Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool

PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin, Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool, is posted at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 710 court orders on record since 2019. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

710

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/171/2019

P. ESWARAIAH vs K. RAMESWAR REDDY DIED L.RS K. LAKSHMI DEVI

26 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRODDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 171/2019

Paarsha Eswaraiah, S/o. P.Veeranna, Aged 50 years, Private Employee, H.No.1124/1, R/o. Atmakur village & Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff

VS.

Kunduru Rameswara Reddy (Died by L.Rs.)

1. Smt. Kunduru Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Late K.Rameswara Reddy, Aged 45 years.

2. Kunduru Madhava Reddy, S/o. Late K.Rameswara Reddy, Aged 22 years.

Defendants No.1 and 2 are R/o. Venkatapuram Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Kunduru Viswanatha Reddy, S/o. K.Pulla Reddy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, C/o. Dondula Venkata Subba Reddy, Chinna Dornala village, Pedda Dornala Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 19122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri V.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent, set exparte, and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court delivered the following :

// JUDGMENT //

1. This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.8,46,000/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 20112017 for Rs.6,00,000/, executed by the deceased original borrower Kunduru Rameswara Reddy and

Defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments in the plaint, in bries, are as follows :

The plaintiff submitted that on 20112017, the deceased original borrower

Kunduru Rameswara Reddy and defendant No.3 jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ from him for their joint family and business necessities and as a security for repayment of the said amount they executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. The deceased original borrower Kunduru Rameswara Reddy died intestate leaving behind his legal heirs. In spite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice dated 1507 2019, the defendants did not choose to repay the said amount. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, the defendants No.1 to 3 are called absent. Service of summons held sufficient. No representation. Hence the defendants set exparte.

4.Though the defendants set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case.

5.Proof affidavit of plaintiff is filed, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

8. Point :

In order to establish the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1, and Exs.A1 to A5 are marked on his behalf. As the defendants remained exparte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 as remained discredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the document relied upon by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A6.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 20112017 for Rs.6,00,000/, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 18072019, Ex.A3 is the served acknowledgment on the Defendant No.1,

Ex.A4 is the served acknowledgment on the Defendant No.2 and Ex.A5 is the unserved postal cover on the Defendant No.3. Since the defendants remained exparte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendants to the effect that they were admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and indiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, court concludes that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1, and the failure of the defendants to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,46,000/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.6,00,000/. The plaintiff can recover the suit amount from the estate of the deceased Kunduru Rameswara Reddy if any lying in the hands of the defendants.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

// Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : For Defendants :

P.W.1 : Paarsha Eswaraiah Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note dated 20112017 for Rs.6,00,000/

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 18072019

Ex.A3 : Served acknowledgment on the Defendant No.1

Ex.A4 : Served acknowledgment on the Defendant No.2

Ex.A5 : Unserved postal cover on the Defendant No.3

For Defendant : NIL

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRODDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 171/2019

Paarsha Eswaraiah, S/o. P.Veeranna, Aged 50 years, Private Employee, H.No.1124/1, R/o. Atmakur village & Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

Kunduru Rameswara Reddy (Died by L.Rs.)

1. Smt. Kunduru Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Late K.Rameswara Reddy, Aged 45 years.

2. Kunduru Madhava Reddy, S/o. Late K.Rameswara Reddy, Aged 22 years.

Defendants No.1 and 2 are R/o. Venkatapuram Village, Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Kunduru Viswanatha Reddy, S/o. K.Pulla Reddy, Hindu, Aged 45 years, C/o. Dondula Venkata Subba Reddy, Chinna Dornala village, Pedda Dornala Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants

This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.8,46,000/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 20112017 for Rs.6,00,000/, executed by the deceased original borrower Kunduru Rameswara Reddy and

Defendant No.3 in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 22082019 and filed on 22082019.

For the purpose of Court fee, the suit is valued at Rs.8,46,000/ and a C.F. of

Rs.10,926/ is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Atmakur Town and Mandal, on 20112017 when the original borrower Kunduru Rameswara Reddy and defendant No.3 borrowed the amount and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming before me on 19122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri

V.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent, set exparte, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff;

2. that the defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.8,46,000/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.6,00,000/;

3. that the plaintiff can recover the suit amount from the estate of the deceased

Kunduru Rameswara Reddy if any lying in the hands of the defendants No.1 and 2 ; and

4. that the defendants No.1 to 3 do also pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.24,918/ being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (Costs memo not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

Particulars of costs

S.No.Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant 1Stamp on plaint:10926.00

Costs memo not filed 2Stamp on Vakalath: 2.00 3Process paid : 150.00 4Typing Charges: 50.00 5Writing charges:50.00 6Advocate fee: 13540.00 7Tom Tom charges:200.00 Total : 24,918.00

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

OS/491/2022

S.Rasool Miah vs S.Mahaboob Basha

21 Nov 2023

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of November, 2023

O.S.No.491 of 2022

S.Rasool Miah, s/o.S.Razak Miah, Muslim, aged about 38 years, Business, R/o.H.No.76- 100-1-1, Vasavi Nagar, Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District … Plaintif

S.Mahaboob Basha, s/o.S.Hussain Saheb, aged about 52 years, Muslim, Business, R/o.H.No.77/117-6-2, Chinthalamuni Nagar, Kallur Estate, Kurnool Town and District … Defendant

This suit is coming on 21.11.2023 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri Shaik Shafi and Sri C.Shantha Murthy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri S.Ch.

Mabu Saheb, 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

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.2,40,053/- being the principal and interest based upon the suit promissory note, dt.03.05.2019.

2.The brief facts averred in the Plaint are, that on 03.05.2019 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and on the same day the defendant executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, but the defendant failed to repay the debt due under the suit promissory note. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments.

The brief facts averred in the written statement of the defendant are as follows:

(i) The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff specifically with regard to the suit promissory note transaction.

(ii) He pleaded, that the plaintiff suppressed several facts. The plaintiff obtained the suit promissory note from the defendant towards the guarantee of the friend of the defendant and the purpose of business. The plaintiff have no capacity to lend the amount and no consideration passed to him under the suit promissory note. There is no cause of action for the suit and hence suit is to be dismissed. The suit promissory note is a fabricated document.

4.After filing of the written statement of the defendant, this court observed

Section 89 C.P.C to settle the dispute between the parties by way of alternative dispute resolution system, but no settlement arrived, accordingly after hearing both the parties and on perusal of pleadings, proceeded to frame the following issues for consideration during trial:-

Issues:

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.03.05.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim ?

3. To what relief?

5.In order to decide the above issues, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, one C.Sekhar i.e., scribe of the pronote examined as PW.2 and Ex.A1 was marked. On behalf of the defendant, defendant himself was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, in summing up of the suit.

7.Perused the material on record.

8. Issue No.1:

1. Whether the suit promissory note, dt.03.05.2019 is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

The contentions of the plaintiff are, that the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.1,40,000/- on 03.05.2019, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. and the defendant executed suit Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff.

9. The contentions of the defendant are, that the suit promissory note was executed towards guarantee in the business transaction without consideration.

10.The plaintiff in order to discharge his burden got examined PWs.1 and 2.

The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 when read together, it clearly establishing the suit transaction, the passing of consideration to the defendant, execution of suit promissory note by the defendant without any hesitation. No contradictory material secured out of the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 by the defendant. Thereby the initial burden on the plaintiff got discharged in proof of Ex.A1 and its execution, passing of consideration to the defendant.

11.Now, the burden shifts upon the defendant to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove his case. To discharge his burden the defendant being DW.1 filed his chief examination affidavit on reiterating the facts in the written statement.

12.During the cross examination the defendant being DW.1 deposed, that he is an illiterate but signatory. He admitted, that he is an executant of the suit promissory note and he paid the suit debt to the plaintiff in the presence of the father of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law. He do not have idea whether the said fact pleaded by him and deposed

before the court. He cannot say when he discharged the suit Ex.A1 debt. There is no

receipt in this regard. He never issued any notice on the plaintiff to return the suit Ex.A1 as such he discharged the same.

13.The evidence of DW.1 in his cross-examination contradicting his own case over the suit transaction, the Ex.A1 transaction. He pleaded no consideration against the

Ex.A1 but deposed, that he discharged the suit debt in the presence of father of the plaintiff and his brother-in-law. Admittedly there is no recorded proof for the same. More over he failed to examine his own brother-in-law to substantiate his discharge. Under these circumstances it is clear, that the defendant being DW.1 contradicting his own case and deposing at his whims and fancies. There is no material to support the case of the defendant and to disprove the case of the plaintiff.

14.Hence, it is thereby concluded, that the defendant failed to discharge his burden effectively, efficiently in order to shift the burden upon the plaintiff to prove his case.

15.Under these circumstances it is clear, that the plaintiff proved his case to the satisfaction of the court.

16.Thereby issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

17. ISSUE No.2:

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the suit claim ?

As per the findings in issue No.1, the defendant is bind by the terms and conditions in Ex.A1. In the light of Sec.79 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the plaintiff is entitled to claim the interest as averred in the Ex.A1. The plaintiff claimed the suit amount as per the terms and conditions in Ex.A1 and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

18.Hence issue No.2 also answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

19. Issue No.3: To what relief ?

From the findings on issues 1 and 2 the suit is liable to be decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2,40,053/- (Rupees two lakhs forty thousands and fifty three only) to the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of plaint to the date of decree and with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.1,40,000/-(Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 21st day of November, 2023.

Sd/-.Shaik Baba Fakroddin,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Witnesses examined for

PLAINTIFF:DEFENDANT: P.W.1: S.Rasool Miah D.W.1: S.Mahaboob Basha P.W.2: C.Sekhar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Suit Promissory note, dated 03.05.2019 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,40,000/-.

For Defendant: - Nil -Id/-.S.B.F.,

PJCJ, KNL.

OS/202/2019

B. YERRANNA vs G. ANJANEYULU

26 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 202/2019

Boddupadu Yerranna, S/o. B.Simhadri, Retired Government Employee, H.No.B1/136, Western Colony, Sundipenta, Srisailam Project, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

Gottemukkula Anjaneyulu, S/o. G.Kotaiah, Government Employee, Near GMR Polytechnic College, Western Colony, Sunnipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 12122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri B.Mohan and T.Rama Krishnudu, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court delivered the following :

// JUDGMENT //

1. This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory notes debt of

Rs.3,40,346/ (Rs.1,70,173/ + Rs.1,70,173/) being the principal and interest due under promissory notes dated 15092016 for Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ respectively, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments in the plaint, in bries, are as follows :

The plaintiff submitted that on 15092016, the defendant borrowed sums of

Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ respectively from him and as a security for repayment of the said amounts the defendant executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand.

In spite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice, dated 30 082019 and rectified legal notice dated 06092019, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, the defendant called absent. Service of summons held sufficient. No representation. Hence the defendant set exparte.

4.Though the defendant set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case.

5.Proof affidavit of plaintiff is filed, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

8. Point :

In order to establish the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1, and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on his behalf. As the defendant remained ex parte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 as remained discredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A6.

Ex.A1 is the suit “A” marked promissory note, dated 15092016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/,

Ex.A2 is the suit “B” marked promissory note, dated 15092016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/,

Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 30082019, Ex.A4 is the served acknowledgment on the defendant, dated 03092019, Ex.A5 is the rectified office copy of notice, dated 0609 2019 and Ex.A6 is the postal receipt, dated 06092019. Since the defendant remained exparte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he has admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and indiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A6, court concludes that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2, and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,40,346/ (Rs.1,70,173/ + Rs.1,70,173/) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

// Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

P.W.1 : Boddapadu Yerranna Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Suit “A” marked promissory note, dated 15092016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/

Ex.A2 : Suit “B” marked promissory note, dated 15092016 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/

Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 30082019

Ex.A4 : Served acknowledgment on the defendant, dated 03092019

Ex.A5 : Rectified office copy of notice, dated 06092019

Ex.A6 : Postal receipt, dated 06092019

For Defendant : NIL

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 202/2019

Boddupadu Yerranna, S/o. B.Simhadri, Retired Government Employee, H.No.B1/136, Western Colony, Sundipenta, Srisailam Project, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

Gottemukkula Anjaneyulu, S/o. G.Kotaiah, Government Employee, Near GMR Polytechnic College, Western Colony, Sunnipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory notes debt of

Plaint presented on 12092019 and filed on 17102019.

For the purpose of Court fee, the suit is valued at Rs.3,40,346/ (Rs.1,70,173/ +

Rs.1,70,173/) and a C.F. of Rs.8,452/ (Rs.4,226/ + Rs.4,226/) is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV

Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Sundipenta Village, Srisailam Mandal, on 15 092016 when the defendant borrowed amounts and executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and on 30082019 and 06092019 when the plaintiff counsel issued legal notice and rectified notice, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming before me on 12122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri

B.Mohan and T.Rama Krishnudu, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff;

2. that the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,40,346/ (Rs.1,70,173/ + Rs.1,70,173/) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/; and

3. that the defendant do also pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,669/ being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (Costs memo not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

Particulars of costs

S.No.Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant 1Stamp on plaint:8452.00

Costs memo not filed 2Stamp on Vakalath: 2.00 3Process paid : 160.00 4Typing Charges: 50.00 5Writing charges:50.00 6Advocate fee: 5955.00 Total : 14,669.00

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

OS/193/2019

B. VASANTHU vs K. SRINIVASULU

19 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 19th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 193/2019

B.Vasanthu, S/o. B.Koteswara Rao, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Painter, R/o. H.No.1365, Raja Street, Atmakur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

K.Srinivasulu, S/o. K.Sekhar, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Painter, R/o. H.No.02110 (New No.130/140), Yerukali Peta, Atmakur Town & Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 12122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri M.Murali Mohan and B.Nagesh, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court delivered the following :

// JUDGMENT //

1. This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.22,507/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 08032019 for

Rs.20,000/, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments in the plaint, in bries, are as follows :

The plaintiff submitted that on 08032019, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.20,000/ from him and as a security for repayment of the said amount the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. In spite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice dated 30082019, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, the defendant called absent. Service of summons held sufficient. No representation. Hence the defendant set exparte.

4.Though the defendant set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case.

5.Proof affidavit of plaintiff is filed, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

8. Point :

In order to establish the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1, and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked on his behalf. As the defendant remained ex parte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 as remained discredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 to A3.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 08032019, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 30082019 and Ex.A3 is the served acknowledgment on the defendant. Since the defendant remained exparte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that he has admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and indiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, court concludes that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1, and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,507/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.20,000/.

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

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

// Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : For Defendant :

P.W.1 : B.Vasanthu Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note, dated 08032019

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 30082019

Ex.A3 : Served acknowledgment on the defendant

For Defendant : NIL

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 19th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 193/2019

B.Vasanthu, S/o. B.Koteswara Rao, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Painter, R/o. H.No.1365, Raja Street, Atmakur Town and Mandal, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

K.Srinivasulu, S/o. K.Sekhar, Aged about 30 years, Hindu, Painter, R/o. H.No.02110 (New No.130/140), Yerukali Peta, Atmakur Town & Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.22,507/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 08032019 for

Rs.20,000/, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 20092019 and filed on 24092019.

For the purpose of Court fee, the suit is valued at Rs.22,507/ and a C.F. of Rs.1,506/ is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Atmakur Town and Mandal, on 08032019 when the defendant borrowed the amount and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming before me on 12122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri

M.Murali Mohan and B.Nagesh, Advocates for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff;

2. that the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.22,507/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.20,000/; and

3. that the defendant do also pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,585/ being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (Costs memo not filed).

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

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

Particulars of costs

S.No.Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant 1Stamp on plaint:1506.00

Costs memo not filed 2Stamp on Vakalath: 2.00 3Process paid : 65.00 4Typing Charges: 50.00 5Writing charges:50.00 6Advocate fee: 912.00 Total : 2,585.00

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

OS/177/2019

M.Venkaiah vs V.Chinna Thirupalu

26 Dec 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 177/2019

Mogillapalle Venkaiah, S/o. Late Narayana Setty, Aged 51 years, R/o. H.No.248/7/31/2, Appala Rao Street, Atmakur Town, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

Vadde Chinna Thirupalu, S/o. Vadde Moogenna, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Messenger, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Atmakur Branch, Atmakur Town, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me on 19122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, and having stood over for consideration today itself, this court delivered the following :

// JUDGMENT //

1. This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.1,00,240/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 05112016 for Rs.60,000/, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments in the plaint, in bries, are as follows :

The plaintiff submitted that on 05112016, the defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.60,000/ from him and as a security for repayment of the said amount the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. In spite of several oral demands made by the plaintiff and issuance of legal notice dated 23052018, the defendant did not choose to repay the said amount. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, the defendant called absent. Service of summons held sufficient. No representation. Hence the defendant set exparte.

4.Though the defendant set exparte, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case.

5.Proof affidavit of plaintiff is filed, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and

A2 are marked on his behalf.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

7. Now the point for consideration is that :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of suit claim as prayed for ?

8. Point :

In order to establish the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1, and Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on his behalf. As the defendant remained exparte, it can be said that the evidence of PW1 as remained discredited and unchallenged. It would be relevant to refer to the documents relied upon by the plaintiff under Exs.A1 and A2.

Ex.A1 is suit promissory note dated 05112016 for sum of Rs.60,000/ and Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 23052018. Since the defendant remained exparte in the suit, it can be said that an adverse inference can be drawn against the defendant to the effect that she has admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of the consistent and indiscredited evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2, court concludes that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1, and the failure of the defendant to discharge the same, and as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

9. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,240/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

// Appendix of Evidence // Witnesses examined For Plaintiff : For Defendant : P.W.1 : Mogillapalle Venkaiah Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For plaintiff : Ex.A1 : Suit promissory note, dated 05112016 Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 23052018

For Defendant : NIL

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: ATMAKUR

Present : Sri SHAIK BABA FAKRUDDIN,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

FAC : Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur.

Thursday, this the 26th day of December, 2019

O.S.No. 177/2019

Mogillapalle Venkaiah, S/o. Late Narayana Setty, Aged 51 years, R/o. H.No.248/7/31/2, Appala Rao Street, Atmakur Town, Kurnool District.… Plaintiff VS.

Vadde Chinna Thirupalu, S/o. Vadde Moogenna, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Messenger, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Atmakur Branch, Atmakur Town, Kurnool District. … Defendant

This is the suit by the plaintiff for recovery of the suit promissory note debt of

Rs.1,00,240/ being the principal and interest due under promissory note dated 05112016 for Rs.60,000/, executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on 26082019 and filed on 29082019.

For the purpose of Court fee, the suit is valued at Rs.1,00,240/ and a C.F. of Rs.3,526/ is paid u/s 20 of APCF & SV Act.

The cause of action for the suit arose at Atmakur Village and Mandal, on 05112016 when the defendant borrowed the amount and executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit is coming before me on 19122019 for final disposal in the presence of Sri

T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant having been called absent, set exparte, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff;

2. that the defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,00,240/ with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum from the date of decree to the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.60,000/; and

3. that the defendant do also pay plaintiff a sum of Rs.6,046/ being the costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL (Costs memo not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 26 th day of December, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL,

FAC : JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR.

Particulars of costs

S.No.Particulars For Plaintiff For Defendant 1Stamp on plaint:3526.00

Costs memo not filed 2Stamp on Vakalath: 2.00 3Process paid : 65.00 4Typing Charges: 50.00 5Writing charges:50.00 6Advocate fee: 2353.00 Total : 6,046.00

P.J.C.J., NANDYAL,

FAC : J.C.J., ATMAKUR.

Order Record 709 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/99/2023	M/S Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs G. Siva rami reddy, B. Chandra sekhar, K. Nagaraju	21 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/306/2019	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs K.Mallikarjuna,P.Sreenivasulu,V.Krishnamacharyulu,P.Abdul Kareem and P.Lokeswara Reddy	21 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/491/2022	S.Rasool Miah vs S.Mahaboob Basha	21 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/36/2021	Shaik Nazeer Ahammed vs M.Abdul Malik	20 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/253/2018	Smt.S.Khasim Bee vs Naga Raju	16 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/100692/2017	Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Agaencies Rep by G.Pundarikakshi setty vs BV Ramana Reddy and another	15 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/62/2022	M/S Agraseni Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs B.Sumounami, C.Sri Gowri, G.Vimalamma, B.Gracemma and A.Siva Shankar	14 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/135/2023	M.P. Srinivasulu vs Khairunbee died by her LRs s. Moulali	09 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/861/2023	L. Ravi kanth vs V. Malini devi	09 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/926/2023	N. Elisha vs L.V. Prasad Reddy	08 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/51/2022	M/S Agraseni Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs M.Ramanath Reddy, E.Ramanjaneyulu, K.Raja Sekhar, T.Jayanna and J.Ram Mohan	06 Nov 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/1386/2022	Shaik Abdul Malik vs S. Shainaz Banu	06 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/241/2019	Capital Chits India Pvt. Ltd. vs Kummara Sreenivasulu	06 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/714/2019	Meer Md. Ali Bin Hussain vs R. Lakshmi Narasamma	06 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/701/2023	G. madhava laxmi devi vs S.Ashok	02 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/696/2023	K. Raghu ramudu vs C. Kesavulu	01 Nov 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/816/2023	M. Kamesh Naik vs S. Somla Naik	31 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/241/2023	M/S Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kurnool. vs N. Anwar Basha, P. Nyamathulla	30 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/710/2019	Urukunda Swamy Chit fund vs G. Venkatesh	26 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/110/2022	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs V.Vasantha Kumari,B.N.Ahmed,S.Padma Priya,Ch.Suresh Babu	19 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/234/2021	M/S Margadarshi Chit Funds Private Limited vs B.Venkata Suresh Babu,P.Prasada Rao,G.Suresh Kumar,Vema Prasad,BN.Srivani and N.Anjaneyulu	19 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/113/2023	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs J. Chandrakala bai, B. Ekambara murthy, G. Chnna Yella reddy, B. Paramesh	18 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/871/2023	S.B. Savithri vs M. Sreenivasulu	18 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/73/2023	M.V. Prasad vs B. Sreedhar	17 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/90/2020	M.Krishna vs M.Sunkamma	13 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/46/2020	S.Abbas Ali vs A.Kranthi	12 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/216/2023	K. Vinod kumar vs Reshma	12 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/371/2023	P. Vinoliya vs G. krishna mohan	12 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/98/2023	M/S Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs K. Raghaveandr Chowdary, B. RAghavendrappa, D. Sunil, M. Varaprasad	11 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/388/2022	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs B.Sivamma,S.Khuteja Bee,M.Bashumiah and M.Kiran Kumar	11 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/441/2018	G.Ugandhar vs S.Karimulla and V.Vishnu Vardhan	11 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/499/2011	M.Srinivasulu Reddy vs N.Chinna Krishana Reddy and other	11 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/595/2019	D. Rambhupal Reddy vs B. Chandra Sekhar	11 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/21/2019	G.Gayathri vs K.Subbaiah	10 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/51/2023	M/S Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs J. Mahesh kumar, J. Sundaram, J. Suresh Kumar, K. Kiran Kumar	10 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/106/2020	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs T.Krishna and 2 others	10 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/16/2022	M/S Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs P.Subhashini,K.Ramachandra Reddy,R.Krishnamohan and K.Thyaga Raja	09 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/251/2023	P.Jeevana Goud vs V. Nageswara reddy	09 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/506/2019	K.Venkateswarlu vs V.Padmavathi and K.Veeranaryana	09 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/527/2015	Bangi Madhusudhan Reddy vs Noorjahan	06 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/536/2019	R.Chandra vs P.Sanjeeva Rani	06 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/606/2020	T.M.Srinivasulu vs S.Hussain	06 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/741/2023	Kuruva Lakshmanna vs Kuruva Maddileti3	05 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1311/2019	B.Mohan Das vs S.Murthujavali	05 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/516/2019	Allahabad Bank rep.by Branch Manager vs D.Sujeeth Pratap Reddy and D.K.Prathap Reddy	04 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/25/2017	MS CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMP. LTD vs RUKMATH SHAIK	04 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
CC/1227/2019	Sri Urukunda Swamy Chit Fund (P) Ltd vs D. Balanjaneyulu	04 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/1/2019	K.Seshi Reddy vs J.Manohar Reddy	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/105/2018	K.Shaikshavali vs N.Nagabhushanam	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/244/2021	M/S shriram Raghavendra Chits Private Limited, Kurnool vs S.Chand Basha,Naseen Banu,S.M.A.Nasir Hussain and M.Hussain Saheb	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/319/2018	B.Eswaraiah vs Md.S.Rafi	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/107/2018	G.Venkateswar Reddy vs M.Pothuganti Savaranna	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/201/2023	C. Uma Maheswari vs K. Mallikarjuna reddy	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/221/2022	M/S Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kurnool. vs B.Sandeep Prabhas	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/446/2020	P.Pullaiah vs M.Chiranjeevi	03 Oct 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/48/2019	N.Ramadash vs M.F.Vijaya Kumar	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/173/2018	K.M.Krishna vs K.Ramu	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/196/2022	B.Sunkanna vs S.Rajasekhar	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/566/2019	J.Pedda Sayamma vs B.Venkata Ramana	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/936/2021	D.Sunitha Rani vs S.Sattar	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/976/2021	K.Jagath Kumar vs K.Maddaiah	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1146/2021	K.Jagath Kumar vs K.Maddaiah	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1286/2021	M/S State Bank of India vs R.Vijnaya Kumari and G.Rajeswaramma	29 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/11/2019	K.Bala seshamma vs Venkatalakshmamma	26 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/44/2021	G.Bhadrinath vs Y.Hari Hara Rao	26 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/75/2019	N.Nagalakshmi vs M.F.Vijaya Kumar	26 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/713/2016	K.Madhusudhan Reddy @ Gopal Reddy vs B.Beechupalli	26 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
RCC/10/2016	K Raghavedra Rao and 1 other vs Boya Dhanunjaya	26 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/8/2022	M/S shriram Raghavendra Chits Private Limited, Kurnool vs B.Rajamani,A.Bapuji,T.Mallikarjuna,P.Siva Sankar and S.Ramesh Babu	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/63/2021	Nossam Mallikarjuna Reddy vs S.Tara Chand	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/121/2021	M/S Margadarshi Chit Funds Private Limited vs Shaik Wahid Hussain and 4 others	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/164/2023	Gorla Ravi Sankar vs S. Abdul Rahaman	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/476/2023	C. Srinivasa Reddy vs T. Naga Ranga swamy	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/846/2023	Y. Shivarami reddy vs S. Ramaudu died by LRs S. Anumakka, S. Pedaiah, S. peddsa Somanna, S. Chinna Somanna, K. Hymavathi	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/931/2023	M/S Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Hussainapuram vs Madiga Venkat aRamana, T. Siva Prasad	25 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/141/2021	S.Shyamala Bai vs M.Venkata Krishna	22 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/706/2023	M. Lakshmi narayana vs Mala Savaranna	22 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/19/2021	P.Vijaya Lakshmi vs K.Geetha	21 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/114/2020	G.Srinivasa Reddy vs B.Tirupathi	21 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/56/2023	S. Abdul Razak vs Boya Remduru Ramanjaneyulu @ Bunuganna	21 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/201/2020	U.Venkateswarlu vs M.Narasimhulu	21 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1211/2021	D.Samelu vs P.Padmavathamma	21 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/16/2019	G.Lakshmi Devi vs V.Ramakrishna	20 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/122/2023	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs B. Ekambra murthy, G. Mojes, B. Sai baba, G. Krishna murthy	20 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/146/2023	R. Aravind Kumar vs B. Sarath babu, A. Vinaj kumar, A. vijya kumar	20 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1066/2021	K.Subba Reddy vs K.Sakunthalamma and four others	20 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/35/2022	K.Srinivasulu vs B.Prabhakar	19 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/777/2016	Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, vs Tadikamalla Eswar Babu	19 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1356/2022	State bank of india, Kurnool vs Chakali Naganna	19 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/66/2021	M/S Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited vs K.Hanumanthu,V.Rajasekhar,K.Sadanandam,K.Pullaiah and K.Vikram	15 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/306/2021	M/S Concorde Chits Private Limited rep.by Its Foreman vs B.Veeresh,P.Neelakantaswamy,S.rangaswamy,R.Gopala Krishna	15 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/301/2023	K. Nagaraju vs G.C. Chinna	15 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/459/2017	Smt.P.Dastagiri Bi vs Kuruva Samba Sivudu	15 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/1216/2022	Smt J. bharathi vs S. Kattuadi Rahiman, K. Padmavathi, K. Manohar, K. Venu	15 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
EP/117/2021	M/S Agraseni Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs B.Indira,B.Pradeep Kumar,Rama chandra Reddy and D.Mohan Raj	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
EP/123/2023	M/S Shriram Chit Funds Private Limited, Kurnool. vs M. Mohan, Z.Zohrna, Z. Madhavi	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Order	—
OS/66/2022	Laxmi vs Parvathi,B.Padma, B.Usha	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/421/2022	V.Mallaiah vs P.N.S.Sampath	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/423/2017	G.Badrinath vs M.Chandra Sekhar Reddy @ M.C.S.Reddy	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—
OS/551/2021	B.Ramalakshmi vs B.G.Thippanna,B.Sujatha,B.Suneetha,B.Anuradha,B.Rajeswari,B.Devamma and B.Yenkanna	14 Sep 2023	Copy of Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 709 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Nov 2023		16
Oct 2023		39
Sep 2023		80
Aug 2023		101
Jul 2023		117
Jun 2023		57
May 2023		59
Dec 2019		83
Nov 2019		7
Oct 2019		11
Sep 2019		7
Aug 2019		20

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin handled?

Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin has handled 710 court orders since 2019 at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool. The average disposal rate is 13 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin hear?

Based on available records, Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Where is Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin currently posted?

Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin is posted as Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin dispose cases?

Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin disposes approximately 13 cases per month, based on 710 orders handled over their tenure at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool.

Since when is Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin serving?

Sri Shaik Baba Fakruddin has been serving at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool since 2019.

Case Types

CC 41%

OS 37%

EP 20%

PRC 1%

RCC 1%

Posting History

May 2023 — Nov 2023

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool · 469 orders
Jul 2019 — Dec 2019

junior civil judge · 128 orders
Jul 2019 — Jul 2019

junior civil judge · 113 orders
Jun 2019 — Jun 2019

junior civil judge

Other Judges at this Court

Sudarshi Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of I class Spl.Mobile Court

683 orders

Smt. M. Sarojanamma

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Court,Kurnool

844 orders

G. Aparna

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge,Kurnool

114 orders

S.anil Kumar

JMFC Prohibition and Excise,Kurnool

861 orders

Smt N.Srividya

Special Judge for Trial of ACB Cases,Kurnool

8 orders

Smt V. Lakshmi Rajyam

Spl.Sessions Judge offences against women-cum-VII...

658 orders

M Sobha Rani

Special Judge for CBI Cases, Kurnool

2 orders

Sri E Rajendra Babu

Spl.Judge for POCSO CourtKurnool

172 orders

← View all judges at PJCJ Court Complex, Kurnool