawers signature differs” does not attract the offence under section 138 of NI Act. vi. The complainant

4

Crl.A.301-19

failed to file any documentary evidence to prove that there is legally enforceable debt payable to the respondent.

9.In spite of giving sufficient opportunities, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant/accused. Hence, treated the arguments as heard. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant. Perused the record.

10. Now the point for determination is “whether there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the court below?”

11.To prove the case, the complainant is examined as PW1 and the contention of the complainant is that on the request of the accused, he advanced Rs.6,00,000/- as a hand loan and the accused executed Ex.P1/undertaking-cum-receipt (Hami patram),

dt. 22-01-2016 and the accused issued Ex.P2/cheque bearing No.733935, dt.09-09-

2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- for discharge of legally enforceable debt and the same was presented in his banker vide Ex.P13/ertified copy of postal acknowledgment, dt.10.10.2017 and the same was dishonoured vide Ex.P4/cheque returned memo, dt.20-10-2017 and the complainant issued Ex.P5/legal notice, dt.08.11.2017 and the same was sent vide Ex.P6/postal receipt dt.08.11.2017 and the same was served upon the accused vide Ex.P7/postal acknowledgment card, dt.27.11.2017,

Ex.P8/certified copy of complaint in CC No.102/2014, Ex.P9/certified copy of promissory note executed by accused in favourof Srinivas Reddy, Ex.P10/certified copy of cheque bearing No.468322, Ex.P11/certified copy of cheque return memo,

dt. 28.03.2023, Ex.P12/certified copy of legal notice, dt.10.04.2013, Ex.P13/certified

copy of postal acknowledgment card and Ex.P14/certified copy of docket order in CC

No.102/2014, dt.03.10.2018.

12.In order to prove Ex.P1, PW2/attesting witness was examined and deposed that the complainant advanced the amount in his presence and Ex.P1 was executed in his presence and Ex.P2/cheque was issued to complainant by the accused and nothing elicited from his cross-examination to disprove the Ex.P1 and P2.

5

Crl.A.301-19

13.The defence of the accused is that the cheque was stolen and forged his signature on the cheque and the complainant is doing money lending business. If really the complainant theft of Ex.P2/cheque, no legal action is initiated by the accused against complainant nor issued any reply to the legal notice. The accused also failed to prove that the complainant is doing money lending business. The court below carefully compared the signatures of accused on Ex.P2 with the Signature of the accused on u/S. 251 Cr.P.C., and 313 Cr.P.C., and also with signature on Ex.P1 and came to a conclusion that there was no variation in signature of accused. In the present case on hand, the accused has not disputed the execution of

Ex.P1/undertaking-cum-receipt dated 22-01-2016. Though the signature was disputed by the accused but failed to prove the same by adducing probable evidence and the accused failed to give any reply nor paid the amount. The accused failed to discharge the initial burden to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant u/s 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act with regard to the existence of legally enforceable debt under Ex.P2 cheque. The court below after considering the facts of the case and evidence on record passed the impugned judgment.

14.Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this court finds that there are absolutely no grounds warranting interference of this court with the impugned judgment passed by the court below. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. As a result, criminal appeal is dismissed by confirming the impugned judgment of the learned Special Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District in CC No.68 of 2018

dated 13-03-2019 for the offence punishable u/s 138 of NI Act.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27 th day of March, 2023.

III-ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

9. CHEGURI INDRAMMA, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about: 44 years, Occ: Household

10. Smt. CHEGURI MANJULA, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about 38 Years Occ: Household

11. Smt. CHEGURI ANDALU, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about 36 Years Occ: Household No.4 to 11 are R/o.H.No.2-12/1, Apareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - T.S.

12. SYED ZUBAIRUDDIN, S/o: Syed Sirajuddin, aged 34 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: 6- 2-71, Secretariat Hills, Near Shivalayam Temple, Puppalaguda, Neknampur, Gandipet, R.R.District Telangana 500 089.

13. YOGESH GOSAR, S/o: Suresh Chand Gosar, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: 3-4-131, Flat No.2C, Legend Majestic, Barkatpura, Near SNT. Francis, Junior College, Kachiguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-27, T.S.

...Respondents/Defendants

Claim: Petition filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w sec. 151 of CPC -::-

This petition is coming before me for hearing in the presence of M/S I.Nagender Rao, Advocate for Petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri B.Bhal Reddy, Advocate for R1 to R3, R8, R12 and R13 and Smt G.Madhavi, Advocate for R4 to R7 and upon hearing and perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:-

DOCKET ORDER

In view of dismissal of suit IA is closed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of April, 2023.

III Addl. District

Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B. NAGAR.

Present: Sri S.Shiva Kumar, III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

O.S. No. 442 of 2022

Dated on this the 6th day April, 2023.

Between:

1. VENKATESH GOLD TEGULLA, S/o: Mallalah, Aged about 8 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.9-287/7. Langer house, Hyderabad-8, T.S., Aadhaar No.6992 1396 6866

2. ARAVELLI SUNITHA, W/o: Avelli Venkateswar Rao, aged 54 Years, Occ: Housewife, R/o:Villa No.13, Survey No.149 and 150, Global Edge School, Kokapet, K.V. R.R.Dist.-500 075, T.S. Aadhar No.2209 0886 4603

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

AND

1. Smt. CHEGURI YADAMMA, W/o: Cheguri Shivaiah, Aged about 58 Years, Occ: Housewife, Aadhar No.9794 4057 3867

2. Sri CHEGURI SRINIVAS, S/o: Cheguri Sailu, aged about 36 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Aadhar No.8989 6011 6168

3. Sri CHEGURI RAJU, S/o: Cheguri Sailu, aged about 43 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Aadhaar No.7414 4815 3137

No.1 to 3 are R/o: Appareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. CHEGURI POCHAIAH, S/o: Late Cheguri Venkataiah and Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about: 50 Years, Occ: Agriculture, Aadhar No. 6211 3951 2742

5. Smt. CHEGURI INDRAMMA, W/o: Cheguri Pochaiah, aged about 44 years Occ: Household

6. CHEGURI GOPAL, S/o: Cheguri Pochaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculture

7. CHEGURI SRIKANTH, S/o: Cheguri Pochaiah, aged about 23 years Occ: Agriculture

8. CHEGURI SHIVAIAH, S/o: Late Cheguri Venkataiah and Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about: 49 years Occ: Agriculture,

9. CHEGURI INDRAMMA, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about: 44 years, Occ: Household

10. Smt. CHEGURI MANJULA, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about 38 Years Occ: Household

11. Smt. CHEGURI ANDALU, D/o: Late Smt. Cheguri Ramulamma, aged about 36 Years Occ: Household No.4 to 11 are R/o.H.No.2-12/1, Apareddyguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District - T.S.

12. SYED ZUBAIRUDDIN, S/o: Syed Sirajuddin, aged 34 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: 6- 2-71, Secretariat Hills, Near Shivalayam Temple, Puppalaguda, Neknampur, Gandipet, R.R.District Telangana 500 089.

13. YOGESH GOSAR, S/o: Suresh Chand Gosar, Aged about 48 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: 3-4-131, Flat No.2C, Legend Majestic, Barkatpura, Near SNT. Francis, Junior College, Kachiguda, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-27, T.S.

...Respondents/Defendants

CLAIM:- SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 25- 08-2021 AND TO DECLARE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING DOC.NO.2515 OF 2022 DATED 20-05-2022 EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT No.3 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT No.12 & TO DECLARE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING DOC.NO.2516 OF 2022 DATED 20-05-2022 EXECUTED BY DEFENDANT No.2 IN FAVOUR OF DEFENDANT No.13 AS NULL & VOID AND NOT BINDING ON THE

PLAINTIFFS

PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 & 3 OF C.P.C. R/W SEC. 26 OF C.P.C.

-::-

This Suit is filed for Specific performance and coming before me in the presence of M/S I.Nagender Rao, Advocate for Petitioners/plaintiffs and Sri B.Bhal Reddy, Advocate for D1 to D3, D8, D12 and D13, Smt G.Madhavi, Advocate for D4 to D7 and upon hearing and perusal of the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

DOCKET ORDER

IA No. 261/2023 is allowed. Suit is advanced from 17.04.2023 to today i.e.

06.04.2023.

Memo filed by plaintiffs to withdraw the suit. Plaintiff no. 1 and 2 personally present with ID proofs and identified by counsels. Suit is dismissed as withdrawn.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of April, 2023.

III Addl. District Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, L.B. NAGAR.

Present: Sri S.Shiva Kumar, III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

O.S. No. 195 of 2018

Dated on this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

Between:

K.Koteshwar Goud, S/o. K.Narayana Goud, Aged 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.3-15, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Shyam Sunder Loya, S/o: Ram Kishan Loya, R/o.H.No.15-7-591, Post Office, Begum Bazar Hyderabad - 500-012.

2. K.Srinivas @ Srinivasulu, S/o: K. Ramaiah, R/o.H.No.2-59/1, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

3. P.Yadagiri, S/o.P.Balakistaiah, R/o.H.No.3-15, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

4. K.Kishnaji, S/o.K.Lingoji @ Lingam, R/o.H.No.7-19/1, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

5. M.Venkatesham, S/o.M.Yadaiah, R/o.H.No.3-57/1, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Ready District.

6. B. Prashanth, S/o.B.Narender, R/o.H.No.3-82, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. U.Rama Krishna, S/o.U.Vajralingam, R/o.H.No.5-34, Old Hanuman Temple, Palmakole Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

...Defendants

CLAIM:- SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 28.09.2006 AND IN ALTERNATIVE FOR REFUND OF THE EARNEST AMOUNT @ 24% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE TILL THE DATE OF THE REALIZATION AND DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING DOCUMENT NO.5025 OF 2017 DATED 25.09.2017 AND DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING DOCUMENT NO.5026 OF 2017 DATED 25.09.2017 AND DECLARATION TO DECLARE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING DOCUMENT NO.7441 OF 2017 DATED 11.12.2017 AND THE SAME ARE NOT BINDING ON THE PLAINTIFF.

PLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 26 ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CPC -::- This Suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri K.Jaya Bharath Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff, Sri G. Rajender, Advocate for D4 and D1, D2, D3 and D5 to D7 have been set exparte and upon hearing and perusal of the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

DOCKET ORDER

Learned counsel for plaintiff filed a memo stating that the matter is settled out of court. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Written and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of March, 2023.

III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: Sri.S. Shiva Kumar I/c XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2023

E.P No. 1728 of 2022

Between:

Kotak Mahindra Bank having its office at Zone IV, 5th floor Kotak Infinity Park Off. Western Express Highway, General AK Vaidya Marg, Malad (E), Goregaon Mulund Link Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400097 Having its Regional office at Navabharath Chambers 2nd floor Somajiguda, Through its Authorised Signatory

Sri. G. Srinivas ...Decree-Holder

AND

Reddymasu Mery Prasanna S.o Unknown, Aged: Major, H.No. 7-9-93, Sai Nagar colony, Near Ambedkar Statue Ravipadu, Bairamlaguda, Kharmanghat,

LB Nagar, Hyderabad-500079. ....Judgment-Debtor

Claim: Execution Petition filed under order XXI, Rule 43,64 and 66 of CPC r/w 51(c), 55(c), 94(a) and Section 36 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Praying this court to issue Warrant of attachment of movables of Judgment Debtor till the realization of Decretal amount with costs and further interest.

This Execution Petition is coming on 31-03-2023 before me in presence of Smt. J. Deepthi Kiran, Counsel for the DHR and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following docket order:

D O C K E T O R D E R

Counsel for DHR filed a memo to withdraw the EP. Hence the EP is dismissed as withdrawn. Given under my hand and seal on this the 31st day of March, 2023.

sd/-

// True Copy //

Special Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum- XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B Nagar