Smt T.Jaya Laxmi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE GADWAL

Wednesday the 24th day of April, 2019

Present: Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi, III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 2018

1. Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. :: Crl.A.No. 139 of 2018

2. From what court the appeal :: J.F.C.M, Gadwal. is preferred.

3. Number of the case in that court :CC No.266 of 2017

4. Number of the appeal :Crl.A.No.139 of 2018

5. Name & description of the Appellant/Accused :

1. Rapolu Deva Raju S/o. Dattaiah, Age: 46 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Rapolu Muneppa S/o. Yerr Thimmappa, Age: 34 Yrs, Occ: Coolie,

3. Bandari Vijay Kumar S/o. Narsanna, Age: 38 Yrs, Occ: Coolie,

4. Bandari David S/o. Narsanna, Age: 32 Yrs, Occ: Coolie, All are R/o. Pulikal Village, Ieeja Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. now Jogulamba Gadwal District.

Name & description of the Respondent/complainant :

The State through the Sub Inspector of Police, Ieeja P.S.

6. The Judgment passed by the lower court as under:

The learned Magistrate found guilty for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for four months.

7. (Whether Confirmed, Modified or : Reversed Reversed )

Date of FilingNotice issued Bail bond if Appellant HearingOrder Presentationby court to appellant ordered to appearhas been let appear out on bail 01.11.18 01.11.18 02.11.18 - 16.11.18 22.04.19 24.04.19 2

This Criminal Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 22.04.2019 in the presence of Sri S.Srikanth, for the

Appellants/Accused and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant who has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 of IPC for a period of four months Rigorous Imprisonment. Against the sentence passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal by her Judgment dated

25th day of October, 2018 in Calendar Case No. 266 of 2017, preferred this appeal, and challenging such Judgment of conviction on the grounds alleged by them in this appeal. The appellant would contend that there is discrepancy in the ocular and medical evidence and also seizure of Mos-1 and 2, but the Magistrate failed to consider the above said aspects and convicted them. Finally, the appellants has prayed for their release by allowing this appeal. To better understand the situation it is necessary on the part of this Court to have a glance at the facts and circumstances under which the appellants were convicted. To avoid confusion in the matter, this Court would like to mention the status of the appellants as accused herein.

2. On 21-05-2015 at 11:00 AM at M.B.Church of Pulikal Village when PW-1 along with Pws-2 to 5 and 7 and others gathered and was writing the document of Pastor Mark who has been working as Pastor of M.B.Church for twelve years and will continue for next two months 3 as Church Pastor and in the mean time A-1 came there and asked the

PW-1 who are you to declare the Church Master for two months and beat him and then PW-2 interfere into the matter and Accused No.2 hit him with the stick on his right hand and left side of head due to which PW-2 fell down, then PW-3 obstructed but A-3 and A-4 hit the

PW-3 with stone on his head and thereby he also received the bleeding injuries and the society elders intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and therefore, PW.1 lodged the report with the police.

3. The Station House Officer registered the said complaint as

Crime No.86 of 2015 against the accused for the offences under

Sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC and the Investigating Officer after due investigation filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC with his findings that the accused committed the offence U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC. The Assistant Public

Prosecutor in the Court of Magistrate examined as many as ten witnesses and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and Mos-1 and 2. The learned

Magistrate after careful consideration of the entire oral evidence

finally convicted and sentenced the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC as stated above. Hence this appeal.

4. Heard, the learned Advocate for the accused and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. The Advocate for the accused while drawing the attention of this Court to the entire case record, particularly the evidence of each 4 witness has vehemently contended that due to the political dispute this case was foisted against the Accused No.1 to 4 and the learned

Magistrate convicted the accused though there is material discrepancy

in the ocular and medical evidence and also seizure of Mos-1 and 2 were not confronted with the injured as per the prosecution story and therefore the accused is entitled to acquittal and prayed this Hon’ble

Court to allow this appeal. As one could naturally, expect, the

Additional Public Prosecutor supported such findings of the Magistrate

and finally requested this Court to dismiss the appeal.

6. This Court has perused the entire case record, including the

Judgment of the Magistrate meticulously and formulated the following points for consideration:-

POINT NO.1:-Whether the findings of the Magistrate regarding the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4 are within the law and facts?

POINT NO.2:-If so, to what relief?

7. POINT No1:- Whether the findings of the Magistrate regarding the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused No.1 to 4 are within the law and facts?

As already stated in the factual matrix, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21-05-2015 at 11:00 AM at M.B.Church of Pulikal

Village when PW-1 along with Pws-2 to 5 and 7 and others gathered and was writing the document of Pastor Mark who has been working as Pastor of M.B.Church for twelve years and will continue for next 5 two months as Church Pastor and in the mean time A-1 came there and asked the PW-1 who are you to declare the Church Master for two months and beat him and then PW-2 interfere into the matter and

Accused No.2 hit him with the stick on his right hand and left side of head due to which PW-2 fell down, then PW-3 obstructed but A-3 and

A-4 hit the PW-3 with stone on his head and thereby he also received the bleeding injuries and the society elders intervened and rescued them from the clutches of the accused and therefore, PW.1 lodged the report with the police. The Lower Court based on the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.10 and Ex.P-1 to P-6 and Mos-1 and 2 convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of

IPC for four months Rigorous Imprisonment. But, the Accused No.1 to 4 find fault with such conviction and preferred this appeal and this

Court would like to go through the evidence of the said witnesses to see as to whether the learned Magistrate has properly appreciated their evidence.

8. As per the grounds preferred in the appeal, the appellants contended that there is material discrepancy from the ocular and medical evidence but the Trial Court did not appreciate the same and moreover the scene surrounding people were not examined by the police. As per the admission of PW-9 he did not examined the neighboring persons of the scene. PW-1 in his chief examination stated that he was beaten by Accused No.1 with hands and as per the

Ex.P-3 wound certificate there is no external injury on PW-1. As per the oral evidence of the PW-2 he received a fracture injury on his 6 right hand, but as per Ex.P-4 wound certificate there is only a simple injury on the right palm but not on the right hand and moreover

Ex.P-4 was not supported by X-Ray report as per the evidence of the

PW-8. As per the oral evidence of Pw-3 he received an head injury on the back side of his head and PW-2 also stated that PW-3 received the injury on his back side of his head, but Ex.P-5 wound certificate reveals that there is a simple injury on the fore-head. Therefore, the oral evidence of the PW-1 to 3 is deferred with the medical evidence i.e. wound certificate of Ex.P-3 to P-5. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused argued that when there is discrepancy with regard to the medical and oral evidence the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused as per the ratio given in the case Krishnegowda and Another Vs. State of

Karnataka by Arkalguda Police which was reported in AIR

2017 SC (Crl.) 658. Here in the case in hand there is material discrepancy from the evidence of Pws-1 to 3 and Ex.P-3 to P-5 wound certificates and moreover, as per the evidence of the PW-8 there is no mention about the age of the injuries and the date was mentioned as 22-05-2015 at 12:00 AM, but as per the oral evidence of PW-9 the

PW-1 approached the police on 21-05-2015 at 09:00 PM and immediately send the Pws-1 to 3 to the hospital. The incident was happened as per the prosecution story at 11:00 AM why the much time was taken by the PW-1 in lodging the report was also not explained. Therefore the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is sustainable.

7

9. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the Mos-1 and 2 was not proved by the prosecution. As per the PW-9 evidence he visited the scene on the same day. But as per Ex.P-2 scene panchanama it was dated on the next day of the incident i.e.

22-04-2015. One of the panch who was examined as PW-6 admitted in his cross examination that all the un-official prosecution witnesses are belongs to one group and the accused belongs to another group and there is rivalry in between both the groups. Therefore, it creates a doubt that there is possibility of foisting the case against the accused. Moreover, all the un-official prosecution witnesses who speaks against the accused belongs to one group and none of the neighboring people of the scene were not cited or examined. Mos-1 and 2 also not confronted by the Pws-1 to 3 and also no description was given by the Pws-1 to 3. Therefore, there is possibility of speaking false-hood by other un-official prosecution witnesses i.e.

Pws-1 to 7 due to their rivalry. Without the independent evidence the evidence of the Pws-1 to 7 is not believable as all of them belongs to rivalry group of the accused and therefore the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is sustainable.

10. With the foregoing discussion it was found that the trial court failed to consider the discrepancy in between ocular and medical evidence and also the rivalry between the Accused and the un-official prosecution witnesses and wrongly convicted the Accused

No.1 to 4 and therefore, the Judgment and sentence passed by the

Trial Court has to be set-aside.

8

11. Hence this point is answered.

12. POINT NO.2:- If so, to what relief?

In view of the findings on point No.1 it is held that the court finds, the finding of the trial court is liable to be set-aside and the Accused No.1 to 4 and that the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC is set-aside.

13. In the result, this Appeal is allowed by setting aside the

Judgment and sentence in C.C.266 of 2017, dated 25th day of

October, 2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal.

The bail bonds of the Accused shall stands cancelled.

14. Mo-1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Field Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 24th day of April, 2019.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Appendix of Evidence -N I l –

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

GADWAL

Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019.

Present: Smt.T.Jaya Lakshmi,

III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

C.M.A.No.8 of 2018

Between:

1.Edigi Madaram Balakistaiah S/o. Narsappa,

Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Madavar Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

2.Kala Mallesh Goud S/o. Mr.Edigi Madaram Balakistaiah,

Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o. Madavar Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

…Appellants

And

1. Balappa S/o. Late Narsingappa,

Age: 46 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Narsimulu S/o. Late Narsinganna,

Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

Both R/o. Patachedu Village, Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

…Respondents

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the orders and Decreetal order in I.A.No.241 of 2018 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 on the file of Senior

Junior Civil Judge at Gadwal.

2

Between:

1.Edigi Madaram Balakistaiah S/o. Narsappa, Age: 58 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Madavar Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

2.Kala Mallesh Goud S/o. Mr.Edigi Madaram Balakistaiah, Age: 30 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Madavar Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

...Plaintiffs

And

1. Balappa S/o. Late Narsingappa, Age: 46 Yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Narsimulu S/o. Late Narsinganna, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Agriculture,

Both R/o. Patachedu Village, Narva Mandal, Mahabubnagar.

...Defendants

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming before me for final hearing on 16-04-2019 in the presence of Sri Poojari Sridhar, Advocate

for the appellants and of Sri B.Narsimulu, Advocate for the

respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The unsuccessful petitioners in I.A.241 of 2018 in O.S.No.62 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal by the orders

dated 20th September, 2018, thereby their application preferred to

injunct the respondents from alienating the suit scheduled property till the disposal of the main suit was dismissed, is the appellants herein challenging such order on the ground that the learned Senior Civil 3

Judge has failed to properly appreciate the documentary evidence

produced by them showing their title and possession over the suit schedule property. To better understand the controversy between the parties, it is necessary on the part of this court to have a glance at the facts and circumstances under which the appellants/petitioners has preferred the said I.A.241 of 2018 in O.S.62 of 2018 on the file of the said court. To avoid confusion, this court would like to mention the status of the parties as they are arrayed in the cause title of I.A.241 of 2018 in O.S.62 of 2018.

2. The petitioners/appellants has instituted O.S.62 of 2018 71 of against the respondents/defendants for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property on the ground that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property having secured the same by way of regular registered sale deeds and gift deed. To be more in clear, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 purchased A and B scheduled property by way of regular registered sale deeds vide

Doc.No:2520/1983 and Doc.No:335/1985 and subsequently the petitioner No.1 out of love and affection towards his son i.e. the petitioner No.2 herein executed a gift deed to an extent of Ac.03- 31 guntas which is the C-Scheduled property and put him in 4 possession of the C-Scheduled property and both of them are in possession of the suit scheduled properties jointly and the

Respondents also filed a partition suit in O.S.No.29 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gadwal and the same is pending and while the thing so, without any right, the Respondents tried to interfere the possession of the petitioners over the scheduled property on 02-01-2018 and 25-05-2018 by claiming that they are the owners of the suit scheduled properties and on that the Petitioners approached the SHO, Narva Mandal, but police failed to take action and hence the suit along with application for ad-interim injunction against the respondents not to alienate the suit scheduled properties till the disposal of the main suit.

3. On the other hand the respondents have challenged the said suit and also the said application on the ground that the petitioners prior to filing of the suit filed an appeal before the RDO, at

Narayanpet and the same is pending and the petitioners created all the revenue records only to grab the property of Respondents and the new pattadar pass books were also not issued to them and in the

additional counter filed on 12-09-2018 the Respondents also

contended that the created documents are not binding on the

Respondents and the petitioners admitted the pending of the partition suit in OS 29 of 2018 and also separate possession and intentionally 5 disobeyed the civil proceedings in O.S.No:29 of 2018 the petitioners filed this petition, therefore, the petition has to be dismissed.

4. The petitioner has marked Exs.P1 to P18 and whereas the respondents have not marked any documents. The Senior Civil Judge after due consideration of both the cases dismissed I.A.241/2018 and hence this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5. Heard the learned advocates for both the parties, who have argued on the same lines as contended by them in their respective pleadings. This court has perused the entire case record meticulously and the only question is as to whether the said order passed by the

Senior Civil Judge dated 20th September, 2018 in I.A.241 of 2018 is

within the law and facts?

6. Before going into the crux of the matter, this court would like to enlighten about the powers of an appellate court to deal with an order passed by the lower court in this type of applications. It is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Wander Limited Vs. Antox

India Private Limited”, reported in 1990 Supp. 1 SCC 727 and also in “Sky Line Education Institution (India) Limited V. S.L.Vaswani”, reported in (2010) 2 CC 142 by the three Hon’ble Judges that an appellate court normally shall not reverse the order of the lower court unless such order is perverse.

6

7. Ex.P-1 and P-2 clearly establishes that the Petitioner No.1 purchased the A and B scheduled properties by virtue of Registered regular sale deeds. Out of that property the Petitioner No.1 executed a gift settlement deed by virtue of Ex.A-3 in favor of his son which is the C-Scheduled property. But, the lower court erroneously came to conclusion that C-Scheduled property is separate property apart from

A and B Scheduled property, though it is the part and parcel of the A and B Scheduled property. It was admitted fact that the Respondents filed suit for partition and separate possession. Ex.P-11 to P-13 clearly establishes that as on the date of the filing of the suit, the petitioners are in possession of A to C scheduled property but the lower court erroneously conclude that the extent was not tallied under the impression that the C-Scheduled property is different from A and B

Scheduled property. If the injunction was not granted when the

Respondents alienate the scheduled property to third party it will cause the multiplicity of the proceedings. The lower court also failed to appreciate the Ex.A-1 to A-18 though the petitioners establishes the prima-facie case balance of the convenience in favor of the petitioners and hence the petitioners are entitled for the temporary injunction as prayed by them.

8. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the order and decreetal order dated 20th 7

September, 2018 in I.A.No.241 of 2018 in O.S.62 of 2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal and granted temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit scheduled lands in favour of third parties pending disposal of the main suit.

Dictated to the Field Assistant, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April, 2019.

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

Appendix of evidence - Nil -

III Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

GADWAL

Thursday the 25th day of April, 2019

PRESENT : Smt. T.Jaya Lakshmi, III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal

Sessions Case No.103 of 2016

(Preliminary Registered Case No.57 of 2015 committed by Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal) (Crime No.158 of 2015 of Police Station, Gadwal Town)

Name of the Accused :

1. Kotla Pedda Ramu S/o. K.P.Venkatramulu, Age: 26 Yrs, Occ: Auto Driver, Caste: Chakali, R/o. H.No:6-5-53/3, Dharur-Met, Gadwal.

2. Kotla Pedda Srinivasulu @ Sreenu, S/o. K.P.Venkateshwarlu, Age: 29 Yrs, Occ: Car Driver, Caste: Chakali, R/o. H.No:6-2-51/3, Hatkarpet, Gadwal.

Nature of offence : Under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER : The accused found not guilty.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 25-04-2019 in the presence of Sri T.Manohar, Advocate for the accused, and of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following :- 2

J U D G M E N T

1. A Sessions case arising out of Crime No.158 of 2015 of Gadwal

Town Police Station, under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC.

2. The Inspector of Police, Gadwal filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC namely Sri K.P.Mahender given a written report on 03-07-2015 alleging that on 02-07-2015 at 06:00 AM as usually his father Jayanna left the home with his auto bearing No:AP-22-X-1938 and did not come for lunch and at about at 06:00 PM he telephoned to his father and asked him and he replied that he will come after finishing the some work and thereafter he did not came back though he telephoned several times and the phone was switched-off and in the next day morning on 03-07-2015 he searched for him and in that search one Auto Ramudu informed him that his father auto was found in PJP Canal and immediately he went there and found his father’s auto in the Canal but his dead body was not found and on search at a distance of 100 mtrs. He found blood stains in the agricultural land and he suspected his uncle Ramulu and Srinivasulu might have killed his father due to the dispute with regard to the ancestral house and on 10-06- 2015 on the galatta of the Ramulu his father vacated his house and thereafter also the said Ramulu and son Srinu also quarreled with them and keeping in mind about the house dispute they might have killed his father by taking him to the Canal by saying mischievous words and the

Investigating Officer after due investigation filed charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 with his finding that the accused no.1 and 2 are 3 responsible for the death of Jayanna and also tried to screen away the dead body of the Jayanna.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal took the case on file in PRC No.57 of 2015 and furnished the copies of case documents to the accused on their appearance before the court. As the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions the learned Judicial

Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar

Division Mahabubnagar for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar took the case on file in S.C.No.103 of 2016 and made over the case to this court for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

4. After hearing both side counsel, charges under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC were framed against the accused no.1 and 2 and the same was read over and explained to the accused in telugu. To which the accused no.1 and 2 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution got examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4.

6. Ex.P1 is the Signature of the PW-1 on the report. Ex.P-2 and P- 3 are the 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of P.W.1. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C.

Statement of P.W.2.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, heard arguments since there is no incriminating evidence against the accused on the record his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and proceeded to pronounce the judgment.

4

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the advocate for the accused.

9. This court has perused the entire case records very carefully and noted the contentions raised by the Additional Public

Prosecutor and the Advocate for the accused and formulated the following point for determination:-

Point No1:- Whether the prosecution could establish the offences under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused No.1 and 2 in this case?

Point No.2:- If so, to what relief?

10) POINT No.1 AND 2:-

As already stated by this Court, it is the case of the prosecution that there is civil dispute in between the accused family and the family of the deceased with regard to the house of the ancestors and in that regard previously quarrel was took place among them and bore grudge against the Accused No.1 and 2 decide to get rid-off the life of the deceased and in furtherance of their common intention they killed the deceased Jayanna and thrown him in the PJP Canal along with his Auto to create that it is an accident. To establish the said facts, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and 2. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and de-facto complainant. PW.2 is the wife of the deceased.

11) PW.1 and 2 in one voice stated that the accused are not responsible for the death of the deceased and they did not spoke anything against the accused no.1 and 2. As the material witnesses i.e., P.W.1 and 2 who are none other than the son and wife of the deceased did not 5 supported the case of the prosecution, the accused no.1 and 2 are entitled to acquittal in the matter.

12) In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the accused

No.1 and 2 are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C. of the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled.

Unmarked non valuable property involved in this case is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Field Assistant, typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 25th day of April 2019.

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE:

P.W.1. K.P.Mahender -NIL-

P.W.2. K.P.Jayamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:-

Ex.P1 is the signature of the PW-1 on the report -NIL-

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Gadwal.

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GADWAL

MONDAY THE 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017.

PRESENT:- Smt.T.Jayalaxmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet,

FAC GADWAL.

O.S. No.80 OF 2017

BETWEEN: K.Parashu Ramudu S/o Pedda Narsimulu, age:35 Years, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.5-5-33/1, Vadla Veedhi, Gadwal Town and Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District. …Plaintiff.

And

T.Narender S/o Narsimulu, age:42 Years, Occ:Agril., R/o Telugu Peta, Gadwal Town, now present at residing Arepally Village, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District. …Defendant.

Claim:- Suit for recovery of amount based on promissory notes. *** This Original Suit coming before me for final hearing on 21-08-2017 in the presence of Sri M.Chakrapani Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant was set ex-parte 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 seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.3,83,690/- along with future interest and costs from the defendant.

2. The averments of the plaint in a nut shell would depict that the defendant approached with the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,000/- on 24.07.2014, Rs.75,000/- on 26.05.2014 and Rs.22,000/- on 20.04.2015 total amount of Rs.3,07,000/- for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and on the same dates he executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and after availed the said amount defendant did not repay any amount either

principal or interest even on repeated approaches, requests and demands

made by the plaintiff and finally, on 27-01-2017 the plaintiff got issued 2 legal notice through Advocate and the same was received by the Defendant but failed to repay the amount and hence the suit.

3. Though the summons was served through RP and he did not choose to appear before the court or not contest the case. Hence, he was set exparte.

4. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

6. In the wake of the submissions, now the point for consideration is that

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,83,690/- as prayed for?

7. POINT:- The case of the plaintiff is that the Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 24-07-2014, Rs.75,000/- on 26-05-2014 and

Rs.22,000/- on 20-04-2015 total amount of Rs.3,07,000/- for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12% per annum and on the same dates he executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and after availed the said amount defendant did not repay any amount either principal or interest even on repeated approaches, requests and demands made by the plaintiff and finally, on 27-01-2017 the plaintiff got issued legal notice through Advocate and the same was received by the

Defendant but failed to repay the amount. The Plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 deposed in his chief affidavit replica of his pleadings. In support of his case Ex.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.A1 to A.6 support the evidence of

PW-1. Therefore, there is nothing on record to rebut the evidence of PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A6 and its contents, by the defendant.

3

8. Though the summons served on the defendant but he did not choose to appear before the court or contest the suit. He has not placed any material on record to rebut the case of the plaintiff. The testimony of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 therefore, remains unchallenged.

9. Therefore, on a careful perusal of the material on record including the contents of Exs.A1 to A6 and in the absence of the defendant entering his appearance and contesting the matter, this court holds that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 to A3 in his favour after receiving the consideration mentioned thereunder and has failed to repay the same when demanded by the Plaintiff.

Hence this point is answered.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.3,83,690/- with future interest @ 6% per annum on principal sum of Rs.3,07,000/- from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of the realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of August, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANEPT FAC GADWAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: PW.1 K.Parashuramudu

DEFENDANT: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: Original suit promissory note, dt:24-07-2014, Ex.A2: Original suit promissory note, dt:26-05-2014, Ex.A3: Original suit promissory note, dt:20-04-2015, Ex.A4: Office copy of legal notice, dated 27-01-2017 Ex.A5: Original postal receipt, dated:27-01-2017, Ex.A6: Acknowledgement.

DEFENDANT: -Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NARAYANEPT FAC GADWAL.

TSJG010000112017 Presented on : 04-01-2017 Registered on : 17-01-2017 Decided on : 18-08-2017 Duration : 0 years, 7 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Senior Civil Judge cum Assistant Sessions Judge AT

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by Prl.Senior Civil Judge

OP/4/2017

Exhibit No.: :T.C.Darshelly Age: 0Occupation : Address: age 26 years occu. Private employee in soft ware at Srisalam

VERSUS :Bhagya LaxmiAge: 0Occupation : Address: age. 23 years occu.House wife and student Res. H.No. 5-75 Near Bus stand Ieeja village and Mandal ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Md.Khaja Moinuddin Advocate for : appearing for Bhagya Laxmi: Advocate appearing for respectively. Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18-08-2017 )

ORDER

Petition is dismissed since it is not pressed

Date : 18-08-2017

Principal Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Principal Senior Civil Judge

GADWAL ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services” from Android or iOS