Smt S.Thangamani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:: GOOTY

Present: - Smt. S.Thangamani,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal

FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gooty

Tuesday, the 06th day of April, 2021.

CALENDER CASE No.472 of 2015

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gooty Police Station. .. Complainant

Vs.

1. Penchalapad Anjineyulu, S/o Krishnamurthy, aged about 25 years, D.No.9/538, Uppara Street, Gooty town and Mandal.

2. Nallabothula Sekhar, S/o Late N.Ramudu, aged 21 years, D.No.9/836, C.P.I colony, Gooty town and Mandal,

3. Nallabothula Shiva, S/o Late N.Ramudu, aged 23 years, D.No.9/836, C.P.I colony, Gooty town and Mandal.

4. M.Venkatesh, S/o M.Nagaraju, aged 29 years, D.No.9/532, Uppara Street, Gooty town and Mandal.

.....Accused

This case has came before me on 26-03-2021, for final hearing in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri

A.Suryanarayana, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing on both sides, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gooty PS has filed Charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 in Crime No.367/2015 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case as follows:-

PW.1 and accused are having some ill-feelings regarding open place and now and then the accused used to quarrel with PW.1. On 29-11-2015 at about 8-30 PM while PW.3 was having cool drink at bazaar, the accused

No.1 came to him and picked up quarrel with him by saying that why he did not call him to his marriage and abused him in filthy language. On seeing the same when he asked A1 as why he is abusing PW.3, then A1 to A4 2 picked up quarrel with PW.1 and beat him with stick, hands and legs and caused bleeding injury on his head and on seeing the same, while PW.2 went to rescue PW.1, then A1 to A4 beat PW.2 with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries. On seeing the same PW.3 to PW.6 and others intervened and rescued PW.1 and PW.2 from the hands of accused. Later

PW.1 and PW.2 were shifted to the Government Hospital, Gooty and admitted for treatment.

3. Basing on the complaint of PW.1, PW.8 registered a case in

Cr.No.367/2015 under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, PW.8 examined PW.1 to PW.6 and recorded their statements and also visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. On 03.12.2015 PW.8 arrested the accused A1 to A4 and released them on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation PW.9 filed charge sheet against

A1 to A4 under the above section of law.

4. This court has taken the cognizance of the offence U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against A1 to A4 and issued summons.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

6.Accused are examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under section 324, 323 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and a charge under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code are framed against A1 to A4 and under section 509 IPC against A1, the sum and substance of charge sheet is read over and explained to them in

Vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defence.

7. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P5 got marked. On behalf of defense, DW.1 and DW.2 are examined and Ex.D1 got marked.

3

8. After closure of the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appeared from the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard both the sides. Perused the material records.

10.Now the Point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec 324, 323, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured person. PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, she also injured person. PW.3 to PW.6 are the eye witnesses, PW.7 is the doctor who gave treatment to the PW.1 and PW.2. PW.8 and PW.9 are investigation officers who registered the case and who made investigation and filed charge sheet.

12.PW.1 deposed that about 3 years back on one day at about 7-00 PM all the accused are quarreling with PW.3, on that he intervened and pacified the matter. Later he and PW.3 while returning to their house on the same day at about 8-00 PM all the accused came to his house and again made galata with PW.3, on that he again tried to intervened in the galata and at that time the accused No.1 beat him with stick on the left side of his head and caused bleeding injury to him. Immediately he went to the police station, thereafter he went to the government hospital, Gooty and the police recorded his statement at the hospital i.e Ex.P.1.

13.PW.2 is the wife of PW.1, she deposed that about three years back on one day at about 7-00 PM all the accused came to their house and made galata with her husband, at that time A1 beat her husband with a stick and caused bleeding injury on his head, on that she intervened to rescue her husband, at that time A2 to A4 pushed her on the ground, so that she received dumb injuries and also threatened them as they are living in their 4 house. By seeing the galata her daughter went to PW.3 and PW.5 to call for the rescue them. Subsequently PW.3 and PW.5 assisted them to go to the hospital.

14.PW.3 is the eye witness deposed that since prior to his marriage he has no talking terms with accused family. While so, about 4 years back his marriage was performed, at that time their elders did not invite the accused family for his marriage, on such a reason the accused family bore grudges. On the next day of his marriage while he was at the cool drink shop at 4-30 PM the accused No.1 approached him and abused him in filthy language, at that time PW.1 intervened and pacified the matter and he went away to his house. Later he came to know that A1 to A4 went to the house of PW.1 and the accused No.1 beat him with stick on the left side of his head, by observing the galata PW.2 intervened to rescue PW.1, on that all the accused beat PW.2 with hands and legs and caused dumb injuries to her. He came to know about the incident and went to the Government hospital, Gooty to see PW.1, on that PW.1 informed him about the galata.

15.PW.4 who is another eye witness deposed that PW.1 and PW.2 are her brother-in-law and co-sister and PW.3 and PW.6 are the sons in curtsey.

PW.5 is her husband. She deposed that about four years back while they are at their house at about 7-30 PM they heard some shouts and that she and her husband came out from the house and that time a galata was going on between A1 to A4 and PW.1, at that time accused No.1 beat PW.1 with a stick on the left side of his head. On that PW.1 received bleeding injury, by seeing the incident PW.2 intervened in the galata, by the time accused No.1 to 4 beat her with hands and legs and caused dumb injury, on that she and her husband intervened and stopped the galata. Thereafter

PW.6 shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the government hospital, Gooty.

16.PW.5 who is another eye witness deposed that PW.4 is his wife. He know all the accused and PW.1 is residing opposite to his house. About four 5 years back on one day at about 7-30 PM he heard some galata, on that he and his wife PW.4 came out from the house, by that time A1 to A4 are beating PW.1 and PW.2, on that he intervened and rescued PW.1 and PW.2 from the hands of A1 to A4. PW.1 received bleeding injury on the left side of his head. A1 beat PW.1 with a stick and also PW.2 received multiple dumb injuries on her face and body as A1 to A4 beat her with hands and legs. In the meanwhile PW.6 came to the scene of offence and shifted PW.1 and

PW.2 to the Government hospital, Gooty.

17.PW.6 is also eye witness deposed that PW.1 to PW.5 are his relatives and he know A1 to A4. At about four years while he was at the photo studio he received information about PW.1 and PW.2 received injuries in a galata between PW.1 and PW.2 and accused No.1 to 4, on that he rushed to the scene of offence and noticed PW.1 received bleeding injury on the left side of his head and PW.2 having swelling injuries on her both hands. On that he shifted both PW.1 and PW.2 to the Government hospital, Gooty and then he asked PW.1 about the injuries, then PW.1 replied that all the accused came to his house and beat him and also PW.2.

18.PW.7 is the doctor who gave treatment to the PW.1 and PW.2, he deposed that on 29.11.2015 at 9-55 PM PW.1 came to him with injuries and thereby he examined him and found a deep laceration of size 10 Cm x ¼ x 7 Cm over left parietal area with fresh bleeding with irregular edges and he issued Ex.P.2 wound certificate of PW.1. On the same day at 10-05 PM he examined PW.2 and found a deep laceration of size 1 x 3 cm over left elbow at posterior aspect with fresh bleeding and he issued Ex.P.3 wound certificate of PW.2 by opining that the above injuries received by PW.1 and

PW.2 are simple in nature.

19.PW.8 is the Head Constable who registered the case, he deposed that on 30.11.2015 while he was present in the police station at about 1-00 AM he received medical intimation but did not marked and after making 6 corresponding entry in G.D, immediately he went to the Government hospital, Gooty and recorded the statement of PW.1. Basing on the statement of PW.1 he registered a case in Cr.No.367/2015 under section 324 r/w 34 IPC. Ex.P4 is FIR. Again he proceeded to the hospital and examined PW.1 to PW.4 and recorded their statements and on the next day at 8-00 AM he proceeded to the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P.5 rough sketch and also recorded the statements of PW.5 and PW.6. On 03.12.2015 at 10-00 AM while he was at police station A1 to A4 surrendered before him by stating that they are the accused in this crime, by that after obtaining security bonds for their presence he served notice under section 41(A)

Cr.P.C. PW.9 is the Investigation officer deposed that he received wound certificates from the concerned authorities and verified the investigation done by PW.8 and filed charge sheet.

20.PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that prior to the incident he resided in the house belongs to Ramalakshmamma who is his paternal aunt, she has no children. Himself and his paternal aunt and father of A1 to

A4 are the joint family members. A2 to A4 are sons-in-law. PW.1 further admitted that there was a PLC filed by the parents of A1 to A4 as he vacated the house of Ramalakshmamma from the said house. He vacated the said house as per the orders of the court, since then he has no talking terms with the family of A1 to A4. It clearly shows that there is previous grudges between himself and A1 to A4. The marriage of PW.3 held prior to 3 or 4 days of the incident and A1 to A4 are not residing adjacent to their house. The incident was occurred at some distance from the house of

Ramalakshmamma and he also stated that A1 to A4 and PW.3 were already quarreling and crossing his house with heated conversation. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that at the time of marriage of PW.3, PW.3 did not gave him cash for his vices, so that he and PW.3 quarreled, in the said quarrel he received head injuries in intoxicated mode by falling on the pial.

7

21.PW.2 admitted in her cross examination that they are residing in the house belongs to Ramalakshmamma since the date of her marriage and said Ramalakshmamma has no children and she is the under the care and custody. They constructed a house in the place of hut of said

Ramalakshmamma. PW.2 further admitted the PLC filed by the parents of

A1 to A4 as they vacated the house as per the orders of the court. They have no talking terms with family of A1 to A4. A1 to A4 and their parents vacated them from the house. She further admitted that A1 to A4 and her husband are relatives of Ramalakshmamma. The marriage of PW.3 held prior to 3 or 4 days of the incident.

22.PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that PW.1 is residing in the house of Ramalakshmamma and she is the sister of PW.1 and accused

No.4. A4 is the grandson of said Ramalakshmamma and other accused No.1 to 3 are also relatives to her. The galata took place between PW.1 and PW.2 and A4 for the reason PW.1 is residing in the house of Ramalakshmamma and to vacate him but PW.1 did not vacated the said house, on such a reason the said Ramalakshmamma also approached Mandal Legal Services

Committee, Gooty to kept vacate the PW.1 from her house, on such a reason PW.1 bore grudged against the family of accused who were supporting Ramalakshmamma along with A4. So that PW.1 vacated the house of Ramalakshmamma.

23.PW.4 admitted that he did not enquired about the facts of galata relating to the house property, he did not state before the police about the dispute with regard to house property. His house is situated opposite to the house of PW.1, in between there is a road and at the time of incident PW.1 was residing in the house of Ramalakshmamma. PW.5 admitted that PW.1 and A1 to A4 are relatives, he did not state before the police that there are disputes between the accused No.1 to 4 and PW.1 since prior to the incident which is marked as Ex.D1.

8

24.PW.6 admitted in his cross examination that his house is situated in between the Kurnool road and his house, the house of PW.1 is situated on the back side of his house. it is true he came to know about the incident and on by the time of his reaching nobody were present at the scene of offence. In the house of PW.1 both PW.1 and PW.2 and their daughter by name Sunitha were residing, he do not know the driver of the auto in which she shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the hospital.

25.PW.7 is the doctor who issued wound certificates he admitted that if the injured informed him about the receiving injuries due to assault, he intimate the same to the police by entering into their registers by giving number and further stated that he did not mentioned in Ex.P.2 whether

PW.1 is under intoxication. PW.8 admitted in his cross examination that the distance between scene of offence to Kurnool road may be ½ KM, the house of A1 to A4 are not situated within the scene of offence as in Ex.P.5. PW.8 further admitted that he did not examined the persons named in Ex.P.5 at the scene of offence. PW.9 admitted in his cross examination that he enquired about the seizure of weapons at the scene of offence but PW.8 stated no weapon was seized.

26.On behalf of defence witnesses, one Chennamaiah examined as DW.1 and one Veeranarayana examined as DW.1, by the time of offence he was resided as tenant at same street of PW.1 i.e. Uppara veedhi, he revealed that there is a disputes regarding the house of Ramalakshmamma. After the galata in the year 2015 PW.1 is residing at Yadiki, PW.1 and PW.2 came to the marriage of PW.3. PW.1 consumed liquor and fought with PW.2, PW.1 dragged PW.2 into the house of PW.3, by that time A1 to A4 not there by the time of dragging PW.3 and he was shifted to the Government hospital,

Gooty. Himself and PW.2 accompanied with PW.1 and after treatment he came to the house. After that he came to know that PW.1 gave report against A1 to A4 and no police recorded the statement of PW.1 when he 9 was at the hospital. After that he came to know that due to previous grudges between A1 to A4, PW.1 gave false case against A1 to A4.

27.DW.2 P.Suri Babu deposed that PW.1 and himself residing in the same street. PW.1 to PW.3 and A1 have no talking terms with regard to the house disputes. On 29.11.2015 PW.2 and PW.1 came to the house of PW.3, by that time PW.1 consumed liquor, while PW.2 brought PW.1 into the house by holding his hand, he fell on the ground and received head injury and that he joined in the hospital but police did not recorded the statement of PW.1.

After two days this case was registered.

28.After going through the record, PW.1 to PW.6 are the family members and A2 to A4 are sons of A1. As per the version of PW.1, at the time of beating of PW.1 by A1, PW.2 to PW.6 are interfered and rescued him but at the time of chief examination of PW.1 by named P.Sudhakar he did not stated at any point of time that PW.2 to PW.6 are interfered and rescued him from the hands of accused. The police did not seized any property in this case. PW.1 and PW.2 both are wife and husband, they agreed that they came from Yadiki to Gooty i.e. house of PW.3 before two days of offence occurred. No independent witness were examined, they all the family members. The evidence of PW.1 to PW.5 is not corroborated with each other. The investigation officer deposed that there is a civil disputes between PW.1 and A1 regarding the house of Ramalakshmamma. As per

Ex.P.5 rough sketch the scene of offence is marked in between the houses of Uppara Obulamma and house of Jafru S/o Masthan but he did not cited them as a witnesses. As per evidence of PW.1 the galata was held at in his house. So the prosecution failed to prove where the scene of offence is situated. As per version of PW.1 the entire incident held at his house and A1 to A4 came to his house and made galata and beat him. As per rough sketch the scene of offence fixed as in front of the house of Jafru and there is a three houses distance. So there is a doubt whether the offence is 10 occurred in front of the house of PW.1 and why the investigation officer marked in the rough sketch that the scene of offence is situated in front of the house of Jafru. It clearly shows that there is a ill-feelings in between

PW.1 and PW.2 and accused.

29.Moreover the counsel for accused put a suggestion that PW.1 has a habit of consume liquor and PW.2 dragged him into the house, by that PW.1 fell on the ground and received such injury. PW.2 also received injury while she dragging PW.1, due to that injury they admitted in the hospital and gave false statement against A1 to A4 because they got ill feelings regarding the house of PW.1’s sister who has no issues. The eye witnesses also failed to prove the case because PW.3 who shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the hospital deposed his evidence that he never shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the Government Hospital, Gooty and after they joined in the hospital he went there to visit them. So there is so many contradictions in this case and there is no corroboration evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and other eye witnesses. Moreover PW.1 and PW.2 both injures are wife and husband. As per defence evidence while they staying at Hospital no police came there and recorded the statement of PW.1 and medical intimation also not marked that is fatal to the prosecution case.

30.The investigation officer did not seized the stick which is used for beating PW.1 and also no blood stained clothes were seized by the investigation officer. As per evidence of PW.4 herself and her husband intervene and rescued PW.1 and PW.2 from the hands of accused, thereafter PW.6 shifted them to the Government hospital, Gooty. As per evidence of PW.1, PW.3 rescued them and shifted to the Government hospital, there is a clear contradiction to the who witness the galata and who shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the Government hospital. PW.4 admitted in her cross examination that at the time of galata PW.1 was residing in the house of Ramalakshmamma who is his sister, A4 is the grandson of 11

Ramalakshmamma, the other accused A1 to A3 are also relatives of

Ramalakshmamma. PW.4 further admitted that she does not know the reasons for galata and she did not enquired about the raising facts of galata relating to the house property, she did not state before the police about the dispute with regard to the house property. If she really intervened and rescued PW.1 and PW.2 from the hands of A1 to A4 she must know the reason for the galata. She admitted in her cross examination her house is situated opposite of the house of PW.1. As per rough sketch in front of the house of PW.1, the house of Uppata Syamudu house is situated not the house of PW.4 shown in the rough sketch, the counsel for accused put a suggestion that her house is situated at Jandageri street not in front of the house of Ramalakshmamma. The house of Ramalakshmamma is situated at

CPI colony. PW.4 further admitted in her cross examination that after the incident PW.1 and PW.2 shifted to the Yadiki as per the order of MLSC,

Gooty. As per evidence of PW.5 his house is situated infront of house of

PW.1 but as per rough sketch there is no house of Boya Sekhar it shows that he is not the eye witness and his house is not situated infront of house of PW.1. PW.4 and PW.5 are planted witnesses. As per their evidence their houses are situated infront of the house of PW.1 the investigation officer must shown their houses infront of house of PW.1 in the rough sketch i.e.

Ex.P.3, it clearly shows that they are planted witness in this case. PW.6 is the person who shifted PW.1 and PW.2 to the Government hospital, Gooty admitted in his cross examination that he came to know about the incident and by the time he reached to the scene of offence nobody were present there. In the house of Ramalakshmamma, PW.1 and PW.2 and their daughter Sunitha were residing. PW.6 further admitted that he does not know the driver of auto in which PW.1 and PW.2 were shifted by him to the hospital. As per wound certificate PW.2 received a deep laceration of size 1 x 3 C.ms over left elbow at posterior aspect with fresh bleeding. Those 12 injuries are received prior to 45 minutes to his examination. As per evidence of PW.4 she deposed that PW.2 received multiple dumb injuries on her face and body beaten by A1 to A4 with hands and legs but as per description of eye witness no such injuries of PW.2 found in the wound certificate, it clearly shows that eye witness deposed false and she was not present at the time of beating of accused and she is only planted witness.

31. Moreover PW.8 admitted in his cross examination the A1 to A4 are not situated within the scene of offence as per Ex.P5, he further admitted that there is previous disputes between the family of accused and PW.1 and PW.2 and prosecution witnesses are relatives of PW.1. PW.8 further admitted that as per his investigation PW.1 vacated the house and not residing in the house shown in the Ex.P.5 and he further admitted that he did not examined persons named in Ex.P.5 at the scene of offence it clearly shows that the investigation officer has not examined the neighbouring witnesses he only examined the relatives of PW.1. PW.9 is who filed charge sheet he admitted in his cross examination he mentioned in the charge sheet that PW.2 received dumb injuries but not bleeding injuries and no weapon seized in this case. There is inconsistence in the evidence of investigation officer and medical officer. As per evidence of medical officer there is a laceration injury on PW.2 i.e. only one injury but as per the evidence of investigation officer he mentioned in the charge sheet that

PW.2 received only dumb injuries. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

32. In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 324, 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

A1 is not found guilty for the offence punishable under section 509 of

Indian Penal Code and thereby they are acquitted under section 248(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months 13 under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property was produced in this case by the police and hence there is no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- S.Thangamani

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Guntakal FAC/Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Gooty

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: P.Sudhakar DW.1: M.Veeranarayana PW.2: P.Kalavathi DW.2: P.Suri Babu PW.3: B.Sudheer PW.4: B.Sujatha PW.5: B. Sekhar PW.6: P. Boya Prasad PW.7: Dr.Praveen Kumar PW.8: P.Chennamaiah PW.9: B.Madhusudhan Gowd

Exhibits Marked form Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P.4: FIR Ex.P.5: Rough Sketch

Exhibits Marked for Defence:

Ex.D1: Some portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Material Objects marked for: Prosecution: Defence:

-NIL- - NIL-

Sd/- S.Thangamani

JMFC

Copy Submitted to the Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -1- O.S.No.80/2019 19-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDICIAL I CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: URAVAKONDA

Present :: Smt. S. Thangamani, Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal

FAC / Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. I class Magistrate, Uravakonda

Thursday, the 19th day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.80/2019

Between:

Sri R.Sudhakar Reddy ….Plaintif

And

Sri K.Sathyaprasad Rao ….Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri P.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif and of Sri B.Nagendra,

Advocate filed vakalat for the defendant, 90 days completed, written statement not filed and the defendant called absent, set exparte, and upon perusing the material, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif seeking recovery of

Rs.6,66,300/- based on a promissory note pleading that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintif on 24-08-2015 for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, on 21-08-2018 the defendant paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- and endorsed the same on back of the promissory note on further demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintif constrained to file this suit.

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -2- O.S.No.80/2019 19-12-2019

2.After receipt of summons, the defendant appeared through advocate, but he did not file written statement within stipulated period.

Hence he was set exparte.

3. On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and got marked as Ex.A1.

4.The plaintif examined as PW1 deposed in proof of execution of suit promissory note by defendant, which is marked as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 is the part payment endorsement on back of the promissory note, dt.21-08-2018 and also deposed in respect of demand made by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 and A2 and there is no rebuttal evidence from defendant’s side in that regard. Thus the plaintif proved the suit claim and entitled for recovery of suit amount thus claimed.

5.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.6,66,300/- against defendant with interest at the rate of 12% pa. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% pa. from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.3,50,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of December, 2019.

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA.

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -3- O.S.No.80/2019 19-12-2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

PW1: Sri R.Sudhakar Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

Ex.A-1 :- Original promissory note, dated 24-08-2015 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.3,50,000/-.

Ex.A-2 :- Part payment endorsement on back of the promissory note, dt.21-08-2018.

FOR DEFENDANT :- EXPARTE

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -1- O.S.No.122/2019 19-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDICIAL I CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: URAVAKONDA

Present :: Smt. S. Thangamani, Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal

FAC / Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. I class Magistrate, Uravakonda

Thursday, the 19th day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.122/2019

Between:

V.Yerriswamy Reddy ….Plaintif

And

K.Venkatesh ….Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri G.P.Thimma Reddy and Sri S.Younus Ahamad, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant called absent, set exparte, and upon perusing the material, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif seeking recovery of

Rs.3,44,000/- based on a promissory note pleading that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 5-10-2016 for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintif constrained to file this suit.

2.Defendant failed to appear before this court, even after receipt of summons. Hence he was set exparte.

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -2- O.S.No.122/2019 19-12-2019

3. On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.

4.The plaintif examined as PW1 deposed in proof of execution of suit promissory note by defendant, which is marked as Ex.A1, and also deposed in respect of demand made by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 and there is no rebuttal evidence from defendant’s side in that regard. Thus the plaintif proved the suit claim and entitled for recovery of suit amount thus claimed.

5.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.3,44,000/- against defendant with interest at the rate of 12% pa. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% pa. from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of December, 2019.

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

PW1: V.Yerriswamy Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

Ex.A-1 :- Original promissory note, dated 5-10-2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.2,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT :- EXPARTE

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -1- O.S.No.123/2019 19-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDICIAL I CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: URAVAKONDA

Present :: Smt. S. Thangamani, Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal

FAC / Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. I class Magistrate, Uravakonda

Thursday, the 19th day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.123/2019

Between:

V.Yerriswamy Reddy ….Plaintif

And

K.Venkatesh ….Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri G.P.Thimma Reddy and Sri S.Younus Ahamad, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant called absent, set exparte, and upon perusing the material, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif seeking recovery of

Rs.3,44,000/- based on a promissory note pleading that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 6-10-2016 for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintif constrained to file this suit.

2.Defendant failed to appear before this court, even after receipt of summons. Hence he was set exparte.

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -2- O.S.No.123/2019 19-12-2019

3. On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif himself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.

4.The plaintif examined as PW1 deposed in proof of execution of suit promissory note by defendant, which is marked as Ex.A1, and also deposed in respect of demand made by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 and there is no rebuttal evidence from defendant’s side in that regard. Thus the plaintif proved the suit claim and entitled for recovery of suit amount thus claimed.

5.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.3,44,000/- against defendant with interest at the rate of 12% pa. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% pa. from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of December, 2019.

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

PW1: V.Yerriswamy Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

Ex.A-1 :- Original promissory note, dated 6-10-2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.2,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT :- EXPARTE

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -1- O.S.No.124/2019 19-12-2019

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM-JUDICIAL I CLASS

MAGISTRATE :: URAVAKONDA

Present :: Smt. S. Thangamani, Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal

FAC / Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl. I class Magistrate, Uravakonda

Thursday, the 19th day of December, 2019

Original Suit No.124/2019

Between:

M.Sulochanamma ….Plaintif

And

K.Venkatesh ….Defendant

This suit came before me for final hearing on this day in the presence of Sri G.P.Thimma Reddy and Sri S.Younus Ahamad, Advocates for the plaintif and the defendant called absent, set exparte, and upon perusing the material, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintif seeking recovery of

Rs.3,44,000/- based on a promissory note pleading that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintif on 7-10-2016 for the purpose of his necessities and executed a promissory note on even date in favour of the plaintif agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintif, the defendant failed to discharge the debt. Hence the plaintif constrained to file this suit.

2.Defendant failed to appear before this court, even after receipt of summons. Hence he was set exparte.

JCJ COURT, URAVAKONDA. -2- O.S.No.124/2019 19-12-2019

3. On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1.

4.The plaintif examined as PW1 deposed in proof of execution of suit promissory note by defendant, which is marked as Ex.A1, and also deposed in respect of demand made by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated by Ex.A1 and there is no rebuttal evidence from defendant’s side in that regard. Thus the plaintif proved the suit claim and entitled for recovery of suit amount thus claimed.

5.In the result the suit is decreed with costs for

Rs.3,44,000/- against defendant with interest at the rate of 12% pa. from the date of suit till the date of decree and with future interest at 6% pa. from the date of decree till the date of realization, on principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of December, 2019.

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :- FOR DEFENDANT:- EXPARTE

PW1: M.Sulochanamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :-

Ex.A-1 :- Original promissory note, dated 7-10-2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintif for Rs.2,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT :- EXPARTE

FAC / JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

URAVAKONDA