Ms.V.Sri Prathyusha

1

APPR130010622021Presented on : 26-11-2021 Registered on : 26-11-2021 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 5 months, 16 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM - JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PODILI.

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class , Podili.

Tuesday , the 12 th Day of May, 2026

O.S.No.282 of 2021

Between:

Dornala Konda Reddy S/o Venkata Reddy, Aged about 54 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, Permanent resident of Podili Village of Podili Mandal, Prakasam

District. …Plaintiff

And:

Mekala Haribabu S/o Sankararao, Aged about 40

Years, Hindu, Resident of Kakarla Village of

Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendant

This suit came before this Court on 23-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Ram Mohanrao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S.M.Basha,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

2

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.8,59,333/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2) IN A NUTSHELL, THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS

FOLLOWS :-

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff transferor namely Gunturi Pitchireddy on 10-09-2018 promissing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a and agreed to repay the said amount either to the said Gunturi Pitchhireddy or to his order on demand and on the very same day, after receipt of the said consideration, the defendant executed a suit promissory note in favour of Gunturi Pitchhireddy at Madireddy palem. The defendant never paid any amount to the said Gunturi Pitchhireddy. Under need of money i.e. Family expenses, the said Gunturi Pitchhireddy received an amount of

Rs.7,00,000/- as full and final amount from the plaintiff on 01-03-2021 and transferred the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of Gunturi

Pitchhireddy to the plaintiff. The same transfer order was endorsed on the back side of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Podili. The plaintiff is entitled to claim right against the defendant. After transferred endorsement, the plaintiff approached the defendant personally on several times and requested to make arrange the payment, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff.

Later, the defendant has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment of the above said promissory note debt on 20-07-2021, but the same cheque was dishonored by the Bank on 04-09-2021. The defendant is having sufficient means and capacity to realize the amount to the plaintiff, but the defendant wantonly and intentionally avoiding to make payment having an intention

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

3 to harass the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

3) The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and contended that the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from one Gunturi Pitchireddy and never executed promissory note in his favor on 10-09-2018 and as such, the plaintiff has forcibly taken the promissory notes by way of threatened the defendant without any cash consideration passed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and the same promissory note was filled in the name of one Gunturi Pitchireddy who is the close associate of the plaintiff and again the plaintiff created transfer endorsement in his favor from Gunturi Pitchireddy to harass the defendant without the plaintiff passed consideration of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the said Gunturi Pitchireddy. The plaintiff has filed several NI act cases and promissory note suits against the defendant before this Hon'ble Court for getting unlawful gain and to harass the defendant only. The plaintiff wife namely Dornala Hymavathi also filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 48 of C.P.C against the defendant before the Hon'ble Senior

Civil Judge Court, Darsi. As per that petition, the plaintiff wife collecting huge

amounts from the salary of the defendant. The plaintiff filed the above said cases by way of filled empty notes with huge amounts mentioned in cheques and promissory notes which contains the signature of the defendant. In fact, the plaintiff does not have any capacity to lend such a huge amounts to the defendant. The defendant is working as Hostel Warden and so, there is no necessity to borrow such a huge amounts from the plaintiff. The defendant never borrowed the suit promissory note amount from Gunturi Pitchireddy at any point of time. The attestors are also unknown persons to the defendant and he may be the henchmen of the plaintiff and moreover the plaintiff filled the suit promissory note in favor of Gunturi Pitchireddy, it

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

4 is clearly disclosed the attitude of the plaintiff. There is no passage of consideration even to single pie from Gunturi Pitchireddy to the defendant at any point of time and so the suit is not maintainable as the same was filed basing on fake promissory note and fake transfer endorsement without any considerations. The plaintiff suppressed the actual facts as stated above, filed this suit against the defendant with all false allegation and so even for that reason also, this suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Without any cause of action, the plaintiff has filed the suit to harass the defendant and to put him at loss. Hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss this suit with costs to the defendant.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit promissory noe dt.10-09-

2018 is true, valid, supported by

consideration and binding on the

defendant ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of suit amount from the

defendant as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 and the plaintiff further got examined one Gunturi

Ptichhireddy as PW2 and one Sanneboina Sreeramulu as PW3 and one Pothuraju

Srinu as PW4. On behalf of defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 .

No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

5

7) ISSUE No. 1:-

i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff transferor namely

Gunturi Pitchireddy on 10-09-2018 promissing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a and agreed to repay the said amount either to the said Gunturi

Pitchhireddy or to his order on demand and on the very same day after receipt of the said consideration, the defendant executed a suit promissory note in favour of the Gunturi Pitchhireddy at Madireddy palem and the defendant never paid any amount to the said Gunturi Pitchhireddy. He has further contended that the said

Pitchhireddy was in need of money i.e. family expenses and he received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as full and final amount from the plaintiff on 01-03-2021 under

Ex.A1 and transferred the suit promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and transfer order was endorsed on the back side of promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Podili and so, the plaintiff is entitled to claim right against the defendant. He has further contended that after transferred endorsement, the plaintiff approached the defendant personally on several times and requested to make arrange the payment, but the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff and the defendant has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment of the above said promissory note debt on 20-07-2021, but the same cheque was dishonored by Bank on 04-09-2021 and the defendant is having sufficient means and capacity to realize the amount to the plaintiff, but the defendant wantonly and intentionally avoiding to make payment having an intention to harass the plaintiff and so, the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit. He has further contended that to prove the case of the plaintiff,the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 and the plaintiff further got examined one

Gunturi Ptichhireddy as PW2 and one Sanneboina Sreeramulu as PW3 and one

Pothuraju Srinu as PW4. He has further contended that the defendant failed to

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

6 prove his plea. He has further contended that the evidences of PW1 to PW4 are not shattered. Hence, the plaintiff counsel prays the Hon’ble court to decree the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from one Gunturi Pitchireddy and never executed promissory note in favor of Pitchireddy on 10-09-2018. He has further contended that the plaintiff has forcibly taken the promissory note by way of threatening the defendant without any cash consideration passed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and the same promissory note was filled in the name of one Gunturi Pitchireddy who the close associate of the plaintiff and again the plaintiff created transfer endorsement order in his favor from Gunturi Pitchireddy and got filed this false suit to harass the defendant. He has further contended that there is no passing of consideration of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff to the said Gunturi Pitchireddy under

Ex.A2. He has further contended that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend huge amount to the defendant and the defendant has no necessity to borrow huge amount from the plaintiff as he is working as hostel warden. He has further contended that the plaintiff has filed this false suit to harass the defendant and to get wrongful gain and so, this suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and to prove the same the defendant examined himself as DW1. The evidence of

DW1 is not shattered. Hence the defendant counsel prayed this court to dismiss this suit.

iii) Issue No.1 casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 was duly executed by the defendant in favor of Gunturi Pitchireddy by borrowing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10-09-2018 and the said Gunturi Pitchireddy has transferred Ex.A1 to the plaintiff by receiving an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 01-03-

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

7 2021. To prove the legal burden of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 and A2. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 and deposed that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from

Gunturi Pitchhireddy on 10-09-2018 agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. to him or to his order on demand. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of Gunturi

Pitchhireddy. On perusal of Ex.A2, it is seen that it is an endorsement of transfer order dt.01-03-2021 which shows that Gunturi Pitchhireddy has received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of Ex.A1 promissory note debt from the plaintiff and transferred Ex.A1 in favour of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that the defendant has got acquaintance with plaintiff when he was working at hostel guntur.

It is further elicited from PW1 that Ex.A1 was executed at the house of Gunturu

Pichireddy in the presence of him, Gunturu Pichireddy, the defendant, S. Sriramulu,

Ch. Srinu. It is further elicited from PW1 that it took 30 minutes of time to scribe

Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant called him and requested him to scribe Ex.A1 as his hand got injured. It is further elicited from PW1 that

PW2 is doing cultivation. It is further elicited from PW1 that PW2 met him 10 days prior to Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that he has lent Rs.7,00,000/- to PW2 without calculating interest for Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that PW2 scribed Ex.A2 in the presence of P. Srinu at his house on 01.03.2021 at 08.00 am.

PW1 denied the suggestion that he has not lent Rs.7,00,000/- to PW2 under Ex.A2.

It is further elicited from PW1 that he has filed cheque bounce case against the defendant and another money suit. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant salary was attached to EP.No.28/2016 on the file of SCJ court, Darsi.

On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

8 material was culled out from the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the defendant.

iv)To further discharge the plaintiff’s initial burden, the plaintiff got examined one Gunturi Pitchhireddy as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW2 has further stated in his chief affidavit that Gunturi Pitchhireddy has received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of promissory note amount with interest from the plaintiff on 01-03-2021 and transferred the promissory note dt.10-09-2018 in favour of the plaintiff and the said endorsement of transfer order was scribed by him on 01- 03-2021 at Podili Village and P. Srinu has attested the said order. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that he know the defendant from the year 2015 when he went to hostel to join his children. PW2 denied the suggestion that the defendant never worked as Warden at hostel in podili. It is further elicited from PW2 that Ex.A1 was executed at his house in the presence of him, PW1, the defendant, S. Sriramulu, Ch. Srinu. It is further elicited from PW2 that it took 30 minutes of time to scribe Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW2 that Ex.A2 was executed at the house of PW1 on 01.03.2021 at 08.00 am. It is further elicited from

PW2 that they got legal advise from the lawyer and executed Ex.A2. It is further elicited from PW2 that he has not got issued legal notice to the defendant. PW2 denied the suggestion that the defendant never demanded me to lend money. It is further elicited from PW2 that he has not calculated interest of Ex.A1 and as he was in need of Rs.7,00,000/-, he has borrowed the said amount from PW1. It is further elicited from PW2 that Ex.A2 is not valid in the eye of law. It is further elicited from

PW2 that Ex.A2 was executed in the presence of P. Srinu. It is further elicited from

PW2 that he know PW2 since his childhood. It is further elicited from PW2 that he doesn’t know about the civil suits and complaints filed by the defendant against

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

9 plaintiff. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendant.

v)To further discharge the plaintiff’s initial burden, the plaintiff got examined one Sanneboina Sreeramulu as PW3 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW3 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW3 has further stated in his chief affidavit that he attested the suit promissory note as 2nd attestor on 10- 09-2018 and the defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from Gunturi Pitchhireddy and executed the suit promissory note in his favour. During the cross examination of

PW3, it is elicited from PW3 that PW2 is the niece of PW1. Ex.A1 was executed at 08.00 am in the presence of the defendant, him, Ch.Srinu, PW1 at the house of

PW2. It is further elicited from PW3 that he doesn’t know the plea taken by the defendant and he has not mentioned the plea of the defendant in his chief affidavit. It is further elicited from PW3 that he know the defendant. It is further elicited from PW3 that he used to supply the milk for the defendant. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW3, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW3 on behalf of the defendant.

vi)To further discharge the plaintiff’s initial burden, the plaintiff got examined one Pothuraju Srinu as PW4 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW4 is nothing but the replica of the plaint.PW4 has further stated in his chief affidavit that Gunturi Pitchhireddy has received an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of promissory note amount with interest from the plaintiff on 01-03-2021 and transferred the promissory note dt.10-09-2018 in favour of the plaintiff and the said endorsement of transfer order was attested by him on

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

10 01-03-2021 at Podili Village. During the cross examination of PW4, it is elicited from

PW4 that he signed in the promissory note. PW4 adds that he signed on the back side of promissory note. It is further elicited from PW4 that PW2 borrowed

Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and transferred the promissory note to the plaintiff and he has mentioned the same in Ex.A2. It is further elicited from PW4 that Ex.

A2 was executed at podili 4 ½ yeas back scribed by PW2 on the dictation of the plaintiff. It is further elicited from PW4 that he is resident of Nandipalem village. It is further elicited from PW4 that PW2 called him to the house of the plaintiff. It is further elicited from PW4 that he doesn’t know the transaction of Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW4 that he has not tried to know about the transaction of

Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW4 that he doesn’t know the date of Ex.A2. It is further elicited from PW4 that he has good relationship with the plaintiff. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW4, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW4 on behalf of the defendant.

vii) The main defence taken by the defendant is that “there was no passing of consideration between the plaintiff and him under Ex.A1 and he never executed

Ex.A1 in favor of Gunturi Pitchhireddy and the plaintiff forcibily taken the promissory note by threatening him without any cash consideration and the plaintiff never gave an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to Gunturi Pitchhireddy and the plaintiff created Ex.A2 and got filed this false suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant”.

To prove the defence taken by the defendant, the defendant examined himself as

DW1 and DW1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of her written statement. During the cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that D. Hymavathi has not filed any case against him. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that D. Hymavathi has filed any case against him. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff obtained empty 10 promissory notes and 10 cheques

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

11 from him 10 years back. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff has filed 3 to 4 suits against him. It is further elicited from DW1 that OS No.14/2022 which is filed against him is decreed and he has preferred appeal. It is further elicited from

DW1 that he has not got issued legal notice requesting the plaintiff to return back the promissory notes. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has not given police complaint against the plaintiff alleging that he has forcibly taken promissory notes from him. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has not conducted panchayat with the village elders for taking back empty promissory notes given by him. It is further elicited from DW1 that he is government employee. It is further elicited from DW1 that he will sign in the promissory note after reading the promissory note only. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by DW1. As seen from the evidence of DW1 that DW1 testified that D. Hymavathi has not filed any case against him and he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit that D. Hymavathi has filed any case against him but in fact, DW1 has stated in his written statement and in his chief affidavit that D. Hymavathi filed Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC petition against him before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Darsi. DW1 has not at all stated in the written statement and in his chief affidavit that the plaintiff obtained empty 10 promissory notes and 10 cheques from him 10 years back. If really the plaintiff obtained the said promissory notes, then what prevented the defendant to give legal notice or to give police complaint against the plaintiff alleging that he has forcibly taken the promissory notes from the defendant. The evidence of DW1 is not corroborated with the contents of his chief affidavit and the evidence of DW1 is not consistent and the said contradiction makes the contentions of the defendant dis believable.

viii) On perusal of entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the evidences of PW2 to PW4 goes in the similar lines with the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 and

A2. Nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examinations of PW1 to

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

12

PW4. Except occular evidence of the defendant, there is no cogent evidence to prove that the plaintiff forcibly taken promissory note from the defendant by threatening him and as such, the contentions of the defendant is not believable to believe that there was no passing of consideration between him and PW2 under

Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- from PW2 on 10-09-2018 and executed Ex.A1 in favour of PW2 and

PW2 received Rs.7,00,000/- from the plaintiff and PW2 transferred Ex.A1 to the plaintiff under Ex.A2 through his evidence and ocular evidences of PW2 to PW4.

Ex.A2 clearly proves that PW2 has transferred Ex.A1 in favour of PW1 by receiving an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on 01-03-2021. The defendant has failed to prove his legal burden and it can be presumed that the defendant admitted his signatures in

Ex.A1 and Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. As per the contentions of the plaintiff, it seems that the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay the debt amount due under Ex.A1 but the defendant failed to repay the same. The evidences of PW1 to PW4 coupled with Exs.A1 and A2 are unrebutted by the defendant. Hence in view of the above discussions, this court has come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for.

Hence Issue No.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the above discussion under Issue No.1 and in view of answering Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence this issue is answered accordingly.

9) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of answering Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit has to be decreed.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

13

10) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of

Rs.8,59,333/- along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.

till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum

– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff :

PW1: Dornala Konda Reddy PW2: Gunturi Pitchhireddy PW3: Sanneboina Sreeramulu PW4: Pothuraju Srinu For defendant:

DW1 : Mekala Hari Babu

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Promisorry note dt.10.09.2018.

Ex.A2: Endorsement of transfer order dt.01.03.2021.

For defendant: NIL.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha) CJ(JD) – CUM-

JMFC,PDL.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

1

APPR130005452021Presented on : 28-07-2021 Registered on : 28-07-2021 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 9 months, 15 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM - JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PODILI.

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class , Podili.

Tuesday , the 12 th Day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 159 of 2021

Between:

Nidadhavolu Srinu S/o Rama Rao, Aged about 40 Years, Hindu, Business, R/o Pothavaram

Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff.

And:

Mundlamuri Siva Kumar S/o Subbarao, Aged about 35 Years, Hindu, Tiffen Hotel, Resident of Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. …Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 24-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Pokala Venkateswarlu,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

2

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.2,69,222/- with interest at with future interest from the date of the suit till realization and for costs of the suit.

2) IN A NUTSHELL, THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS

FOLLOWS :-

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.86,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.12.2018 and again the defendant has borrowed an amount of

Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-12-2018 for fulfilling his family necessities and duly executed ‘A and B’ promissory notes on the same day at Pothavaram Village,

Podili Mandal in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable either to or the order of the plaintiff on demand.

Subsequently, the plaintiff being in need of money demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the entire debt amount under the promissory notes but the defendant failed to repay the debt amount due under suit ‘A and B’ promissory notes. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money. Hence the suit.

3)The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the defendant and the plaintiff are known to each other from 6 years. The plaintiff is doing finance business and unauthorized chits business at Pothavaram Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. Often the plaintiff go to the defendant house to meet the defendant, in the said circumstances, the plaintiff took advantage of the defendant innocence, might have been fabricated and created those documents i.e., two suit promissory notes and forged the defendant signatures in the promissory notes by the plaintiff for unlawful gain. The

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

3 defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff on 03.12.2018 for an amount of Rs.86,000/- and on 16.12.2018, for an amount of Rs.80,000/-, and the defendant never executed two suit promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff at

Pothavaram Village, Podili Mandal. So, it is clear that the plaintiff might have been fabricated and created two suit promissory notes, forged the defendant signatures to get unlawful gain. The plaintiff never demanded the defendant on several times to discharge the debt covered under the above said two suit promissory notes and the plaintiff never issued legal notice to the defendant. So, it is clear that the plaintiff might have been fabricated and created two suit promissory notes. Basing on the above said forged documents i.e. two suit promissory notes will be fastened against the defendant. There is no necessity to borrow any amounts from the plaintiff as the defendant is working as driver. As such there is no cause of action to file the suit.

There is no merits in the suit. The suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek any relief in the suit. In the view of the above said circumstances, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence it prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit promissory notes are

true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether the plaintiff is having cause of action to file the suit?

3.Whether the the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of the suit amount as prayed

for ?

4.To what relief?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff by name Nidadhavolu examined

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

4 himself as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 and the plaintiff further got examined one Darimadugu Hanumantha Rao as PW2 and Kokkeramital Srinu as

PW3. On behalf of defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE Nos .1 and 2:

These two issues are taken up together for common determination and to avoid repetition of discussion.

i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has borrowed Rs.86,000/- from the plaintiff on 03.12.2018 and again the defendant has borrowed Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-12-2018 for fulfilling his family necessities and duly executed ‘A and B’ promissory notes on the same day at Pothavaram Village, Podili Mandal in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. payable either to or the order of the plaintiff on demand and subsequently, the plaintiff being in need of money demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the entire debt amount under the promissory notes but the defendant failed to repay the debt amount and so the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of the amount due under the promissory notes. He has further contended that to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Exs.A1 and A2 and the plaintiff further got examined one Darimadugu Hanumantha Rao as PW2 and

Kokkeramital Srinu as PW3 the evidences of PW1 to PW3 are not shattered. He has further contended that the defendant failed to prove his plea. Hence, the plaintiff counsel prayed this court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

5 ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the plaintiff is doing finance business and unauthorized chits business at Pothavaram Village in Podili Mandal, Prakasam District and often the plaintiff came to the house of the defendant to meet him and in that circumstances, the plaintiff took advantage of innocence of the defendant, fabricated and created suit promissory notes and forged the signatures of the defendant in Exs.A1 and A2 and filed this false suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant. He has further contended that the defendant never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and no consideration was passed between the plaintiff and the defendant under Exs.A1 and A2 and as such, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He has further contended that to prove the plea taken by the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and the evidence of DW1 is not shattered by the plaintiff.

Hence the defendant counsel prayed this court to dismiss this suit.

iii)Issue Nos.1 and 2 casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has duly executed suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 in his favour by borrowing an amounts of Rs.86,000/- on 03-12-2018 and Rs.80,000/- on 16-12- 2018 and the same is binding on the defendant and the plaintiff has got cause of action to file this suit. To prove the legal burden under Issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination- in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.86,000/- from him on 03-12-2018 and executed suit ‘A’ promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. PW1 further exhibited Ex.A2 and deposed that the defendant borrowed

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

6 an amount of Rs.80,000/- from him on 16-12-2018 and executed suit ‘B’ promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. On perusal of

Ex.A2, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited from PW1 that he know the defendant since 10 years. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant borrowed Rs.86,000/- on 03.12.2018 and again borrowed Rs.80,000/- on 16.12.2018. It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not filed any proof to show that he had money prior to 03.12.2018. It is further elicited from PW1 that he saved money prior to 03.12.2018. It is further elicited from PW1 that the denominations are Rs.500/- notes and 3 bundles for Rs.86,000/- (Rs.50,000/- in 1 bundle

Rs.30,000/-in one bundle and Rs.6,000/- in one bundle). PW1 further denied the suggestion that Rs.500/- notes were banned by the Central Government and so he has not lent any money to the defendant in the year 2018. PW1 adds that the defendant himself scribed Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW1 that he doesn’t know the color of ink used in Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW1 that D. Hanumantharao has signed in Exs.A1 and A2 at 1st instance and then

K.Srinu has signed in Exs.A1 andA2 as attestors. It is further elicited from PW1 that

Exs.A1 and A2 were executed at Markapuram Adda road. It is further elicited from

PW1 that he is not an income tax assesee. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant has signed in English in Exs.A1 and A2. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the signature of the defendant is different in Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW1 that he doesn’t remember the dates when he requested the defendant for repayment of debt amount orally. It is further elicited from PW1 that he has not got issued legal notice to the defendant. It is further elicited from

PW1 that he doesn’t have objection to send Exs.A1 and A2 for expert opinion to compare the signature of the defendant. It is further elicited from PW1 that it took 10 minutes of time to execute Exs.A1 and A2. The other cross examination is of

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

7 suggestions denied by PW1. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the defendant.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got examined one

Darimadugu Hanumantha Rao as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW2 has further stated in his chief affidavit that the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ promissory notes were scribed by the defendant the same was attested by him and one K.Srinu. During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that he know the plaintiff and defendant since 9 years and he is doing lorry business and he is having license. It is further elicited from PW2 that the defendant borrowed Rs.86,000/- on 03.12.2018 and again borrowed Rs.80,000/- on 16.12.2018. It is further elicited from PW2 that the plaintiff earned money from the hotel business. It is further elicited from PW2 that

Exs.A1 and A2 were executed at the hotel of the plaintiff. It is further elicited from

PW2 that the hotel is situated at Markapur adda road. It is further elicited from PW2 that the defendant brought the promissory note. It is further elicited from PW2 that it took 10 minutes of time to execute Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW2 that blue ink was used in Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW2 that the defendant has not signed in the scriber column of Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW2 that he has attested in Exs.A1 and A2 as 1st attestor. It is further elicited from PW2 that the defendant called him to act as attestor. It is further elicited from PW2 that the defendant has signed on the stamp and below the stamp in English in Exs.A1 and A2. PW2 denied the suggestion that the signature of the defendant is different in Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW2 that

Rs.50,000/- bundle and Rs.36,000/- bundle was given to the defendant. The other

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

8 cross examination is of suggestions denied by PW2. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendant.

v)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff got examined one

Kokkeramitla Srinu as PW3 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW3 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW3 has further stated in his chief affidavit that the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ promissory notes were scribed by the defendant the same was attested by him and one D. Hanumantharao. During the cross examination of PW3, it is elicited from PW3 that he know the plaintiff and defendant since 10 years and he is doing tent house business. It is further elicited from PW3 that the defendant borrowed Rs.86,000/- on 03.12.2018 and again borrowed Rs.80,000/- on 16.12.2018. It is further elicited from PW3 that the plaintiff earned money from the hotel business. It is further elicited from PW3 that the denominations are Rs.500/- notes. It is further elicited from PW3 that Exs.A1 and A2 were executed at the hotel of the plaintiff. It is further elicited from PW3 that it took 10 minutes of time to execute Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW3 that the hotel is situated at

Markapur adda road. It is further elicited from PW3 that he has attested in Exs.A1 and A2 as 2nd attestor. It is further elicited from PW3 that blue ink was used in

Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW3 that the defendant himself scribed

Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW3 that the defendant has not signed in the scriber column of Exs.A1 and A2. It is further elicited from PW3 that the defendant borrowed money for family expenses. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by PW3. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW3, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW3 on behalf of the defendant.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

9 vi) The main defence taken by the defendant is that “he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff and he never executed Exs.A1 and A2 in favor of the plaintiff and his signatures were forged in Exs.A1 and A2 by the plaintiff with the help of attestor and scriber by taking advantage of the defendant innocence”. To prove the defence taken by the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and DW1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of his written statement. During the cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that he completed degree and he is a car driver. It is further elicited from DW1 that he know the plaintiff since 7 years. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has done hotel business previously. It is further elicited from DW1 that the plaintiff is doing hotel business at Pothavaram village. It is further elicited from DW1 that he put his signature in English. It is further elicited from DW1 that he know PW2 and PW3. It is further elicited from DW1 that it is not his signature in Exs.A1 and A2 which is confronted to him. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by DW1. The evidence of DW1 shows that

DW1 is denying his signatures in Exs.A1 and A2.

vi) On perusal of entire evidences adduced by the plaintiff and defendant, the evidenced of PW2 and PW3 goes in the similar lines as of the evidence of

PW1. Nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examinations of PW1 to

PW3 on behalf of the defendant. The defendant failed to prove his legal burden i.e., his signatures were forged in Exs.A1 and A2 by the plaintiff. Mere mentioning in the written statement and in the chief affidavit of the defendant that his signatures were forged by the plaintiff in Exs.A1 and A2 by taking advantage of the defendant innocence is not sufficient unless the said allegations are proved by the defendant with reliable and cogent evidence. Mere denying during the cross examination that it is not his signatures in Exs.A1 and A2 is not sufficient to believe the contentions

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

10 of the defendant. There are no cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the defendant to believe his defence and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the evidence of DW1 alone is not cupious to believe the stand taken by him. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant executed Exs.A1 and A2 in his favor through his evidence and ocular evidences of PW2 and PW3. The defendant failed to take steps to prove that his signatures were forged in Exs.A1 and A2. If really the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant in Exs.A1 and A2, then what prevented the defendant to take steps to send Exs.A1 and A2 to Handwriting Expert to compare his signatures with Exs.A1 and A2 though PW1 has testified in his oral testimony that he has no objection to send Exs.A1 and A2 for expert opinion and as such it cannot be believed that the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendant in Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant executed Exs.A1 and A2 by borrowing an amounts of Rs.86,000/- on 03-12-2018 and Rs.80,000/- on 16-12-2018 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a by exhibiting Ex.A1 and through the ocular evidence of PW2 and the plaintiff very well discharged his legal burden. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that cause of action arose when the defendant borrowed an amounts of Rs.86,000/- on 03-12- 2018 and Rs.80,000/- on 16-12-2018 from the plaintiff for his business and family expenses and executed promissory note at Podili Village of Podili Mandal while agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. to the plaintiff and later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff but the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the promissory note executed at Podili Village and Podili Mandal within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. In view of the above discussion, it is manifest that the defendant has borrowed an amounts of

Rs.86,000/- on 03-12-2018 and Rs.80,000/- on 16-12-2018 and duly executed

Exs.A1 and A2 in favor of the plaintiff and as the defendant failed to repay the debt

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

11 amount due under Exs.A1 and A2 either on the maturity date or upon demand, this failure to pay constitutes a breach of contract, giving the plaintiff who is the holder of the note the right to sue for recovery of owed amount and so the plaintiff has got cause of action to file this suit. Hence in view of the above discussions, this court has come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the discussion under Issue Nos.1 and 2 and in view of answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for and this issue is answered accordingly.

9) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issues Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit has to be decreed.

10) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,69,222/- along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal sum of Rs.1,66,000/- under suit ‘A and B’ promissory notes from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

12 (Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum

– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff :

PW1: Nidadhavolu Srinu

PW2: Darimadugu Hanumantha Rao

PW3: Kokkeramitla Srinu

For defendant:

DW1: Mundlamuri Siva Kumar

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.03.12.2018. Ex.A2: Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.16.12.2018.

For defendant:

NIL

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

CJ(JD) – CUM-

JMFC,PDL.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

1

APPR130009642023Presented on : 04-10-2023 Registered on : 04-10-2023 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 2 years, 7 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM - JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PODILI.

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class , Podili.

Tuesday , the 12 th Day of May, 2026

O.S.No. 275 of 2023

Between:

Vandavasi Rama Brahmam S/o Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged about 46 Years, Hindu, Business, Resident of

Gangapalem Village, Marripudi Mandal, Prakasam

District. … Plaintiff

And:

Thoka Surendra S/o Ramulu, Aged about 40 Years,

Hindu, Business, R/o Surendra Electrical Shop,

Opposite Old Grama Panchayat Office, Chinna

Bus Stand, Podili Town and Mandal, Prakasam

District. …Defendant.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

2

This suit came before this Court on 30-03-2026for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Nagaraju, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M. Khadar Vali,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,53,950/- with future interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization and for the costs of the suit.

2) IN A NUTSHELL, THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS

FOLLOWS :-

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01-10-2020 for fulfilling his family necessities and duly executed a promissory note on the same day at Gangapalem Village, Marripudi Mandal in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. payable either to or the order of the plaintiff on demand. Subsequently, the plaintiff being in need of money demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the entire debt amount under the promissory note with interest orally and the defendant went on postponing the same with a view of evasion. So the defendant is liable to discharge the above said suit promissory note to the plaintiff.

Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money. Hence the suit.

3)The defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff is running electrical shop at

Vasavi Complex in Podili Village as well as the defendant is working as a clerk in defendant electrical shop since 2015. At the time of joining in plaintiff electrical shop, the plaintiff sought for guarantor for the defendant default duties for a period 3 of 5 years. Then the defendant executed suit promissory note as a guarantee to the plaintiff. The plaintiff agreed to give salary of Rs.8,000/- per month to the defendant but the plaintiff did not pay the salary to the defendant regularly. Later the defendant demanded his salary from the plaintiff. The plaintiff never given the suit promissory note amount and the defendant did not receive suit promissory note amount and so that there is no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant and there is no consideration and no valid contract. The suit promissory note is not valid, null and void. The suit promissory note debt is not enforceable debt.

Moreover, the plaintiff did not give the salary for 2 years i.e., Rs.3,60,000/- till as on the date and the defendant demanded his balance of salary from the plaintiff, then the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant, filed the suit against the defendant for unlawful gain from the defendant with help of attestors. The attestors are followers of the plaintiff and so the suit is not maintainable in law. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant with malafide intention and to harass the defendant.

The cause of action stated in the plaint is false. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Hence it prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true,

valid and binding on the defendant ?

2.Whether the defendant duly executed the

suit promissory note in favour of the

plaintiff?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for?

4.To what relief ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff by name Jaganadham Dibbaiah examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1, and the plaintiff further got 4 examined one Vandavasi Venkata Subbarao as PW2. On behalf of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE NOs .1 and 2:

These two issues are taken up together for common determination and to avoid repetition of discussion.

i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 01-10-2020 for fulfilling his family necessities and duly executed a promissory note on the same day at Gangapalem Village, Marripudi Mandal in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. payable either to or the order of the plaintiff on demand and subsequently, the plaintiff being in need of money demanded the defendant on several occasions to discharge the entire debt amount under the promissory note with interest orally and the defendant went on postponing the same with a view of evasion and so, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money. He has further contended that to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1, and the plaintiff further got examined one Vandavasi Venkata Subbarao as PW2 and the evidences of PW1 and PW2 are not shattered. He has further contended that the defendant failed to prove his plea. Hence, the plaintiff counsel prayed this court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the plaintiff is running electrical shop at Vasavi Complex in Podili

Village as well as the defendant is working as a clerk in the plaintiff electrical shop since 2015 and at the time of joining in plaintiff electrical shop, the plaintiff sought 5 for guarantor for the defendant default duties for a period of 05 years and in that regard, the defendant executed suit promissory note as a guarantor to the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed to give salary of Rs.8,000/- to the defendant per month but the plaintiff did not pay the salary to the defendant regularly and later, the defendant demanded his salary from the plaintiff and for that, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant, took advantage of the suit promissory note and filed this false suit against the defendant to get unlawful gain. He has further contended that there is no passing of consideratin under Ex.A1 between the plaintiff and the defendant and so, this suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He has further contended that to prove the same, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and the evidence of DW1 is not shattered. Hence the defendant counsel prayed this court to dismiss this suit.

iii)Issue Nos.1 and 2 casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has executed suit promissory note in his favour by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 01-10-2020. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 01- 10-2020 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On perusal of

Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited from PW1 that the defendant is from his village. It is further elicited from PW1 that he is running kirana shop and electrical shop. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant was working as Gumastha in his electrical shop at the time of borrowing money and he got monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. It is further elicited from PW1 that he is not maintaining salary bills in his shop. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by PW1. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW1 6 on behalf of the defendant.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one

Vandavasi Venkata Subbarao as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW2 has further stated in his chief affidavit that the suit promissory note was scribed by the defendant with his own hand writing and the same was attested by him and one V.V.Pavan Kumar.

During the cross examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that he know the defendant since his date of birth and the defendant worked as Gumastha under plaintiff for 2 to 3 years and he doesn’t know whether the defendant worked under the plaintiff during corona period. It is further elicited from PW2 that Ex.A1 was executed at the house of the plaintiff in between 10.00 to 11.00 am for an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- on 01.10.2020 at the rate of 18% p.a. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by PW2. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of

PW2 on behalf of the defendant.

v) The main defence taken by the defendant is that “there was no passing of consideration between the plaintiff and him under Ex.A1 and the defendant has given the suit promissory note to the plaintiff towards guarantee for his job as clerk in the electrical shop of the plaintiff as demanded by the plaintiff”. To prove the defence taken by the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and DW1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of his written statement. During the cross examination of

DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that he is running electrical shop and he studied up to 10th standard. It is further elicited from DW1 that he put his signature in English. It is further elicited from DW1 that the ink of contents of Ex.A1 and the ink of his signature in Ex.A1 is one and the same ink. It is further elicited from DW1 that it is his signature in Ex.A1. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has not got issued 7 legal notice to the plaintiff alleging that the plaintiff did not give the salary i.e.,

Rs.3,60,000/- for a term of 2 years to him inspite of demands made by him. It is further elicited from DW1 that he has not conducted any panchayath with the plaintiff before the village elders for giving his salary. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by DW1. As seen from the evidence of DW1 that DW1 admitted his signatures in Ex.A1. If really the plaintiff is liable to give salary for a period of two years to the defendant, then what prevented the defendant to issue legal notice to the plaintiff requesting him to pay his salary. The evidence of DW1 shows that DW1 has not got issued legal notice to the plaintiff with regard to his salary and DW1 has not even tried to conduct panchayath with the plaintiff in the presence of elders for giving his salary. Moreover, the defendant has not filed any document to show that the plaintiff has to pay his salary for a period of two years i.e., Rs.3,60,000/-. Hence, it creates doubt in the mind of the court if really the plaintiff has not given two years of salary to the defendant and the defendant has given the suit promissory note to the plaintiff towards guarantee of his job as clerk in the electrical shop of the plaintiff.

vi) On perusal of entire evidences adduced on both the sides, the evidence of PW1 goes in the similar lines with the documents exhibited by him and with the evidence of PW2. The evidence of DW1 shows that DW1 admitted his signatures in Ex.A1. Mere mentioning in the written statement and in the chief affidavit of the defendant that no consideration was passed between him and the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and the defendant has given the suit promissory note to the plaintiff towards guarantee of his job as clerk in the electrical shop of the plaintiff is not sufficient unless the said allegations are proved by the defendant with reliable and cogent evidence. There are no cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the defendant to believe his defence and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the occular evidence of DW1 alone is not cupious to believe the stand taken by him. The evidence of DW1 shows that DW1 has not taken any steps for getting salary from the plaintiff and take back the promissory note from the plaintiff which 8 he has given the same towards guarantee and it is not believable that the defendant has given the suit promissory note to the plaintiff towards guarantee of his job as clerk in the electrical shop of the plaintiff and no consideration was passed between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 in his favor through his evidence and ocular evidence of PW2 and the plaintiff very well discharged his legal burden. The defendant failed to discharge his legal burden. Hence in view of the above discussions, this court has come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

8) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of the above discussion under Issue Nos.1 and 2 and in view of answering Issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence this issue is answered in favor of the plaintiff.

9) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of answering Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit has to be decreed.

10) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,53,950/- along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization.

9

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum

– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff :

PW1: Vandavasi Rama Brahmam

PW2: Vandavasi Venkata Subbarao

For defendant:

DW1: Thoka Surendra

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original promissory note for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff dt.01-10-2020.

For defendant:

NIL

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

CJ(JD) – CUM-

JMFC,PDL.

1

APPR130000392022Presented on : 31-01-2022 Registered on : 31-01-2022 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 3 months, 12 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM - JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PODILI.

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class , Podili.

Tuesday , the 12 th Day of May, 2026

O.S.No.20 of 2022

Between:

Gopu Venkateswara Reddy S/o Venkatanarayana reddy, Aged about 38 Years, Hindu, Cultivation,

R/o Nagarajkunta Village, Konakanamitla Mandal,

Prakasam District. …Plaintiff.

And:

Edara Tirupathi Reddy S/o Narisi Reddy, Aged about 55 Years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o Nagarajkunta

Village and Post, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam

District. …Defendant.

This suit came before this Court on 23-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri U. Lakshmi

Reddy, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

2

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.1,50,500/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and for costs of the suit.

2) IN A NUTSHELL, THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS

FOLLOWS :-

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04- 2019 from the plaintiff for the sake of his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and executed the suit promissory note on the same day in favour of the plaintiff at Nagarajukunta Village. Subsequently, the plaintiff demanded so many times to repay the same but the defendant failed to repay the same and wantonly postponing the same. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit against the defendant for recovery of the suit debts, costs and subsequent interest. Hence the suit.

3)The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that there is no cause of action against the defendant and the defendant did not borrow any amount on 11-04-2019 as alleged in the plaint and there is no necessity for the defendant to borrow any amount from the plaintiff. There are disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant in some other aspects and in that regard, the plaintiff challenged the defendant, created and fabricated the suit promissory note with the help of kith and kin in order to obtain wrongfull gain from the defendant. The plaintiff forged the suit promissory note with the help of attestor and scriber. Hence it prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

3

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true,

valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is rank forged one ?

3. Whether there is any cause of action to the plaintiff in filing the suit ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

recovery of the suit amount as prayed

for?

5. To what relief?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff by name Gopu Venkateswara

Reddy examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1, and the plaintiff further got examined one Gopu Rama Krishna Reddy as PW2. On behalf of defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1. No documents were marked on behalf of the defendant.

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE NOs .1 to 3:

These three issues are taken up together for common determination and to avoid repetition of discussion.

i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04-2019 from the plaintiff for the sake of his family expenses and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and executed the suit promissory note on the same day in favour of the

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

4 plaintiff at Nagarajukunta Village and subsequently, the plaintiff demanded so many times to repay the same but the defendant failed to repay the same and wantonly postponing the same and so the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit. He has further contended that to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as

PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 and further examined one Gopu Rama Krishna Reddy as

PW2. He has further contended that the defendant failed to prove his plea. Hence, the plaintiff counsel prayed this court to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

ii) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant has contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and there is no necessity for the defendant to borrow money from the plaintiff. He has further contended that dispute arose between the plaintff and the defendant on some other aspects and in that regard, the plaintiff challenged the defendant, created and fabricated the suit promissory note with the help of his henchmens, forged the thumb impression of the defendant in Ex.A1 and filed this false suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant and there is no cause of action against the defendant and so, the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He has further contended that to prove the contentions of the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and the evidence of DW1 is not shattered. Hence the defendant counsel prayed this court to dismiss this suit.

iii)Issue No.1 casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has executed suit promissory note in his favour by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04-2019. Issue No.2 casts legal burden on the defendant to prove that his thumb impressions were forged in Ex.A1 by the plaintiff. Issue No.3 casts legal burden plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff has got cause of action to file this suit. To prove the same, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

5 and as such the examination in chief of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint.

In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 and deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 11-04-2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited from PW1 that PW2 is his brother. It is further elicited from PW1 that he is having property dispute with the defendant. It is further elicited from PW1 that Ex.A1 was scribed on 11.04.2019 by Eedara

Venkata Swamy Reddy S/o. Eedara Thirupathi Reddy who is the son of the defendant at his house. It is further elicited from PW1 that PW2 and Lakshmi reddy were present at the time of execution of Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that

Avuluri Lakshmi Reddy has signed in Ex.A1 at 1st instance and then PW2 has signed. It is further elicited from PW1 that the denominations are Rs.500/- notes and he has given 2 bundles. It is further elicited from PW1 that they all used one pen in Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant is an illiterate. It is further elicited from PW1 that he got issued legal notice to the defendant and he has filed the same in this case. The other cross examination is of suggestins denied by PW1. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the defendant.

iv)To further discharge his initial burden, the plaintiff examined one Gopu

Rama Krishna Reddy as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW2 further stated in his chief affidavit that the defendant duly executed the promissory note in favour of the plaintiff in his presence at Nagarajukunta Village, Konakanamitla Mandal, Prakasam District and he witnessed the suit promissory note and signed on it.During the cross

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

6 examination of PW2, it is elicited from PW2 that PW1 is his own brother and he studied up to 7th standard. It is further elicited from PW2 that Ex.A1 was executed on 11.04.2019 and scribed by Eedara Venkata Swamy Reddy S/o. Eedara

Thirupathi Reddy who is the son of the defendant at PW1 house. It is further elicited from PW2 that they have used only one pen in Ex.A1. It is further elicited from

PW2 that Avuluri Lakshmi Reddy has signed in Ex.A1 at 1st instance and then he has signed. It is further elicited from PW2 that they doesn’t have property dispute with the defendant. It is further elicited from PW2 that the denominations are

Rs.500/- notes and PW1 has given 2 bundles. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by PW2. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW2, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW2 on behalf of the defendant.

v) The main defence taken by the defendant is that “there was no passing of consideration between the plaintiff and him under Ex.A1 and he never executed

Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff colluded with attestors and scriber, and forged the thumb impression of the defendant in Ex.A1 and created the said promissory note and filed this false suit due to some disputes arose between the plaintiff and him on some other aspects and the plaintiff developed bore grudges against the defendant”. To prove the defence taken by the defendant, the defendant examined himself as DW1 and DW1 filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and chief affidavit of DW1 is nothing but the replica of her written statement.

During the cross examination of DW1, it is elicited from DW1 that he is doing cultivation. It is further elicited from DW1 that he is having land to an extent of

Ac.2.67 cents. It is further elicited from DW1 that he is raising red gram crop and other crops in his land. The other cross examination is of suggestions denied by

DW1. The evidence of DW1 shows that DW1 is denying his thumb impression in

Ex.A1.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

7 vi) On perusal of entire evidences adduced by the plaintiff and defendant, the evidence of PW2 goes in the similar lines as of the evidence of PW1. Nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examinations of PW1 and PW2 on behalf of the defendant. The defendant failed to prove his legal burden i.e., his thumb impressions were forged in Ex.A1 by the plaintiff with the help of his kith and kin.

Mere mentioning in the written statement and in the chief affidavit of the defendant that his thumb impressions were forged by the plaintiff in Ex.A1 due to some dispute arose between him and the plaintiff on some other aspects is not sufficient unless the said allegations are proved by the defendant with reliable and cogent evidence. There are no cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the defendant to believe his defence and to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, the evidence of DW1 alone is not cupious to believe the stand taken by him. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 in his favor through his evidence and ocular evidence of PW2. The defendant failed to take steps to prove that his thumb impressions were forged in Ex.A1. If really the plaintiff forged the thumb impressions of the defendant in Ex.A1, then what prevented the defendant to take steps to send Ex.A1 to Handwriting Expert to compare his thumb impressions with

Ex.A1 and as such it cannot be belived that the plaintiff forged the thumb impressions of the defendant in Ex.A1. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant executed Ex.A1 by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04-2019 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a by exhibiting Ex.A1 and through the ocular evidence of PW2 and the plaintiff very well discharged his legal burden. The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that cause of action arose when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04-2019 from the plaintiff for his business and family expenses and executed promissory note at Podili

Village of Podili Mandal while agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a.

to the plaintiff and later inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff but the defendant did not discharge the amount due under the promissory note executed

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

8 at Podili Village and Podili Mandal within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court. The defendant has contended that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. In view of the above discussion, it is manifest that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-04-2019 and duly executed Ex.A1 in favor of the plaintiff and as the defendant failed to repay the debt amount due under

Ex.A1 either on the maturity date or upon demand, this failure to pay constitutes a breach of contract, giving the plaintiff who is the holder of the note the right to sue for recovery of owed amount and so the plaintiff has got cause of action to file this suit. Hence in view of the above discussions, this court has come to indomitable conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence Issue

No.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue

No.3 is answered against the defendant.

8) ISSUE NO.4:

In view of the above discussion under Issue Nos.1 to 3 and in view of answering Issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No.3 against the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for and this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9) ISSUE NO.5:

In view of answering Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and Issue No.3 against the defendant, the suit has to be decreed.

10) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,500/- along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

9

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum

– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff :

PW1: Gopu Venkateswara Reddy

PW2: Gopu Rama Krishna Reddy

For defendant:

DW1: Edara Thirupathi Reddy

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1 : Promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff

For defendant:

NIL.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

CJ(JD) – CUM-

JMFC, PDL.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

1

APPR130002092022Presented on : 16-04-2022 Registered on : 19-04-2022 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 4 years, 0 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) –

CUM - JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: PODILI.

PRESENT: Ms.V. Sri Prathyusha,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judicial Magistrate of I Class , Podili.

Tuesday , the 12 th Day of May, 2026

O.S.No.94 of 2022

Between:

Thadikamalla Chinna Chenchaiah S/o Kotaiah,

Aged about 78 Years, Hindu, Retired Teacher,

R/o Bank Colony, Viswanadha Puram, Podili

Village, Podili Mandal, Prakasam District. …Plaintiff

And:

Katuri Vijaya Lakshmi W/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 37 Years, Permanent resident of Near Nirmala

Convent, Podili Village and Mandal, Prakasam

District. …Defendant

This suit came before this Court on 30-03-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Ram Mohanrao, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri G. Pedhaiah,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following :-

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

2

JUDGMENT

1) This is a suit filed against the defendant for recovery of an amount of

Rs.5,49,334/- with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the suit amount of till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2) IN A NUTSHELL, THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS

FOLLOWS :-

The defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- for the purpose of her family expenses from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 15.04.2019 in favor of the plaintiff unconditionally undertaking to repay the said sum on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his transferee at Podili. So, the defendant is liable to discharge the debt.

But the defendant failed to discharge the debt in spite of repeated demands and the defendant has not paid the amount to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has been constrained to file this suit to recover the suit debt. Hence the suit.

3)The defendant filed his written statement denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and contended that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. The suit promissory note is originally a blank promissory note. No consideration was passed between the plaintiff and the defendant. Previously, in the year 2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff. At the time of borrowing the amount, the plaintiff has taken two blank promissory notes from the defendant and later, the defendant discharged the amount but the plaintiff did not return two blank promissory notes. The plaintiff has filed this false suit to get wrongful gain by using one of the blank promissory note and filled the columns. Hence it is prayed that the

Hon'ble court may be pleased to dismiss this suit with costs to the defendant.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

3

4)On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the suit promissory note is true,

valid and supported by consideration ?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for ?

3.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for ?

5) During the course of trial, the plaintiff by name Thadikamalla Chinna

Chenchaiah examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1. The plaintiff further got examined one Kanamarlapudi Koteswararao as PW2. The defendant called absent when the matter was called on for cross examination of PW2. No representation on behalf of the defendant. Hence this court treated the cross examination of PW2 as nil. On behalf of the defendant, inspite of availing lot of time, the defendant did not turn up to the court to adduce his evidence. Hence this court treated the defendant evidence as no evidence and closed the evidence of the defendant.

6)Heard both the sides arguments.

7) ISSUE No .1:-

i)The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- for the purpose of her family expenses from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note on 15.04.2019 in favor of the plaintiff unconditionally undertaking to repay the said sum on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his transferee at Podili and so, the defendant is liable to discharge the debt but the defendant has not repay the debt amount to the plaintiff and so the plaintiff is constrained to file the

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

4 suit. He has further contended that to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 and further examined PW2 in this case and the defendant failed to prove his plea. Hence, the plaintiff counsel prays the Hon’ble court to decree the suit on behalf of the plaintiff.

ii) The learned counsel for the defendant has contended that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note and no consideration was passed between the plaintiff and the defendant under Ex.A1. He has further contended that previously, in the year 2017, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and at the time of borrowing the amount, the plaintiff has taken two blank promissory notes and later, the defendant discharged the amount but the plaintiff did not return two blank promissory notes and filled one blank promissory note, and filed this false suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant. Hence, the defendant counsel prays the

Hon’ble court to dismiss the suit with costs.

iii) Issue No.1 casts legal burden on the plaintiff to prove that Ex.A1 was duly executed by the defendant in favor of the plaintiff and Ex.A1 is supported by consideration and the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. To prove the legal burden of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 who filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. In addition to that, PW1 exhibited Ex.A1 and deposed that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- from the plaintiff on 15-04-2019 and executed suit promissory note by agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. During the cross examination of PW1, it is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that he has

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

5 lent Rs.3,20,000/- to the defendant on 15.04.2019. It is further elicited from PW1 that he know the defendant since many years. It is further elicited from PW1 that

Kanamarlapudi Koteswarararao has scribed Ex.A1. It is further elicited from PW1 that the denominations are Rs.500/- notes in 6 bundles and Rs.500/- notes 40 in number. It is further elicited from PW1 that the defendant used to borrow money from me previously. On perusal of entire cross examination of PW1, it is seen that nothing worth material was culled out from the cross examination of PW1 on behalf of the defendant.

iv) To further prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined one

Kanamarlapudi Koteswararao as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such chief affidavit of PW2 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. PW2 has further stated in his chief affidavit that he scribed the suit promissory note and the defendant has put his signature in the suit promissory note after receipt of consideration amount from the plaintiff. Though the defendant had an opportunity to contest the suit, the defendant failed to cross-examine PW2 and as such the evidence of PW2 is unrebutted by the defendant.

v) On perusal of entire evidences adduced by the plaintiff, the evidence of

PW2 goes in the similar lines as of the evidence of PW1. Nothing worth material was elicited from the cross examination of PW1. The defendant failed to cross examined PW2 to prove his contentions. The defendant failed to enter into the witness box to prove his legal burden i.e., he has given two blank promissory notes in the year 2017 when he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he discharged the said amount to the plaintiff but the plaintiff without returning the blank promissory notes, filled one blank promissory note and filed this false suit to get wrongful gain from the defendant and as such the contents of the written

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

6 statement of the defendant left unproved. The plaintiff very well proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- on 15-04-2019 and executed the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 through his evidence and through the evidence of

PW2. The defendant has failed to prove his legal burden and it can be presumed that the defendant admitted the contents of Ex.A1 and it is his signatures in Ex.A1 on the revenue stamp and below the revenue stamp and Ex.A1 is supported by consideration. Hence in view of the above discussions, this court has come to conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for. Hence Issue

No.1 is answered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

9) ISSUE NO.2:

In view of the discussion under Issue No.1 and in view of answering

Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant , the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as sought for and this issue is answered accordingly.

10) ISSUE NO.3:

In view of answering Issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, the suit has to be decreed.

11) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant and the defendant is liable to pay an amount of

Rs.5,49,334/- along with further interest @ 12% p.a. on principal sum of

Rs.3,20,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a.

till realization.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530

7

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 12th day of May, 2026.

(Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha)

Civil Judge (Junior Division)- Cum

– Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined.

For plaintiff : For defendant:

PW1: Thadikamalla Chinna Chenchaiah NIL

PW2: Kanamarlapudi Koteswararao

Exhibits marked on behalf of

For plaintiff :

Ex.A1: Original promissory note executed by the defendant dt.15-04-2019.

For defendant: NIL (Sd/- V. Sri Prathyusha) CJ(JD) – CUM-

JMFC,PDL.

Digitally Signed by

V SRI PRATHYUSHA

Date: 2026.05.12 15:25:41 +0530