Sri. Shaik Meera Khasim

Page 1 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

AT KHAMMAM.

Friday, this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

PRESENT: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 126 OF 2015

Between:

Bandi Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Venkata Yadagiri, Age: 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.H.No.1-20, Pedamuppam Post, Narsimhulapeta, Warangal District.

.....Plaintiff.

And

1)The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Warangal Region, Warangal.

2) The District Educational Officer, Khammam.

3)The Headmaster, Govt.N.S.C. Colony School, Khammam.

4) The Secretary, Board of SSC Board, Hyderabad.

5) The Director of School Education, B-Block-2, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Khairatabad, Telephone Bhavan Road, Central Secretariat, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State-Pin-500004.

6)The Government of Telangana, rep., by the District Collector, Khammam District.

.....Defendants.

Page 2 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

This suit came before me on 07.032019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Mohammad Azeez Pasha, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1, and Learned Asst., Government Pleader for Defendants No.2 to 6, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing, 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 under Order VII, Rule 1 r/w

Sec.26 of C.P.C., for the relief of declaration with a prayer i) to declare the name of the father of the plaintiff as “Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri”, ii) to direct the defendants No.2 to 5 to correct the name of father of plaintiff as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri in Memo of

Marks and other certificates by deleting the name of plaintiff's father as 'Vengalaiah' and iii) to award costs of the suit.

[2].The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

That, plaintiff is the son of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri of Narasimhulapeta, Warangal District and the said Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri was an employee of APSRTC with staff No.E343283 who served as Conductor under Warangal-I, Depot. Late Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri is permanent addressee Pedamupparam village,

Narasimhulapeta of Warangal District. He is survived by his wife and

Page 3 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

two sons by the date of his death and the he died on 07.10.2012. The late father of plaintiff Bandi Venkata Yadagiri got entered the name of the plaintiff in his service register during his life time. It is further averred in the plaint that, the plaintiff was brought up at

Khammam under care and custody of his paternal uncle Bandi

Vengalaiah and his name was erroneously got entered as if the plaintiff is son of Vengalaiah, and inspite of representation, the school authorities headed by Defendants No.2 and 3, did not rectify the same. The plaintiff was served with a letter from defendant

No.1 to attend the interview for appointment of conductor on compassionate grounds under breadwinner scheme and at the time of verifying documents there was a discrepancy with the certificates on the aspect of name of the father of the plaintiff and on that plaintiff approached defendants No.2 and 3, but of no avail. It is further averred that, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 08.12.2014 to the defendants 2 to 4 to change the name of the father of plaintiff as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah in memo of makrs and other certificates and inform the same to the defendant No.1 and thereafter the Headmaster, Govt.High school,

Page 4 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

NSC Colony, Khammam got replied to contact the management of school for correction and the defendant No.2 addressed a letter vide

Lr.RC.No.11050/C3/2015, dated 17.12.2014 to approach the concern school with relevant documents for taking necessary action and the

Addl.Joint Secretary to the Director of Government (Exams)

Telangana, Hyderabad, addressed a letter vide RC.No.125/

D30-1/2015, date 17-2015 with a request to approach director of school education, Telangana, Hyderabad stating that he is the competent authority to correct or to entertain any major corrections. Thereafter the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant No.5 as he is competent authority to correct or to entertain any major correction, as per letter addressed by the

Addl.Joint Secretary to the Director of Government (Exams),

Telangana, Hyderabad. Inspite of issuing legal notices the defendants has not corrected the name of the father of the plaintiff and intentionally avoiding to do the same. Hence, the plaint.

[3].The defendant No.1 filed its written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff submitted application for compassionate appointment under

Page 5 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

Bread Winner Scheme by submitting his SSC certificate, wherein his father's name was mentioned as Bandi Vengalaiah which is not tallying with the father's name written in his application as “B.V.Yadagiri” and further contended that as per personal records of Ex-conductor of

Warangal-I Depot, is recorded as “B.Venkata Yadagiri” and hence his application could not be considered for compassionate appointment under the above scheme as the father's name of the plaintiff in

SSC memo is not that of their employee i.e. Late B.Venkata Yadagiri.

It is further contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit and it is invented to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

[4].The defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint except admitting that in the year 2014 the department responded and gave reply to the plaintiff and also wrote a letter to Commissioner for Government

Examinations and the Commissioner directed the District Education

Officer, Khammam (defendant No.2) to take action as per the

Government orders and contended that the plaintiff appeared the exam through Governent High School , N.S. Colony, Khammam in the

Page 6 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

year 1995 and as per Hall-ticket, his father's name to be of 'Vengalaiah' and the plaintiff did not utilize the opportunity to change any mistakes found in nominal rolls and the records are not available in the above school. It is further contended that, the corrections regarding caste and date of birth will be done at the

Government level as per G.O. The parents of plaintiff never objected when the mistake found out and did not brought to the competent authority to rectify defects and to rectify manuscripts of SSC records. It is further contended that affidavit representing the change of plaintiff's father's name is after lapse of three years and there is no cause of action to file the suit. And further contended that to change fathers name the Plaintiff has to got notification through government Gazettee/Publication in daily news paper at his own cost. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

[5].Defendants No.3 to 6 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by Defendant No.2.

Page 7 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

[6.]Defendant No.1 filed additional written statement with the permission of this Court by order dated 25.11.2016 in

IA.No.958/2016 in OS.No.126/2015, denying all the averments made

in the plaint and inter-alia contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit as 1st defendant's office is situated at Warangal and as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri worked at Warangal-I Depot and

Warangal Region only and not worked within the jurisdiction of the

Hon'ble Court and suit filed by the plaintiff can be rejected in limini

and further contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to sue the defendant No.1 and it is invented for the purpose of suit.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

[7]. In view of the above pleadings of both parties, the following issues are framed by my predecessor-in-office for trial:

Issue No: 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare him as legal-heir and son of Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri ?

Issue No: 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of correction of name of his father as “Bandi Venkata Yadagiri” in marks memo and other certificates by deleting the name of plaintiff father as

“Vengalaiah”?

Issue No: 3 To what relief?

Page 8 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

[8.]In order to prove the suit claim before this court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.8 through his evidence. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

[9.].Heard the arguments of both sides.

[10.]. ISSUE NO.1:

It is the case of the plaintiff that; he is the son of

Bandi Venkata Yadagiri of Narsimhulapet, Warangal District and the said Bandi Venkata Yadagiri had worked in the then A.P.S.R.T.C., now

T.S.R.T.C., of Warangal-I Depot and his permanent address is at

Pedamupparam village and his father was survived by his wife and two sons by the date of his death and he was died on 07.10.2012 and further contention is that; his name was entered in the Service

Register of his father during his lifetime and further contended that he was brought up under care and custody of his paternal uncle Bandi

Vengalaiah and in school admission registers and in the subsequent entries in school records were erroneously got entered as if the plaintiff is the son of Vengalaiah and later he took steps for

Page 9 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

correction of his father name as “Bandi Venkata Yadagiri” instead of “Vengalaiah” and he applied and attended interview for the appointment of Conductor on compassionate grounds under Bread

Winner Scheme before the defendant No.1 and as his father name was not tallied with that of the father name mentioned in

S.S.C. Memo, his employment was not considered by the defendant

No.1 and later-on he issued a Exs.A2 to A6 legal notices and correspondences with that of the defendants No.2 to 5, they did not correct the name of the father of the plaintiff as Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah in the original S.S.C. Marks memo (Ex.A1). Hence, he filed the suit for the above relief to declare him as a son of Late Bandi Venkata Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah.

[11.]To prove the above issue, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that he is the son of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri of

Narsimhulapet by adducing the oral and documentary evidence.

To support and substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he (PW.1) filed his chief affidavit and also relied upon Exs.A1 to A8 documents and no other oral or documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff

before this Court. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, he reiterated

Page 10 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

the averments made in the plaint. A perusal of the Ex.sA1 to A8 documents, Ex.A1 is the Original S.S.C. marks memo, Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice issued to the D2 to D4., in respect of correction of his father's name as “Bandi Venkata Yadagiri” instead of “Bandi Yadagiri”, Ex.A3 is the Reply notice got issued by the defendant No.3, Ex.A4 is the Reply to legal notice got issued by the

Defendant No.2, Ex.A5 is the Letter addressed by the Additional

Joint Secretary to the Director of Government Examination,

Telangana State, Ex.A6 is the Legal notice issued by the plaintiff to

Defendant No.5, Ex.A7 is the Original Voter I.D. Card and Ex.A8 is the Original Pan card.

[12.] A perusal of the Exs.A2 to A6 that were the legal notices and other correspondences with regard to the correction of his father name in school S.S.C. Certificate as Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah, Ex.A1 is the Original S.S.C, marks memo, Ex.A7 is the Original voter card and Ex.A8 is the Original pan card.

Page 11 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

[13.] The plaintiff counsel vehemently argued that Ex.A7 voter card and Ex.A8 Original pan card, the father name of the PW.1 is the Bandi Venkata Yadagiri and PW.1 also made correspondences with the Defendants No.2 to 5 officials for correction of the name of his father as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah, but

Defendants No.2 to 5 not take any action and the evidence of PW.1 is coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 to A8. So, the plaintiff is the son of the deceased Bandi Venkata Yadagiri and hence requesting the Court to declare him as the legal-heir of the deceased Bandi

Venkata Yadagiri.

[14.] With regard to this issue whether the plaintiff is the father of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri or the plaintiff is the son of

Bandi Vengalaiah and that was not disputed by the defendants

No.1 to 5 as they were the Government officials, but defendant No.1 only disputed that when PW.1 applied for the job under the Bread

Winner Scheme, the father's name of the plaintiff was not tallied with that of the service register of the deceased who worked under defendant No.1 as a Conductor during his lifetime.

Page 12 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

[15.] As stated supra, to declare the plaintiff as the legal-heir of the deceased Bandi Venkata Yadagiri, PW.1 did not adduce the evidence of his mother Leela and other brothers evidence and atleast not filed any birth certificate to show that the plaintiff is the son of the Bandi Venkata Yadagiri. In the cross examination of the PW.1 by defendant No.1, he admitted that he was not filed any birth certificate before this Court except the Ex.A7 and A8 voter card and pan card of the PW.1. No doubt on perusal of the Exs.A7 and A8 the father's name of the PW.1 got mentioned as Bandi

Venkata Yadagiri, but at the same time PW.1 filed Ex.A1 S.S.C., marks memo, it discloses that the father name of the PW.1 as Bandi

Vengalaiah. So, the documents filed by the PW.1 with regard to his father name is concerned, Ex.A1 is contradicting to the Exs.A7 and

A8. In such circumstances, there is a doubt raises in the mind of the

Court that whether the PW.1 is the son of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri or the Bandi Vengalaiah. But, in another way PW.1 contended that he was broughtup by his paternal uncle namely Bandi Vengalaiah at

Khammam and he provided education to him and in the school registers and the SSC marks list his father name was written as

Page 13 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

“Vengalaiah” instead of “Bandi Venkata Yadagiri”. To declare the plaintiff as a legal-heir of deceased Bandi Venkata Yadagiri, the plaintif did not shown his mother and other brothers as parties to the suit, though they are survived as he stated in the plaint. So, in the absence of shown as a parties to the suit for seeking declaration as a legal-heir to the deceased Bandi Venkata Yadagiri, the suit is not maintainable from the abinitio and more-over defendants No.1 to 6 are the Government officials. So, seeking the relief against the defendants No.1 to 6 to declare him as legal-heir and the son of Bandi

Venkata Yadagiri does not arise and more-over the PW.1 not examined his mother or brother as witnesses in this case and if they were examined the true facts will come into light that whether the plaintiff is the son of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri or Bandi Vengalaiah and even as admitted by the PW.1 in his cross examination that he did not file any birth certificate. So, non-examination of the mother or brother of PW.1 and also non-production of the birth certificate, the fact remains that PW.1 is the son of the Bandi Vengalaiah, but not the son of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri. Exs.A7 and A8 are only the voter card and pan card that were issued by the concerned authorities on

Page 14 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

oral information submitted by the individual and also on production of the proof of identity, Exs.A7 and A8 can be issued and more-over a perusal of Ex.A7 voter card it was issued by the Voter Registration

Officer of Dornakal Legislative Constituency on 19.01.2015.

On perusal of the Ex.A8 pan card, it was issued on 16.02.2013.

So, Exs.A7 and A8 are not conclusive proofs even the father's name was written as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri and on the other hand Ex.A1

S.S.C. Marks memo of the PW.1 discloses that the father's name of the PW.1 is Vengalaiah. It is an authenticated document and carries more value than Exs.A7 and A8.

[16.] In view of the above foregoing discussion, the plaintiff failed to establish that he was the son of deceased Bandi

Venkata Yadagiri. So, this issue is answered against the plaintiff.

[17.] ISSUE No.2

The contention of the plaintiff is that; when he applied for the post of Conductor on compassionate grounds under

Bread Winner Scheme, the defendant No.1 at the time of verification of the documents since there was a discrepancy with the certificates

Page 15 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

over the aspect of name of the father of the plaintiff, the recruitment of the plaintiff was stalled and there-upon the plaintiff approached the defendants No.2 to 5 vide Exs.A2 to A6 correspondences with them in respect of correction of the name of his father as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah in Ex.A1

S.S.C. Memo, then PW.1 approached this Court and prayed to give a direction to Defendants No.2 to 5 to delete the name of the

Vengalaiah in SSC marks memo (Ex.A1) and correct his father's name as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri.

[18.] To prove the same, PW.1 filed his chief affidavit and got marked as Exs.A1 to A8. As discussed in the Issue No.1, the

Exs.A2 to A6 are the correspondence with Defendants No.2 to 5 in respect of correction of the father's name of PW.1 as Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri instead of Vengalaiah got mentioned in Ex.A1.

[19.] On behalf of the Defendant No.1, DW.1 (M.Venkat

Das Reddy) who is the Deputy Superintendent (P) of Warangal-I

Depot, examined by filing his chief affidavit and stated and admitted that deceased Bandi Venkata Yadagiri was worked in Warangal-I

Page 16 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

Depot then A.P.S.R.T.C., as Conductor and further stated that father of the plaintiff name is Bandi Vengalaiah, but not Bandi Venkata

Yadagiri and also stated that it is incorrect to say erroneously entries were made in school records, Nagarjuna Sagar Colony School,

Khammam (NSC colony School, Khammam) at the time of his studies and it is false to say plaintiff represented to the school authorities that his father's name is Bandi Venkata Yadagiri and defendants No.2 to 5 had not bothered his representation by school authorities and did not correct the record before leaving the school and further he stated that the candidature of the plaintiff (PW.1) in the interview by defendant No.1 on verification was rejected by the authorities as the name of the father of the plaintiff was not held in the school records much particularly in S.S.C. Memo.

[20.] In the cross examination by the Learned Assistant

Government Pleader, DW.1 admitted that as per the office records the deceased name is Bandi Venkata Yadagiri but as per S.S.C., memo the plaintiff's father name is Bandi Vengalaiah as such they were not provided the job to the plaintiff under compassionate grounds and further admitted in his cross examination that as per

Page 17 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

the original service records the nominee of the deceased namely

Bandi Venkata Yadagiri, his wife Bandi Leela and during the cross examination of the PW.1 by defendant No.1 that PW.1 admitted that he did not file birth certificate and he studied upto 10th Class in the year 1995 and also not denied that his name is mentioned in service register of Bandi Venkata Yadagiri. As seen from the cross examination of the PW.1 by the defendants No.1 to 5, it is admitted fact by the PW.1, he studied upto 10th class and this suit was filed after 19 years after qualifying 10th Class and also indicates in Ex.A1 his father name was shown as Vengalaiah, but he denied suggestion by the defendants that to rectification of the name of parents within 3 years of receiving the certificate and filed a case before the

R.D.O., for changing of the name, this Court has no jurisdiction.

[21.] The Learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently argued on behalf of Defendants No.2 to 6 and argued that the plaintiff represented the Department to change his father's name as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri in the place of Vengalaiah and in the year 2014 the Department responded and gave reply to the plaintiff and also wrote to the Commissioner for Government

Page 18 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

examinations and the Commissioner for Government examinations directed the District Educational officer, Khammam (D2) to take action as per the Government orders and the plaintiff completed the

SSC examination in the year 1995 i.e. 19 years back and further argued that as per the then Government of Andhra Pradesh vide

G.O.Ms.No.604, dated 23.04.1977 authorises the Commissioner for

Government Examinations to make a minor corrections., spelling mistakes and as per the G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 06.05.1961 correction of date of birth can be done only within the period of three years from the date of completion of the said course and there is no provision about the change of correction of father's name and it is not within the purview of the Education Department and the plaintiff never expressed any objection after receipt of the certificate i.e. in the year 1995 and after 19 years when the plaintiff applied for the job and rejected the same as his father name in the SSC memo as

Vengalaiah but not as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri, as such, the plaintiff approached this Court for seeking directions to this defendant which is not maintainable under Law and as per the G.O.Ms.No.1263,

dated 06.05.1961 in case of correction of the father's name, the

Page 19 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

plaintiff has to got notification through Government Gazettee / publication in daily newspaper at his own cost. Therefore, requested the Court to dismiss the suit.

[22.] There is a force on arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and a perusal of Exs.A2 to A6, there is correspondence in between the PW.1 and the Defendants

No.2 to 5 in respect of correction of the name of the plaintiff's father as a “Bandi Venkata Yadagiri” instead of Vengalaiah and the

Ex.A4 letter addressed by the District Educational Officer (D2) to the Counsel of the PW.1 dated 17.12.2014 and in that letter the reference of G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 06.05.1961 of School Education

Department was also referred and filed the said copy by the Learned

Assistant Government Pleader before this Court and G.O.Rt.No.604,

dated 23.04.1977 filed by the plaintiff along with Ex.A5 in Para No.3

of the said G.O., discloses that;

Para No.3: Government after careful examination approve the proposal and hereby authorise the Commissioner for Government Examinations to make minor corrections in the completed SSCs such as spelling mistakes etc., excluding corrections regarding caste and date of birth,

which will be done at the Government level.

Page 20 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

So, as per that G.O., correction of the name of the father was not in the hands of the Commissioner for Government

Examinations and the said G.O.Rt.No.604 Edn Dt.23.4.1977 filed by the plaintiff is not applicable to his case.

[23.] As contended by the Learned Assistant Government

Pleader in G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 06.05.1961, a perusal of the said

G.O., in Page No.3 in Section (c), Sub-Clause (2) extracted below for easy understanding “The person affected may go however, arrange to notify as his or her own cost, any such change of name, father's name castes, or religion in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette and shall keep a copy of the notification in the concerned certificate”.

[24.] So, it clearly shows that the change of the plaintiff's father name as Bandi Venkata Yadagiri instead of

Vengalaiah the plaintiff has to got notification through Government

Page 21 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

Gazettee publication in daily newspaper at his own costs. Herein except approaching the Defendants No.2 to 5 and made a correspondence under Exs.A2 to A6 with them, no steps have taken by the plaintiff as per procedure contemplated in the

G.O.Ms.No.1263, dated 06.05.1961 under Section-C, Sub-Clause (2) i.e. the notification through gazette publication in daily newspaper at his own costs. So, in the absence of the same by the plaintiff, he could not seek the Court to give directions to the defendants

No.2 to 5 to delete his father name Vengalaiah and correct as Bandi

Venkata Yadagiri.

[25.] So, in view of my above finding in Issue No.1 and in this issue, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek direction to the

Defendants No.2 to 5 to correct the name of father of plaintiff in memo of maks and other certificates by deleting the name of plaintiff's father as Vengalaiah and accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants.

[26.] ISSUE No.3

In view of my finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Page 22 of 22

O.S.No.126/2015

[27.] IN THE RESULT, the suit is dismissed, with costs.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined: For Plaintiff: P.W.1: Bandi Chandra Sekhar

For Defendant:

DW.1: M.Venkat Das Reddy

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Official memo of Marks of SSC. Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.3: Reply legal notice got issued by Defendant No.3. Ex.A.4: Reply to legal notice got issued by Defendant No.2 vide Lr.RC.No.11050/C3/2015. Ex.A.5: Letter addressed by the Addl.Joint Secretary to Director of Government Exams, Telangana, Hyderabad vide

RC.No.125/D30-1/2015.

Ex.A.6: Legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to Defendant No.5. Ex.A.7: Original voter card. Ex.A.8: Original pan card.

For Defendants :

-NIL-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1

O.S 290 / 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KHAMMAM

Present: Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Wednesday, this the 20th day of March, 2019

O.S.No. 290 of 2016.

Between :

Basa Sanjeev, S/o.Govindam, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Nagulvancha village of Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. … Plaintiff

And

Syed Gousuddin, S/o.Himam Ali, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Nagulvanch village, Chintakani Mandal, Khammam District. … Defendant.

This suit is came before me on 15.03.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Rama Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate for Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court passed the following :

J U D G M E N T

[1.]This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under

Order VII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of money of Rs.1,11,466/- with costs and future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.65,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization, based on a suit promissory note.

2

O.S 290 / 2016

[2].The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

That, out of the acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) from the plaintiff on 05.11.2013 for his family necessities by executing a primissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum payable either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

Subsequently, the plaintiff made several oral demands for repayment of the pronote amount with interest, but the defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Vexed with the attitude of defendant, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 02.05.2015 and the defendant having received the said notice, got issued reply notice

dated 06.05.2016 requesting the plaintiff to send the xerox copy of

promissory note and on 05.11.2016 the plaintiff sent the xerox copy of promissory note through his counsel. But, the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the said promissory note. Hence, the plaint.

[3.]The defendant filed his written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the alleged pronote is forged and fabricated one brought into existence with the help of alleged scribe. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the 3

O.S 290 / 2016

defendant as it is invented for filing of suit. The defendant had not borrowed any amount muchless Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff on 05.11.2013 and further contended that the plaintiff filed the suit to harass the defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

[4]. In view of pleadings of the both parties, the following issues are framed by my predecessor for settlement of trial.

Issue No: 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

Issue No: 2 To what relief?

[5.]The plaintiff who laid this lis for recovery of money examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 through his evidence in support of suit claim. The scribe and attestor of the promissory note are examined as PW.2 and PW.3 and closed his evidence. The defendant, who denied the suit claim entered into witness box and examined himself as DW.1, but no documents are tendered in evidence.

[6.]Heard the arguments of learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant.

4

O.S 290 / 2016

[7].ISSUE NO.1:

Since this is a suit for recovery of money basing on the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant for

Rs.65,000/- on 05.11.2013. The plea of the defendant is that; he neither borrowed the amount nor executed Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the specific plea of the defendant, burden heavily lies upon the plaintiff to prove the due execution of promissory note before this Court with sufficient evidence.

[8].The learned counsel for the plaintiff had argued that the defendant had borrowed amount and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of scribe and attestor and the evidence of PW.2 and 3 are supports the suit claim of the plaintiff. He further submitted that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are supported by Exs.A1 to A4 and that the plaintiff could able to prove the suit claim against the defendant. Hence prayed to decree the suit as prayed for.

[9].The learned counsel for the defendant submitted that th defendant has no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff as averred by the plaintiff in the suit and further submitted that he has no 5

O.S 290 / 2016

acquaintance with the plaintiff and Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated one with the help of PW.2 and 3. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the suit by disbelieving the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3.

[10]. Coming to the documents that are exhibited through the evidence of PW.1 to prove the suit claim. As stated above from the evidence of PW.1, four documents are tendered in evidence and are marked as Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Original promissory note dated 05.11.2013 basing on which the plaintiff laid this suit which contains the signature of the defendant as an executor of Ex.A1 and also contains the signature of the PW.3 as attestor and scribe (PW.2) of Ex.A1. The defendant had denied the execution of Ex.A1 in his written statement. Ex.A2 is the office copy of the legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding him to pay the amount as agreed by him. Ex.A3 is the Postal acknowledgment and Ex.A4 is the office copy of the reply notice got issued by the defendant to the notice Ex.A2. The defendant having received notice under Ex.A2, got issued Ex.A4 in which the defendant denied the averments of the notice and requested to furnish the copy of promissory note dated 05.11.2013. The defendant, though denied the suit claim had not produced any documentary proof in support of his defence.

6

O.S 290 / 2016

[11].As stated in the preceding paragraphs, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 to prove the due execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant in the presence of the attestors and scribe. The chief affidavit of PW.1 is filed and the contents of the same are reaffirmed before this Court. The contents of the chief examination affidavit are true replica of the plaint.

The defendant who denied the execution of the Ex.A1 cross examined PW.1.

In the course of cross examination, nothing is elicited to disprove the execution of Ex.A1. As per the averments of the plaint and the Ex.A1 document, Siliveru Saidulu is the scribe of Ex.A1 who is examined as PW.2 and one T.Nageswar Rao is the attestor of the Ex.A1 who is examined as

PW.3 before this Court. The defence counsel cross examined the PWs.1 to 3 and no material points were elicited to suit the defence of the defendant.

[12]. In this suit, as sated above, the scribe of the promissory note has examined as PW.2 and also the attestor who examined as PW.3, their evidence strengthening oral and documentary evidence produced in this suit. In view of the evidence of the PW.2 and 3 which were supports the oral testimony of the PW.1 and with that evidence, it is clear that defendant having borrowed the amount, executed Ex.A1 in favour of the

Pw.1 for Rs.65,000/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has rightly 7

O.S 290 / 2016

argued that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 were clearly supported by the documents filed in support of the suit claim.

[13.] In this suit, the defendant is examined as DW.1. The chief affidavit of the defendant reiterating the averments made in his written statement.

[14.] In view of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, this Court is inclined to draw the presumption that the defendant himself executed

Ex.A1 promissory note scribed by the PW.2 in the presence of another attestor i.e. PW.3 on the date of transaction. The defendant who examined as Dw.1, except his oral evidence, no material is brought on the record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff

before this Court and more-over though DW.1 taken the defence before

this Court that Ex.A1 pronote is forged and fabricated one, but the DW.1 failed to take steps for comparison of the signature appears on the Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert. Hence, having considering the oral and documentary evidence, this Court has arrived at conclusion that the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant for Rs.65,000/- in favour of plaintiff on 05.11.2013.

8

O.S 290 / 2016

[15.] The plaintiff was forced to lay the suit against the defendant as he failed to make repayment as agreed by. Except denying the suit claim of the plaintiff, no evidence is produced by the defendant.

Hence, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim as prayed in t he suit against the defendant. Accordingly, this issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

[16.] ISSUE NO.2:

As the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendant.

[17.] IN THE RESULT; suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,11,466/- (Rupees One lakh eleven thousand four hundred and sixty six only) with costs and future interest is awarded @ 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty five thousand only) from the date of filing of the suit till realization.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of March, 2019, under the hand and seal of this court.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

9

O.S 290 / 2016

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

PW.1: Basa Sanjeev DW.1: Syed Ghouse PW.2: Siliveru Saidulu PW.3: T. Nageswar Rao

Documents marked:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 05.11.2013. Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.3: Postal acknowledgment. Ex.A.4: Reply notice.

For Defendant:

-Nil-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

1

E.P. 1 / 2017

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Friday, this the 22nd day of March, 2019

E.P No. 1 of 2017

in

O.S.No. 443 of 2013

Between:-

Nallagatla Radhamma, W/o.Bakkaiah, Age: 44 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Khammam. ...D.Hr/Plaintiff

And

Kotha Venkateswarlu, S/o.Muthaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Hostel Warden, R/o.H.No.6-1-8, Cheruvu Bazar, Khammam. ….J.Dr./Defendant

This petition is coming up before me on 22.03.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Sudhakar Rao, Learned Counsel for the D.Hr/Plaintiff and of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao Gupta, Learned Counsel for the J.Dr./Defendant; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Plaintiff in OS.No.443/2013 filed this Execution Petition under Order 21, Rule 11 of C.P.C., with a prayer to direct the

J.Dr./Defendant to obey the decree passed by this Hon'ble Court in OS.No.443/2013 through process of the Court at the expenses of the

J.Dr., under Order 21, Rule 32(5) of C.P.C., 2

E.P. 1 / 2017

2.The case of the D.Hr. in brief is that the D.Hr./Plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.443/2013 against the J.Dr.,/Defendant for mandatory injunction and it was decreed on 01.04.2015 directing the J.Dr.,/Defendant to remove the pipe-line affixed to his house in the lane towards the Eastern side of the D.Hr.,/plaintiff's house by replacing with new pipe-lines to avoid future leakages and preventing emitting the lavatory and toilet water oozing and sprinkiling therein falling over the house of the D.Hr., within two months from the date of Judgment, failing which the D.Hr.,/plaintiff is entitled to get it done through process of Law at the expenses of J.Dr., and further submitted that the J.Dr., did not choose to contest the suit proceedings and did not prefer any appeal and did not come forward to obey the decree passed in the above suit. Hence, prayed the Hon'ble Court to direct the

J.Dr.,/Defendant to obey the decree passed in OS.No.443/2013 through process of Court at the expenses of the J.Dr.Hence, the E.P.

3. Notice of J.Dr. served. The J.Dr./Defendant filed counter denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that subsequent to filing of the suit, the matter was settled amicably and the J.Dr./Defendant got repaired the repair works and the same was satisfied by the

D.Hr./Plaintiff and surprisinly the J.Dr./Defendant received the notice from this Hon'ble Court and further contended that nothing is remained in the suit schedule property for further repairs and only to harass the

J.Dr./Defendant got filed the above E.P., and to extract money from this

J.Dr./Defendant.

4. During the enquiry, the D.Hr., by name Nallagatla Radhamma filed her chief affidavit and examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

3

E.P. 1 / 2017

5.Heard the arguments.

6.Now the point arises for determination in this case is:

Whether the D.Hr., is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

7. POINT:

The burden of proof of this point lies on the D.Hr., to prove that

J.Dr., violating the orders of Hon'ble Court to implement the replacing with new pipe-lines to avoid leakages and preventing emitting lavatory and toilet water, oozing, sprinkling therein falling over his house.

8. To prove the case of the D.Hr., she herself examined as PW.1 and filed her chief affidavit and categorically stated that she filed the suit in

OS.No.443/2013 against the J.Dr., and the same was decreed in favour of

her on 01.04.2015 by granting mandatory injunction and wherein the Hon'ble

Court directed the J.Dr., to remove the pipeline affixed to her house in the lane towards Eastern side of her house by replacing with a new pipe-line to avoid future leakages and preventing emitting the lavatory and toilet water oozing sprinklig therein falling over the house of her within two months from the date of Judgment dated 01.04.2015, failing which she is entitled to get it doen through process of Court at the expenses of

J.Dr.,/Defendant and after passing the decree the J.Dr., did not prefer any appeal or did not choose to replace with a new pipeline to avoid leakages.

Thus, the J.Dr., /defendant violating the orders of the Hon'ble Court to implement the replacing with a new pipe-line to avoid future leakage.

Hence, she filed the E.P., for violation of the decree passed in

OS.No.443/2013 by the J.dr.,

4

E.P. 1 / 2017

9. The J.Dr.,/Respondent though filed his counter and inter-alia contended that subsequent to filing of the suit, the matter was settled amicably between himself and the D.Hr., and further stated that he got repaired all the repair works and the same was also satisfied by the D.Hr., and nothing is remained in the schedule property for further repairs and requesting the Court to dismiss the petition.

10. Though the J.Dr./Defendant filed his counter, but failed to adduce his evidence incuding himself and the J.Dr./Defendant also not cross examined the PW.1, though this Court had given several opportunities to the

J.Dr./Defendant, but failed to cross examine the PW.1/D.Hr., on 02.07.2018. Hence, this Court closed the cross examination as treated as

Nil and thereafter he did not take any steps for adducing evidence or cross examine the PW.1.

11. Though the J.Dr./Defendant did not adduce any evidence, the burden lies upon the PW.1 to prove that J.Dr./Defendant violates the decree passed in OS.No.443/2013, dated 01.04.2015. To that effect as stated supra except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other independent or documentary evidence adduced by the PW.1. On the other hand,

J.Dr./Defendant in counter stated that he effected repairs to the E.P.

Schedule property. But, the D.Hr., stated in his chief affidavit that the repairs were not made by the J.Dr./Defendant and not fixed the new pipe-lines to avoid future leakages. Except the evidence of PW.1, the Pw.1 did not adduce any oral or photographs of the E.P. Schedule property to show that the E.P. Schedule property is as it is at the time of filing of the suit. Even, PW.1 not adduced any neighbouring persons as to say whether the repairs were not done by the J.Dr., even though the Court was passed the mandatory injunction against the J.Dr./Defendant.

5

E.P. 1 / 2017

12. So, in view of the above foregoing discussion, the D.Hr., failed to prove that J.Dr., violates the Judgment and Decree passed in OS.No.443/2013,

dated 01.04.2015, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The point

is answered accordingly.

13.IN THE RESULT, the petition is dismissed, without costs.

Partly dictated to the Stenographer and partly typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd March, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Decree Holder / Plaintiff:- For Judgment Debtor/Defendant P.W.1: Nallagatla Radhamma -None-

Documents Marked

For Decree Holders / Plaintiffs:- -Nil-

For Judgment Debtor / Defendant -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KHAMMAM

Monday, this the 22ndday of March, 2019.

Present : Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

C.C.No.209 OF 2019

(Old C.C. No. 403/2016)

BETWEEN :

The State Represented by Sub Inspector of Police,

Thirumalayapalem P.S ...Complainant

AND

Lanjapalli Chandu, S/o. Upendar, Age.20 years, Car Mechanic, R/o. Jupeda Village of Thirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 25.02.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri APP for the State and of Sri T.Venkateswar Rao, Counsel

for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Thirumalayapalem P.S. has filed a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No. 198/2016 for the offences punishable Under Section 324 IPC against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the charge sheet are that :-

On 17-05-2016 at about 07.30 p.m., L.W1 i.e., Defacto

Complainant namely Sampangi Srinivas was coming by taking recharge cards from village and when he reached near the house of Matte Uppalaiah, 2 his villager ie., Accused un-ncessarly quarrel with him and beat him with stick on his left hand and caused injury, mean while L.W.2 (Matte

Guravaiah) intervened and tried to stop him, but the accused beat him with a stick and caused injuries both were went to Government Hospital,

Khammam and after getting treatment, they came to police station and submitted a report to police .

Basing on the report of LW1 , LW.9 S.Raju, S.I., of Police, registered the case as in Cr.No.198/2016, U/Sec. 324 IPC of

Thirumalayapalem P.S., and recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene and prepared C.D. Form in the presence of the mediators

LW.6 and 7 namely Bollikonda Ramesh and Matte Venkanna. On 23-05-2016 the LW.9 issued a notice U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C., to the accused with instructions to appear before the Hon'ble Court and after receipt of wound certificate and completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable Under

Sections 324 IPC by the Hon'ble J.F.C.M., Spl.Mobile Court, Khammam, against the accused and assigned C.C.No.403/2016.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case records as required Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. have been supplied to the accused.

5.The accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. and charges Under

Sections 324 IPC against accused and have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial.

6. This case was was received from the Hon'ble Spl.Mobile

Court, Khammam as per the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Judicial 3

Magistrate, Khammam, dated 24.01.2019 vide Proc.Dis.No.5 and this Court

renumbered the case as CC.No.209/2019.

7.To prove its case against the accused, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P.4.

8.Since, there is no incriminating evidence found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against the accused Hence examination

U/s. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9. Heard Arguments on both sides.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 324 IPC, with which he was charged. If so, whether the

acused is liable for punishment of the same ?

11.POINT:

To prove its case against the accused, though the prosecution has cited as many as ( 09 ) witnesses, Out of them, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P.4. Ex.P.1 is the signature of PW.1 on report, Exs.P2 to P4 are the 161 Cr.P.C Statements of P.Ws.1 to 3.

Sri.APP., has given up L.Ws.3,4, 6 to 9( Matte uppalaiah, Matte Veeranna,

Bolikonda Ramesh, Matte Venkanna, Dr.Ch.V.Vinay Kumar and S.Raju, S.I., of Police).

12.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Out of them, PW.1 is the

Defacto-Complainant and injured person and Pws.2 also injured witness and

P.W. 3 is the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. In the present case,

PW.1, who is the Defacto complainant-cum-injured person, PW.2 who is 4 another injured witnesses , they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. Hence the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 has no way helpful to the case of the prosecution and further PW.1 admitted in his cross examination that he effected compromise with that of the accused. Perpahps due to compromise PW.1 did not say anything against the accused. Since there is no incriminating material or evidence found in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses against the accused, as such learned APP., rightly given up L.Ws.3, 4, L.W. 6 to 9. As there is no acceptable evidence available against the accused, adduced by the prosecution U/Sec. 324 IPC as such this court has no option except acquit the accused.

13.In view of my above foregoing discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt, for the offences punishable U/Sec.324 IPC against the accused. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under

Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of 6 (Six) months period. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

5

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution :For Defence :

PW.1: Sampangi Srinivas, dated 22.02.2019 - Nil- PW.2: Matte Durgaiah, dated 21.02.2019 PW.3: Sampangi Venkanna, dated 21.02.2019

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on report. Ex.P2: The portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: The portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: The portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Exhibits Marked for Defence -Nil-

Material Objects Marked -Nil-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Khammam.

1

E.P.No. 147 / 2017

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

Present:- Sri Shaik Meera Khasim Saheb, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Thuesday, this the 22nd day of March, 2019

E.P No. 147 of 2017

in

O.S.No. 576 of 2013

Between:-

Katika Satyanarayana, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 49 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Mallaram Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District. ...D.Hr/Plaintiff

And

Pasupuleti Mohan Rao, S/o. Venkata Narasaiah, Age:55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.6-3-51, Manorama Nilayam, Bank Colony, Khammam Urgban Mandal of Khammam District. ...J.Dr./Defendant.

This petition is coming up before me on 18.03.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Jada Suresh, Learned Counsel for the D.Hr./Plaintiff and J.Dr./Defendant set exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.The Plaintiff in OS.No.576/2013 filed this Execution

Petition under Order 21, Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C., with a prayer to order for arrest of Judgment Debtor / Defendant unless the J.Dr., shall pay the E.P. amount.

2

E.P.No. 147 / 2017

2.The case of the D.Hr. in brief is that the Decree Holder has filed suit in OS.No.576/2013 before this court for recovery of money and the said suit was decreed on 09.04.2015. In spite of passing of the

Decree, though the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means, the

J.Dr., failed to pay the decreetal amount to the Decree Holder. Hence, prayed the Hon'ble Court to order for arrest and detention of the

J.Dr. for realization of the E.P., amount of Rs.1,12,034/-. Hence, the

D.Hr., filed this petition to send the J.Dr. to Civil Prison.

3. Notice of Jdr served and Sri.K.S.Charan, Advocate filed Vakalth for J.Dr., and the J.Dr failed to filed the counter, as such the J.Dr.

Is set exparte on 08.08.2018.

4. During the course of enquiry, D.Hr., by name Katika Satyanarayana examined himself as P.W.1, no documents are marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the arguments.

6. Now the point that arises for determination in this case is:

Whether the D.Hr. proved the means and capacity of

J.Dr. to pay the amount at once and he willfully failed

to pay the same and if so J.Dr. is liable to send him

to civil prison?

7. POINT:

The burden of proof of this point lies on the D.Hr., to prove that

J.Dr. has capacity to pay the decretal amount at once and further to prove that he willfully failed to pay the same before seeking the order to send the J.Dr. to Civil Prison.

3

E.P.No. 147 / 2017

8. To prove the case of D.Hr. ( PW.1) himself examined as PW.1 and filed his chief affidavit and categorically stated that J.Dr. willfully failed to discharge the Decretal amount as awarded in Decree passed vide OS.576/13, dated 09.04.2015 and further stated that J.Dr.

having knowledge regarding the passing of the decree by this Hon'ble

Court and even after having knowledge, he did not came forward to pay the decretal amount and further J.Dr. having sufficient means to pay the decretal amount, the J.Dr., intentionally avoiding to pay the decretal amount. Hence, requested the Court to order for arrest of

J.Dr., for realization of E.P. Amount.

9. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged by the J.Dr., as he was called absent, no representation on behalf of J.Dr., and not filed his counter and no legal steps were taken by the J.Dr. for adducing his evidence. So the evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged and rebutted by the

J.Dr.

10.On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, the J.Dr. is having sufficient means to pay the entire decretal amount.

11. So in the above circumstances, I am of the view that J.Dr., is having sufficient means and capacity to pay the E.P amount . Therefore the D.Hr. is entitled for an order to arrest him and produce before the

Court and then issue warrant of arrest under Order-21, Rule 38 of

C.P.C., for realization of E.P., amount. Accordingly I have answered this point.

4

E.P.No. 147 / 2017

12. IN THE RESULT, E.P. is allowed with costs, by holding that the

D.Hr., proved the means of J.Dr. to pay the E.P., amount at once, but, J.Dr. is willfully failed to pay the same and consequently issue arrest warrant against the J.Dr. u/Sec.55 of C.P.C., on payment of process. Call on 08.04.2019.

Directly typed to my dictation on my Personal Laptop, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of March, 2019.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Decree Holder / Plaintiff:- For Judgment Debtor / Defendant P.W.1: Katika Satyanarayana -Exparte-

Documents Marked

For Decree Holder / Plaintiff:- For Judgment Debtor / Defendant -Nill- -Nil-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Khammam.