Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka) · Chittoor · Andhra Pradesh

Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India. 119 court orders on record since 2019. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

119

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/40/2019

Batta Venkatalakshmamma alias Venkatalakshmi vs Pulluru Chinthaiah

30 Sep 2019

PJCJ, SKHT. 1/5 30.09.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

SRIKALAHASTI.

Present : G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati,

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Monday, this the thirtieth (30th ) day of September, Two Thousand and Nineteen.

O. S. No.40 of 2019

Between:-

Batta Venkatalakshmamma @ Venkatalakshmi, W/o Subramanyam.

.. Plaintiff.

And:-

1) Pulluru Chinthaiah, S/o Polaiah,

2) Pulluru Chenchamma, W/o Chinthaiah,

3) Pulluru Chiranjeevulu, S/o Chinthaiah,

4) Pulluru Chalapathamma, W/o Chiranjeevulu,

5) Y.Vanajamma, W/o late Mangaiah,

6) Y.Ankaiah, S/o late Mangaiah,

7) Y.Arunamma, W/o Ankaiah,

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on this day i.e., 30.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pudi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants are remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their hencemen from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

2)The averments of the plaint pleadings are that the plaintiff occupied the suit schedule property in or about 2004 and since then she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 2/5 30.09.2019 the same by doing cultivation with various crops. In recognition of her continuous possession, the Government has granted DKT patta bearing No.397/4/1417 on 12.02.2017 on 12.02.2008 and issued pattadar passbook, title deed in favour of the plaintiff and her name was mutated in all the revenue records. The plaintiff also availed agricultural loan from the Andhra Bank, Yerpedu Branch by depositing her title deed. The plaintiff also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.22/2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti against some third parties and the said suit was decreed in her favour. Now, the defendants having no any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scehdule property. Hence, this suit.

3) The defendants are remained set-exparte.

4) Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

5) Now, the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule propety as prayed for.

6) In order to prove the case, the plaintiff was examined as

PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked.

7) This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction. In this nature of the suit, the plaintiff must establish her lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. The claim of the plaintiff is an extent of

Ac.1.02 cents of dry land in Sy.No.101/5.

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 3/5 30.09.2019

8) It is the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff occupied the suit schedule property in or about 2004 and since then she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same by doing cultivation with various crops. In recognition of her continuous possession, the Government has granted DKT patta bearing

No.397/4/1417 on 12.02.2017 on 12.02.2008 and issued pattadar passbook, title deed in favour of the plaintiff and her name was mutated in all the revenue records. The plaintiff also availed agricultural loan from the Andhra Bank, Yerpedu Branch by depositing her title deed. The plaintiff also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.22/2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti against some third parties and the said suit was decreed in her favour. Now, the defendants having no any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scehdule property.

9) To prove the same, the plaintiff was examined as PW1, in her evidence, she reiterated the plaint pleadings and placed Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6. Ex.A1 is the original DKT patta granted vide bearing

No.397/4/1417, dt:12.02.2008 stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A2 is the original pattadar pass-book stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A3 is the original Bank pass book issued by the

Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Yerpedu branch in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of decree in O.S.No.22/2010

dt:13.08.2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court,

Srikalahasti. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of judgment in

O.S.No.22/2010 dt:13.08.2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 4/5 30.09.2019

Judge's Court, Srikalahasti. Ex.A6 is the 1-B Namuna (ROR) extract

stands in the name of the plaintiff dt:16.02.2019 in respect of the plaint schedule property (meeseva copy). So, Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.A6 categorically reveales the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and when some third parties interfered with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, she filed a suit in O.S.No.22/2010 on the file of this court and got decree and judgment from this court as evidenced by Ex.A4 and Ex.A5.

10) Further, the defendants who are also interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit scehdule property did not challenge the version of the plaintiff and remained set-exparte.

11) On perusal of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6, it concluded that the plaintiff is established her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for.

12) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and permanent injunction is granted restraining the defendants, their henchmen from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 5/5 30.09.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTs

PW.1Batta Venkatalakshmamma @Exparte Venkatalakshmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original DKT patta granted vide bearing No.397/4/1417,

dt:12.02.2008 stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect

of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A2Original pattadar pass-book stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property.

Ex.A3Original Bank pass book issued by the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Yerpedu branch in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A4Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.22/2010 dt:13.08.2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Srikalahasti.

Ex.A5Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.22/2010

dt:13.08.2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge's Court, Srikalahasti.

Ex.A61-B Namuna (ROR) extract stands in the name of the plaintiff dt:16.02.2019 in respect of the plaint schedule property. (meeseva copy).

FOR THE DEFENDANTs:-

Exparte.

ID/-GSPY

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Fair Judgment.

OS/62/2018

Saptagiri grameena Bank, KVB Puram mandal. vs Sivagiri Route milksupply sangam Group D

30 Sep 2019

PJCJ, SKHT. 1/5 30.09.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

SRIKALAHASTI.

Present : G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati,

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Monday, this the thirtieth (30th ) day of September, Two Thousand and Nineteen.

O. S. No. 62 of 2018

Between:-

Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Srikalahasti, represented by by its Regional Manager, Tirupati.

.. Plaintiff.

And:-

1. Sivagiri Route Milk Supply Sangam Group - D, Pichaturu Mandal, JLG rep., by its Leaders.

2. P.Subramanyam Naidu, S/o Munaswamy Naidu,

3. P.Munikrishnaiah, S/o Nallaiah Naidu,

4. M.Amasaiah, S/o Mosaiah,

5. D.Sadasivam, S/o Doraswamy,

6. P.Munisekhar Naidu,

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on this day i.e., 30.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants are remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff's bank against the defendants for recovery of suit claim under promissory note dated 15.12.2010.

2)The averments of the plaint pleadings are that the plaintiff's bank represted by its Regional Manager, the 2nd defendant is the first leader and the 3rd defendant is the second leader, the defendants 4 and 5 are the members of 1st defendant and they

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 2/5 30.09.2019 formed a joint Liability Group in the name and style of " Sivagiri

Route Milk Supply Sangam, Group - D, Pichaturu Mandal. The defendants 2 and 3 who are representing the 1st defendant and its members approached the plaintiff's bank for loan for the purpose of purchasing "milky cows" befor the benefit of the members of 1st defendant. On 15.12.2010, the plaintiff's bank sanctioned a loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st defendant under loan account No.83504976.

The defendants 2 and 3 executed the suit promissory note on 15.12.2010 along with articles of agreement for financing Joint

Liability Group in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 5 executed Inter Se agreement in favour of the plaintiff's bank. The 6th defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan availed by the defendants and executed an agreement of guarantee dt:15.12.2010 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. The defendants 2 and 3 agreed to repay the same together with interest at 12.5% pa., with half yearly rests or at such rates as may be received by the Bank from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI.

Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 3 and guarantor i.e., 6th defendant executed acknowledgement of debt on 25.11.2013 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt:12.11.2016, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff's bank. Hence, this suit.

3)The Defendants are set ex-parte.

4)Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5) Now, the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff's bank is entitled for suit claim.

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 3/5 30.09.2019

6) In order to prove the same, the Branch Manager - Sri

C.Nagaraju was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A7 are marked.

7) The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants 2 and 3 who are representing the 1st defendant and its members approached the plaintiff's bank for loan for the purpose of purchasing "milky cows" befor the benefit of the members of 1st defendant. On 15.12.2010, the plaintiff's bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st defendant under loan account No.83504976. The defendants 2 and 3 executed the suit promissory note on 15.12.2010 along with articles of agreement for financing Joint Liability Group in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Thereafter, the defendants 2 to 5 executed Inter

Se agreement in favour of the plaintiff's bank. The 6th defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan availed by the defendants and executed an agreement of guarantee dt:15.12.2010 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. The defendants 2 and 3 agreed to repay the same together with interest at 12.5% pa., with half yearly rests or at such rates as may be received by the Bank from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI. Thereafter, the defendants 2 and 3 and guarantor i.e., 6th defendant executed acknowledgement of debt on 25.11.2013 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt:12.11.2016, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff's bank.

8) To prove the same, the Branch Manager was examined as

PW1 in his evidence, he reiterated the plaint pleadings and placed

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 which shows availing the loan by the defendants 2 and 3 who are representing the 1st defendant and its members i.e., defendants 4 and 5 from the plaintiff's bank and the 6th defendant

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 4/5 30.09.2019 stood as guarantor for the said loan and further shows their defaults in payment of said loan to the plaintiff's bank.

9) The defendants also did not challenge the version of plaintiff's bank, remained set exparte.

10) On perusal of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7, it concluded that the plaintiff is proved suit claim and thereby the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants 1 to 6 are directed to pay jointly and severally the suit claim amount of Rs.72,728/- together with further interest at 13.5% per annum from the date of suit till realization on loan ledger extract amount of Rs.72,728/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTs

PW.1C.NagarajuExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Suit promissory note dt:15.12.2010 executed by the defendants 2 and 3 representing the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A2Articles of agreement for financing JLG executed

dt:15.12.2010 executed by the defendants 2 and 3

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 5/5 30.09.2019 representing the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A3Inter-Se-agreement dt:15.12.2010 executed by the defendants 2 to 5 representing the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A4Agreement of guarantee, dt:15.12.2010 executed by the defendant No.6 in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A5Acknowledgement of debt, dt:25.11.2013 executed by the defendants 2, 3 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A6Extract of loan ledger account.

Ex.A7Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendants dated 12.11.2016

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:- Nil.

ID/- GSPY

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Fair Judgment.

OS/21/2019

Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Srikalahasthi represented by its Regional Manager vs Chinthamsetty Narayanamma

30 Sep 2019

PJCJ, SKHT. 1/4 30.09.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

SRIKALAHASTI.

Present : G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati,

FAC/Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Monday, this the thirtieth (30th ) day of September, Two Thousand and Nineteen.

O. S. No. 21 of 2019

Between:-

Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Srikalahasti, represented by by its Regional Manager, Tirupati.

.. Plaintiff.

And:-

1. C.Narayanamma, w/o Chinnaiah,

2. Bandi Babu, S/o Sankaraiah,

.. Defendants.

This suit coming on this day i.e., 30.09.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are remained set ex-parte and upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff, and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is the suit filed by the plaintiff's bank against the defendants for recovery of suit claim under promissory note dated 25.03.2013.

2)The averments of the plaint pleadings are that the plaintiff's bank represted by its Regional Manager, the 1st defendant for the purpose of raising crops availed a loan of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff's bank under loan account No.94301269 and in consideration thereof, she executed promissory note dated 25.03.2013 along with loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff's bank promissing to repay

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 2/4 30.09.2019 the same together with interest at 13% pa., with half yearly rests or at such rates as may be received by the Bank from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI. The 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan availed by the 1st defendant and executed an agreement of guarantee on 25.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Thereafter, the defendants executed acknowledgement of debts on 05.01.2016 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt:21.12.2018, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff's bank. Hence, this suit.

3)The Defendants are set ex-parte.

4)Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5) Now, the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff's bank is entitled for suit claim.

6) In order to prove the same, the Branch Manager - Sri Galeti

Palguna Kumar was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A6 are marked.

7) The contention of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant for the purpose of raising crops availed a loan of Rs.65,000/- from the plaintiff's bank under loan account No.94301269 and in consideration thereof, she executed promissory note dated 25.03.2013 along with loan agreement in favour of the plaintiff's bank promissing to repay the same together with interest at 13% pa., with half yearly rests or at such rates as may be received by the Bank from time to time as per the guidelines of RBI. The 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan availed by the 1st defendant and executed an

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 3/4 30.09.2019 agreement of guarantee on 25.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Thereafter, the defendants executed acknowledgement of debts on 05.01.2016 in favour of the plaintiff's bank. Inspite of repeated demands and issuance of legal notice dt:21.12.2018, the defendants did not choose to repay the amount due to the plaintiff's bank.

8) To prove the same, the Branch Manager was examined as

PW1 in his evidence, he reiterated the plaint pleadings and placed

Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 which shows availing the loan by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff's bank and the 2nd defendant stood as guarantor for the said loan and further shows their defaults in payment of said loan to the plaintiff's bank.

9) The defendants also did not challenge the version of plaintiff's bank, remained set exparte.

10) On perusal of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6, it concluded that the plaintiff is proved suit claim and thereby the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim as prayed for.

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants are directed to pay the suit claim amount of Rs.76,403/- together with further interest at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization on suit amount of Rs.76,403/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Fair Judgment.

PJCJ, SKHT. 4/4 30.09.2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DEFENDANTs

PW.1Galeti Palguna KumarExparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Suit promissory note dt:25.03.2013 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A2Loan agreement dt:25.03.2013 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A3Agreement of guarantee dt:25.03.2013 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A4Acknowledgement of debt, dt:05.01.2016 executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff's bank.

Ex.A5Extract of loan ledger account.

Ex.A6Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendants dated 21.12.2018

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:- Nil.

ID/- GSPY

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

FAC/ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

Fair Judgment.

OS/57/2019

Malapudi Ramakrishna Reddy vs Nembili Hari Babu

14 Oct 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE;; SRIKALAHASTHI

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. Monday, the Fourteenth (14th) day of October,2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 57 of 2019

Melapudi Ramakrishna Reddy … Plaintif

Vs.

Nembali Hari Babu … Defendant

This suit is coming-up on 30.09.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Vasudeva Reddy, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the counsel for plaintif and perusing the record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 3,43,700-00 being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated: 20.12.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 2,00,000-00 with further interest at 24% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation on

principal sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of plaint pleadings are that:- the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.12.2015 for his business purpose from the plaintif and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintif on the even date by promissing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintif whenever demanded or ordered by him . Thereafter the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under the suit promissory note to the plaintif , inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintif on the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3.During the course of appearance of defendant, the defendant was called absent and no representation for him, though service of summons were held sufficient to him and hence, he was set exparte.

4. In support of his case, the plaintif himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to prove his case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the material on record.

//2//

6. Now the point for consideration is “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for”?

7.POINT

To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself has given evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 viz., suit promissory note dated:

20.12.2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for

Rs. 2,00,000/-.

8. In the chief examination, the plaintif has reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that on 20.12.2015 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from him for his business purpose and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed the suit promissory note in his favour on the even date by promissing to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintif whenever demanded or ordered by him and that thereafter, inspite of oral repeated demands made by the plaintif to the defendant, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintif . Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit.

9. On perusal of Ex.A-1 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1, it is obvious that the claim of the plaintif is established.

10. The defendant has failed to appear before the court on receipt of summons and so also failed to produce rebuttal evidence, hence it goes to show that the plaintif has established his case for the relief sought for and in the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintif is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs 3,43,700-00 with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of realisation on principal sum of

Rs 2,00,000/- and for costs of the suit to the plaintif.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 14th day of October,2019.

Sd/- G.Shiva Prasad Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi //3//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

LAINTIFF:- Pl DEFENDANT

P.W.1:Melapudi Ramakrishna Reddy -NONE- (as exparte)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.A-1 : 20.12.2015 : Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 2,00,000/-

DEFENDANT:- Nil

ID/- GSPY

PJCJ,TPT

FAC PJCJ, SKHT

Fair Judgment in OS 57/2019

dated: 14.10.2019 (Money)

OS/60/2019

Mannaru Chengaiah vs Vs

30 Sep 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE;; SRIKALAHASTHI

Present:- Sri G.Shiva Prasad Yadav,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi. Monday, the Thirtieth (30th) day of September,2019

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 60 of 2019

Mannaru Chengaiah … Plaintif

Vs.

Nembali Gundaiah … Defendant

This suit is coming-up on 23.09.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintif, and the defendant having remained exparte, and upon hearing the counsel for plaintif and perusing the record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 82,700-00 being the principal and interest due under a promissory note dated: 13.05.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 50,000-00 with further interest at 24% p.a., from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation on

principal sum of Rs. 50,000/- and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief facts of plaint pleadings are that:- the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 13.05.2016 for his business purpose and family necessities from the plaintif and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintif on the even date by undertaking to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a.

to the plaintif whenever demanded or ordered by him . Thereafter the defendant did not choose to repay the debt due under the suit promissory note to the plaintif , inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintif on the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3. During the course of appearance of defendant, the defendant was called absent and no representation for him, though service of summons held sufficient to him and hence, he was set exparte.

4. In support of his case, the plaintif himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 to prove his case.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the material on record.

//2//

6. Now the point for consideration is “ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for”?

7.POINT

To substantiate the case of the plaintif, the plaintif himself has given evidence as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 viz., suit promissory note dated:

13.05.2016 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 50,000/-.

8. In the chief examination, the plaintif has reiterated the contents of the plaint and deposed that on 13.05.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him for his business purpose and family necessities and in consideration thereof, the defendant has executed the suit promissory note in his favour on the even date by undertaking to repay the same together with interest at 24% p.a. to the plaintif whenever demanded or ordered by him and that thereafter, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintif to the defendant, the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the suit promissory note to the plaintif . Hence, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit.

9. On perusal of Ex.A-1 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1, it is obvious that the claim of the plaintif is established.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs 82,700-00 with subsequent interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the suit till the date of realisation on principal sum of Rs 50,000/- and for costs of the suit to the plaintif.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court, this the 30th day of September,2019.

Sd/- G.Shiva Prasadd Yadav

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi //3//

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF:- DEFENDANT P.W.1:Mannaru Chengaiah -NONE- (as exparte)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Ex.A-1 : 13.05.2016 : Suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintif for Rs. 50,000/-

DEFENDANT:- Nil

ID/- GSPY

PJCJ,TPT

FAC PJCJ, SKHT

Draft/Fair Judgment in OS 60/2019

dated: 30.09.2019 (Money)

Order Record 119 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/57/2019	Malapudi Ramakrishna Reddy vs Nembili Hari Babu	14 Oct 2019	Judgement	—
OS/21/2019	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Srikalahasthi represented by its Regional Manager vs Chinthamsetty Narayanamma	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/40/2019	Batta Venkatalakshmamma alias Venkatalakshmi vs Pulluru Chinthaiah	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/60/2019	Mannaru Chengaiah vs Vs	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/62/2018	Saptagiri grameena Bank, KVB Puram mandal. vs Sivagiri Route milksupply sangam Group D	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/76/2018	Punyam Srinivasulu vs Shaik Masthan	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/78/2019	K.Sathyanarayana Raju vs Allikesam Varadha Reddy	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/104/2018	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, rep., by its Regional Manager, Tirupati vs Kinneru Ramesh	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/104/2019	Mamanduru Narayana Reddy vs Mayandigari Pedda Bathi Reddy	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/106/2018	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Tottambedu rep by its Regional Manager vs Lakshmi Ganapathi Sangham rep by its Leaders , Srikalahasthi	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/128/2019	Canara Bank, Srikalahasthi rep by its Branch Manager, Srikalahasthi vs Budda Krishnamurthy	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/129/2019	Canara Bank, Srikalahasthi branch rep by its Branch Manager, Srikalahasthi vs Panapakam Rangachari	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/130/2019	Canara Bank, Srikalahathi, rep by its Branch manger, Srikalahasthi vs Kamalapuram Raghunatha Reddy	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/150/2019	Canara Bank, Srikalahasthi rep by its Branch Manager, Srikalahasthi vs Morimi Subbaiah	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/184/2019	Canara Bank, Srikalahasthi rep by its Branch Manager vs Gajji Suresh	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/195/2017	Sapthagiri Grameena Bank, Srikalahasti vs Kavali Munemma	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/204/2019	Canara Bank, rep by its Branch Manager, Srikalahasthi vs Agaram alias Rayadurgam Sampangi	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/227/2019	Bodugu Chandraiah vs Yanadi Bhaskar	30 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/195/2019	M. Madhu vs A. Harshana	26 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/233/2017	Vadamala Govindaswamy Chetty vs Southern power Distribution company limited	23 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/237/2019	Aldapati Ramesh vs Kethineni Ravindra naidu	23 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
DVC/18/2017	G DIVYA vs G HEMANTH KUMAR	23 Sep 2019	Order	—
MC/9/2018	Gudduluru Divya vs Gonugunta Hemanth Kumar	23 Sep 2019	Order	—
EP/50/2017	Pulluru Srinivasulu Reddy vs Vsp.Sekhar reddy	16 Sep 2019	Other	—
OS/42/2018	Pasupuleti Balakrishna Pardha Saradhi vs Kandu Nanda Kumar	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/64/2019	Palanati Yasoda vs Modugula Nagaraju	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/84/2019	Adhavaram Raj Kumar vs Punnapu Madhusudhan Reddy	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/86/2019	Adhavaram Bhagyamma vs Punnapu Madhusudhan Reddy	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/89/2019	Rudrapaka Jameela vs K.Venkatarathnam	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/142/2017	Eallanti Ramachandra Naidu vs Armugam Manohar	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
OS/208/2019	Gollapalli Radhaiah vs Moddu Subramanyam	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/85/2019	Anjuru Chakradhar vs Mundlapudi Subramanyam	16 Sep 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/17/2019	The Station House Officer, Srikalahasti II Town P.S. vs A.Penchal Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/37/2019	The Station House Officer, Srikalahasti II Town P.S. vs K.Kodandam	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/51/2019	The Station House Officer, Thottambedu P.S. vs R.Kamalakar	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/103/2019	The Station House Officer, Thottambedu P.S. vs R.Pattabhi Naidu	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/157/2017	SHO Rural PS Srikalahasthi. vs B.Ramamurthy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/198/2019	The Inspector of Police, Yerpedu PS vs T. Anjaraiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/229/2019	Sub inspector of Police, Thottembedu PS vs C. Raghava Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/257/2016	SHO Rural PS Srikalahasti vs C.Naga rathnamma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/290/2019	SHO, Thottambedu PS., vs C.Subhashini,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/295/2019	SHO,KVB PURAM PS vs S.GAJENDRA	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/296/2019	SHO, Yerpedu PS., vs Gandham Padma,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/297/2019	SHO, Yerpedu PS., vs Uppu Gurumoorthy,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/299/2019	SHO, K.V.B.Puram PS., vs Cherivi Pandu,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/302/2019	SHO,KVB PURAM PS vs T.DORAVELU	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/303/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs A. Balakrishnaiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/304/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs K.Rajesh	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/305/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs K.Bhaskar,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/306/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs T.Desamma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/307/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs E.Munilakshmamma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/308/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs G.Ramamurthy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/309/2019	The Prohibition Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs Poluru Ravi	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/310/2019	The Prohibition Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs R.Saritha	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/311/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs T Prabhkar	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/312/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs K.Bujjamma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/313/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs T. Subramanyamreddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/314/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs T. Doramma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/315/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs Bandi. Narasaiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/316/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs Vsvenkatasubbaiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/317/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs K. Tulasi	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/318/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Station Srikalahasti. vs V. Revathamma	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/319/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs A NAGURU	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/320/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs M Sairam	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/321/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs P. Mallika	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/322/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs K. Kammalamm	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/323/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs Y. NADAHAIAH	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/324/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs PATTAN.RIYAZ	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/325/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs Chendamarai@Ponnemma,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/326/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs G.Subramanyam	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/327/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs G.Srinivasulu	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/329/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs E.Munilakshmiyamma,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/330/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs Vs	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/331/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs M.KONDAIAH	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/332/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs B.Madhubala	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/333/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs S.Hameed Basha	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/334/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs K.Krishnaveni	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/335/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs R.Parasuramaiah,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/336/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs G.Kuti	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/337/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs T.Baskar Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/338/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs K.Dharmarajula Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/339/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs B.Chandra Sekhar,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/340/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs P.Prabhavathi	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/341/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs A.Karnakumar,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/342/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs K.Padmamma,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/343/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs K.Narayana Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/344/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs G.Subramanyam	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/345/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti vs M.Venkataiah @ Ramesh	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/346/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs Y.Venkataiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/347/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs T.Ramakrishna,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/348/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs M.Yanadi Naidu	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/349/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs C.Lavanya,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/350/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs S.G.Chenga Reddy,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/351/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs K.Perumal,	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/352/2019	SHO Prohibition and Excise Srikalahati Station vs A.Gajendra Naidu	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/353/2019	The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Srikalahasti Excise Station vs B.Sivaiah	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/354/2019	SHO, Srikalahasti II Town PS., vs K.Muruganandham	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/355/2019	SHO, Srikalahasti II Town PS., vs R.Ravi Reddy	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/356/2019	SHO Srikalahasti II Town PS vs S. Bhaskar	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—
CC/357/2019	SHO Srikalahasti II Town PS vs K. Ratnamsetty	14 Sep 2019	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 119 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Oct 2019		1
Sep 2019		118

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav handled?

Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav has handled 119 court orders since 2019 at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 46 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav hear?

Based on available records, Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka).

Where is Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav currently posted?

Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka), Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav dispose cases?

Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav disposes approximately 46 cases per month, based on 119 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka).

Since when is Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav serving?

Sri Shiva Prasad Yadav has been serving at Court of Senior Civil Judge,, Srikalahasti (Taluka) since 2019.

Case Types

CC 74%

OS 24%

EP 1%

MC 1%

DVC 1%

Posting History

Aug 2019 — Oct 2019

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 29 orders
Aug 2019 — Oct 2019

Additional Junior Civil Judge · 90 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 2

Other Judges at this Court

Smt B.Baby Rani

Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti

1,577 orders

Smt J. Krishna Priya

Principal Junior Civil Judge

525 orders

M. Srinivasulu naik

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikal...

688 orders

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