T.anjani S.s.rama Aditya Rishik

APKR060004742023O.S. No.301/2023, 1Dt. 15.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER -CUM- IV ADDITIONAL

CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS: VIJAYAWADA

Present: T.A.S.S. Rama Aditya Rishik,

Rent Controller-cum-IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- IV Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada

Friday the 15th day of May 2026

O.S. No. 301 of 2023

Between:

Nayudu Vara Prasad, S/o. Rama Rao, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.31-4-29, Sri Surya Paradise, Flat No.5B, G.P.R Street, Maruthinagar, Vijayawada-520 004. … Plaintiff

And

Koneru Ratnamala, W/o. Late Ravi, aged about 47 years, R/o.Flat No.F.F.A.1, Shanthi Apartment, Near Stella College, Shirdi Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

… Defendants

This suit is coming on 11.05.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Ramachandra Rao, learned Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendants having been called absent and set exparte, and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; and for a consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendant and costs and for other reliefs.

02.The brief averments of the plaint, in a nutshell, are that:

a) The plaintiff and the defendant are residents of Vijayawada. The defendant purchased Flat No.5 in the Ground Floor of “Ratna Lok Towers” situated in R.S. No.120/4, Tadigadapa Panchayat limits, Penamaluru Mandal, under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.2012

APKR060004742023O.S. No.301/2023, 2Dt. 15.05.2026 bearing Document No.2708/2012 on the file of SRO, Patamata, and was in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner.

b) Thereafter, the defendant approached the plaintiff expressing her intention to sell the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same, and the sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 12,79,000/-. Accordingly, the defendant executed a registered sale deed dated 04.05.2015 bearing Document No. 2856/2015 on the file of SRO, Patamata, in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that out of the total sale consideration, Rs. 2,79,000/- was paid at the time of settlement of bargain and the remaining Rs.10,00,000/- was paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The defendant allegedly delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed itself, and also handed over the original title deeds and connected documents.

c) Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as absolute owner, and his name was also mutated in the concerned records. It is further stated that he has been regularly paying taxes and other charges relating to the property. After execution of the sale deed, the defendant ceased to have any manner of right or interest over the plaint schedule property.

d) The grievance of the plaintiff is that, taking advantage of the increase in property values after the conversion of Tadigadapa Gram Panchayat into a municipality, the defendant started interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and proclaiming that she would initiate legal proceedings against him. Apprehending interference, the plaintiff filed a caveat petition before this Court. However, despite receipt of the caveat notice, the defendant continued her attempts to interfere with the plaint schedule property with the support of anti-social elements and attempted to occupy the property forcibly during the third week of December 2022. Such attempts were resisted with the intervention of village elders.

e) Further, on 11.06.2024, during the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant illegally trespassed into the plaint schedule property by breaking open the lock and unlawfully occupied the same. On receiving information, the plaintiff returned to Vijayawada and approached the Penamaluru Police Station. However, the police advised him to seek appropriate relief before the Civil Court, stating that the dispute was civil

APKR060004742023O.S. No.301/2023, 3Dt. 15.05.2026 in nature. The plaintiff also claims to have submitted a written complaint to the police on 01.08.2024 regarding the alleged illegal occupation by the defendant.

03.On 29.01.2025, the defendant failed to file a written statement and remained absent and unrepresented, and thus, proceedings against the defendant were set ex parte.

04.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1. Nayudu Vara Prasad (Plaintiff), got examined, and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

05.The point for consideration is:

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? ”

POINT:

06. P.W.1 Nayudu Vara Prasad reiterated the averments made in the plaint through his chief examination affidavit. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant was set ex parte. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he purchased the plaint schedule property from the defendant under a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 2856/2015 dated 04.05.2015 marked as Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the prior title deed of the defendant. The recitals under Ex.A1 coupled with the oral evidence of P.W.1 establish that the plaintiff acquired title over the plaint schedule property under the said registered document.

07. In support of his possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A3 to Ex.A7 and Ex.A10 to Ex.A14, namely electricity bills, property mutation receipts, property tax receipts, DCB extracts, municipal records, and other connected documents standing in his name. Ex.A8 is the certified copy of the docket order and judgment in O.S.

No. 284/2022 wherein the defendant had filed a suit against the plaintiff seeking for the cancellation of Ex.A1, and later, on 20.03.2024, the said suit was dismissed for default. Ex.A9 is the attested copy of the police complaint

dated 01.08.2024 along with acknowledgment issued by SHO, Penamaluru

APKR060004742023O.S. No.301/2023, 4Dt. 15.05.2026

Police Station. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff supports his claim regarding title and possession over the plaint schedule property.

08. According to P.W.1, after execution of Ex.A1 sale deed, he remained in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as absolute owner.

It is further his case that the defendant initially attempted to interfere with his possession in December 2022, along with certain supporters. Thereafter, during his absence on 11.06.2024, the defendant allegedly trespassed into the plaint schedule property by breaking open the locks and illegally occupied the same. In support of the said allegation, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A9 police complaint and acknowledgment.

09.The oral and documentary evidence adduced by P.W.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted, as the defendant failed to contest the suit and was set ex parte. There is no material before the Court to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff has established his title over the plaint schedule property and further proved that he was unlawfully dispossessed by the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and directing the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within one month from the date of this judgment. In the event of failure of the defendant to deliver the vacant possession within the stipulated time, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of May 2026.

Rent Controller -Cum- IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-Cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada.

APKR060004742023O.S. No.301/2023, 5Dt. 15.05.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Nayudu Vara Prasad Exparte

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:Registered sale deed, bearing Document No. 2856/2015, dated 04.05.2015 Ex.A2:Registered sale deed bearing document No.2708/2012, dated 16.04.2012.

Ex.A3:Attested copy of Electricity Bills issued by Asst. Accounts officer, APCPDCl, Kanuru. Ex.A4:Photostat copy of Property mutation fee receipt, dt.15.07.2022. Ex.A5:Downloaded copy of Property tax receipt for Rs.3,621/- (Marked subject to production of certificate under Section 65-B) Ex.A6:Downloaded copy of Property tax receipt for Rs.500/- (Marked subject to production of certificate under Section 65-B) Ex.A7:Attested copy of Property tax receipt for Rs.200/- Ex.A8:Certified copy of the docket order and judgment in OS No.284/2022 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vijayawada. Ex.A9:Attested copy of police report dt.01.08.2024 along with acknowledgment issued by SHO Penamaluru PS. Ex.A10:DCB issued by Tadigadapa Municipality in favour of PW1. Ex.A11:Property tax receipts issued by Tadigadapa Municipality on 22.04.2023, 08.04.2024 and 11.04.2025. Ex.A12:Property mutation receipt, dt.15.02.2022 issued in favour of PW1 Ex.A13:Attested copy of request from PW1 seeking address verification certificate. Ex.A14:Endorsement issued by Commissioner, Tadigadapa Municipality, dt.06.05.2026.

For Defendant: Exparte

RC-cum- IV ACJ(JD)-cum-

IV AJMFC,

Vijayawada.

APKR060017112025 C.C. No. 444/2025

Dt. 19.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-IV ADDL. CIVIL

JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, VIJAYAWADA

Present: T. ANJANI S.S. RAMA ADITYA RISHIK

Rent Controller-cum-IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- IV Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada

Tuesday, the 19th day of May 2026

Calendar Case No. 444/2025

Between:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, in Cr. No. 606/2023 … Complainant

And

1. Vemula Jamalaiah, S/o. Mallayya, aged about 25 years, R/o.Durga Colony area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

2. Gunja Veerababu, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o.Opposite to Andhra Bank, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

3. Gunja Kumara Swamy, S/o Yesu Babu, aged about 22 years, R/o.Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

4. Devalla Nagendra, S/o Durga Rao, aged about 21 years, R/o. Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

5. Bathula Kalyan Babu, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 22 years, Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

6. Shaik Subhani, S/o Jilani, aged about 23 years, R/o. Anjaneya Colony area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

… Accused

This case is coming on before me for a final hearing on this day, i.e. on 13.05.2026, in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and Sri B. Lakshmanudu, Learned Counsel for the Accused. Upon hearing both sides and having the matter stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, has filed a 1

APKR060017112025 C.C. No. 444/2025

Dt. 19.05.2026

Charge Sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 to 6 in Crime No.606/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the Indian

Penal Code.

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that L.W.1 Katta Lakshmana Swamy, who is working as an attender in the house of Sri Jogi Ramesh, Minister of

Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal. On 28.07.2023 at about 11.00 A.M. while L.W.1/Katta Lakshmana Swamy, is attending the duties at the house of Jogi Ramesh, Minister of A.P., the accused proceeding on the motor cycles, making loud noises by removing the motor cycle silencers and reached in front of the house of Sri Jogi Ramesh and shouting slogans as “Down Down Jogi Ramesh” and created terrifying situation and accused have caused obstruction to the free flow of vehicular traffic, and interrupted for transportation to the public, who proceeding on the road, and when L.W.1/Katta Lakshmana Swamy went to them and requested them to go from there, but A1 to A6 have wrongfully restrained the movements of

L.W.1/Katta Lakshmana Swamy, and abused him in vulgar language and also used criminal force on him, on that he went to the Ibrahimpatnam P.S. and submitted a report. Based on the report of L.W.1, L.W.6/A. Mani registered the case in Crime

No.606/2023 under Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and issued a First Information Report and sent the same to all the concerned and took up investigation; during the course of investigation, issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and upon completion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the accused.

3.The Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under

Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the IPC. On the accused’s appearance

before the Court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as

contemplated under Section 207, Cr.P.C. The Accused were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 Katta Lakshmana Swamy, i.e., the de facto complainant, was examined, and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 were marked.

Later, the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of LW2

Ummadisetty Suresh, LW3 Veminedi Gopi, LW4 Avutupalli Dheeraj Shima, 2

APKR060017112025 C.C. No. 444/2025

Dt. 19.05.2026

LW5 Nemalapuri Vast, and LW6 A. Mani. After the closure of the

Complainant’s evidence, as there is no incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of P.W.1, the examination under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. was dispensed.

5.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the

Accused.

6.Now, the points for determination are:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond

a reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code?

Points No. (i) to (iii):

7. To prove the prosecution’s case, PW1 was examined, and he deposed that in 2023, some people had created ruckess in front of the house of one

Jogi Ramesh and subsequently police arrived to said house and questioned him as to what happened, then he reported that some people have created nuisance in front of the house and he cannot say who those people were and subsequently police obtained his signature on a paper. The signature (Ex.P1) on the report belongs to him, but he does not know the contents therein. Thus, he resiled from his earlier statement recorded under Ex.P2 Section 161

Cr.P.C. and did not support the prosecution's case.

8.In criminal law, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof. Since identification of the offenders is a core requirement for sustaining charges of unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, assault, obstruction of a public way or line of navigation, and public nuisance as no credible or direct evidence exists to link the accused to the incident, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt under Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the IPC.

9. In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the IPC, and 3

APKR060017112025 C.C. No. 444/2025

Dt. 19.05.2026

they are hereby acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of May 2026.

Rent Controller-cum- IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Katta Laxman SwamyNone

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on the Report Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.1.

For Defence: NIL

Material Objects Marked: NIL

RC-cum- IV ACJ(J.D.)-cum-

IV AJMFC,

Vijayawada.

4

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) – IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA

CALENDAR CASE No. 444/2025

1. Date of offence:28.07.2023

2. Date of complaint or report:28.07.2023

3. Date of apprehension of the Accused:---

4. Date of release on bail of the Accused:---

5. Date of commencement of trial:13.05.2026

6. Date of close of trial:13.05.2026

7. Date of sentence or Order:19.05.2026

8. Explanation of delay, if any:---

Complainant:

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, in Cr. No. 606/2023.

Accused:

1. Vemula Jamalaiah, S/o. Mallayya, aged about 25 years, R/o.Durga Colony area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

2. Gunja Veerababu, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, aged about 22 years, R/o.Opposite to Andhra Bank, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

3. Gunja Kumara Swamy, S/o Yesu Babu, aged about 22 years, R/o.Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

4. Devalla Nagendra, S/o Durga Rao, aged about 21 years, R/o. Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

5. Bathula Kalyan Babu, S/o.Srinivasa Rao, aged about 22 years, Bhimarajugattu area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

6. Shaik Subhani, S/o Jilani, aged about 23 years, R/o. Anjaneya Colony area, Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, NTR District.

Section of LawSections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the IPC Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 1

Sentence/ Order:

In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 6 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 283, 290 r/w 149 of the IPC, and they are hereby acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused shall lapse after a period of six months from the date of this judgment.

Seal:

Rent Controller-cum- IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna District, Machilipatnam.

2

APKR060033532025

O.S. No. 1715/2025

Dt. 14.05.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER-CUM-IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) – IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA

Present: T. ANJANI S.S. RAMA ADITYA RISHIK

Rent Controller-cum-IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum - IV Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada

Thursday, the 14th day of May 2026

Original Suit No. 1715/2025

Between:

Mokkapati Srikanth, S/o. Late Raju, aged about 48 years, R/o.D.No.24-47, Near Panchayat Office, Tdigadapa Municipality, Yanamalakuduru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District.

… Plaintiff

And

Mallipeddi Satya Krishna, S/o. Venkata Koteswara Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o.Flat No.101, CMR Residency, Film Colony, Vijayawada, NTR District.

… Defendant

This suit is coming on before me for hearing, i.e. on 07.05.2026, in the presence of Sri Narra Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and the defendant is called absent and set exparte and having the matter stood upon for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 6,98,133/- (Rs. 3,21,333/- + Rs.

3,76,800/-) being the principal and interest due on two promissory notes dt.

12.11.2022 and 29.04.2023 respectively, executed by the defendant in the plaintiff’s favour for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 2,00,000/- + 3,00,000/- ) repayable with interest at 24% P.A. and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on dt. 12.11.2022 for his family and business expenses, and the said amount was paid by the plaintiff by way of

IMPS/231617143208 ICICI Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch and after receiving consideration, the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the 1

APKR060033532025

O.S. No. 1715/2025

Dt. 14.05.2026

plaintiff in his own handwriting, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant has paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff towards interest for a period of 5 months on the above-mentioned promissory note. The Defendant again borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on dt. 29.04.2023 for his family and business expenses, and the said amount was paid by the plaintiff by way of IMPS of ICICI Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch, and after receiving consideration the defendant has executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant has paid interest up to

September 2024. Despite repeated demands from the plaintiff, the defendant failed to repay the amount and finally he has issued a cheque bearing No.011355 for Rs.5,00,000/- dt.09.10.2025 drawn on Union bank of India, Siddhartha Nagar

Branch, Krishna District towards part payment of the debt and when presented the same for collection the cheque was dishonoured as per the return memo dt.14.10.2025 as “Payment stopped by the attachment order”. Subsequently, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt. 17.10.2025 to the defendant demanding repayment of the debt, but there is no response from the defendant.

3. On 11.03.2026, the defendant was called absent without any representation and service of summons held sufficient. Thus, the proceedings against the defendant were set ex parte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1. Mokkapati Srikanth (Plaintiff) got examined, and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked.

5.The point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

P O I N T:

6.The plaintiff got examined as P.W.1. Mokkapati Srikanth. He has reiterated all the pleas taken in his plaint. It is the unchallenged evidence of

P.W.1 that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs.

2

APKR060033532025

O.S. No. 1715/2025

Dt. 14.05.2026

3,00,000/- from him on 12.11.2022 and 29.04.2023, respectively, for his family and business expenses. It is further testified that the consideration was made by way of IMPS of ICICI Bank, Krishnanagar Branch, and the defendant paid interest of Rs. 20,000/- for a period of 5 months on the 1st promissory note, and he paid interest up to September 2024 on the 2nd promissory note. Ex.A1 and A2 suit promissory notes supports the plaintiff's case. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that despite several demands, the defendant did not repay the amount and finally he has issued a cheque bearing No.011355 for Rs.5,00,000/- dt.09.10.2025 when presented for collection the same was dishonoured. Ex.A3 is the office copy of the legal notice, issued to the defendant demanding repayment of the debt due.

The defendant did not dispute the borrowing of the principal amount and the receipt of said consideration since he remained ex parte. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 support the plaintiff's case. I find that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for, since the uncontested evidence of P.W.1 establishes the non-payment of the suit amount by the defendant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

7. In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs. 6,98,133/- (Rs. 3,21,333/- + Rs. 3,76,800/-) with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, thereafter @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on principal sum of Rs. Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs.

2,00,000/- + Rs. 3,00,000/-).

Typed to my dictation, directly by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May 2026.

Rent Controller -cum- IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada 3

APKR060033532025

O.S. No. 1715/2025

Dt. 14.05.2026

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1:Mokkapati Srikanth Exparte

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: --Suit promissory note dt.12.11.2022 for Rs. 2,00,000/-.

Ex.A2: Suit promissory note dt.29.04.2023 for Rs. 3,00,000/-.

Ex.A3: Office copy of legal notice dt.17.10.2025.

For Defendant: Exparte

RC-cum- IV ACJ(JD)-cum-

IV AJMFC,

Vijayawada.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER CUM IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: T ANJANI S.S RAMA ADITYA RISHIK

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM IV ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.129/2024

Between:

Vemulapalli Venu Gopalarao ….Plaintiff

And

Mohammad Meharaj Basha ...Defendant

This Original Suit coming on this day before me for admission and chief examination of PW1, in the presence of Sri Nuvvula Ram Babu, Counsel for plaintiff and plaintiff filed a memo to dismiss the suit and having perused the material, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.14,07,400/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., as claimed in the suit from the date of the filing of the suit on the

principal amount of Rs.9,00,000/- till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2. IA No. 835/2026 is allowed. Hence, the suit is advanced from 17.06.2026 to today. Plaintiff and his counsel are called present. The learned counsel for the plaitniff filed a memo seeking to not press the suit submitting that the defendant had paid Rs.3,50,000/- to the plaintiff as a term of compromise in CC

No.238/2024 before the II Spl. Magistrate, Vijayawada. Notice issued to the defendant. Plaintiff consented to dismiss the suit as he received the above said amount. Hence, the same is recorded and this suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court on this is the 15th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- T Anjani S.S Rama Aditya Rishik)

RENT CONTROLLER CUM

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DIV.,) CUM IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence NIL

RENT CONTROLLER CUM

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DIV.,) CUM IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA

IN THE COURT OF THE RENT CONTROLLER CUM IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: T ANJANI S.S RAMA ADITYA RISHIK

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) CUM IV ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIJAYAWADA

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.1358/2022

Between:

Dudde Karun Kumar ….Plaintiff

And

1. Dudde Grace Mary

2. Nakka Kiran Kumari

3. Nakka Aadiseshu @Yesupadam

4. Nakka Seshamma

5. Prathipati Prakasha Rao ...Defendants

This Original Suit coming on this day before me for appearance of PW1 as finally, plaintiff is called absent, no representation and having perused the material, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed for grant of permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from ever interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property to any manner what so ever and for costs of the suit.

2. Plaintiff is called absent, no representation, even at 05.45 PM. This case is coming for trial since 10.03.2025, yet none represented. Costs imposed also not paid. Hence, the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court on this is the 14th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- T Anjani S.S Rama Aditya Rishik)

RENT CONTROLLER CUM

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DIV.,) CUM IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence NIL

RENT CONTROLLER CUM

IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE(JR.DIV.,) CUM IV ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIJAYAWADA