Smt. Sindhu Gurram

1

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD)

APVS020008482022 / /FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)

AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: Smt. Sindhu Gurram V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S.No. 640/ 2022

Between :

Agathamudi Balakrishna, S/o.Lokanadham, aged 35 years, R/o.D.No.39-11-37, Near Abhiruchi sweets, Brundavan park, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-08.

… Plaintiff.

And :

1) Kilana Lakshmi, W/o.late K.Appanna, aged about 47 years, R/o.D.No.48-3-12/1, Srinagar, Near Ramatalkies road, Visakhapatnam. ddd

2) Kilana Ganesh, S/o.late K.Appanna, aged about 28 years, R/ o.D.No.48-3-12/1, Srinagar, Near Ramatalkies road, Visakhapatnam.

3) Kilana Sai Kumar, S/o.late K.Appanna, aged about 23 years, R/o.D.No.48-3-12/1, Srinagar, Near Ramatalkies road, Visakhapatnam.

4) Kilana Kumar, S/o.late K.Appanna, aged about 20 years, R/o.D.No.48-3-12/1, Srinagar, Near Ramatalkies road, Visakhapatnam.

…Defendants.

2

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD)

This suit has come before me on 20.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Gowri Sankar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri.

V.V.Ramana Prasad, Advocate for Defendant and upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,81,200/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Eight One Thousand and Two Hundred Only) with subsequent interest @ 24% p.a from the date of filing the suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of plaint are as follows:-

i) The Plaintiff pleads that D1 is the wife of deceased Kilana Apparao and the D2 to D4 are their children. During the life time of Kilana Apparao who worked at Railways Department, East Coast Railways, Waltair Division, Visakhapatnam the said Kilana Apparao approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.08.2020 for the purpose of his family expenses and clearing debts and having received the consideration and also executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date at Muralinagar,

Visakhapatnam and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand.

ii)It is further pleaded that the deceased Kilana Apparao failed to repay the amount either principal or interest and postponing the same on some pretext or the other. On 17.10.2021 the said Kilana Apparao was died intestate leaving behind him D1 to D4 as his legal heirs and the estate and after the death of said

Kilana Apparao, the plaintiff approached D1 to D4 and demanded to clear the debts and they assured to clear the debts but D1 to D4 has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a registered 3

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) lawyer's notice to D1 to D4 on 08.11.2021 demanding them to repay the entire

principal amount borrowed by the deceased Kilana Apparao but the said notices

were returned on 10.11.2021 "refused" respectively. The plaintiff came to know that the deceased Kilana Apparao had indebted to several other creditors and only with a view to defraud all his creditors including the plaintiff herein the D1 to

D4 are trying to sell away the properties of late Kilana Apparao and leaving the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

3.D1 to D4 made their appearance through their counsel, filed written statement, D1 filed written statement adopted by D2 to D4 by denying all the material allegations made against them in the plaint except which are specifically admitted. D1 to D4 pleads that D1 is wife and D2 to D4 are children of Kilana

Apparao and the husband of D1 never borrowed any amount as alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint at any point of time and there is no need for the husband of

D1 to borrow such huge amounts from others. D1 to D4 pleads that the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated by the plaintiff after the death of husband of

D1. Infact no consideration was passed over the pronote and taking advantage of the sudden death of the deceased, the plaintiff filed this case with all false and untenable allegations. D1 to D4 pleads that no notices were served to them and they do not possess any estate of the deceased. D1 to D4 pleads that the pronote is purely forged and fabricated and only to grab money from them with the active support of the attestors and scribe of the alleged pronote the plaintiff filed this suit. Hence it is submitted to dismiss the suit.

4.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3, got marked Ex.A.1 original promissory note executed by late Kilana Apparao in favour of plaintiff on 30.08.2020, Ex.A2 office copy of registered lawyer's notice dt.08.11.2021, Ex.A3 original postal receipts 4 in number dt.08.11.2021, Ex.A4 original returned postal covers from D1 4

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) dt.10.11.2021, Ex.A5 original returned postal covers from D2 dt.10.11.2021,

Ex.A6 original returned postal covers from D3 dt.10.11.2021, Ex.A7 original returned postal covers from D4 dt.10.11.2021.

ii)On behalf of defendants, D2 was examined as DW.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced.

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

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

2. Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document and not supported by consideration?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

4. To what relief” ?

6.Issue Nos.1 & 2 :-

i) Under these issues, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 suit promissory note dated 30.08.2020 is true, valid and binding on the defendant. As the evidence and the documents to be appreciated under both these issues are similar, in order to avoid repetition, both the issues are taken up together for consideration.

ii) The plaintiff in order to establish his case he got himself examined as

PW.1 and both the attestors to Ex.A1 were examined as PW2, PW3 respectively. The plaintiff also got exhibited Ex.A1 to A7 which are original promissory note, Office copy of registered lawyer's notice, Original postal receipts, original returned postal covers from D1 to D4 Dated 10.11.2021.

iii)The chief-examination affidavit of PW1 Is reiteration of contents of plaint.

In the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that PW1 and deceased Kilana Apparao, 5

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) who is the original borrower, worked at railways. Thus, it shows that PW1 has prior acquaintance with the original borrower deceased Kilana Apparao much prior to lending the amount. PW1 stated the suit transaction took place at his house in 2020 in the presence of attestors, himself, the deceased Kilana appanna and the scribe

B.Santhosh and the attestors who are neighbors to PW1, who also knows the deceased's original borrower. PW1 denied that due to staff rivalries in their department the present false suit was filed against defendant. But such a contention is nowhere found in the pleading of written statement filed by the legal representatives of deceased Kilana Apparao i.e. D1 to D4. Infact, in the written statement it is only pleaded that the defendants do not have knowledge about Kilana Apparao borrowing amount from plaintiff and that Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated document. No consideration was passed and taking advantage of sudden death of original borrower, the present suit was filed with unlawful gain. But what are the circumstances for having such a wrongful gain is nowhere pleaded and it was directly suggested in PW1 cross examination that due to staff's rivalries, Ex.A1 was created, forged and fabricated.

Such defence is not supported with written statement.

iv)Similarly the chief examination affidavits filed by PW2, PW3, who are the attestors of Ex.A1, supports and corroborates the case of plaintiff on 30.08.2020. The original borrower i.e. the deceased Kilana Apparao being husband of D1 and father of remaining defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff on 30.08.2020 at the house of plaintiff in the presence of themselves, scribe, plaintiff and the borrower and after borrowing the amount, Ex.A1 was duly executed. PW2 stated he do not know the original borrower prior to the date of borrowing amount whereas

PW3 stated he also worked in railways as such he knows the Kilana Apparao prior to suit transaction. It is not necessary that an attestor has to know the borrower prior to the suit transaction. No other material facts were elicited from the cross-examination of

PW2 and PW3 to discredit their evidence.

6

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD)

v)From the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A7, prima facie shows that Ex.A1 was duly executed and in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff via Ex.A2 to A7 the defendants failed to discharge the amount liable under Ex.A1. As such the plaintiff could discharge his initial burden of proof regarding execution of Ex.A1 and he is entitled for the presumptions under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 whichis extracted as follows :- “ 118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments.—Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:—

(a) of consideration:—that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration,and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration;

(b) as to date:—that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date;

(c) as to time of acceptance:—that every accepted bill of exchange was accepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;

(d) as to time of transfer:—that every transfer of a negotiable instrument was made before its maturity;…….”.

vi)Now the burden of proof shifts upon the defendants to rebut the said presumption and he can do it either by adducing his own evidence or by relying upon circumstances of case of plaintiff. The defendant's primary pleading is that they do not have any knowledge about the suit transaction and Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated document. In the cross-examination of PW1 to PW3, they all stated that the defendants were not present at the time of execution of suit transaction and it is contented that it shows the defendants do not have knowledge about the suit transaction. It is not necessary that the legal representatives has to be present at the time of execution of suit transaction. The original borrower whosoever might have 7

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) borrowed the amount without their knowledge, but that does not dissolve their liability from discharging the suit amount if it is found that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on them.

vii)The defendants pleaded Ex.A1 is forged and fabricated document. But in cross examination DW1 stated he is not willing to send Ex.A1 to an expert for opinion on the signatures of his father Kilana Apparao. In spite of making such statement, the defendants made attempts to summon contemporaneous documents containing signatures of deceased Kilana Apparao from Manager Maharaja Co-operative Urban

Bank Ltd. Dwarkanagar Branch to cause production of account application bearing number 101102020002196 vide I.A.No.136/2025 and also filed another petition under

Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act in order to forward the summoned documents to the expert along with Ex.A1 for comparison of signatures filed on 13.07.2025. Though, this

Court has allowed both the petitions on 15.04.2025 in favour of the defendants, the defendants failed to pay the process for summoning the witness and production of documents and accordingly the petitions were dismissed and closed on 25.02.2026.

Therefore, the defendants did not take any proactive steps in establishing their plea of forgery. Apart from that, it is also elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 that some other creditors Suryaprakash, B.Santhosh, B.Sujatha, B.Muralikrishna, A.Aruna also filed suits against them alleging that deceased Kilana Apparao borrowed amount from them. The defendants on one hand pleaded no knowledge about the suit transaction and on the other hand it can be seen that Ex.A4 to A7 were refused by them prior to filing of suit. DW1 stated they live in the same address to which Ex.A2 was issued which shows that the legal notice, Ex.A2 was sent to their address. Apart from that

DW1 also stated, a suit filed by Sabbi Apparao was decreed exparte against them and the witness did not state anything about setting aside the exparte decree which shows that Kilana Apparao had necessity to borrow amount. The defendants failed to rebut the presumption drawn under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favor of plaintiff.

8

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) viii) Therefore for the above mentioned reasons and discussion this Court is of opinion that plaintiff could discharge his burden of proof and successfully establish that Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on defendant. Accordingly, issues no.1 and 2 are answered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants.

Issue No.3

In view of above discussion and findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, this Court is of opinion as plaintiff could establish that Ex.A1 is true valid and binding on defendant this

Court is of opinion that plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Hence the suit is liable to be decreed.

Issue No.4

The plaintiff claimed interest at rate of 24% p.a. which is exorbitant and excessive and plaintiff did not submit any justification for claiming such high interest.

Hence this Court inclined to grant interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realization on

principal sum adjudged of Rs.2,82,000/-. Further the defendants did not adduce any

evidence to show they have not inherited estate of deceased Kilana Apparao.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from estate of deceased Kilana

Apparao lying in hands of defendants. Accordingly the issue is answered.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.2,81,200/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eight One Thousand and Two Hundred Only) from the estate of deceased Kilana Apparao lying in the hands of D1 to D4 together with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of 9

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026O.S.640/2022 V ACJ (JD) suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on sum adjudged of 2,81,200.

Typed by me directly in computer and by using adalat.ai, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff Defendants

PW1:Agathamudi Balakrishna DW1: Kilani Ganesh

PW2: L.Sreenivasarao

PW3: Pudi Venkatarao

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1Original promissory note executed by late Kilana Apparao in favour of plaintiff on 30.08.2020 Ex.A2Office copy of registered lawyer's notice dt.08.11.2021 Ex.A3Original postal receipts 4 in number dt.08.11.2021 Ex.A4Original returned postal covers from D1 dt.10.11.2021 Ex.A5Original returned postal covers from D2 dt.10.11.2021 Ex.A6Original returned postal covers from D3 dt.10.11.2021 Ex.A7Original returned postal covers from D4 dt.10.11.2021

Exhibits marked for Defendant : Nil.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V ACJ (Jr. Div.)/VSP

1

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP

APVS020000492023 //FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Smt. Sindhu Gurram, V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.183/2023

Between: State Bank of India, a banking institution incorporated under State Bank of India Act, 1955, having its central office at Mumbai, branches all over India and abroad, amongst one such branch at Visakhapatnam viz., Stressed Assets Recovery Wing (SARW), RACPC-1, Administrative office, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam, represented by its Manager(Recovery),Sakalabaktula AjithKumar, S/o.Sankaranarayana, Aged 37 years, Manager (SARC), State Bank of India, RACPC-1, Visakhapatnam.

... Plaintiff.

And :

1) Majji Janardhan, S/o.M.Dumburu, Aged 55 years, working as Head Constable, employee in Police department, Kotakota Police Station, Near Ramalayam, Visakhapatnam. (died)

2) Maji Varalakshmi, W/o.late M.Janardhan, Aged 50 years, Employee, R/o.D.No.223/23, Patha Paderu, Near Police Station, Paderu, Alluri Seetharamaraju District-531024.

2 nd defendant is impleaded as per orders of this Court in IA 87/2024 dated 10.04.2025.

... Defendants.

This suit is coming on 24.04.2026 for exparte hearing before me in the presence of Smt. Bevara (K) Deepthi Sree, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of de- fendants remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record, upon

Senior Civil Judge,

2

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendants for an amount of Rs.1,44,232.46/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred and

Thirty Two Forty Six Paise Only) along with subsequent interest @ 8.95% p.a with monthly rests till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

i)The plaintiff pleads that defendants 1 and 2 approached the plaintiff bank at Lalithanagar branch, Visakhapatnam and submitted an application dt.28.08.2016 for sanction of term loan for purchase of Maruti Ertiga car and hav- ing considered the request of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff bank has sanc- tioned term loan of Rs.8,55,000/- for purchase of car through its term loan agree- ment dt.31.08.2026 with the rate of interest @ 9.7% p.a with monthly rests linked to SBAR and the loan amount has to be repaid by the defendants in 84 equated monthly installments @ Rs.14,061.80/- and repayment commencing from the month following the month of purchase of the said car. After availing the loan amount, the defendants have irregularly paid some installments and thereafter they committed default in payment of the installments as per the terms of sanc- tion agreed by them. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants did not regularize the account and has been postponing the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff bank after observing due procedure seized the hypothecated vehicle and conducted auction of the car. The car auction pro- ceeds of Rs.4,31,000/- credited to the defendant's loan account on 14.08.2020.

Subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the balance amount of Rs.1,42,175/- but the defendant did not heed to the requests made by the plaintiff bank and subsequently, the loan account became NPA on 08.11.2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

3

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP ii)The plaintiff pleads that the plaintiff bank issued registered lawyer's notice on 22.11.2022 demanding the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount along with interest and costs but the said notice was returned as "no such person in the address" on 05.12.2022 but the defendant did not respond to the notice. Hence the suit.

3)Summons to original sole defendant was returned as died and plaintiff im- pleaded D2. Service of substituted summons by way of publication to D2 held sufficient. D2 called absent. No representation. Hence D2 is set exparte on 07.01.2026 on 15.04.2026.

4)The Deputy Manager of Plaintiff Bank himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

5)Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff. Perused the Record.

6) POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for or not?”

7) POINT :-

i)It is the case of the Plaintiff Bank that defendants 1 and 2 ap- proached the plaintiff bank at Lalithanagar branch, Visakhapatnam and submitted an application dt.28.08.2016 for sanction of term loan for purchase of Maruti Er- tiga car and having considered the request of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned term loan of Rs.8,55,000/- for purchase of car through its term loan agreement dt.31.08.2026 and the rate of interest @ 9.7% p.a with monthly rests linked to SBAR and the loan amount has to be repaid by the defen- dants in 84 equated monthly installments @ Rs.14,061.80/- and repayment com-

Senior Civil Judge,

4

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP mencing from the month following the month of purchase of the said car. After availing the loan amount, the defendants are irregularly paid some installments and thereafter they committed default in payment of the installments as per the terms of sanction agreed by them. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank, the defendants did not regularize the account and has been post- poning the same on some pretext or the other. The plaintiff bank after observing due procedure seized the hypothecated vehicle and conducted auction of the car.

The car auction proceeds of Rs.4,31,000/- credited to the defendant's loan ac- count on 14.08.2020. Subsequently, the plaintiff requested the defendant to repay the balance amount of Rs.1,42,175/- but the defendant did not heed to the re- quests made by the plaintiff bank and subsequently, the loan account became

NPA on 08.11.2022.

ii)The plaintiff pleads that the plaintiff bank issued registered lawyer's notice on 22.11.2022 demanding the defendant to repay the outstanding loan amount along with interest and costs but the said notice was returned as "no such person in the address" on 05.12.2022 but the defendant did not respond to the notice. Though the defendants were set exparte the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove its case.

iii) In support of its case the plaintiff bank, its Deputy Manager is exam- ined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 which are Ex.A1 Original authoriza- tion letter issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of Sri.M.V.Naga Ravi Sekhar dt.20.04.2026, Ex.A2 Original certificate under S.2A (b) (c) of the Banker's Book

Evidence Act dt:06.12.2022, Ex.A3 Original car loan application, Ex.A4 Original arrangement letter, dt.31.08.2016, Ex.A5 Original loan cum hyothecation agree- ment executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.31.08.2016, Ex.A6 Copy of statement of loan account of the defendant form 31.08.2016 to 19.11.2022 along with calculation memo, Ex.A7 Office copy of registered lawyer's notice is-

Senior Civil Judge,

5

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP sued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant dt.22.11.2022, Ex.A8 Original returned unserved postal cover along with acknowledgment dt.05.12.2022.

iv)Upon perusal of plaint averments and evidence affidavit of PW1 along with documents Exs.A1 to A8, it can be said that the Plaintiff Bank has es- tablished its case. The defendant failed to appear before the Court and chal- lenged the case of plaintiff bank. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evi- dence of PW1 stands unchallenged, as such nothing is available on record on be- half of the defendants to disprove thecontention put forth by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff thereby successfully established the suit claim. Hence this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

8)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against defendant for an amount of

Rs.1,44,232-46/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty

Two and Forty Six Paise Only) from the estate of deceased D1 lying in the hands of

D2 along with together with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on sum adjudged of Rs.1,44,232-46/-.

Typed by me directly in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : Nil

P.W.1 : Naga Ravi Sekhar (Deputy Manager of Plaintiff Bank)

Senior Civil Judge,

6

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.183/2023

V AJCJ/VSP

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original authorization letter issued by the plaintiff bank in favour of

Sri.M.V.Naga Ravi Sekhar dt.20.04.2026

Ex.A2: Original certificate under S.2A (b) (c) of the Banker's Book Evidence Act

dt:06.12.2022

Ex.A3: Original car loan application

Ex.A4: Original arrangement letter, dt.31.08.2016

Ex.A5: Original loan cum hyothecation agreement executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff dt.31.08.2016

Ex.A6: Copy of statement of loan account of the defendant form 31.08.2016 to 19.11.2022 along with calculation memo

Ex.A7: Office copy of registered lawyer's notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant dt.22.11.2022

Ex.A8: Original returned unserved postal cover along with acknowledgment dt.05.12.2022

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

1

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.207/2025

V AJCJ/VSP

APVS020001822025 //FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Smt. Sindhu Gurram, V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.207/2025

Between: Canara Bank, represented by its Branch Manager Boddu Vijay Kumar, S/o.late B.Yeru Naidu, aged 35 years, having its branch at MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam.

... Plaintiff.

And :

1) M/s.LER Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor Laveti Eswararao, S/o.Satyam, Aged 36 years, having its business address at R/o.D.No.53-38-20/1, KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2) Laveti Eswararao, S/o.Satyam, Aged 36 years, Proprietor of M/s.Laveti Enterprises, R/o.D.No.53-38-20/1, KRM Colony, Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendants.

This suit is coming on 24.04.2026 for exparte hearing before me in the presence of Sri. D.K.V.V.S.Ashwani Kumar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of de- fendants remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendants directing them to pay Rs.11,05,372.99/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Five Thousand Three Hundred

Senior Civil Judge,

2

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.207/2025

V AJCJ/VSP and Seventy Two Paise Ninety Nine Only) with up to date interest to plaintiff bank with future interest @ 9.25% p.a from 31.12.2024 compounded monthly including interest and penal interest from the date of application till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

i)The plaintiff pleads that D2 is proprietor of D1 dealing with business of furniture shop and approached the plaintiff bank and applied for working capital credit facility under OD/OCC for the purpose of development of existing furniture shop business. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned the overdraft facility of Rs.9,90,000/- under MSME micro services with an A/c.No.125002991181 vide sanction memorandum dt 11.11.222 repayable along with an interest @ 9.25% p.a. The sanction memorandum which clearly stipulates all the conditions of the loan was duly acknowledged and the terms therein were duly accepted by the de- fendants 1 and 2 and in such assertion the defendants 1 and 2 has executed the necessary loan documents such as cash credit agreement etc., on 11.11.222.

ii)The plaintiff pleads that the OD/OCC limits were extended from time to time upon application by the 2nd defendant. Accordingly, the defendants 1 and 2 were executed the necessary documents in favour of the plaintiff bank and the documents executed are credit facility application, sanction memorandum and re- quest for overdraft facilities. After execution of the loan documents the 2nd defen- dant availed the OD amount of Rs.9,90,000/- and thereafter the 2nd defendant did not adhere to the repayment schedule property of the loan account and became defaulter in repaying the amounts the plaintiff bank having no other option de- clared the loan account as NPA on 28.11.2023.

iii)The plaintiff pleads that he has issued a legal notice on 17.10.2024 demanding the repayment of the loan amount with accrued interest and the 2nd

Senior Civil Judge,

3

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.207/2025

V AJCJ/VSP defendant received the said notice on 18.10.2024 and neither gave any reply nor repaid the amount. Hence the suit.

3)D1,D2 received summons, made appearance before the Court but failed to engage counsel and file written statement within statutory period of 90 days.

Hence D1 and D2 were set exparte on 06.03.2025.

4)The Manager of Plaintiff Bank himself is examined as PW1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

5)Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the Record.

6) POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for or not?”

7) POINT :-

i)It is the case of the Plaintiff Bank that defendants 1 & 2 approached the plaintiff bank and applied for working capital credit facility under OD/OCC for the purpose of development of existing furniture shop business. Accordingly, the plaintiff bank has sanctioned the overdraft facility of Rs.9,90,000/- under MSME micro services with an A/c.No.125002991181 vide sanction memorandum dt11.11.222 repayable along with an interest @ 9.25% p.a. The defendants 1 and 2 has executed the necessary loan documents such as cash credit agreement etc., on 11.11.2022. After execution of the loan documents the D2 availed the OD amount of Rs.9,90,000/- and thereafter D2 did not adhere to the repayment schedule property of the loan account and became defaulter in repaying the amounts.

ii)The plaintiff bank pleads that it has issued a legal notice on 17.10.2024 demanding repayment of loan amount with accrued interest and D2

Senior Civil Judge,

4

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.207/2025

V AJCJ/VSP received the said notice on 18.10.2024 and neither gave any reply nor repaid the amount Though the defendants were set exparte the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove its case.

iii) In support of its case the plaintiff bank, its Manager is examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 which are Ex.A1 Original loan application duly signed by the defendants dt.11.11.222, Ex.A2 Original sanction memoran- dum dt:11.11.2022, Ex.A3 Original cash credit agreement duly executed by the defendants dt:11.11.2022, Ex.A4 Office copy of lawyer notice issued by the plain- tiff bank to the defendant, dt.13.09.2024, Ex.A5 Original acknowledgment card of the 1st defendant dt.18.10.2024, Ex.A6 Original acknowledgment card of the 2nd defendant dt:18.10.2024, Ex.A7 Attested computer generated copy of statement of account of the defendant dt.31.12.2024 and Ex.A8 Attested copy of power of attorney/letter of authorization in favour of the branch manager respectively.

iv)Upon perusal of plaint averments and evidence affidavit of PW1 along with documents Exs.A1 to A8, it can be said that the Plaintiff Bank has es- tablished its case. The defendants failed to appear before the Court and chal- lenged the case of plaintiff bank. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evi- dence of PW1 stands unchallenged, as such nothing is available on record on be- half of the defendants to disprove thecontention put forth by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff thereby successfully established the suit claim. Hence this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

8) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.11,05,372.99/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs

Five Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Two Paise Ninety Nine Only) under

Over Draft A/c.No.125002991181 of defendants maintained by the Plaintiff Bank together with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till

Senior Civil Judge,

5

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.207/2025

V AJCJ/VSP the date of realization on sum adjudged of Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs

Ninety Thousand only).

Typed by me directly in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : Nil

P.W.1 : Mohammaed Muneer Ul Haque (Manager of Plaintiff Bank)

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Original loan application duly signed by the defendants dt.11.11.222

Ex.A2 : Original sanction memorandum dt:11.11.2022

Ex.A3 : Original cash credit agreement duly executed by the defendants

dt:11.11.2022

Ex.A4 : Office copy of lawyer notice issued by the plaintiff bank to the defendant dt.13.09.2024

Ex.A5 : Original acknowledgment card of the 1st defendant dt.18.10.2024

Ex.A6 : Original acknowledgment card of the 2nd defendant dt:18.10.2024

Ex.A7 : Attested computer generated copy of statement of account of the defen- dant dt.31.12.2024

Ex.A8 : Attested copy of power of attorney/letter of authorization in favour of the branch manager

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

1

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026

O.S.1529/2025

V AJCJ/VSP

APVS020021072025 //FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Smt. Sindhu Gurram, V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.1529/2025

Between: Shiva Security Man Power Supply & Housekeeping Services., represented by its Partner, Gudepu Satyarao, GF.No-1, Satya residency, D.No.30-7-33, Near II Town PS, Bhanu street, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.

... Plaintiff.

And : M/s.Naari Collections, represented by its Authorised Signatory G.F, Chandu Arcade, Main road, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam.

... Defendant.

This suit is coming on 23-04-2026 for exparte hearing before me in the presence of Sri. A.Veerabhadrarao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court deliv- ered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendants for recovery of money sum of Rs.26,033/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand and Thirty Three only) along with interest @ 24% p.a and for costs of the suit.

Senior Civil Judge,

2

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026

O.S.1529/2025

V AJCJ/VSP

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

i)The plaintiff pleads that the defendant is doing business in the name and style of Shiva Security Man Power Supply & Housekeeping Services at

Visakhapatnam. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of February, 2023 and requested the plaintiff for providing security services of his showroom at

Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff also accepted the defendant pro- posal and procured the man power and supplied and gave bonafide security ser- vices without any hindrance from 1st March, 2023 to September, 2024 to the de- fendant showroom. The defendant paid amounts by way of cash irregularly to plaintiff and the defendant never paid promptly as per invoice of every month. The defendant defaulted payments of the monthly invoices and the whole default amount was accrued with arrears upto Rs.26,033/-.

ii)It is further pleaded that inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the plaintiff through RPAD reminders, the defendant did not pay any- thing towards arrears of amounts and postponing the same on some pretext or the other and trying to evade the arrears of amounts. Hence the suit.

3)Summons to defendant served through Court but inspite of receiving sum- mons defendant failed to appear before Court and there was no representation.

Service of summons to defendant is held sufficient. Hence, defendant was set ex- parte on 11.02.2026.

4)The Plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A12. Ex.A2 to A6,A8 were marked subject to objection of admissibility for want of section 63 certificate under Bharatiya Sakshya Adinayam, 2023. On 23.04.2026 the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted the required certificate in prescribed proforma. Hence Ex.A1 to A12 were acted upon by the Court.

Senior Civil Judge,

3

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026

O.S.1529/2025

V AJCJ/VSP

5)Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the Record.

6) POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for or not?”

7) POINT :-

i)It is the case of the Plaintiff defendant is doing business in the name and style of Shiva Security Man Power Supply & Housekeeping Services at

Visakhapatnam. The defendant approached the plaintiff in the month of February, 2023 and requested the plaintiff for providing security services of his showroom at

Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam. The plaintiff also accepted the defendant pro- posal and procured the man power and supplied and gave bonafide security ser- vices without any hindrance from 1st March, 2023 to September, 2024 to the de- fendant showroom. The defendant paid amounts by way cash irregularly to plain- tiff and the defendant never paid promptly as per invoice of every month and not paid the bill. The defendant defaulted payments of the monthly invoices and the whole default amount was accrued with arrears upto Rs.26,033/- and inspite of repeated reminders the defendant failed to repay amount.

ii) In support of its case the Managing Partner plaintiff company was ex- amined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 which are Ex.A1 Compared copy of firm registration certificate dated 27.07.2012, Ex.A2 Attested copy of bank account ledger statement date of first payment to the plaintiff by defendant from 10.04.2023 to 27.04.2023, Ex.A3 Attested copy of bank account ledger state- ment date of last payment to the plaintiff by defendant from 15.01.2025 to 15.02.2025, Ex.A4 Attested copy of debtors ledger statement from 31.03.2023 to 31.03.2024, Ex.A5 Attested copy of income tax return for financial year 2024-

Senior Civil Judge,

4

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026

O.S.1529/2025

V AJCJ/VSP 2025, Ex.A6 Office copy of plaintiff request letter to defendant for disbursement of outstanding amount dt.04.06.2023, Ex.A7 Original postal receipt

RN597186525IN, dt.04.06.2025, Ex.A8 Original postal consignment through In- dian post RN597186525IN dt.04.06.2025, dt.06.06.2025, Ex.A9 Original refused return postal cover by the defendant RN5971865525IN dt.04.06.2026, dt.12.06.2025, Ex.A10 Office copy of plaintiff request letter to defendant for dis- bursement of outstanding amount dt.13.06.2025, Ex.A11 Original postal receipt

RN597189610IN dt.13.06.2025, Ex.A12 Original return refused copy by the de- fendant RN597189610IN dt.04.06.2025, dt.17.06.2025.

iv)Upon perusal of plaint averments and evidence affidavit of PW1 along with documents Exs.A1 to A12, it can be said that the Plaintiff has estab- lished its case. The defendant did not turn up to Court to file written statement to contest the suit. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged, as such nothing is available on record on behalf of the defendants to disprove the contention put forth by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff thereby suc- cessfully established the suit claim. Hence this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

8)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for an amount of Rs.26,033/- (Rupees Twenty Six Thousand and Thirty Three only) along with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on sum adjudged of Rs.Rs.26,033/-.

Typed by me directly in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

5

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026

O.S.1529/2025

V AJCJ/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : Nil

P.W.1 : Gudepu Satyarao

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 :Compared copy of firm registration certificate dated 27.07.2012

Ex.A2 : Attested copy of bank account ledger statement date of first payment to the plaintiff by defendant from 10.04.2023 to 27.04.2023

Ex.A3 : Attested copy of bank account ledger statement date of last payment to the plaintiff by defendant from 15.01.2025 to 15.02.2025

Ex.A4: Attested copy of debtors ledger statement from 31.03.2023 to 31.03.2024

Ex.A5 : Attested copy of income tax return for financial year 2024-2025

Ex.A6 : Office copy of plaintiff request letter to defendant for disbursement of out- standing amount dt.04.06.2023

Ex.A7: Original postal receipt RN597186525IN, dt.04.06.2025, dt.04.06.2025

Ex.A8: Original postal consignment through Indian post RN597186525IN dt.04.06.2025, dt.06.06.2025

Ex.A9 : Original refused return postal cover by the defendant RN5971865525IN dt.04.06.2026, dt.12.06.2025

Ex.A10 : Office copy of plaintiff request letter to defendant for disbursement of outstanding amount dt.13.06.2025

Ex.A11 : Original postal receipt RN597189610IN dt.13.06.2025

Ex.A12 :Original return refused copy by the defendant RN597189610IN dt.04.06.2025, dt.17.06.2025.

For Defendants : -NIL-

SD/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

1

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.636/2024

V AJCJ/VSP

APVS020007492024 //FAIR//

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present : Smt. Sindhu Gurram, V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2026

O.S. No.636/2024

Between: Lakshmi Finance Private Ltd., represented by its Special Power of Attorney, Kondra Anand, S/o.late Yellajirao, aged 49 years, R/o.D.No.8-1-1/1, Varun Chambers, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam.

... Plaintiff.

And :

1) Narina Venkateswararao, S/o. Ramachandrarao, aged about 31 years, R/o.D.No.8-337/1, Kondayyavalasa, Aganampudi, Visakhapatnam.

2) Kotta Santosh Kumar, S/o.Laxman, aged 33 years, R/o.D.No.1-71, Venkateswarapeta, Ranastalam, Srikakulam- 532407.

... Defendants.

This suit is coming on 24-04-2026 for exparte hearing before me in the presence of Sri.T.Venkateswararao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of defendants remained exparte, upon perusing the material available on record, upon hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court deliv- ered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs.62,460/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Four Hundred Sixty only) for

Senior Civil Judge,

2

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.636/2024

V AJCJ/VSP granting interest @ 11.99% p.a on the suit amount i.e., Rs.62,460/- from the date of suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2) The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :-

i)The plaintiff pleads that D1 approached the plaintiff on 3.09.2020 and requested a loan of Rs.73,000/- for the purpose of purchasing Suzuki Access-125

DISC (Allo wheel) bearing No.AP39FR3086 and sanctioned an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on dt.11.09.2020 and the defendant promised to pay the same amount with interest @ 11.99% p.a in monthly installments of Rs.3,771/- each for a period of 24 months and the same was evidenced through loan agreement no.26477/LFP/VSP/2020-2021, dt.03.09.2020. D2 stood as guarantor to the loan availed by the 1st defendant and executed the loan agreement and also executed demand promissory note and all other loan documents in favour of plaintiff.

ii)It is further pleaded that the defendants neither paid the interest nor the principal as promised by them and failed to handover the vehicle which is hy- pothecated with the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to repay the loan amount but in vain and they were irregular in paying the installments. The defendants paid last installment on dt.02.06.2022 and they failed to pay the balance installments inspite of innumerable requests by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a registered lawyer's notices to the defendants on 10.01.2023 for demanding to clear the outstanding dues but the 1st defendant re- turned the notice and the 2nd defendant after receipt of the notice did not gave any reply to the said notice and did not pay the due amount. Hence the suit.

3)Service of substituted summons by way of publication to D1 and D2 held sufficient. D1 and D2 called absent. No representation. Hence D1 and D2 were set exparte on 30.03.2026.

Senior Civil Judge,

3

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.636/2024

V AJCJ/VSP

4)The Recovery Manager of Plaintiff company himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

5)Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the Record.

6) POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for or not?”

7) POINT :-

i)It is the case of the Plaintiff Bank that D1 approached the plaintiff fi- nance company on 3.09.2020 and requested a loan of Rs.73,000/- for the pur- pose of purchasing Suzuki Access-125 DISC (Allo wheel) bearing

No.AP39FR3086 and sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on dt.11.09.2020 and the defendant promised to pay the same amount with interest @ 11.99% p.a in monthly installments of Rs.3,771/- each for a period of 24 months and the same was evidences through loan agreement no.26477/LFP/VSP/2020-2021, dt.03.09.2020. D2 stood as guarantor to the loan availed by D1 and executed the loan agreement and also executed demand promissory note and all other loan documents in favour of plaintiff.

ii)It is further pleaded that the defendants neither paid the interest nor the principal as promised by them and failed to handover the vehicle which is hy- pothecated with the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff demanded the defendants to repay the loan amount but in vain and they were irregular in paying the installments. The defendants paid last installment on dt.02.06.2022 and they failed to pay the balance installments inspite of innumerable requests by the plaintiff, issuance of legal notices. Hence the plaintiff bank was constrained to file the suit. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove its case.

Senior Civil Judge,

4

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.636/2024

V AJCJ/VSP iii) In support of its case the plaintiff bank, its Recovery Manager is exam- ined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 which are Ex.A1 Attested true copy of special power of attorney dated 22.11.2018, Ex.A2 Original agreement for loan and guarantee dated 03.09.2020, Ex.A3 Original Demand Promissory note dated 03.09.2020, Ex.A4 Office copy of registered lawyer notice dt.10.01.2023, Ex.A5

Original returned postal cover from the 1st defendant, Ex.A6 Original served ac- knowledgment card from the 2nd defendant, Ex.A7 Office copy of cash receipt dt.02.06.2022, Ex.A8 Office copy of ledger account copy dt.22.04.2024.

iv)Upon perusal of plaint averments and evidence affidavit of PW1 along with documents Exs.A1 to A8, it can be said that the Plaintiff Bank has es- tablished its case. The defendants did not turn up to Court to file written state- ment to contest the suit. In the absence of contrary evidence, the evidence of

PW1 stands unchallenged, as such nothing is available on record on behalf of the defendants to disprove the contention put forth by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff thereby successfully established the suit claim. Hence this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount.

8)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.62,460/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Four Hun- dred and Sixty Only) together with interest at rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and subsequent interest at rate of 6% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of realization on sum adjudged of 62,460/-.

Typed by me directly in computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,

5

Date of Disposal : 30.04.2026 O.S.636/2024

V AJCJ/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff : For Defendants : Nil

P.W.1 : Kondra Anand (Recovery Manager of plaintiff company)

No. of Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Attested true copy of special power of attorney dated 22.11.2018

Ex.A2 : Original agreement for loan and guarantee dated 03.09.2020

Ex.A3 : Original Demand Promissory note dated 03.09.2020

Ex.A4 : Office copy of registered lawyer notice dt.10.01.2023

Ex.A5 : Original returned postal cover from the 1st defendant

Ex.A6 : Original served acknowledgment card from the 2nd defendant

Ex.A7 : Office copy of cash receipt dt.02.06.2022

Ex.A8 : Office copy of ledger account copy dt.22.04.2024.

For Defendants : -NIL-

Sd/- x x Sindhu Gurram x x

V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Visakhapatnam.

Senior Civil Judge,