Smt. T. Rajya Lakshmi

S.C.No.137 of 2021 1 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: PRODDATUR.

Present:- Smt. T.Rajya Lakshmi, Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Wednesday, this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

Sessions Case No.137/2021

The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur. … Complainant.

Vs.

1.Thappeta Ramana Reddy, aged 44 years, S/o late Obula Reddy, occupation: Attender in Veterinary Hospital, Annavaram, Basireddipalle Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2.Kuraku Chinna Subbaiah, Basireddipalli village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

3.Ramanaboina Murali @ Srinu, Basireddipalli village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. (Accused Nos.2 and 3 are not charged) … Accused.

This case is coming on 21.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of

Sri P.Raghunath Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 having stood over for consideration, and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence under Sec.307 of IPC stating that Lw.1 Chennaboina Chinna Subbarayudu is living by cultivation.

Towards east of Basireddypalli Village, near Gunthacheepadu - To Palle

Road, there is a land to an extent of Ac.1.00 belonging to Ramalayam of Basireddypalli Village. As per rule of village elders, whoever cultivates the temple lands, have to give lease commodity to poojari

S.C.No.137 of 2021 2 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021 of temple for maintenance of the temple. One Nandalur Murali Mohan

Reddy who cultivated the temple land since last 3 years, failed to give lease commodity to priest/Lw.8 B.Sudarshanacharyulu. So

Lw.9/L.Viswanatha Reddy and Lw.10/P.Yella Reddy who are village elders decided to give temple land to B.C. caste person and asked villagers who wants to cultivate the temple field. Then Lw.1 came forward to cultivate the temple land for lease and he was given land on lease. Since then Murali Mohan Reddy and his followers including accused No.1 of Basireddypalli village bore grudge against Lw.1 on the ground that he agreed to cultivate temple lands. On 31.08.2020 morning, Accused No.1 secured billhook and moving in the village raising voice against Lw.1 to see his end and at 3.00 pm, while Lw.1 was proceeding towards temple land to cultivate it, accused No.1 obstructed him and abused him in filthy language and attempted to hack him with billhook. Lw.4/Lakshmi Devi witnessed it and informed the same to her husband Chandra Obulu/Lw.3 who witnessed the attack, ran along with fields to rescue Lw.1. Lw.2/Lingireddy Maheswar

Reddy witnessing the attack of accused No.1 on Lw.1, went to rescue of Lw.1, then accused No.1 questioned him using abusive language against him and attempted to hack him also. Lw.1 and Lw.2 sharply escaped from the attack of accused No.1 by running and thereby averted possible murders from the hands of accused No.1. The said incident was witnessed by Lw.5 B.Suramma, Lw.6 Pullamma and Lw.7

Ramprathap. Basing on the joint written report of Lw.1 and Lw.2, Lw.13

Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.142/2020

S.C.No.137 of 2021 3 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021 u/Sec.307 r/w 34 of IPC. As per orders of Superintendent of Police, YSR

District, Kadapa, Lw.14 Sub Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur investigated the case and examined witnesses and recorded their statements and he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene. On 25.09.2020 he arrested accused No.1 in front of his house and seized crime weapon from his possession in the presence of

Lws.11 and 12/Shaik Dadagiri Yousuf Hussain, Bathaluru Obanna and send him for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet that accused No.1 is liable to be punished for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC and not charged accused Nos.2 and 3 stating that they who were present near the tombs at the time of incident neither supported accused No.1 nor attempted to kill Lw.1 and Lw.2.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur took cognizance of the case under Sec.307 of IPC against the accused No.1 only after giving notice to defacto complainant and recording his no objection for deletion of accused Nos.2 and 3 from the case and numbered it as P.R.C.No.15/2021 and committed the same to the

Court of Sessions as the offence under Sec.307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and the Court of Sessions numbered it as S.C.No.137/2021 and made over it to this Court for disposal according to law.

3. On appearance of accused No.1 before this court, he was examined u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation made against him for which he denied the offence. Therefore, charge u/Sec.307 of IPC against the accused No.1 has been framed, read over

S.C.No.137 of 2021 4 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021 and explained to the accused No.1 in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4. During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The evidence of Lw.3 Gorla

Chandra Obulu, Lw.4 Gorla Lakshmi Devi, Lw.5 Battapothula

Sooramma, Lw.6 Telladala Pullamma, Lw.7 Gorri Ram Prathap, Lw.8

Bhumaraju Sudarshanacharyulu, Lw.9 Lingireddy Viswanatha Reddy,

Lw.10 Putha Yella Reddy, Lw.11 Shaik Dadagari Yousuf Hussain, Lw.12

Bathaluru Obanna, Lw.13 N.Mohammad Rafi, Sub Inspector of Police,

Chapadu PS and Lw.14 Losari Sudhakar, Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Proddatur was given up by the learned A.P.P.

5. Since there is no incriminating material against the accused

No.1, the examination of accused No.1 u/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused No.1 for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. Point :- It is the case of prosecution that Lw.1 Chennaboina

Chinna Subbarayudu was given temple lands on lease in the place of

Murali Mohan Reddy and because of it, accused No.1 being a supporter of said Murali Mohan Reddy developed grudge against Lw.1 and intended to eliminate him and on 31.08.2020 at 3.00 pm, while

Lw.1 was proceeding towards temple land for cultivation, accused No.1 obstructed him and abused him and attempted to hack him with

S.C.No.137 of 2021 5 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021 billhook and when Lw.2 came to rescue of Lw.1 on witnessing the incident, accused No.1 also abused Lw.2 and attempted to hack him and Lws.1 and 2 narrowly escaped from his hands and averted possible murders and thus, the accused No.1 committed the offence.

The defence of accused is total denial of prosecution case. So, burden is on the prosecution to establish its case.

9. The prosecution examined Pws.1 and 2/victims. Pw.1 deposed that he knew accused No.1 and he does not know anything about this case and that nothing had happened to him in the hands of accused

No.1 and that about a year back, he and Chandra went to Chapalu PS to give complaint about missing of his motor bike and there police obtained his signatures on white papers. Ex.P1 is his signature on the report shown to him but he does not know the contents of report shown to him and that he did not give any complaint or report against accused No.1 and he was not examined by the police. Pw.2 deposed that he knew accused No.1 and that he does not know anything about this case and that nothing had happened in the hands of accused No.1 and that about a year back, he, Pw.1 and Chandra went to Chapadu PS to give complaint about missing of Pw.1’s motor bike and there police obtained their signatures on white papers and that Ex.P3 is his signature on the report shown to him but he does not know the contents of said report and that he did not give any complaint or report against accused No.1 and he was not examined by police. In view of the said evidence of Pws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P has taken permission to cross examine Pws.1 and 2. In their cross examination,

S.C.No.137 of 2021 6 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021

Pws.1 and 2 denied that there is a dispute between Pw.1 and Murali

Mohan Reddy with regard to temple land which Pw.1 has taken for lease as per advise of elders and that accused No.1 is a supporter of said Murali Mohan Reddy and that on 31.08.2020 at 3.00 pm, while

Pw.1 was proceeding to temple land to cultivate it, accused No.1 obstructed Pw.1 with billhook and then Pw.2 came to rescue of Pw.1 and accused No.1 abused Pw.2 and attempted to hack Pw.2 and then they both of them escaped from the hands of accused No.1. They further denied that with regard to said incident, they both lodged complaint and stated before police as in Exs.P2 and P4 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 reveals that they did not support the case of prosecution and did not speak anything either about the incident or against the accused No.1. Pws.1 and 2 who said to have given written complaint about the incident have stated in their chief itself that police obtained their Exs.P1 and P3/signatures on white papers and they do not know the contents of written complaint shown to them and thereby they denied their giving complaint.

Further, Pws.1 and 2 denied that they stated before police as in Exs.P2 and P4/Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements that accused No.1 abused them in filthy language and attempted to hack them with billhook on 31.08.2020 at 3.00 pm near temple lands of Basireddypalli village.

Therefore, there is no evidence from Pws.1 and 2 regarding the incident. In view of the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 completely turning hostile to the prosecution case, the learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no

S.C.No.137 of 2021 7 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021 evidence before the court to show that accused No.1 obstructed Pw.1 and abused Pws.1 and 2 and attempted to hack them on 31.08.2020 at 3.00 pm, near temple lands of Basireddypalli Village. Therefore, there is nothing before the court to connect the accused No.1 with the charge framed against him. So, here, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Therefore, the accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

10. In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC and he is acquitted u/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused No.1 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property in C.P.R.No.143/2020 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur shall be destroyed after the expiry

of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

RAJYALAKSHMIDigitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMI THAMIDALA

THAMIDALADate: 2021.09.22 16:42:13 +0530 Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Accused

Pw.1: C.Chinna Subbarayudu, - None - Pw.2: L.Maheswar Reddy.

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Accused

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw.1 on the report, - Nil – Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1,

S.C.No.137 of 2021 8 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021

Ex.P3: Signature of Pw.2 on the report, Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2.

M.Os marked

- Nil- Digitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMI

RAJYALAKSHMI

THAMIDALA

THAMIDALA

Date: 2021.09.22

16:42:44 +0530

A.S.J, PDTR.

S.C.No.137 of 2021 9 A.S.J Court, PDTR, 22.09.2021

In the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Present:- Smt.T.Rajya Lakshmi Assistant Sessions Judge, Proddatur.

Sessions Case No.137/2021

(P.R.C.No.15/2021 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur in Cr.No.142/2020 of Chapadu PS.

1. ComplainantState Represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur.

2. Accused Thappeta Ramana Reddy, aged 44 years, S/o late Obula Reddy, occupation: Attender in Veterinary Hospital, Annavaram, Basireddipalle Village, Chapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. (A1)

3. Offence chargedu/Sec.307 of IPC

4. Plea of the accusedTotal denial.

5. Finding of the JudgeAccused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC

6. Sentence or orderAccused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.307 of IPC and he is acquitted u/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the said charge. The bail bonds of accused No.1 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property in C.P.R.No.143/2020 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur shall be

destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution Addl. Public Prosecutor. conducted by:

8. Accused defended bySri P.Raghunath Reddy, Advocate

9. P.R.C. Committed by Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mydukur.

10. Date of offence31-08-2020

11. Date of report02-09-2020

12. Date of remand25-09-2020

13. Date of release on 20-10-2020 bail.

14. Date of committal to21-05-2021

sessions Court.

15. Date of 21-09-2021 commencement of trial

16. Date of close of trial21-09-2021

17. Date of judgment22-09-2021

Remarks: RAJYALAKSHMIDigitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMI THAMIDALA

THAMIDALADate: 2021.09.22 16:43:33 +0530

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PRODDATUR.

To The Hon’ble District Judge, Kadapa.

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR.

Present:- Smt.T.Rajya Lakshmi,

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Tuesday, this the 21st day of September, 2021.

H.M.O.P.No.45/2020

Vadla Bramhini @ Kammara Bramhini … Petitioner.

Vs.

Kammara Veerabhadraiah

... Respondent.

This petition coming on 20.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Rajesh Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and

Sri M.Konda Reddy, Advocate for the respondent, having heard and upon perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec.13(1) (i) (ia) of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce dissolving the marriage between her and respondent on the ground of cruelty and for costs.

2. Brief facts in the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is the wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 18.02.2011 at Veerabramhendra Temple, Old Town,

Ananthapur as per Hindu rites and customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner gave Rs.5 lakhs cash, 20 tulas gold towards dowry to the respondent and they bare all the marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs. Soon after marriage, the petitioner joined with respondent at Hyderabad to lead marital life and lived for 4 ½ years and begot two female issues who are now aged 8 and 6 years. Later respondent addicted to bad vices like drinking, womanizing, gambling etc. and harassed petitioner physically and mentally demanding

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

2

additional dowry. Her parents are not in a position to fulfill the desires

of respondent. So petitioner tolerated eccentric behavior of respondent hoping that there will be change in his attitude but instead of changing in his attitude, he became sadist and started to beat her and he warned her to get additional dowry or else he will marry another girl. In the month of September, 2016 he necked out her from matrimonial house expressing his intention to marry another girl. Having no other way, she came to her parents house along with children and taking shelter. She sent mediators for amicable settlement. But respondent did not heed the request of elders and demanded her to give divorce. She waited for all these days hoping change in him and will take her back but in vain. So she constrained to seek divorce.

3. Counter is filed on behalf of respondent admitting the marriage between petitioner and respondent and that after marriage, petitioner joined with respondent at matrimonial home to lead marital life and they begot two female child and it is submitted that the respondent never demanded any dowry and he never necked out her from his house at any point of time. Some differences are arose between petitioner and respondent and petitioner left the house of respondent along with her children. It is further submitted that a panchayat was held between petitioner and respondent and their parents. The respondent accepted the words of elders and paid an amount of Rs.5 lakhs and 20 tulas gold and petitioner retained the same with her. The two daughters are with petitioner. At the advise of elders, respondent accepted to give divorce. Petitioner also accepted

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

3 that she will not claim any property of respondent and his family members. He has no objection to grant decree of divorce by dissolving their marriage. Petitioner already accepted that she will look after welfare of two daughters. It is therefore prayed to allow the petition without costs.

4. During enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, P.W.1 is examined and

Exs.P1 and P2 are marked. On behalf of respondent, RW.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

5. Pw.1 is the petitioner, her evidence is in terms of petition.

Through her, Ex.P1 wedding card and Ex.P2 wedding photo are marked.

6. Rw.1 is the respondent, his evidence is in terms of counter.

7. Heard both the counsels. Now the point for consideration is :-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce as prayed for ?

8. POINT :- It is an admitted fact that petitioner is wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 18.02.2011 at

Veerabramhendra Temple, Ananthapur as per Hindu rites and customs as evidenced under Ex.P1/wedding card, Ex.P2/Marriage photograph. It is also an admitted fact that after marriage, the petitioner joined with the respondent at matrimonial home in

Hyderabad and lived happily with him for a period of 4 ½ years and begot two female child.

9. According to petitioner, after 4 ½ years, the respondent addicted to bad vices such as drinking, womanizing, gambling etc.

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

4 and harassed her physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and pressurized her to get the additional dowry from her parents or else he will marry another girl and even he beat her and finally thrown out her along with children from matrimonial home in the month of September, 2016 and inspite of mediations, he did not change his attitude and did not take her back for matrimonial fold and therefore she constrained to seek divorce. The petitioner examined as P.W.1 reiterated the same in her evidence.The respondent did not deny the evidence of petitioner regarding allegations made by her against him and did not elicit any circumstances in the cross of petitioner to show that she made false allegations against him and even he did not attribute anything against her. Further, even though in his counter he stated that he never demanded any additional dowry and never necked out petitioner from his house at any point of time and asserted the same in his evidence, in the cross examination he admitted that in view of his harassment, the petitioner left him and staying at her parents house and he further admitted that unable to bare his harassment, petitioner is seeking for divorce. The undisputed evidence of petitioner coupled with the above admitted evidence of respondent clearly goes to show that petitioner was subjected to cruelty which is the ground for grant of divorce. Here it is also to be noted that the respondent in his counter and evidence stated that as per advise of elders, he paid Rs.5 lakhs and 20 tulas gold to the petitioner and he also accepted to give divorce and petitioner accepted to look after their two daughters and not to claim any property of respondent and his family members. He elicited in the cross of Pw.1 that the

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

5 petitioner has taken back 20 tulas gold and Rs.5 lakhs dowry and Rs.2 lakhs marriage expenses and that the children are residing with her and petitioner also agreed to look after their welfare and that she won’t claim any property of respondent. The petitioner also in the cross examination of Rw.1/respondent elicited that respondent has given Rs.7 lakhs and 20 tulas gold to petitioner and that petitioner has taken the custody of their two children. This evidence of petitioner and respondent clearly goes to show that there is no possibility for their reunion to lead marital life and therefore they have come for amicable settlement with regard to their future and also future of children and thereby they wanted to get their marriage dissolved. When there is admitted evidence that petitioner was subjected to harassment and unable to bare harassment of respondent, she left him along with children and residing separately since September, 2016 and there is no hope for the reunion between petitioner and respondent to lead marital life and they both wanted to take divorce by coming to amicable settlement, I am of considered view that divorce can be granted to petitioner dissolving the marriage between her and respondent. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent is hereby dissolved by way of decree of divorce. No order as to costs.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st day of September, 2021.

Digitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMIRAJYALAKSHMI

THAMIDALA

THAMIDALA

Date: 2021.09.21 16:42:05

+0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

H.M.O.P.No.45 of 2020 S.C.J Court, PDTR dt.21-09-2021

6 Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner Respondent. Pw.1: V.Bramhini @ K.Bramhini. Rw.1: K.Veerabhadraiah.

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner Respondent.

Ex.P1: Wedding card - Nil-

Ex.P2: Marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent. Digitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMI

RAJYALAKSHMI

THAMIDALA

THAMIDALA

Date: 2021.09.21

16:42:36 +0530

SCJ, PDTR.

E.P.No.3 of 2018 in

O.S.No.436 of 2014

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PRODDATUR.

Present:- Smt.T.Rajya Lakshmi

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur.

Wednesday, this the 15th day of September, 2021.

E.P.No.3 /2018

in

O.S.No.436/2014

B.C.Muneiah . . . Petitioner/D.Hr

Vs.

S.Jaffar Hussain . . . Respondent/J.Dr.

This petition coming on 13.09.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the petitioner/D.Hr.

and of Sri G.V.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for respondent/J.Dr, having stood over for consideraion and after perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

D.Hr./plaintiff filed suit against J.Dr./defendant on 21.10.2014 for recovery of Rs.2,21,047/- on the strength of promissory note and obtained a decree on 17.08.2015 for Rs.2,21,047/- with future interest at 6% p.a. thereon and costs. Now to execute the decree, D.Hr. filed this petiton under Order 21 Rules 22 and 52 of C.P.C. seeking to attach earned leave salary of J.Dr. towards realization of decretal amount.

2. Counter is filed on behalf of J.Dr. submitting that already

E.P.No.101/2016 and E.P.237/2016 were filed by D.Hr. and they were

not pressed. Having no merits in his case and having willfully obtained decree by playing fraud, D.Hr. not pressed the above E.Ps. D.Hr. is in

E.P.No.3 of 2018 in

O.S.No.436 of 2014

2 the habit of extracting money by filing forged promissory notes and used to get unlawful gain. It is further submitted there is no any amount i.e., earned leave salary and arrear of salary available with garnishee i.e., Municipal Commissioner. There are no merits in the petition. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

3. Heard both the counsel.

4. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether D.Hr. is entitled for the relief as prayed in the petition ?

5. POINT:- It is an undisputed fact that D.Hr. filed main suit against J.Dr. and obtained a decree for an amount of Rs.2,21,047/- with future interest and costs. It is also an undisputed fact that the decree is not satisfied so far. It is the main contention of J.Dr. in his counter that

D.Hr. is in the habit of extracting money by filing forged promissory notes. Already decree has been passed by competent court. If J.Dr. has got any grievance against it, he has to challenge it in appeal but he cannot raise such contention in the E.P. because the E.P. court cannot go behind the decree. It is further contention of J.Dr. that there is no any amount of earned leave and arrear of salary of him in the hands of his garnishee/Municipal Commissioner. To substantiate his contention, he did not file any material to show that there is no earned leave and arrear of salary of him with garnishee. Already while issuing Rule 22

C.P.C. notice, this court has ordered simultaneous attachment against earned leave salary of J.Dr. and said attachment order was served on garnishee. Further, D.Hr. filed information obtained under Right to

E.P.No.3 of 2018 in

O.S.No.436 of 2014

3

Information Act from Municipal Commissioner, Rayachoty/ garnishee of

J.Dr. Said information reveals that the garnishee has received direction in this E.P. to deduct an amount of Rs.2,72,771/- from earned leave salary of J.Dr. and it is also mentioned in the said information that

Rs.2,43,568/- has been paid from encashment of earned leave of

Rs.2,14,100/- + Rs.29,468/- and balance to be paid of Rs.29,203/-. From the said information furnished by garnishee of J.Dr., the fact remains that attachment order has been served on garnishee and as on the date of receipt of attachment order, earned leave salary of J.Dr. was available with garnishee and same was attached. In the said information, it is also mentioned that an amount of Rs.2,43,568/- has been paid but this court has not received said amount so far. However, the fact remains from the said information that the attachment over earned leave salary of J.Dr. has been effected and therefore, said attacment can be made absolute. Therefore, the point is answered in favour of D.Hr.

6. In the result, E.P. is allowed. Attachment is made absolute.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced byme in the open Court, on this the 15thday of

September, 2021. Digitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMIRAJYALAKSHMI

THAMIDALA

THAMIDALA

Date: 2021.09.15

17:04:54 +0530

Senior Civil Judge,

Proddatur.

Appendix of evidence : None. Exhibits marked: Nil. Digitally signed by

RAJYALAKSHMIRAJYALAKSHMI

THAMIDALA

THAMIDALA

Date: 2021.09.15

17:05:31 +0530

S.C.J, PDTR.

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Case No. :OP/0000135/2019 Merva Subbaiah Vs B.Yamuna

Date  : 17-09-2021

Business: Petitioner present. His counsel present and identified petitioner. Memo is filed on behalf of petitioner submitting that original petition is filed by petitioner for restitution of conjugal rights and it is posted for counter of respondent and mean while some elders of both side intervened and made Panchayat between Petitioner and Respondent and as per the advice of elders, the petitioner has been not pressing the original petition against Respondent and therefore prayed to dismiss it as not pressed. Petitioner and his counsel prayed to record memo and dismiss the petition as not pressed. Therefore memo is recorded and petition is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 17-09-2021

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

In the Court of :Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur

Case No. :IP/0000013/2016 P.Sivaprasad Vs V.Praveen kumar and 27 others

Date  : 17-09-2021

Business: Memo is filed on behalf of petitioners in office on 17-08-21 submitting that petitioners filed Insolvency Petition against Respondents to declare them as insolvents and petitioners and Respondents are compromised the main petition before elders and therefore prayed to record memo as not pressed the Insolvency Petition and dismiss the same. The counsel

for petitioners through video conference reported that the

matter is compromised and therefore prayed to record memo and dismiss I.P. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 17-09-2021

Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur