Smt S. Suryakiransri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARASAPURAM

Present : - Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri. Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Narsapur (FAC) Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram Wednesday, the 2nd day of January, 2019

C.C. No. 350 of 2013

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Station House Officer, Elamanchili Police Station. … Complainant

A n d

Thota Venkata Ramana @ Rajkumar, S/o Rajarao, Age 35 yrs, C/SC-Mala, R/o Bharatpet, Elamanchili(V)(M). … Accused

This case is coming on 28-12-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for prosecution and Sri J.Saraschandra Babu Advocate for accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The accused is prosecuted for the trial of offences punishable under sections 498-A,323 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr.No.85/2013 of

Elamanchili Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed from the charge sheet are that :

L.W.1/Thota Srilekha @ Rajyalakshmi is resident of Bharatpet,

Elamanchili village and Mandal. Her marriage was performed with accused on 21-06-2006, according to their caste customs at the house of her husband. As per the the demand of accused, the parents of the victim gave

Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and Rs.15,000/- towards Adapaduchu

Lanchanam. Fulfilling all preliminary formalities with sari samans, the victim was sent for marital fold to the house of her husband. The accused did not go for words and addicted to vices, used to ill treat the victim by beating her 2 and abusing her. He treated her as servant maid by not providing even good food or shelter. During wedlock, the victim blessed with two male children.

Due to the demands of her husband, her parents used to fulfill his needs now and then but he didn’t satisfy with that. Again the accused demanded the victim parents to provide expenses for him to go to Soudi for which the elder brother of the victim Srinivasarao @ Srinu(L.W4) spent an amount of

Rs.75,000/- to send the accused to Soudi on 12-05-2010. On 22-07-2013 at about 2:00PM, the accused disputed with the victim for Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional dowry and exceeded torturing her, beat her indiscriminately with hands and legs by dragging her outside from the house and at that time her distant relative i.e., L.W5/Thota Sivannarayana who witnessed the dispute intervened/rescued her from her husband. The victim informed the same to her parents and they came, took her with them and lodged complaint against the accused.

Basing on the report of L.W.1, L.W.10/MKVV Satyanarayana, HC of

Police, Elamanchili Police Station registered the above case on 26-07-2013, and investigated into. He examined the victim and her parents in police station and recorded their statements. Later, he proceeded to scene of offence situated in Bharatepet of Elamanchili and prepared rough sketch. He secured witnesses and examined them and recorded their statements. Later, he proceeded to the in law’s house of victim which is situated in Appanna

Cheruvu of Poduru Mandal, he secured witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. On 29-07-2013 at 10:00AM, he arrested the accused and produced before the court for judicial remand. He seized passport from the accused and filed the same before this court. Later, he handed over the entire CD file to L.W11/A.Vijay Kumar, SI of police,

Elamanchili police station for further investigation. L.W11/SI verified the 3 investigation done by L.W10/SI and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, L.W11/SI filed charge sheet.

3. Cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under sections 498-A,323 IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied on by the prosecution was furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207

Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined Under Section 239 Cr. P.C. He denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. After hearing and on consideration, charges for the offences under sections 498-A,323 IPC against accused was framed, read over and explained in Telugu for which the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in and no documents were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating evidence leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

8. I have heard the arguments of learned APP for the state and the learned counsel for accused. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence on record.

9. Now point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution could

bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under sections

498-A,323 IPC ?

10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined father of defacto complainant as P.W.1, defacto complainant as P.W.2, her mother as

P.W3, the independent witnesses were examined as P.Ws.4 to 6, the 4

Investigating Officer was examined as P.W7 and got marked the report of

P.W.2 as Ex.P1, the 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.Ws.4 to 6 as Exs.P2 to P4,

Original FIR as Ex.P5, Rough Sketch as Ex.P6, Pass port as Ex.P7.

11. The learned APP argued that even though, the independent witnesses were turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with

Exs.P1,P5 to P7 clearly established the guilt of the accused and hence she prays to convict the accused. On the other hand the learned defence counsel argued that the defacto complainant herself examined as P.W2, but she did not face the cross examination and further adjournment given for her appearance but she did not turn up. Hence, this court eschewed the evidence of P.W.2 as she did not face the cross examination. He argued that unless and until a witness faces cross examination the examination of witnesses will not be completed as per section 138 of evidence Act. Since,

P.W2 did not face the cross examination of accused, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration. He further, argued that except the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3 who are parents of P.W2, there is no other evidence available on record to show that the accused subjected the defacto complainant to harassment for the sake of additional dowry as contemplated U/Sec 498-A

IPC. Hence, he prays to acquit the accused.

12. On going through rival contentions of both parties, it is not in dispute that the defacto complainant who was examined as P.W2 in this case is wife of accused. The story of the prosecution is that the accused is the husband of defacto complainant i.e., P.W2 and he demanded, the defacto complainant and her parents for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-,on that they paid Rs.75,000/-to the accused and sent him to the Saudi. Later, he did not look after the defacto complainant and her children and after he returned to

India, he harassed the defacto complainant and beat her indiscriminately 5 and on that she lodged a report against accused. Here in this case to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of

P.Ws.1,3 and 7. The independent witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 to 6 did not support the prosecution version and they categorically deposed in their evidence that they did not know anything about the case facts. As they resiled from their previous statements which were recorded by the police during the course of investigation, the learned prosecutor after obtaining permission, cross examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P2 to P4. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 is noway helpful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

13. The remaining evidence available on record is the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3 who are parents of P.W2. The defacto complainant herself examined as P.W2 on 29-01-2018 but when the matter was adjourned for the cross examination of defacto complainant at the request of learned defence counsel, the defacto complainant did not turn up before this court from 29-01-2018 to 08-06-2018. On 08-06-2018, the prosecution filed a memo along with VRO report stating that the P.W2 went to Gulf country.

Hence, this court eschewed the chief examination of P.W2. Hence, the chief examination evidence of P.W2 cannot be taken into consideration by this court as she did not face the cross examination of the learned defence counsel and if her chief examination evidence is only considered, it would cause prejudice to the accused.

14. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1 who is father of defacto complainant, his evidence reveals that the marriage of defacto complainant was performed with accused on 21-06-2006 at Elamanchili village as per the

Christian rites and caste customs. At that time of marriage, he gave cash of 6

Rs.50,000/- to the accused as demanded by him, he also presented sari samans and gave cash of Rs.15,000/- towards Adapaduchu Lanchanams.

After marriage, the defacto complainant and accused blessed with two children and after that accused demanded the defacto complainant to bring cash of Rs.1,00,000/- in order to go to Gulf country and on that he gave

Rs.75,000/- to accused and there after he went to Gulf country. But he did not send any amount to defacto complainant and her children for their maintenance and later one day the accused called the defacto complainant over phone as he returned to India and on that the defacto complainant went to the house of accused where he beat her indiscriminately. Finally, he necked out the defacto complainant from his house and on that the defacto complainant lodged a report to the police.

15. The evidence of P.W3 who is the mother of defacto complainant also run in the same lines as that of P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they paid Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, Rs.15,000/- towards Adapaduchu

Lanchanams and also they gave sari samans. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, there is no other evidence available on record to prove that they paid the above amount to the accused. During the course of cross examination of

P.W1 he stated that he is residing in a assigned land granted by the

Government and he has white ration card. He further stated that his annual income Rs.19,000/- and he gets an income of Rs.4,000/- per month. He stated that he has no land property. P.W.3 also stated in her cross examination that they are residing in Government assigned land and they are living on coolie work. So, according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 their annual income is Rs.19,000/- and they are living on coolie work. Hence, it is not possible to pay Rs.50,000/- towards dowry, Rs.15,000/- towards

Adapaduchu Lanchanams and sari samans worth Rs.1,00,000/- to the 7 accused at the time of marriage as deposed by the P.Ws.1 and 3 in their chief examination evidence. Further, as per the contents of Ex.P1 when accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- to go to Gulf country the brother of defacto complainant by the name Srinivas paid the said amount to the accused and sent him to the Gulf country. But P.W1 deposed that he, himself paid the said amount to the accused. But the brother of defacto complainant was neither examined and nor cited as a witness in this case. Further, the contents of Ex.P1 were not proved properly and Ex.P1 was marked through

P.W1. According to contents of Ex.P1 the accused went to the Gulf country on 12-05-2010 and he returned to India on 22-07-2013, in between this period he was at Gulf country and hence there is no question of harassment of defacto complainant by the accused. The same was also not deposed by the P.Ws.1 and 3 that the accused used to harassment the defacto complainant over phone from the Gulf country.

16. According to the version of P.Ws.1 and 3 when accused returned to India, he called the defacto complainant and on that the defacto complainant went to the house of accused and on that he beat the defacto complainant indiscriminately as he addicted for vices. But as per the contents of Ex.P1 the accused returned to India on 18-07-2013 and the defacto complainant went to the house of accused on the said date and the accused beat the defacto complainant and dragged her on the road and beat her indiscriminately on 22-07-2013. There is only four days gap in between the date of incident and the leading of marital life by the defacto complainant and accused, after the accused returning to India. P.Ws.1 and 3 did not depose that accused demande amount from the defacto complainant in between these days. Ex.P5 i.e., FIR was lodged for the offence punishable

U/Sec 498-A IPC initially and later the section was altered to 498-A, 323 8

IPC. Evidence of investigation officer i.e., P.W7 reveals that on 25-07-2013 at about 11:30AM, P.Ws.1 to 3 and L.W4/ B.Srinivas came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report and basing on that Ex.P1 he registered

Ex.P5. After investigation he added section 323 IPC basing on the evidence of witnesses. But P.W.7 categorically deposed in his evidence as P.W2 refused to go to Hospital on the day of Ex.P1, he couldnot send her to

Hospital. So, if defacto complainant really have injuries on her body, she could have gone to Hospital for the treatment. Further, P.Ws.1 and 3 did not depose that as the accused beat the defacto complainant she sustained injuries. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the charge U/Sec 323 IPC.

The learned defence counsel argued that the defacto complainant lodged a report against accused immediately after three days when the accused returned to India, which had showed the conduct of defacto complainant that she eagerly waited to lodge report against accused and since the accused returned to India, she foisted a false case against him. He argued that the conduct of purpose of relevant U/Sec 8 of evidence Act. As per the version of prosecution and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 the accused harassed the defacto complainant and demanded them to send him to Gulf country. But at that time, they did not lodge any report to the police. They waited from 2010 to 2013 and later, when accused returned to India, they lodged report. Further, P.W.7 who is Investigating Officer seized the pass port of accused and on that he could not go to Gulf country but during the pendency of this case, the defacto complainant went to Gulf country, which shows the conduct defacto complainant and her parents and it is relevant to the present case. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 there is no other evidence available on record to prove the ingredients of section 498-A IPC and section 323IPC.

9

17. Hence, basing on the testimonies P.Ws.1 and 3, this court could not convict the accused as the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18. Therefore, In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A,323 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 2nd day of January, 2019.

SD/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl.Judl. I Class Magistrate, FAC/Principal junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence :

P.W.1: Beera Rajarao -- NIL --

P.W.2: Thota Srilekha @ Rajyalakshmi

P.W.3: Beera Seethamahalakshmi

P.W.4: Thota Sivannarayana

P.W.5: Panthagani Kumar Ratnam

P.W.6: Bonda Ramachandrarao

P.W.7: MKVV.Satyanarayana, ASI

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W1

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W4.

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W5.

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W6.

10

Ex.P.5: Original FIR.

Ex.P.6: Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.7: Passport.

For Defence:

-- Nil –

M.Os. Marked:

-- Nil –

ID/S.S.K.S, A.J.F.C.M FAC/P.J.C.J, N.S.P.

11

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of West Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by ADDL. JUDL. I CLASS MAGISTRATE, (FAC)

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Released on bail (1) (2) (3) (4) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22.07.2023 25.07.2013 29.07.2013 31.07.2013 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trial Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5) (6) (7) (8) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17.11.2017 24.12.2018 02.01.2019 Due to non-production of witnesses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.350/2013 on the file of Additional Judl. I Class Magistrate’s Court, Narasapur. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police Cr.No.85/2013 of Elamanchili P.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion Calling Village ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thota Venkata Ramana @ Rajkumar, S/o Rajarao, Age 35 yrs, C/SC-Mala, R/o Bharatpet, Elamanchili(V)(M). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : under section 498-A,323 IPC.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence : Therefore, In the result, the sole accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A,323 IPC and he is acquitted for the said charge under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/Sec 437-A Cr.P.C.

SD/Smt.S.Surya Kiran Sri, Addl.Judl. I Class Magistrate, FAC/Principal junior Civil Judge, Narasapuram

Copy submitted to the I Addl. Dist. Judge, W.G., Eluru Copy to the Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SMT. K. ARUNA, B.A., L.L.M.,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

(FAC) Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2013

O.S.NO. 43/2013

Between

Mallula Amma Mani … Plaintiff

And

Kaligithi Vijaya Prasad … Defendant

This suit is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Sambhu Prasad, Advocate for plaintiff and of the defendant remained set exparte and upon perusing the plaint, written statement and other material papers available on record and upon hearing arguments this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit for recovery of ` 42,908/- being the

principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 06.12.2007

allegedly executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for ` 20,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 36% p.a.

and costs thereof.

2. The averments of the plaint are as follows:

On 06.12.2007 the defendant herein for his family necessities and to discharge sundry debts, borrowed an amount of ` 20,000/- executing a promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at ` 3/- per hundred per month at

Elamanchili. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant paid an amount of `5,000/- on 02-03-2009 and ` 2,000/- on 14-02-2012 and made an endorsement on the back side of the pronote. Later, the 2 defendant failed to pay the balance pronote debt amount. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendant on 21-01-2013 demanding him to discharge the balance amount, the defendant received the same and kept quiet neither issued reply nor pay balance amount to the plaintiff. Hence, this suit for recovery.

3. Summons of defendant returned unserved. On 24.05.2013 issued summons by way of publication in Janatha

Newspaper, and the respondent called absent and set exparte in the present suit.

4. Perused the chief examination affidavit of P.W.1 and

Exs.A1 to A5. As seen from the entire material on record, it clearly appears that the defendant borrowed under Ex.A1 promissory note and made payments under Ex.A2 and A3, and in spite of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff, defendant did not repay the balance pronote debt amount. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant did not put in his appearance and cross-examine P.W.1. Thus, the plaintiff proved the suit claim against the defendant.

5. In the result, the suit is decreed for ` 42,908/- with costs and subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization on balance principal sum of ` 13,000/-.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 8th day of August,

2013.

Sd/- K. Aruna

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)Principal Junior Civil Judge,

NARSAPUR

3

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1/06.12.2007 : Promissory Note Ex.A2/02.03.2009 : Part payment endorsement made by the defendant for ` 5,000/- Ex.A3/14.02.2012 : Part payment endorsement made by the defendant for ` 2,000/- Ex.A4/21-01-2013 : Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A5/23-01-2013 : Postal acknowledgement

FOR DEFENDANT: - NIL –

Sd/- K. Aruna

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

(FAC)Principal Junior Civil Judge,

NARSAPUR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SMT. S. SURYA KIRANSRI, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, FAC/Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

Thursday this the 3rd day of January, 2019

O.S. No. 141 of 2018

Between:

Thirumani Rama Rao, S/o Pothuraju, age 77 yrs., Hindu, Male, Cultivation, R/O Guntapallavupalem, H/O Mogaltur panchayat, Mogaltur Mandal,W.G.Dist. … Plaintiff a n d Kollati Koteswara Rao, S/o Narayana murthy, age 58 yrs., Hindu, Male, Cultivation, R/O Guntapallavu palem, D.No. 22-30, H/O Mogaltur Panchayat,Mogaltur Mandal. …. Defendant

This suit coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Donga Nagireddi, Advocates for plaintiff and of Sri J. Simon Vijay Kumar, advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,37,066/- being the amount of principal and interest due under a promissory note dated 12-3-2017 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of

Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum with yearly compound rests and for costs of the suit.

Plaintiff filed memo stating that the matter is settled before the village elders. Hence the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court, the 3rd day of January, 2019.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

FAC/ PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NARSAPUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

AJFCM, FAC/P.J.C.J.,NSP

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SRI K. MOTHILAL,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol

FAC/Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

Friday this the 4TH day of January, 2019

E.P. 33/2018 IN O.S.No. 201/2015

Between

Peethala Arjuna Rao, S/o Bheemayya, Age 50 yrs, Male, Hindu, Agriculture, D.No.1-125, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal, NPJCJC … D.Hr/Plaintiff

AND

1. Godavarthi Padmavathi Devi, W/o Late Srinivasu, Aged 30 yrs, Female, Business, D.No. 2-198/2, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal,W.G.Dt.

2. Godavarthi Prabhakara Raju, S/o Late Srinivasu, Aged 7 yrs, Male, Hindu, being minor rep.by his mother and guardian 1st JDr, D.No. 2-198/2, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal,W.G.Dt. … J.Drs./Defendants ***

This petition has come before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Venkatarama Reddy, Learned Advocate for the DHr/Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The counsel for DHr filed full satisfaction memo and DHr called present and represented full satisfaction received and on considering the memo, this E.P. is terminated and attachment is raised.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court on this 4 th day of January, 2019.

Sd/Sri K. MOTHILAL,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PALAKOL,

FAC/ PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NARSAPUR

PRESENT: SRI K. MOTHILAL,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol

FAC/Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur

Friday this the 4TH day of January, 2019

E.P. 34/2018 IN O.S.No. 202/2015

Between

Vadde Sudha, W/o Prasanna Kumar, Age 33 yrs, Female, Hindu, Agriculture, D.No.1-72, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal, NPJCJC … D.Hr/Plaintiff

AND

1. Godavarthi Padmavathi Devi, W/o Late Srinivasu, Aged 30 yrs, Female, Business, D.No. 2-198/2, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal,W.G.Dt.

2. Godavarthi Prabhakara Raju, S/o Late Srinivasu, Aged 7 yrs, Male, Hindu, being minor rep.by his mother and guardian 1st JDr, D.No. 2-198/2, Siragalapalli Village, Elamanchili mandal,W.G.Dt. … J.Drs./Defendants ***

This petition has come before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri M. Venkatrama Reddy, Learned Advocate for the DHr/Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The counsel for DHr filed full satisfaction memo and DHr also reported the matter settled. On considering the full satisfaction memo, this E.P. is terminated and attachment is raised.

Written and pronounced by me in Open Court on this 4 th day of January, 2019.

Sd/Sri K. MOTHILAL,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,PALAKOL,

FAC/ PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARSAPUR.