Siva Ram Prasad

Page 1 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, BODHAN

Present :Sri P.Siva Ram Prasad, Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Monday, this the 1st day of August, 2022

Sessions Case No.107 of 2022

Name of complainant: The State represented by Police, PS, Yedapally

Name of AccusedRajiv Naidu @ Chintu, S/o: Shankar Naidu, Age: 26 years, Caste: M. Kapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o: Yedapally Village and Mandal

ChargeUnder Sections 307 IPC

Plea of AccusedPleaded Not Guilty

FindingFound Not Guilty

In the result, the accused is found not Sentence or Orderguilty for the offence Under Sections 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as required Under Section 446-A Cr.P.C. and after six months the bail bonds stands cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution conducted by

Sri E.Poshetty, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Bodhan.

Accused defended bySri K. Subba Rao, Advocate for accused

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bodhan in PRC No.12 of 2021 (Crime No.53/2020 of Police Station Yedapally).

This case is coming before me on 20-07-2022 for final hearing

and disposal in the presence of Sri E.Poshetty, Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Subba Rao, Advocate for

accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till

this day, this Court delivered the following:-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 2 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

J U D G M E N T :: ::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Yedapally filed charge sheet against accused alleging offence Under Sections 307 IPC in Cr.No.53/2021 of

P.S. Yedapally.

Case of the Prosecution:-

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19-05-2020 at 0700 hours, the defacto complainant/Katkam Shankar was going to attend Upadi

Hami work under Employment Guarantee Scheme on his bike bearing

No.TS.16.EM.1022 along with his wife, in the meantime at about 0710 hours when they reached in front of Yedapally GP, the accused followed the bike of defacto complainant/injured/Katkam Shankar with an intention to kill him due to previous disputes and grudges against him and beat Katkam Shankar with empty beer bottle on his head from back side and caused severe bleeding injuries and he requested to take action.

3.It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the complaint of

PW1, LW11-S. Narsimha Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.

Yedapally, registered a case in Cr.No.53/2020 under Sections 324, 506 IPC and took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statement of Pw.1 and sent Pw.1 to Government Hospital, Bodhan for treatment and proceeded to the scene of offence place where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Lw.6/Sunkari Mohan and Lw.7/Perumal

Hanmanthu. Thereafter, Lw.12/D. Yellaiah Goud, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.

Yedapally took up investigation of the case, verified the investigation done by

Lw.11/S. Narsimharao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Yedapally, found in correct and he altered the section of law from 324, 506 IPC to 307 IPC.

Thereafter, he proceeded to Yedapally Village where he secured the presence of Lw.2/Katakam Vasanth, Lw.3/Methri Srikanth, Lw.4/Kashigolla Laxman and

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 3 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

Lw.5/Bodhan Gangadhar, examined them and recorded their statements. On 21-05-2020 at 1100 hours, Lw.12/Investigating Officer, apprehended the accused at Yedapally Bus Stand and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence, as such the investigating officer recorded the confession statement of the accused in the presence of

Lw.8/Dalla Suresh and Lw.9/Otankar Sathyanarayana, seized one broken beer bottle, effected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memo and produced the accused before the Court for judicial remand.

4.It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that Lw.10/Dr. Shaik Sofi,

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Bodhan, treated the injured and issued medical certificate opining that the injured sustained injury over scalp which is simple in nature. After completion of entire investigation and after collecting of medical certificate of the injured, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC. Hence, the charge.

Committal :-

5.Cognizance of the case was taken by the I-Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Bodhan, vide PRC.No.12/2021.

6.On appearance of accused, copies of case documents are furnished to him as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the Hon'ble District & Sessions Court, Nizamabad, where it was registered as

SC.No.107/2022 and the same was made over to this Court for disposal

according to law vide proceedings in Dis.No.2201/2022, dt: 30-04-2022.

Charge :-

7.On appearance of the accused before the Court, the Additional Public

Prosecutor opened the case Under Section 226 Cr.P.C.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 4 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel on framing charge. Charge for the offence Under Sections 307 IPC is framed against the accused and the same are read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

Witnesses examined :-

9.To prove the guilt of accused for the offence Under Section 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The evidence of LW10 to LW12 was given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. No material objects marked.

10.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the examination of accused as contemplated Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents. No defence witnesses examined and no documents marked for the accused.

11.Heard the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel and perused the record.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW8 but he has not supported the prosecution case. He argued that the evidence of hostile witnesses need not be discarded. Finally, he requested to decide the guilt of the accused as per the charge framed against him and decide the matter on merits.

13.On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that PW1 to PW8 did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution could not prove the

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 5 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

ingredients of Sections 307 IPC to find the accused guilty. He argued that the prosecution failed to examine the Medical Officer and also the Investigating

Officers, whose evidence is necessary to convict the accused. Finally, the counsel for the accused requested to acquit him for the charge framed against him. The other submissions of counsel on both sides are discussed at relevant point.

Point :-

14.Keeping in mind the arguments submitted by the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration in this case is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence

Under Section 307 IPC ?

if so,

Whether the accused can be convicted for the said

offence as prayed for?”

Findings on the Point :-

15.As can be seen from the contents of the charge sheet that on 19.05.2020 at about 0710 hours, Pw.1 along with his wife/Pw.2 while going on their motorcycle bearing No.TS.16.EM.1022 to attend the work under employment guarantee scheme when they reached near Grampanchayath

Office of Yedapally Village, the accused keeping the previous grudges against

Pw.1 followed Pw.1 and beat Pw.1 with a beer bottle on the back side of the head and caused severe bleeding injury on his head.

16.After hearing the arguments submitted by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and after consideration of the entire material on record, it is observed that the offence alleged against the accused are Under Sections 307 IPC. To prove the said offence against accused, the prosecution is bound to place substantial oral and documentary

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 6 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

evidence. The prosecution shall establish the ingredients of Sections 307 IPC which are as follows:-

i)guilty intention of the accused to cause injuries to the victim, ii)the injuries received by the victim on vital parts, iii)weapon used by the accused and iv)the injuries are sufficient to lead to his death if victim is not survived.

17.In case the prosecution could prove the aforementioned ingredients, then it can be said that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. To establish the aforementioned ingredients

Under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW8 only. Admittedly, PW1-Katkam Shankar is the defacto complainant and injured. Pw-2 Vasantha is the wife of Pw.1, Pw.3-Sriklanth, Pw.4-Kasigolla

Laxman, Pw.5-B. Gangadhar, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, Pw.6-

Sunkari Mohan, Pw.7-P. Hanmanthu are panch witnesses for seizure and

Pw.8-Suresh Lw.9-Otankar Sathyanarayana are panch witness for confession of accused, Lw.10-Dr. Shaik Sofi, Medical Officer, Lw.11-S.Narsimharao,

Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Lw.12-D. Yellaiah, Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S. Yellareddy.

18.PW1 deposed that two years back on 19-05-2020 he along with his wife while proceedings to Pedda Chervu in Yedapally Village to attend Upadihami works there. At about 7-00 a.m., when he reached Yedapally Veterinary

Hospital on main road, several persons came from their backside and due to rush he fell down from motorcycle and sustained bleeding injuries on back side of head. He went to police station. He put his signature on white paper and gave it to the police. He do not know the accused, he do not know anything about the case and he do not know why this case is filed and he has

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 7 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

no disputes with the accused. Police did not examine and did not record his statement.

19.Pw.2-Vasantha deposed that two years back on 19-05-2020 he along with her husband/Pw.1 proceedings to Pedda Chervu in Yedapally Village to attend Upadihami works there, at about 7-00 a.m., when they reached

Yedapally Veterinary Hospital on main road, several persons came from their backside and due to rush Pw.1 motorcycle was fallen and sustained bleeding injuries.

20.Pw.3 to Pw.5 deposed in one voice that two years back on 19-05-2020 police asked them to give their names and address and they stated their particulars to them, they do not know anything about the case, they do not know why this case is filed, they have not witnesses to the incident between

Pw.1 and accused and police not examined them.

21.Pw.6 to Pw.8 deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case, they were not called for any scene of offence examination by the police and confession of accused.

22.It is argued by the learned Addl. P.P. that the evidence of hostile witnesses need not be discarded in toto and their previous statement can be got looked into. In this case, the previous statement of PW1 to PW8 have been marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P9. It is true that the evidence of hostile witnesses need not be discarded completely but to consider the previous statement of PW1 to PW8, there is every need that the witness gave some clue about the incident in the chief-examination or cross-examination.

23.In this case PW1 defacto complainant and injured and Pw.2 wife of

Pw.1, they did not whisper anything about the involvement of accused in the

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 8 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

incident. They have not stated that accused caused injuries to Pw.1. In such a case, the prosecution though marked the previous statement of PW1 as

Ex.P2, the same is not useful in anyway.

24.Further, Pw.2 to Pw.5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident did not state anything about this case and acts of accused towards Pw.1. Further,

Pw.6 to Pw.8 who are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and confession of accused they have not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Further, the other material witnesses i.e., Medical Officer and the Investigating Officers are not examined by the prosecution and their evidence was given up by the learned Addl. PP.

25.Without the evidence of the doctor, it is not possible to say that the injuries sustained by PW1 are caused by beer bottle which was used by the accused and he is liable for punishment Under Section 307 IPC. Non- examination of the circumstantial witnesses, Medical Officer and

Investigating Officers is fatal to the case of prosecution. Prosecution failed to prove that the accused by keeping the previous grudges against Pw.1 and with an intention to Pw.1, the accused followed Pw.1 on his bike and beat

Pw.1 with a beer bottle on his back side of head and caused severe bleeding injury to the head of Pw.1. Failure of the prosecution to establish the ingredients of Section 307 IPC through the evidence of PW1 to Pw.8 entails in acquittal of the accused for the offence Under Section 307 IPC. As such, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offence Under Sections 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

26.For the reasons stated supra, it is very clear that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered that the

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 9 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Sections 307 IPC and he is entitled for acquittal.

Finding:-

27.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence Under

Sections 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted Under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused, if any, shall be in force for a period of six months from today as required Under Section 446-A Cr.P.C. and after six months the bail bonds stands cancelled. The unmarked case property i.e., broken beer bottle, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1st day of August, 2022.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE

PW1:Katkam Shankar (LW1).Defactocomplainantand - None - injured PW2: Vasantha (LW2)Wife of Pw.1 PW3:Srikanth (LW3)Eyewitness PW4:Kasigolla Laxman (LW4)Eyewitness PW5: B. Gangadhar (LW5)Eyewitness PW6:Sunkari Mohan (LW6)Panch witness for crime detail form PW7:P. Hanmanthu (LW7)Panch witness for crime detail form PW8:Suresh (LW8)Panch witness for seizure

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on complaint -None- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 10 of 10 Judgment in SC. 107/22, dt: 01-08-2022 at Assistant Sessions Court, Bodhan.

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 Ex.P6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5 Ex.P7:161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.6 Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7 Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8

MOs. MARKED

-Nil -

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan

Asst. Sessions Judge, Bodhan.

Page 1 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BODHAN

Present: P.Siva Ram Prasad,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Tuesday, This The 19th Day Of July, 2022

O.S.No.40 of 2018

Between:-

Telangana Grameena Bank (Formerly Deccan Grameena Bank), incorporated under the Banking Companies, Personal Rural Banks Act 1975 having its head office at Hyderabad and one of the Branch situated at Kaldurki Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District represented by its Branch Manager, Sri R. Nishant Reddy, S/o: R. Bhupal Reddy, Aged: 31 years, R/o: Venkateshwara Colony, Bodhan who is the Principal Officer of the Plaintiff Bank

.. Plaintiff

And

N.V. Narayana Raju, S/o: Dasharath Raju, Aged: 45 years, Occu: Bank Employee, Presently residing at Nagampet Village, Mupkal Mandal, Nizamabad District

.. Defendant

This Original Suit is coming on 07-07-2022 before me for

final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri B. Chinna

Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri C. Gopal Reddy,

Advocate for the Defendant and the matter having been 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 defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,73,573/- together with subsequent interest and costs.

Brief Averments of Plaint :-

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff are that the defendant worked as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the plaintiff bank, he availed over draft loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 23-01-2009 for the purpose of house repairs and the loan amount is created in his account No.7126007254, the defendant agreed the terms and conditions and to repay the loan with interest @ 11% per annum with monthly rests and accordingly the

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 2 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

defendant executed application cum letter of authorization and other documents including promissory note and separate letter of waiver on 30-01-2009.

3.It is mentioned in the plaint that the defendant was irregular in repayment of loan, he became defaulter, the plaintiff bank demanded the defendant to repay the loan but he failed to repay the said loan amount as such the loan of the defendant became NPA (Non

Performance Account) in the month of November, 2015 and finally the legal notice dated 06-04-2018 was issued to the defendant, the defendant issued reply but did not discharge the loan. Hence, the plaintiff bank is entitled to decree for Rs.3,73,573/- with future interest @ 12% per annum. Therefore, the suit.

4.After this suit is instituted, it is registered as OS.No.40/2018. Suit summons are issued to the defendant. The defendant received the suit summons, engaged Advocate and filed his written statement.

Brief Averments of Written Statement :-

5.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint, however admitted that he worked as clerk cum cashier in the plaintiff bank up to October, 2013 at Kaldurki Branch, he availed over draft loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. Later, in July, 2015 he is removed from service, in fact the defendant intended to clear the loan on the basis of monthly installments from his salary, he was removed from service in

July, 2015, till then he paid total amount, questioning his removal from service, he filed WP No.33315/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending.

6.It is stated in the written statement of the defendant that the defendant has no source of income as he is removed from service, in the terms of loan there is no condition for repayment, over draft is for adjustment and principal amount will be paid at the time of retirement,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 3 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

he is ready to repay the suit amount subject to WP No.33315/2015 filed by him, the suit is to be stayed under section 10 CPC and finally the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.

Issues:-

7.After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant, after taking into consideration of the rival contentions in the plaint and written statement filed by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the suit loan transaction between the

plaintiff bank and defendant is true, valid and

binding on the defendant?

2. Whether the defendant paid total amount as per terms and same is adjusted by plaintiff bank?

3. Whether the pendency of WP No.33315/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court bars the present suit?

4. Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the

entire suit amount together with subsequent interest

and costs as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

Witnesses Examined And Documents Marked:

8.After framing of the issues, the matter is posted for trial. During trial, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A20 documents. The defendant is examined as DW1 and did not mark any documents on his behalf.

Arguments:-

9.Considered the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the Plaintiff and defendant and perused the record. In the written arguments, the counsel for plaintiff repeated the plaint averments as his arguments. Likewise, the counsel for the defendant repeated the written statement averments as his arguments. They requested to dispose off

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 4 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

the suit basing on plaint averments and written statement averments and oral, documentary evidence available on record.

Findings on the Issue No.1:-

10.After hearing both sides and after consideration of material on record it is very clear that the plaintiff bank filed the suit for recovery of suit amount of Rs.3,73,573/- together with subsequent interest 12% per annum against the defendant who worked as clerk cum cashier in the same bank. The plaint averments are very clear that the defendant availed over draft loan of Rs.3,00,000/-, he executed promissory note and necessary documents agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest and the loan amount is disbursed to his account and later the defendant committed default in repayment.

11.It is very clear from the written statement filed by the defendant that he has not denied the date of loan, amount of loan, rate of interest and also his occupation as clerk cum cashier in the same branch where he took the loan. The controversial facts among the plaintiff bank and the defendant are very clear. Whether the plaintiff bank received the total loan amount and whether the pendency of WP No.33315/2015 filed by the defendant challenging his removal from service is a bar to the suit in any any way (which are issues 2 to 4). Since, the defendant also admitted that he worked as clerk cum cashier, he borrowed

Rs.3,00,000/- over draft loan on 23.01.2009 and executed the promissory note and other documents and loan amount is received by him, I hold that the issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff bank. Hence, in view of the defendant’s admissions on taking the loan and execution of the documents, there is no need to discuss the evidence of both sides on issue No.1.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 5 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

Findings on the Issue Nos.2 to 4:-

12.Now coming to the controversial pleadings in the plaint and the written statement at para No.3, the defendant stated that he was removed from service in July, 2015 and up to July, 2015 he paid total amount as per terms. This plea of the defendant is discharge plea and the burden is on the defendant to prove repayment of loan amount to the plaintiff bank. In this connection, the defendant gave evidence as

Dw.1 repeating the same facts stated in the written statement. The defendant except his oral version that he repaid the loan amount, he has not submitted any documents to prove that he has paid loan amount as per the terms of the loan.

13.On the other hand, he admitted in the cross examination that he is not in service. He has even admitted receipt of the legal notice. The defendant admitted that he is liable to pay the loan amount with interest to the plaintiff bank. Hence, it can be safely decided that the defendant not repaid the loan borrowed by him. On the other hand, the plaintiff bank got filed the chief examination affidavit of the Branch Manager,

Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 documents are exhibited to prove the loan transaction and also default committed by the defendant in repayment.

14.The counsel for the defendant cross examined Pw.1 but the evidence of Pw.1 is not shaken. On the other hand, such evidence is helpful to the plaintiff bank because the evidence of Pw.1 is not shuttered during the cross examination. One important point from the cross examination of Pw.1 is that as per the documents filed by the plaintiff bank, it is not their case that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the loan from dismissed employee and also as per Ex.A1 condition No.9, if the employees terminated, the loan amount can be recovered from the provident fund.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 6 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

15.In this case, the counsel for the defendant argued that the suit is liable to be dismissed because after loan the defendant is removed from service and there is no mention in the document of the plaintiff bank that loan can be recovered from the terminated employee.

16.There is no dispute that the defendant availed loan and committed default. Once the defendant removed from service from the bank, he is a normal customer but not the bank employee. Even though there is no mention in the documents of plaintiff bank that loan amount can be recovered from the dismissed employee, the right of the bank to recover the loan from employees who are in service or dismissed employees and also customers in general is right created by law and there is no need to specifically mention in the documents. Hence, basing on the said admissions of Pw.1, the evidence of Pw.1 cannot be discorded.

17.As regards condition No.9 i.e., recovery of loan amount from the provident fund of the employee, it is also at the option of the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank can recover loan amount from the provident fund, but it is not necessary that in all cases the loan has to be recovered only from provident fund only. At the same time, the defendant cannot insist the plaintiff bank to recover the loan amount from his provident fund. More so it is not known whether the defendant has received any provident fund amount after his dismissal from service.

In these circumstances, the evidence of Pw.1 and the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 proved the loan transaction between the plaintiff bank and defendant also default in due payment by the defendant.

18.Now coming to the another version of the defendant stated that he is ready to pay the loan amount after disposal of WP No.33315/2015 and the said WP is bar to proceed with the suit. In fact the WP filed by

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 7 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

the defendant has nothing to do with the suit transaction. The liability of the defendant to pay loan amount is independent and not connected with his service and his removal from service. The defendant’s removal is challenged in the WP but it is not important to proceed with and decide the suit. In case the defendant gets favourable order in WP

No.33315/2015, he may be reinstated into the service but the said WP does not bar the present suit.

19.In view of the above discussion, it is clearly and clinchingly proved that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the entire suit amount from the defendant together with subsequent interest and costs and his removal from service or WP filed by him cannot preclude the plaintiff bank from realization of the suit claim from the defendant.

Accordingly, the two issues discussed above are answered that;

i) the defendant not paid total amount as per terms and the same is adjusted by the plaintiff bank ii) that the pendency of WP 33315/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court is not a bar in the suit.

20.In view of the above discussion and findings on issues 1 to 3, the issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiff bank and against the defendant holding that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant together with subsequent interest and costs.

Result And Issue No.5:-

21.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour the of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,73,573/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousands five hundred and seventy three only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the principal amount of

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 8 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 19th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:

PW1: R. Nishant Reddy (Bank Manager).

For Defendant:

DW1: N.V. Narayana Raju (Defendant)

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

:: Original application -cum- Authorization for O.D. loan ( Personal

Ex.A1

Loan) Dt: 12-01-2009.

:: Original sanction letter for over Draft loan Dt: 23-01-2009. Ex.A2 :: Original specimen letter of authority by defendant dated: 12-01- Ex.A3 2009.

:: Original specimen letter of authority by the nominee dated: 12-01- Ex.A4 2009.

:: Original letter of undertaking dated: 12-01-2009. Ex.A5 :: Original promissory note executed by defendant dated:30-01-2009. Ex.A6 :: Original letter of waiver executed by defendant dated:30-01-2009. Ex.A7 :: Original credit voucher executed by defendant dated:08-05-2015. Ex.A8 :: Original debit voucher executed by defendant dated:08-05-2015. Ex.A9

Ex.A10 :: Original credit voucher executed by defendant dated:26-06-2015.

Ex.A11 :: Original debit voucher executed by defendant dated:26-06-2015.

Ex.A12 :: Original credit voucher executed by defendant dated: 03-07-2015.

Ex.A13 :: Original debit voucher executed by defendant dated:03-07-2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 9 of 9 Judgment in O.S.No.40/2018, dated 19-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

Ex.A14 :: Attested copy of Circular. No. PER/26/2006/2007 dated:02-01-2007.

Ex.A15 :: Copy of Authorization vide Circular.No. GB/2007-08/64 dated. 29.10.2007.

Ex.A16 :: Office copy of legal notice dated: 06-04-2018.

Ex.A17 :: Office copy of reply legal notice by M.Rajender Reddy Advocate

dated: 18-04-2018.

Ex.A18 :: Office copy of reply legal notice by G.Viplav kiran ,Advocate dated: 07-05-2018.

Ex.A19 :: Original postal receipts (2) dated: 05-04-2018 and 07-05-2018.

Ex.A20 :: True extract of statement of Accounts (17) sheets.

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

--Nil--

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 1 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BODHAN

Present: P.Siva Ram Prasad,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Tuesday, this the 26th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.1 of 2019

Between:-

M. Ravinder Goud, S/o: Late Lala Goud, Hindu, Aged about 50 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No.1-4-1395, Vinayaknagar Colony, Behind H.P. Gas Petrol Bunk, Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad

.. Plaintiff

// And //

Lokam Rajasekhar, S/o: Bhumaiah, Hindu, Aged about 27 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No.1-4-88/7, Sharbathi Canal Area (Old Sai Sudha Rice Mill), Bodhan Town, District Nizamabad

.. Defendant

This Original Suit is coming on 20-07-2022 before me for final

hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri C. Gopal Reddy,

Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri V. Sangam, Advocate for the

Defendant and the matter having been 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 sole plaintiff against the sole defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs basing on cheque bearing No.655872, dt:08-05-2018 for

Rs.4,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Brief Averments of Plaint :-

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other, the defendant borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 09-04-2017 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff on his order or demand within two months from 09-04-2017. Thereafter, the defendant failed to repay the said borrowed amount and on several requests made by the plaintiff, in the 1st week of March, 2018, the defendant issued a post dated cheque bearing

No.655872 dated 08-05-2018 of Canara Bank, Bodhan Branch A/c

No.4497101004010 in favour of plaintiff towards discharge of debt amount.

On 08-05-2018, the plaintiff presented the said cheque in State Bank of India,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 2 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

Branch Bodhan in his account. On 09-05-2018, the Manager, State Bank of

India, issued a memo to the plaintiff stating that cheque bearing No.655872 returned unpaid dishonoured for the reasons “payment stopped by the drawer”. Due to the acts of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice

dated 23-05-2018 to the defendant to repay the borrowed amount, but the

defendant received the legal notice on 26-05-2018 and gave reply denying the contents of legal notice. Thereafter, the defendant issued a legal notice to the plaintiff stating that he worked in the wine shop and the plaintiff is partner of this wine shop and the suit cheque along with three other cheques were belongs to the defendant were missing and he searched for the same and he could not find out the said cheques and asked the plaintiff to return the said cheques. The plaintiff given reply denying the contents of legal notice dt.08-06-2018 issued by the defendant.

3.It is further mentioned in the plaint that on 18-01-2019 one Muralidhar,

S/o: Kondiba informed the plaintiff that the defendant who is the owner of residential RCC ground floor House No.1-4-88/7 situated at Sharbathi Canal

Road, Bodhan is indebted to several persons intending to alienate the said house to defeat and delay the decree. Hence, the suit.

4.After this suit is instituted, it is registered as OS.No.1/2019. Suit summons are issued to the defendant. The defendant received the suit summons, engaged Advocate and filed written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint.

Brief Averments of Written Statement :-

5.The defendant filed written statement denying all the averments stated in the plaint. It is mentioned in the written statement that he never borrowed any amounts from plaintiff at any time and he did not issue any cheque to the plaintiff and he has not given cheque to discharge of his liability.

6.It is further mentioned in the written statement that he is worked under the plaintiff as sales man of M/s. Sri Durga wines shop-2 G.S. Sl.No.37

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 3 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

E4/253/2015 17 dated 26-10-2015 allotted in the name of V. Gopal, S/o:

Ranga Rao, Satyanarayanapuram Village, Varni Mandal in which the plaintiff is a managing partner and look after the said wine shop. The plaintiff appointed the defendant as agent and plaintiff managing the said wines business and defendant was subordinate to him. The plaintiff is one partner and as well as managing partner and the other partners are B. Bhaskar Goud,

Bodhan, Srinivas Goud, Bodhan, Shivakumar Bodhan, N.Saibaba of

Satyanarayanapuram, Shiva Nageshwar Rao, S.N. Puram, Nagesh of Old

Varni, Bala Goud of old Varni, Kashiram of Jalalpur.

7.It is further mentioned in the written statement that the defendant worked as sales man and maintained cash of the business under the control of the plaintiff and plaintiff regularly used to come and persuade the counter and took sales amount from cash counter at closing time of the shop in night time. The plaintiff regularly used to sit in the cash counter during business time and in his absence the defendant used to maintain the sales counter. In the month of October, 2017, the defendant opened bank account in Canara

Bank, Bodhan and got bank pass book and kept in cash counter (desk), in the absence of defendant, plaintiff took four cheques leafs Nos.655872, 655873, 655874 and 655875 from his cheque book without his knowledge and without his signature for which the defendant searched for the said cheques but not found them, then on the same day i.e., on 08-05-2018, the defendant reported to the Manager, Canara Bank, Bodhan to stop the cheques, if presented by anybody. The defendant requested the plaintiff to return the same but the plaintiff refused for the same and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- otherwise he will misuse the said four cheques. The plaintiff used one cheque which is not given by the defendant and it is not bears his signature and the plaintiff blackmailing the defendant with an intention to extort money.

Finally, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.

ISSUES:-

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 4 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

8.On consideration of the plaint averments and written statement averments, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the

plaintiff towards hand loan on 09-04-2017 and later,

issued the suit cheque dt.08-05-2018 drawn on Canara

Bank, Bodhan for Rs.4,00,000/- towards discharge of the

debt?

2. Whether the suit cheque along with three other cheques

were found missing from the cash counter of Sri Durga

Wines of the plaintiff during defendant worked there?

3. Whether the signature on the suit cheque does not belong to the defendant?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the entire suit

amount from the defendant together with subsequent

interest and costs as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

9.During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, he is examined as PW1.

Plaintiff’s witness is examined as Pw.2. The plaintiff got marked the suit cheque, dt:08-05-2018 as Ex.A1 on his behalf. On behalf of the defendant, no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked.

10.Heard arguments submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the counsel for plaintiff repeated the plaint averments as his arguments. He requested to dispose off the suit basing on the plaint averments and written statement averments and evidence available on record.

11.After hearing the arguments and after consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the issues 1 to 4 are relating to each other and can be answered together, so that the facts and evidence can be discussed without repetition. Hence, issues 1 to 3 are answered together.

Findings on the Issue Nos.1 to 4:-

12. The case of the plaintiff is that on 09-04-2017 the defendant borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- from him by promising to repay the said amount within two months. On demand made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the suit amount borrowed by him and thereafter the defendant issued a post

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 5 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

dated cheque bearing No.655872 dated 08-05-2018 and the same was dishonoured when the plaintiff present the same in his account for the reasons “payment stopped by the drawer”. It is the case of the plaintiff further that in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the suit amount borrowed from him.

13.In support of his suit claim and to prove the said transaction, the plaintiff counsel relied on his evidence i.e. Pw.1 and also on the evidence of independent witness i.e., Pw.2. Besides the examination of Pw.1 and Pw.2 the plaintiff got marked the suit cheque as Ex.A1. Both Pw.1 and Pw.2 clearly deposed in their evidence that on 09-04-2017 the defendant borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff and after receiving the consideration the defendant executed Ex.A1 post dated cheque agreeing to repay the amount borrowed by him with interest. The evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and Ex.A1 proved that the defendant borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from the plaintiff under

Ex.A1.

14.In this matter, the suit summons are served to the defendant and he has filed written statement. As per the contentions in the written statement of the defendant, the suit cheque along with three other cheques without signature of the defendant were taken by the plaintiff from the wine shop cash counter drawer in absence of defendant including the suit cheque as such the defendant requested the plaintiff to return back the said four cheques but the plaintiff demanded for Rs.10,00,000/- and blackmailing the defendant and thereafter filed the suit against him. The issues are framed and matter is posted for trial and during the trial the plaintiff’s chief examination affidavit is filed and he is examined as Pw.1 and cross examined by the defendant counsel and after filing the chief examination affidavit of

Pw.2, the defendant failed to cross examine the said witness i.e., Pw.2 and hence the defendant was set exparte. On 20-07-202 the counsel for

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 6 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

defendant filed memo reporting “no instructions” for the defendant as such he issued legal notice to the defendant asking him to attend on 20-07-2022, but the defendant received the same but not attended the Court. The counsel for defendant enclosed the office copy of notice, postal receipt and online postal track details showing letter served on defendant. The defendant was called absent which shows that the defendant has no interest in this matter as such he was set exparte. In these circumstances there is no other reason to discard the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 and Ex.A1. At the same time, the suit cheque is negotiable instrument and under section 118 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, once the plaintiff produced the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2 and

Ex.A1 the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the suit transaction but in this case the defendant failed to prove his pleas and discharge his burden of proof. For the above reasons, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with further interest and also costs. Therefore, the issues 1 to 4 are answered that the plaintiff proved the suit claim and he is entitled for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) from the defendant with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for.

Result And Issue No.5:-

15.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 7 of 7 Judgment in O.S.No.1/2019, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: M. Ravinder Goud (Plaintiff) - None - PW2: V. Muralidhar (plaintiff’s witness)

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original cheque bearing No.655872 for Rs.4,00,000/-, dt:08-05-2018

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 1 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.67/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BODHAN

Present: P.Siva Ram Prasad,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Tuesday, this the 26th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.67 of 2018

Between:-

Maram Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, S/o: Anji Reddy, Caste: Reddy, Aged about: 36 years, Occu: Business, R/o: H.No.4-78, Pegadapally Village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District

.. Plaintiff

// And //

Meaddineany Subba Rao, S/o: Nageshwar Rao, Caste: Kamma, Aged about: 43 years, Occu: Pvt. Job Principal of Sradha School Bodhan, R/o: Bhulaxmi Camp at present R/o: H.No.not known, Old Sradha School, Sarswathi Nagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad District

.. Defendant

This Original Suit is coming on 15-07-2022 before me for final

hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri SSR Koteshwara Rao,

Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the

matter having been 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 sole plaintiff against the sole defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.6,19,200/- together with subsequent interest and costs basing on two promissory notes, dt:21-12-2015 for Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Brief Averments of Plaint :-

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other, the defendant borrowed

Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-12-2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff on his order or demand and executed the suit two promissory note for Rs.1,60,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 2 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.67/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

3.It is mentioned in the plaint that in spite of several demands, the defendant postponed to repay the said amount on some pretext or other.

Hence, the suit.

4.After this suit is instituted, it is registered as OS.No.67/2018. Suit summons are issued to the defendant. The defendant received the suit summons, engaged Advocate and failed to file written statement in spite of conditional orders passed by this Court. Hence, paper publication was made still he called absent and was set exparte.

5.The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and the same is recorded as chief examination of PW1 and also got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents.

6.Heard counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaint averments, evidence of PW1 and the documents may be considered as his arguments and he prays to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed for.

Point:-

7.Now the points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proved the suit claim?

if so,

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for a

sum of Rs.6,19,200/- together with subsequent

interest and costs against the defendant as prayed

for?

Findings on the Point :

8.After hearing the submissions of the counsel for plaintiff and after consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.6,19,000/- from the defendant basing on the two suit promissory notes, dt: 21-12-2015. To prove due execution of the suit promissory note by the defendant and that the

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 3 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.67/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

consideration is passed to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his evidence i.e. PW1. He also relied on the documents i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 two promissory notes, dt: 21-12-2015.

9.By consideration of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents, it is to be noted that out of acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant borrowed Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 21-12-2015 for his personal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand to the plaintiff or his order and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 two suit promissory notes. Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 two suit promissory notes are containing the details of its execution date, name of the plaintiff and the defendant, consideration amount, signatures of attestors and scribe and particularly the signature of the defendant across the revenue stamps. This Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 coupled with the evidence of PW1 amply prove that on 21-12-2015, the defendant received consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and then executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

10.The above evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 cannot be discarded, as there is no cross-examination by the defendant since he was set exparte.

The oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 prove the suit claim and the same are sufficient to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered holding that:-

(i)the plaintiff proved the suit claim and

(ii)that he is entitled for decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,19,200/- together with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for.

Result :

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour the of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,19,200/- (Rs. Six lakhs nineteen thousand and two hundred only) together with subsequent interest @ 12%

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 4 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.67/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs. Three lakhs and sixty thousand only).

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Maram Vijay Bhaskar Reddy (Plaintiff).- None - (Ex-parte)

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Promissory note, dt: 21-12-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A2:Promissory note, dt: 21-12-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 1 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.68/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: BODHAN

Present: P.Siva Ram Prasad,

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Tuesday, this the 26th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.68 of 2018

Between:-

Marram Bharathi, W/o: Maram Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Caste: Reddy, Aged about: 30 years, Occu: Housewiefe, R/o: H.No.4-78, Pegadapally Village of Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District

.. Plaintiff

// And //

Meaddineni Subba Rao, S/o: Nageshwar Rao, Caste: Kamma, Aged about: 43 years, Occu: Pvt. Job Principal of Sradha School Bodhan, R/o: Bhulaxmi Camp at present R/o: H.No.not known, Old Sradha School, Sarswathi Nagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad District

.. Defendant

This Original Suit is coming on 19-07-2022 before me for final

hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri SSR Koteshwara Rao,

Advocate for the Plaintiff and the defendant set exparte and the

matter having been 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 sole plaintiff against the sole defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.6,88,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs basing on two promissory notes, dt:20-12-2015 for Rs.2,00,000/- each executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Brief Averments of Plaint :-

2.The brief averments of the plaint filed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant are known to each other, the defendant borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-12-2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum to the plaintiff on his order or demand and executed the two suit promissory notes for Rs.2,00,000/- each.

3.It is mentioned in the plaint that in spite of several demands, the defendant postponed to repay the said amount on some pretext or other.

Hence, the suit.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 2 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.68/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

4.After this suit is instituted, it is registered as OS.No.68/2018. Suit summons are issued to the defendant. The defendant received the suit summons, engaged Advocate and failed to file written statement in spite of conditional orders passed by this Court. Hence, paper publication was made still he called absent and was set exparte.

5.The plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and the same is recorded as chief examination of PW1 and also got marked Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents.

6.Heard counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaint averments, evidence of PW1 and the documents may be considered as his arguments and he prays to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as prayed for.

Point:-

7.Now the points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the plaintiff proved the suit claim?

if so,

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for a

sum of Rs.6,88,000/- together with subsequent

interest and costs against the defendant as prayed

for ?

Findings on the Point :

8.After hearing the submissions of the counsel for plaintiff and after consideration of the entire material on record, it is very clear that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.6,88,000/- from the defendant basing on the two suit promissory notes, dt: 20-12-2015. To prove due execution of the suit promissory note by the defendant and that the consideration is passed to the defendant, the plaintiff relied on his evidence i.e. PW1. He also relied on the documents i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 two promissory notes, dt: 20-12-2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 3 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.68/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

9.By consideration of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents, it is to be noted that out of acquaintance between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-12-2015 for her personal necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum on demand to the plaintiff or his order and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 two suit promissory notes. The

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 two suit promissory notes are containing the details of its execution date, the name of plaintiff and the defendant, consideration amount, signatures of attestors and scribe and particularly the signature of the defendant across the revenue stamps. This Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 coupled with the evidence of PW1 amply prove that on 20-12-2015, the defendant received consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff and then executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

10.The above evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 cannot be discarded, as there is no cross-examination by the defendant since he was set exparte.

The oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 prove the suit claim and the same are sufficient to pass decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.

Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered holding that:-

(i)the plaintiff proved the suit claim and

(ii)that he is entitled for decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,88,000/- together with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for.

Result :

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour the of plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.6,88,000/- (Rs. Six lakhs and eighty eight only) together with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation on the principal amount of

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Page 4 of 4 Judgment in O.S.No.68/2018, dt: 26-07-2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bodhan.

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs. Four lakhs only).

Typed my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 26th day of July, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NUMBER OF WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1: Maram Bharathi (Plaintiff).- None - (Ex-parte)

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1:Promissory note, dt: 20-12-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Promissory note, dt: 20-12-2015 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

NUMBER OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

- Nil -

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.

Senior Civil Judge,

Bodhan.