Ms.Shaik Areefa

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

Ms.Shaik Areefa, PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 903 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, CC cases.

903

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/61/2019

Kodidala Srinivasa Rao vs Bapatla Rani

20 Mar 2020

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. Shaik Areefa,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.61/2019 Between:

Kodidela Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, Business, Aged 43 years, R/o.Rajiv Gandhi Colony,

R/o. 3rd ward, Railpet, Bapatla Town, Guntur District. ...Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Bapatla Rani, W/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Housewife, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Bapatla Sailakshmi, D/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Student, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

3. Bapatla Sainadh, S/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 23 years, Student, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward,

Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District. ...Defendants

This suit is coming on 16-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.V.Pratap Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and of Sri K.Harinadha Reddy, Advocate for the defendants 1 to 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,08,625/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five Only) basing on a promissory note, dated 21-10-2017 for Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only); and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that: The plaintiff submitted that one Bapatla Venkatrao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 21-10-2017 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the said Venkatrao failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory note. The said Venkatrao died without discharging the debt due under the promissory note leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs to his estate. After the demise of Venkatarao the plaintiff requested the defendants personally and through registered legal notice also the defendants failed to discharge the debt and postponing the matter on some pretext or other. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that her husband never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note. Her husband has no necessity to borrow such huge amount and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the same. The plaintiff created and forged the suit promissory note with the help of scribe and attestors and filed the present suit to get unlawful gain. They are not in possession of any estate of her husband. The defendants did not receive any legal notice prior to filing of the suit as alleged in the plaint. No consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. The defendants 2 and 3 have adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dated 21-10-2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is fabricated as contended by the defendant?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit amount with interest as prayed for?

4. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 got examined. However no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

7. Heard both sides.

8.ISSUE NOS.1 and 2: For the sake of convenience Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered together. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the original borrower borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on 21-10-2017 and executed Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. The learned counsel for the defendants argued the deceased never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed the suit promissory note. The plaintiff created and forged the suit promissory note with the help of scribe and attestors and filed the present suit to get unlawful gain. No consideration was passed under the suit promissory note. As this is a suit filed for recovery of money based on promissory note, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove the execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1.

To prove the same the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1. He has reiterated plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit. In his cross examination he deposed that he has given Rs.2,50,000/- on 21-10-2017 at his house at about 5:00 to 6:00 PM to the deceased borrower. At the time of transaction one Jalaiah, Yerramsetty Ramesh Babu, N.Narasimha Rao, original 3 borrower and himself were present. By the date of Ex.A1 the deceased was working at Jillellamudi. One Narasimha Rao is the document writer at Sub Registrar Office, Bapatla. The original borrower kept two signatures on Ex.A1 and he has filed an application for attachment of death benefits but he does not know whether attachment is made or not. He denied the suggestion that the transaction never took place at his house. He also denied that the transaction did not take place and the original borrower did not come down to Bapatla as he was working in Jillellamudi. He also denied that the signatures on Ex.A1 are forged.

The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that he has given Rs.2,50,000/- on 21-10-2017 at his house to the deceased borrower. At the time of transaction one Jalaiah, Yerramsetty Ramesh Babu, N.Narasimha Rao, original borrower and himself were present. The learned counsel for the defendant gave suggestions to P.W.1 but nothing contrary was elicited in his cross examination.

To corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 examined one Yarramsetty Ramesh Babu, who is the attestor of suit promissory note/Ex.A1 as P.W.2. It is his evidence that he is the attestor of Ex.A1 promissory note. In his cross examination he deposed that the suit is filed against one Bapatla Venkatrao. He again says that the suit is filed against the legal heirs of Bapatla Venkatrao. At the time of transaction himself, plaintiff, deceased borrower, scribe Narasimha Rao were present. The transaction took place in between 6:00 to 7:00 PM. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false and the transaction never took place.

The evidence of P.W.2 goes to show that at the time of transaction himself, plaintiff, deceased borrower, scribe Narasimha Rao were present. The transaction took place in his presence. The learned counsel for the defendant gave suggestions to P.W.2 but nothing contrary was elicited in his cross examination.

On the other hand the defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1. She has reiterated all the written statement averments in her chief examination affidavit. In her cross examination she deposed that she was living in the rented house when her husband died. As the owners stated that she should not stay in the house as her husband died, she stayed in a hotel room for some days. She did not receive the legal notice sent to the house address and to the hotel address as she does not know what it contains. She did not make any attempts to see whether the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to her husband or not. When Ex.A1 is shown to her she stated that she cannot identify the signature of her husband. She denied that her husband executed Ex.A1 and took the amount from the plaintiff and she is deposing false. She also denied that she has sent the mediator to the plaintiff and stated that she will not repay the amount as suit is filed.

The evidence of D.W.1 goes to show that she did not make any attempts to see whether the signature on Ex.A1 belongs to her husband or not. She cannot identify the signature of her husband.

On perusal of the material on record, the plaintiff got examined P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 is the attestor of Ex.A1. He categorically stated that the original borrower has borrowed the amount and executed Ex.A1. The transaction took place in his presence at the house of plaintiff on 21-10-2017 and the plaintiff has given Rs.2,50,000/- to the original borrower. Though PWs.1 and 2 were cross examined at length, nothing contrary to the contention of the plaintiff is elicited.

The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff created and forged the suit promissory note with the help of scribe and attestors and filed the present suit to get unlawful gain. It is the burden of the defendants to prove that the suit promissory note is fabricated and the signature on Ex.A1 does not belong to the original borrower. But the defendants have not taken any sincere steps to prove that Ex.A1 is fabricated. They did not file any application to send the suit promissory note to the expert. D.W.1 herself admitted that she did not verify whether the signature of Ex.A1 belongs to her husband or not. Therefore, the contentions taken by the defendants cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has proved his case by examining himself as PW.1 and the attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

9. ISSUE NO.3:-As Issues No.1 and 2 are answered against the defendants and taking into the consideration of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved his case. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered.

10. ISSUE NO.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.3,08,625/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five Only) against the estate of the deceased Bapatla Venkatrao, which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on

principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of March, 2020.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:-

P.W.1: Kodidela Srinivas Rao

P.W.2: Yarramsetty Ramesh Babu 5

For Defendants:-

D.W.1: Bapatla Rani

Documents marked For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Suit Promissory Note, dt.21-10-2011

Ex.A2: Office Copy of the registered notice, dt.9-2-2019.

Ex.A3: Postal Receipts 6 in number, dt.9-2-2019.

Ex.A4: Refused returned covers 6 in number.

For Defendants :- NIL – PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. Shaik Areefa,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.61/2019 Between:

Kodidela Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Raghavulu, Hindu, Business, Aged 43 years, R/o.Rajiv Gandhi Colony,

R/o. 3rd ward, Railpet, Bapatla Town, Guntur District. ...Plaintiff.

Vs.

1. Bapatla Rani, W/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Housewife, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

2. Bapatla Sailakshmi, D/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 25 years, Student, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward, Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District.

3. Bapatla Sainadh, S/o.Late Venkatrao, Hindu, Aged 23 years, Student, R/o.Relli Colony Street, 4th ward,

Railpet, Bapatla, Guntur District. ...Defendants

Plaint presented on: 11-02-2019

Plaint filed (Registered/Numbered) on: 13-02-2019

Cause of action for the suit arose on one Bapatla Venkatrao who is the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3 borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 21-10-2017 from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum and when Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the said Venkatrao failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory note and the said Venkatrao died without discharging the debt due under the promissory note leaving behind the defendants as legal heirs to his estate and when after the demise of Venkatarao the plaintiff requested the defendants personally and through registered legal notice also the defendants failed to discharge the debt and postponing the matter on some pretext or other and at Baptla where the transaction took place and both parties are residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. Valuation of the Suit:

Principal amount due under the suit pronote dt.21-10-17…Rs.2,50,000/-

Interest thereon at 18% p.a simple from 21-10-17 to 10-2-19 …Rs. 58,625/- ------------------------ Total … Rs.3,08,625/- ------------------------

On which a court fee of Rs.5,526/- is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act.

The value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.3,08,625/-.

i)that the defendants 1 to 3 do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,08,625/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five Only) from the estate of the deceased Bapatla Venkatrao, which is lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty

Thousand Only); and ii) that the defendants 1 to 3 likewise do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.16,887/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven

Only) towards costs of the suit and do bear their own costs of Rs. -NIL- (CM

& FC NOT FILED)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

Table of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Nos 1 to 3 Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat2-00CM and FC not filed Stamp on Plaint5,526-00-- Stamp on Process301-00-- Advocate Fee10,958-00-- Writing & Type charges 100-00-- Total 16,887-00- N I L -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

OS/174/2015

Maruprolu Venkateswara Reddy and another vs Maruprolu Nagi Reddy alias Nageswara reddy and two

17 Mar 2020

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

PRESENT:: Smt. Shaik Areefa,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.174/15

Between

1. Maruprolu Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 36 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pothurajukothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Raju Yallamanda Reddy, S/o.Jali Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pothurajukothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintiffs Vs.,

1. Maruprolu Nagi Reddy @ Nageswara Reddy, S/o.Anki Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, R/o.Hanuman Nagar, Asodivaripalem Panchayat, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Asodi Ramesh, S/o.Nagi Reddy @ Nageswara Reddy, Hindu, Aged 20 years, R/o.Hanuman Nagar, Asodivaripalem Panchayat, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Kavuri Udaya Bhaskara Reddy, S/o.Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 42 years, R/o.Darivadakothapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

4. The Tahsildar, Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendants (The 4th defendant was added as per orders in IA.184/19, dt.17-4-19)

This suit is coming on 16-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Raghu Ram and M.Syamala Devi, Advocates for the plaintiffs, and the defendants 1 to 4 were set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever; and for costs.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that: The plaintiffs submitted that one Asodi Pitchi Reddy and Swamy Reddy are the brothers. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Pitchi Reddy. Similarly the defendants 1 to 3 herein are the legal heirs of Swamy Reddy. The plaintiffs’ ancestor Asodi Venkata Reddy is having in Ac.9-93 cents of land in suit survey numbers. The said A.Venkata Reddy and A.Anjali Reddy divided the said land and each of them got Ac.4-96 cents of land in suit survey number. After the death of Asodi Venkata Reddy his son Chenna Reddy was in possession of the suit schedule property till his death. After his death one Maruprolu Kajamma the only daughter of Chenna Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and later the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. The said Anjali Reddy sold away his share of property in suit survey numbers along with 2 some other land to one G.Kotappa for an extent of Ac.6-19 ½ cents under sale deed, dt.15-1-1932. Later the said G.Kotappa sold the same to one N.Venkatalakshmi under sale deed, dt.14-3-1941. Again the said Venkatalakshmi sold the property to one A.Anjali Reddy under sale deed, dt.20-9-1942. Hence the said A.Anjali Reedy again purchased the same property. After the death of Asodi Anjali Reddy his son Koti Reddy sold Ac.1-00 of land to Veeraswamy Reddy under sale deed, dt.11-7-1963. Similarly Anjali Reddy heirs sold Ac.3-12 cents to one Kona Padmavathi on 21-10-1960. Similarly Anjali Reddy sold Ac.1-45 cents to one Amara Raja Ratnam. So all the heirs of Anjali Reddy sold away entire property of late Anjali Reddy. The defendants 1 and 2 who are the heirs of Anjali Reddy have no right in the suit schedule property which is exclusive property of A.Venka Reddy. Though the defendants 1 and 2 have no title or possession over the suit schedule property they collusively executed G.P.A – Cum – Sale Agreement on 19-8-2014 in favour of 3rd defendant with reference to the suit property and some other property. The said document is not valid as the defendants 1 and 2 have no right in the suit schedule property. The defendants 1 and 2 have no authority to execute any document with reference to the suit property. The defendants have neither title nor possession over the suit schedule property. Any prior litigation with reference to the suit property by any body is not binding on the plaintiffs as they are not parties for any such litigation. Even if any such litigation is initiated by anybody without filing the said registered documents of title

before the concerned Court will not operate as resjudicata for this proceedings. Hence,

the suit.

3. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that he is the son of A.Anki Reddy and the paternal grand son of A.Anjali Reddy. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant. The 2nd son of A.Anjali Reddy by name A.Veera Reddy died issue less. The third son of A.Anjali Reddy by name Koti Reddy died about 12 years ago and he sold away his respective shares. Asodi Anjali Reddy got nearly Ac.20-00 cents of land in different survey numbers and extent situated at Maruproluvaripalem Village and he purchased the landed property and sold away the same to several persons among them Ac.1-00 of land to Veeraswamy Reddy and also Ac.3-12 cents of land to Kona Padmavathi. The remaining landed property which is the suit schedule property fell to the share of A.Nagi Reddy some decades ago. So the 1st defendant A.Nagi Reddy has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit filed for mere injunction without seeking any declaration of title and recovery of possession is not maintainable. One Asodi Anjali Reddy purchased Ac.6-19 cents of land from N.Venkata Lakshmamma under registered sale deed, dt.20-9-1942 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. After the demise of Anjali Reddy his eldest son Anki Reddy took possession of the same and the suit schedule property is part and parcel of said Ac.6-19 cents of land. So the property already sold away by Anjali Reddy to Veeraswamy Reddy and Kona Prabhavathi is ancestral property of Anjali Reddy and his sons Anki Reddy, Veera Reddy and Koti Reddy but not purchased by Anjali Reddy under sale deed, dt.20-9-1942. As such the suit schedule property exclusively belongs to the 1st defendant. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. The defendant No.2 have adopted the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.

5. Summons was issued to the defendants 3 and 4 through Court and registered post. Service of summons held sufficient. Defendants 3 and 4 called absent. No representation on their behalf. Hence, the defendants were set exparte.

6. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the date of filing of the suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and Exs.A1 to A5 got marked. The learned counsel reported no further evidence. Hence, the plaintiff's side evidence was closed.

8. ISSUE NOS.1 and 2: The contention of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. After their death the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The contention of the 1st defendant is that the suit schedule property fell to his share. So the 1st defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

To prove the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs themselves were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. On perusal of the material on record, P.Ws.1 and 2 have reiterated all the plaint averments in their chief examination affidavit. This is a suit filed for permanent injunction. It is the burden of the plaintiffs to prove that they are in the possession of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit. To prove the same they themselves got examined as Pws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 got marked. The defendants 1 and 2 have taken a specific plea that the suit schedule property fell to the share of 1st defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants 1 and 2 are having complete knowledge that the suit has been filed against them as they have also filed written statement. The defendants 3 and 4 were set exparte though summons served on them. The defendants 1 and 2 did not come to the Court to cross examine the P.Ws.1 and 2 though sufficient time was granted. Hence, the cross examination was treated as nil and defendant was set exparte. Therefore, the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e Exs.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs proved their case. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

9.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever.

Dictated to Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Maruprolu Venkateswara Reddy EXPARTE

P.W.2: Raju Yallamanda Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Certified Copy of registered sale deed, dt.15-01-1932 on the name of Gavini Kotappa.

Ex.A2: Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed, dt.11-7-1963 in the name of Veeraswamy Reddy

Ex.A3: Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed, dt.21-10-1960 in the name of K.Padmavathi.

Ex.A4: : Certified Copy of the Registered Sale Deed, dt.12-5-1964 in the name of A.Rajaratnam.

Ex.A5: : Certified Copy of the sale deed, dt.28-9-1942.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - N I L -

PJCJ, BAPATLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

PRESENT:: Smt. Shaik Areefa,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.174/15

Between

1. Maruprolu Venkateswara Reddy, S/o.Rami Reddy, Hindu, Aged 36 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pothurajukothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Raju Yallamanda Reddy, S/o.Jali Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Cultivation, R/o.Pothurajukothapalem, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintiffs Vs.,

1. Maruprolu Nagi Reddy @ Nageswara Reddy, S/o.Anki Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, R/o.Hanuman Nagar, Asodivaripalem Panchayat, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

2. Asodi Ramesh, S/o.Nagi Reddy @ Nageswara Reddy, Hindu, Aged 20 years, R/o.Hanuman Nagar, Asodivaripalem Panchayat, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

3. Kavuri Udaya Bhaskara Reddy, S/o.Venkateswara Reddy, Aged 42 years, R/o.Darivadakothapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District.

4. The Tahsildar, Bapatla, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendants (The 4th defendant was added as per orders in IA.184/19, dt.17-4-19)

Plaint Presented on: 14-09-2015

Plaint Filed (Registered/Numbered) on:14-09-2015

Cause of action for the suit arose since few months when the defendants are trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by creating a frivolous GPA-Cum-Sale Agreement, dated 19-8-2014 at Kakumanu Sub Registrar Office with reference to the suit schedule property and some other property without any authority and trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property so on till today at Maruproluvaripalem Village where the suit property is located which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

Valuation:

As this is a suit for permanent injunction the same is notionally valued at Rs.10,000/-.

On which a court fee of Rs.786/- is paid Under Section 26 (c) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.10,000/-.

a)that the defendants and their men be and are hereby restrained by way of Permanent

Injunction from ever interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner whatsoever; and

b)that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.788-00 (Rupees Seven Hundred and Eighty Eight Only) towards institution costs of the suit (CM & FC NOT FILED) and defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.NIL (Exparte).

(Plaint Schedule is attached herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 17th day of March, 2020.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA

TABLE OF COSTS

For PlaintiffsFor Defendants 1 to 4 Rs.Rs.

CM & FC NOT FILED

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 EXPARTE

Stamp on Plaint786-00 -- Stamp on Process -- -- Advocate Fee -- -- Writing & Type Charges -- --

TOTAL 788-00 – N I L –

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

OS/240/2019

Manchala Rama Devi vs Manchala Yedukondala Reddy

19 Mar 2020

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. Shaik Areefa,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.240/19 Between:

Manchala Rama Devi, W/o.Peda Sreenivasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged 43 years, Housewife, R/o.Darivada Kothapalem,

Bapatla Municipality, Guntur District. ...Plaintiff.

Vs.

Manchala Yedukondala Reddy, S/o.Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Centering Business, R/o.Vedullapalli Kothapalem Villag,

Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. ...Defendant

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to pass preliminary decree for an amount of Rs.14,46,333/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Only) basing on the registered mortgage deed, dated 05-09-2011 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only); and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The plaintiff submitted that the defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) from the plaintiff on 5-9-2011 and executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of plaintiff by mortgaging the suit schedule property agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum either to plaintiff or to her order on demand. At the time of execution of registered mortgage deed, the defendant has handed over the original sale deed, dt.7-3-2011 to the plaintiff relating to the suit schedule property. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under the mortgage deed. Thus, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 11-6-2019. The defendant received the said notice and kept quiet. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was issued to the defendant through court and by Registered Post. Sri M.Samba Siva Rao, Advocate filed Vakalat for the defendant. The matter was posted for filing written statement. The defendant failed to file written statement even after statutory period of 90 days and hence the defendant was set exparte.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. The learned counsel reported no further evidence and hence plaintiff side evidence was closed.

6. On perusal of the material on record, the plaintiff contended that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum. Summons was served on the defendant. Even after engaging counsel of his choice, the defendant did not come forward to put forth his contention. As the defendant was set exparte, the oral and documentary evidence on record remained unchallenged. The plaintiff by marking Exs.A1 to A4 and by examining herself has proved her case. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for Preliminary Decree as prayed for.

7. In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.14,46,333/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Only) with interest at @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only). Three months time is granted for redemption.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 19 th day of March, 2020.

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:-

P.W.1: Manchala Rama DeviEXPARTE.

Documents marked For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Original Registered Mortgage Deed, dt.05-09-2011.

Ex.A2: Registered Sale Deed, dt.7-3-2011.

Ex.A3: Office Copy of the legal notice, dt.11-6-2019.

Ex.A4: Postal Receipt, dt.11-6-2019

For Defendant :- NIL PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

BAPATLA.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

PRESENT : Smt. Shaik Areefa,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.240/19 Between:

Manchala Rama Devi, W/o.Peda Sreenivasa Reddy, Hindu, Aged 43 years, Housewife, R/o.Darivada Kothapalem,

Bapatla Municipality, Guntur District. ...Plaintiff.

Vs.

Manchala Yedukondala Reddy, S/o.Koti Reddy, Hindu, Aged 50 years, Centering Business, R/o.Vedullapalli Kothapalem Village,

Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. ...Defendant

Plaint presented on: 25-07-2019 Plaint filed (registered/numbered) on: 07-08-2019 Cause of action for the suit arose on 5th September, 2011 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed the mortgage deed by mortgaging the plaint schedule property and when inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff and even after issuing of registered legal notice, dt.11-6-2019 and when the defendant got received the said notice and failed to discharge the debt due under the mortgage deed and at Vedullapalli Kothapalem Gram Panchayat Area where the suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Valuation of the Suit:

Principal amount due under the mortgage deed, dt.05-09-2011 …Rs.5,00,000/-

Interest thereon at 24% p.a from 5-9-11 to 24-7-19 …Rs.9,46,333/- ---------------------- Total … Rs.14,46,333/- ---------------------- On which a court fee of Rs.16,926/- is paid U/Sec.31 of APCF and SV Act.

Value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.14,46,333/-.

This suit is coming on 18-03-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Harinadha Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendant was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND PRELIMINARY DECREE as follows: It is hereby declared that the amount due to the plaintiff on the mortgage mentioned in the plaint calculated up to this the 24th day of July, 2019 is the sum of Rs.14,46,333/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Only) towards suit amount, and the sum of Rs.39,692/- (Rupees

Thirty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Two Only) towards costs of the suit awarded to plaintiff making in all the sum of Rs.14,86,025/- (Rupees Fourteen

Lakhs Eight Six Thousand and Twenty Five Only); 4

2. And it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows :

i)that the defendant do pay into court on or before the day of 19th day of June, 2020 or any later date up to which time for payment may be extended by the court, the said sum of Rs.14,86,025/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eight Six

Thousand and Twenty Five Only), with interest @ 24% p.a on Rs.14,46,333/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three

Only) from the date of the suit, till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a till realization on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only), and the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil (Exparte).

ii)that, on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix, of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs charges and expenses may be payable under the Rule 10, together with such subsequent interest as may be payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of Civil Procedure 1908, plaintiff shall bring into court all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property in the plaint mentioned, and all such documents shall be delivered over to the defendant or to such person as he appoints, and the plaintiff shall, if so required re-convey or re-transfer the said property free from the said mortgage and clear of and from all encumbrances created by the plaintiff or any person claiming under him or any person under whom he claims and shall, if so required deliver up to the defendant quite and peaceful possession of the said property.

iii)And it is hereby further ordered that, in default of payment as aforesaid, the plaintiff may apply to the court for a final decree for the said of the mortgaged property and on such application being made the mortgaged property on a sufficient part there of shall be directed to be sold and for the purposes of such sale the plaintiff shall produce before the court or such officer as it appoints as all documents in his possession or power relating to the mortgaged property.

iv) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that the money realised by such sale shall be paid into court and shall be duly applied (after deduction there from of the expenses of the sale) in payment of the amount payable to the plaintiff under this decree and under any further orders that may be passed this suit and in payment of any amount which the court may adjudge due to the plaintiff in respect of such costs of the suit, and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Rule 10 together with such subsequent interest as maybe payable under Rule 11 of Order XXXIV of the first schedule to the code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the balance if any shall be paid to the defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same.

v) And it is hereby further ordered and decreed that if the money realized by such sale shall not be sufficient for payment in full of the amount payable to the plaintiff as aforesaid, the plaintiff shall be at liberty (where such remedy is open to him under the terms of his mortgage and is not barred by any law for the time being in force) to apply for a personal decree against the defendant for the amount of the balance; and that the parties are at liberty to apply to the court from time to time as they may have occasion and on such application or otherwise the court may give such directions as it thinks fit.

Copy of plaint schedule is attached herewith.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 19th day of March, 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Bapatla.

Table of Costs

For PlaintiffFor Defendant Rs.Rs.

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00Exparte Stamp on Plaint16,926-00-- Stamp on Process120-00-- Advocate Fee22,544-00 -- Writing & Type charges 100-00-- TOTAL 39,692-00 - N I L -

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Bapatla.

OS/174/2018

Moparthi Umadevi vs GaviniKoteswara Rao

17 Mar 2020

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

Present:: Smt. Shaik Areefa, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Tuesday, this the 17th day of March, 2020 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.174/18 Between:

Moparthi Umadevi, W/o.Uma Maheswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, Housewife, R/o.Kankatapalem Village, Bapatla Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintif

AND

Gavini Koteswara Rao, S/o.Durgaiah, Hindu, Business, Aged 51 years, R/o.Gavinivaripalem Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 16-3-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Subba Rao, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of an amount of Rs.88,559/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) basing on two promissory notes for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), dated 17-3-2012 and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), dt.12-6-2013 respectively; and for costs.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) on 17-3-12 and Rs.25,000/- on 12-6-2013 from the plaintif for his family expenses and executed two promissory notes respectively in favour of the plaintif on the even date for the said amount agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% yearly compoundable per annum either to plaintif or her order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through mediators, the defendant made part payment of Rs.500/- on 10-6-2016 and the same was endorsed on the back side of pronote, dt.12-6-2013. The defendant also made part payment of Rs.500/- on 15-3-2015 and the same was endorsed on the back side of pronote, dt.17-3-12. But the defendant failed to discharge the balance debt due under the promissory note and postponing the matter on some pretext or other. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was issued to the defendant through court and by Registered Post. Sri T.V.Sailaja, Advocate filed Vakalat for the defendant. The matter was posted for filing written statement. The defendant failed to file written statement even after statutory period of 90 days and hence the defendant was set exparte.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif.

5.On behalf of the plaintif, the plaintif herself got examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 got marked. The learned counsel reported no further evidence and hence plaintif side evidence was closed.

6.On perusal of the material on record, the plaintif contended that the defendant has executed Exs.A1 and A2 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% yearly compoundable. Summons was served on the defendant. Even after engaging counsel of his choice, the defendant did not come forward to put forth his contention. As the defendant was set exparte, the oral and documentary evidence on record remained unchallenged. The plaintif by marking Exs.A1 to A4 and by examining herself has proved her case. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintif is entitled for decree as prayed for.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif directing the defendant to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.88,559/- (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Nine Only) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on the balance principal amount of Rs.14,500+24,500=39,000/-

Dictated to Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2020

Sd/- Shaik Areefa,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Moparthi UmadeviEXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note, dated 17-3-2012

Ex.A2: Part payment endorsement of Rs.500/- on the back side of Ex.A1, dt.15-3-2015.

Ex.A3: Suit promissory note, dated 12-6-2013.

Ex.A4: Part payment endorsement of Rs.500/- on the back side of Ex.A3, dt.10-6-2016.

FOR DEFENDANT: - N I L -

Sd/- Shaik Areefa,

PJCJ, BAPATLA.

OS/29/2020

Chilaka Nagamani vs Kankipati Adam

19 Mar 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: BAPATLA

PRESENT:: Smt. Shaik Areefa, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. Thursday, this the 19th day of March, 2020 ORIGINAL SUIT NO.29/2020 Between:

Chilaka Nagamani, W/o.Mohana Rao, Hindu, Aged 38 years, R/o.Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. …Plaintif

AND

Kankipati Adam, S/o.Rajaiah, Hindu, Aged 35 years, R/o.Gollamudipadu Village, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. …Defendant

This suit is coming on 18-3-2020 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Kamal Kumar, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintif for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,111/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Eleven Only) basing on a promissory note for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only), dt.21-08-2016; and for costs.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) from the plaintif on 21-8-2016 for his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintif on the even date for the said amount agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum compoundable either to plaintif or her order on demand. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif personally and through mediators, the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under the promissory note and postponing the matter on some pretext or other. Hence, the suit.

3. Summons was issued to the defendant through Court and registered post. Service of summons held sufficient. Defendant called absent. No representation on her behalf. Hence, the defendant was set exparte.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif.

5.On behalf of the plaintif, P.W.1 got examined and Ex.A1 got marked. The learned counsel reported no further evidence and hence plaintif's side evidence was closed.

6.On perusal of material on record, the plaintif by examining herself as PW.1 and by marking Ex.A1 has proved her case. As the defendant was set exparte, the oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 remained unchallenged. The material 2 on record is establishing the claim of the plaintif. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintif is entitled for decree as prayed for.

7.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintif directing the defendant to pay the plaintif a sum of Rs.60,111/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Eleven Only) with interest at 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., till realization on

principal amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only)

Dictated to Stenographer, directly typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19 th day of March, 2020.

Sd/- Shaik Areefa,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BAPATLA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Chilaka NagamaniEXPARTE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Suit promissory note, dated 21-08-2016

FOR DEFENDANT: - N I L -

Sd/- Shaik Areefa,

PJCJ, BAPATLA.

Order Record 875 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/61/2019	Kodidala Srinivasa Rao vs Bapatla Rani	20 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/29/2020	Chilaka Nagamani vs Kankipati Adam	19 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/240/2019	Manchala Rama Devi vs Manchala Yedukondala Reddy	19 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/174/2015	Maruprolu Venkateswara Reddy and another vs Maruprolu Nagi Reddy alias Nageswara reddy and two	17 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/174/2018	Moparthi Umadevi vs GaviniKoteswara Rao	17 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/12/2018	Shaik Gowsia Begum vs Shaik Khamruddin @ Baji	13 Mar 2020	order	—
OS/272/2018	Unguturi Venkayamma vs Kakaraparthi Sudhakar	13 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/67/2020	Khaleelulla Khan vs Pallikonda Rattaiah	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/211/2018	Matta Lakshmi Narayana vs Muvva Bhargava Rama Raju	12 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/20/2019	Boina Krishna Murthy (died) vs Maddela Sambasiva Rao	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/52/2020	Nallomothu Chandram vs Nannapaneni Anuradha	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/69/2019	Lingisetti Raghavendra Rao vs Janni Sivannarayana	11 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/145/2018	Pulugu Venkateswara Reddy vs Dontiboina Brahmananda Reddy alias Srinivasa Reddy	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/150/2018	Kakaraparthi Sujatha vs Nakkala Gopi Raju	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/238/2018	Garikipati Sambasiva Rao vs Nalam Prabhavathi	10 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/48/2020	Bollineni Francies vs Veernapati Kotaiah	06 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/228/2018	Kondapaturi Ankamma Rao vs Maddasani Sujatha	06 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
EP/4/2017	Kunta Krishna Murthy and another vs Galla Koteswara Rao and 9 others	05 Mar 2020	order	—
OS/49/2020	Gandi Hemalatha vs Nannam Yesumani	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/98/2019	Padamati Suresh vs Syed Riyazuddin	05 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/28/2020	Chokkakula Nagendra Rao vs Chokkakula Appalaswamy	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/63/2019	Panditi Venkata Narasimha Rao vs Chintalapudi Sriramulu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/64/2019	Akuthota Venkata Dhanalakshmi vs Chintalapudi Sriramulu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/65/2019	Panditi Venkata Nageswara Rao vs Chintalapudi Sriramulu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/66/2019	Akuthota Jaganmohan vs Chintalapudi Sriramulu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/67/2019	Panditi Venkata Mahalakshmi vs Chintalapudi Sriramulu	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/320/2019	Battula Prasanna Lakshmi alias Lakshmi vs Shaik Noorjahan alias Noori	04 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/115/2018	Vemuri Srinivasa Rao vs Nagavarapu Srinivasa Gupta	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/213/2018	Jidugu Lakshman Narayana vs Tandra Sheshadri Rao	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/214/2018	Jidugu Lakshman Narayana vs Tandra Sreenivasa Rao	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
OS/215/2018	Jidugu Laskhman Narayana vs Tandra Adinarayana	03 Mar 2020	Judgment	—
CC/39/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Kanaparthi Chandra Sekhar	28 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/14/2017	Bommisetti Rukmini vs Nakkala Venkayamma	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/177/2013	Puppala Prasad vs Guild of Seravice, Baptla rep. by its chairman	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/277/2019	State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Mani Tiffin Centre, represented by its proprietor	27 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/148/2015	Atchutuni Gopala Srinivasa Rao vs Shaik Dastagiri	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/237/2018	Thamatam Satyanarayana vs Asodi Venkateswara Reddy	25 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/7/2020	Andhra Bank, Bapatla vs Billa Glory	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/181/2019	Corporation bank, Kankatapalem vs Pulipati Jones	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/301/2017	Muppiri Rajasekhar Babu vs Meenapati Ramu	24 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/152/2018	The Canara Bank vs Kommuri Venkata Ramana Murthy	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/400/2019	Cherukuri Praveen Kumar vs Manchala Koteswaramma	20 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/395/2019	Kasani Venkateswarlu alias Venkateswara Rao vs Pabbisetti Sujatha	19 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/399/2019	Nakka Sattar Reddy vs Mannem Seeta Ramaiah	19 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/68/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Shaik Nagoor @ Nagoor Basha	18 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/12/2020	Andhra Bank, Bapatla vs Shaik Thaher	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/125/2019	Immadisetty Venkatapathirao vs Chimata Gopi Krishna alias Tea Stall Gopi	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/347/2019	Perali Sri Suresh Kumar vs Pittu Rama Murthy Reddy	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/55/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Dakkumala Naresh Babu	17 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/8/2020	Andhra Bank, Bapatla vs Devara Daisy	14 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/239/2018	Shaik Shahid vs Shaik Abdul Munaf	14 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/273/2018	Ogiboina Anjaneyulu vs Yarramsetty Appala Raju	14 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/374/2019	Nalam Uma Maheswari vs Tata Communications Payment solutions Limited	14 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
CC/44/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Koki Pavan Kumar @ Pavan Kumar Reddy	13 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/24/2019	Gopala Poornachandra Rao vs Siddani Sivaram	10 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/134/2014	Kodali Rama Babu vs Kodali Sambasiva Rao and 4 others	07 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/370/2019	Manthena Dasaradha Rama Raju vs Appala Srinivasa Rao	06 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/284/2019	Pogadadanda Sivaiah vs Pogadadanda Kondala Rao	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/360/2019	Gelli Vani alias Gelli Tulasi Vani vs Pittu Venkateswarlu	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/370/2019	Manthena Dasaradha Rama Raju vs Appala Srinivasa Rao	05 Feb 2020	Judgment	—
OS/191/2012	Nayudu Ayyappa Reddy vs Bakka Ankireddy	31 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
CC/34/2018	S.H.O. Bapatla Town P.S vs Gavani Sheharbanu	31 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/42/2019	Mamidipaka Bala Brahmananda Bhaskara Rao vs Mamidipaka Arjuna Rao	30 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/34/2014	Navabothu ratna Kumari vs Akisetty alias Nadakuduti Umadevi	29 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/326/2019	Popuri Suman Babu vs Dasari Rani Vijaya	29 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/48/2017	Polisetty Sambasiva Rao vs Kakaraparthi sudhakar	28 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/97/2018	Karanam Chandramouli vs Veeravalli Lokesh	28 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/282/2019	Yalapragada Rama Koteswara Sarma vs Sikhinam Sataynarayana	28 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/303/2019	Velaga alias Medikonda Harika Devi vs Velaga Bhaskara Rao	24 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
EP/45/2019	Vijaya Bank, Bapatla vs Nuthangi Dayanand	22 Jan 2020	order	—
OS/282/2019	Yalapragada Rama Koteswara Sarma vs Sikhinam Sataynarayana	22 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/9/2019	Shaik Saleem alias Nalluri Venugopala Anjaneya Krishna Babu vs Shaik Sania alias Farzana alias Nalluri Sania	10 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/271/2019	Chennupalli Srinivasa Rao vs Thota Srinivasa Rao	09 Jan 2020	Judgment	—
OS/53/2012	Kolakota Punna Reddy vs Kalakota Appi Reddy	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/274/2007	Komaravolu Seshukumar vs Electricity Revenue office	31 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
A.T.C./2/2012	Seethalapu Poornachandra Rao vs Bhavana Ramachandra Rao	30 Dec 2019	order	—
EP/72/2018	Karumuri Ravi Varma vs Gunturu Appa Rao	30 Dec 2019	order	—
OS/20/2016	Seethalapu Poornachandra Rao vs Bhavana Ramachandra Rao and four others	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/33/2013	Seethalapu Poornachandra Rao vs The State of A.P. rep. by DistrictCollector,Guntur	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/297/2011	Bhavana Rama Chandra Rao vs Seethalapu Purnachandra Rao	30 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/2/2019	Shaik Mohammad Rafi vs Vanga Dasu	23 Dec 2019	order	—
OS/240/2018	Karumanchi Hari Babu vs Manne Murahari	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/272/2019	Marpu Jyothi vs Medikonda Balakrishna	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/278/2019	State Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager vs M/s Sky lark Impex, represented by its proprietor	19 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/94/2019	Nuthalapati Arun Kumar vs Kambampati Venkatarama Gopala Sharma	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/95/2019	Polisetti Samba Siva Rao vs Sathuluri Venkateswara Rao	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/119/2018	Inaganti Anjaneyulu vs Doddapaneni Sobha Alias Sobharani	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/229/2018	Gandi Kamalakara Rao vs Motumarri Raghunadha Babu	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/263/2019	Vadranam Raghavendra Rao vs Somi Ramanamma	17 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/175/2015	Shaik Sharmila vs Neeli Nageswara Rao	12 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/58/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Yaram Jaya Rao	11 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/61/2018	The S.H.O, Bapatla Town P.S. vs Mandapati Moshe	11 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/78/2018	Sanka Nagamaheswara Rao vs Kommuri Lakshmi Subbayamma and onother	10 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/261/2019	Karedla Satyan Jaya vs Penugonda Subrahmanyam	10 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/107/2018	Kavuri Yedukondalu Reddy vs Kavuri Peda Musala Reddy	09 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
CC/19/2018	S.H.O. Bapatla, Town PS vs Munnangi Ashok	09 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/180/2018	Thota Ramesh vs Vooda Hemanth Kumar	05 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
OS/184/2019	Kancharla Sneha vs The Panchayat Secretary	04 Dec 2019	Judgment	—
EP/31/2018	Bakka Narasimha Reddy vs Kota Srinivasa Reddy	03 Dec 2019	order	—
OS/102/2019	Borugadda Subba Rao vs Chebrolu Veeraiah	02 Dec 2019	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 875 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2020		31
Feb 2020		29
Jan 2020		13
Dec 2019		28
Nov 2019		33
Oct 2019		17
Sep 2019		10
Aug 2019		15
Jul 2019		51
Jun 2019		39
May 2019		16
Apr 2019		24

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms.Shaik Areefa handled?

Ms.Shaik Areefa has handled 903 court orders since 2017 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 24 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms.Shaik Areefa hear?

Based on available records, Ms.Shaik Areefa primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka).

Where is Ms.Shaik Areefa currently posted?

Ms.Shaik Areefa is posted as PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Ms.Shaik Areefa available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Ms.Shaik Areefa are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms.Shaik Areefa dispose cases?

Ms.Shaik Areefa disposes approximately 24 cases per month, based on 903 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka).

Since when is Ms.Shaik Areefa serving?

Ms.Shaik Areefa has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka) since 2017.

Case Types

OS 79%

EP 16%

CC 4%

A 1%

RCC 0%

ELECOP 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Jul 2020

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA · 903 orders

Other Judges at this Court

K Madhu Swamy

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA

0 orders

Sri M. Pavan Kumar

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

461 orders

S. M.kalyani

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAPATLA

0 orders

Smt. G. Renuka Latha

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,BAPATLA

427 orders

Sri K.Shyam Babu

VI Addl. District Judge, Bapatla

206 orders

← View all judges at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Bapatla (Taluka)