Sri.V.Srinivas

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT::KAKINADA

Present:-Sri.V.Srinivas III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada

Monday, the 18th day of July, 2022

Criminal Appeal No.284 of 2018

From what court the appeal is:IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First preferredClass Court, Kakinada.

Number of the case in that Court:C.C.No.29 of 2017

Number of the Appeal:C.A.No.284 of 2018

Name and description of the:Kanikella Vijaya Raju S/o.Chitti Appa Rao, Appellant 41 years, Employee, SC/Mala, C/o.Mandal Praja Parishad School, Harijanapeta, Golivari Kothuru Village, Samalkota Mandal.

Name and description of theManda Lova Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana respondent Murthy, 39 years, Occ:Business, C/Vysya, Resident of D.No.1-9, Divili Village, Peddapuram Mandal. E.G.District.

The sentence and order underIn the result, the accused is held guilty which it was imposed in the lower:for the offence punishable U/s.138 of Court.Negotiable Instruments Act and he is convictedU/s.255(2)Cr.P.Cand sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. twice the cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, accusedshallundergosimple imprisonment for a period of one month. The fine amount shall be paid to the complainant towardscompensation under Sec.357 of Cr.P.C.

Whether confirmed/modified or: CONFIRMED Reversed, if modified the modification

Date of presentation:6-9-2018

Date of filing:6-9-2018

Notice issued by Court to appear:11-09-2018

Bail bonds if appellant has been: - - let out on bail

Appellant ordered to appear:30-10-2022

Date of hearing:30.6.2022

Date of judgment:18.07.2022 2

This Criminal Appeal coming on 30-06-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.S.Tirumala Rao, Advocate for appellant/accused and of Sri.N.V.R.S.Kumar, advocate for respondent/complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This criminal appeal is filed U/Sec.374(3) Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in

C.C.No.29/2017 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Court, Kakinada challenging the calendar and judgment dated 24-08-2018 whereby and whereunder he was convicted of the offence U/s.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/-i.e. twice the cheque amount. In default of payment of fine, accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as accused, whereas, the respondent herein is referred to as complainant as arrayed in C.C.No.29/2017.

3.The brief facts which are leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

Before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Kakinada, the complainant filed complaint against the sole accused for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act contending that the accused borrowed Rs.25,000/- from the complainant on 11-8-2011 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed demand promissory note in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 36% p.a.

yearly compound. The accused again borrowed Rs.50,000/- from complainant on 12.5.2012 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 42% p.a. yearly compound. The accused again borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 2.6.2012 for the purpose of his family expenses and executed demand promissory note in favour of complainant agreeing to repay the same with 3 interest at 36% per annum yearly compound. All the promissory notes were scribed by accused with his own hand writing.

4.The accused paid Rs.1,000/- on 3.5.2014 and Rs.1,000/- on 26.5.2014 for the promissory note debt dated 11.8.2011 and endorsed the same on the reverse of promissory note. The accused paid Rs.1,000/- on 27.4.2015 as part payment of promissory note dated 12.5.2012 and endorsed the same on the reverse of said promissory note and paid Rs.1,000/- on 27.4.2015 as part payment for the promissory note dated 2.6.2012 and endorsed on the reverse side of promissory note.

5.On demand by the complainant for repayment of said debts, accused issued a cheque bearing No.164905 dated 22.9.2016 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Peddapuram as part payment. On that the complainant presented the cheque in Union Bank of India, Samalkota but the same was returned with an endorsement ‘Exceeds Arrangement” and the same was informed under cheque return memo dated 17-10-2016.

6.The complainant got issued registered statutory notice on 18-10-2016 demanding to pay the due amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The accused received the notice on 20.10.2016 and got issued reply on 26.10.2016 with false and untenable contentions. Hence, the complaint.

7.After recording sworn statement of complainant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act against sole accused and registered the case as C.C.No.29/2017.

8. After appearance of accused before the learned Magistrate, he was furnished with the copies of documents relied by the complainant and thereafter he was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act was explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

9.During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-8A. The accused is examined as D.W.1 and no documents are marked.

10.The accused denied the incriminating material available in the evidence of P.W.1 when he was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C.

11.The learned Magistrate after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and after considering the defence of accused held that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption under Sec.138 of N.I Act standing in favour of complainant. The complainant successfully proved all the ingredients of Sec.138 of N.I. Act beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and found the accused guilty and convicted under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act and imposed sentence as stated supra vide judgment dated 24-08-2018.

12.Challenging the impugned conviction and sentence, this appeal is preferred by the sole accused on the following grounds:

a) The calendar and judgment passed by lower court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

b) The lower court ought to have seen that the alleged Ex.P1/cheque issued in the year 2009 which is blank cheque as security.

c) The lower court ought to have observed that complainant failed to prove his contention. The appellant denying the issuance of cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- dated 22.9.2016.

d) The lower court ought to have observed that the contention of appellant that no transaction took place in between complainant and accused.

e) The lower court ought to have observed that complainant failed to prove his contention in issuing cheque and hence complaint is not maintainable under law. Accused proved his contention deposing real things and the lower court failed to consider the same.

f) The lower court ought to have observed that part payment endorsement Ex.P6A, Ex.P7A and Ex.P8 are fabricated and forged one. Ex.P1/cheque is also fabricated one.

5

13.Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for respondent.

14.Now, the point for determination in this appeal is:

Whether the conviction and sentenced imposed by the trial court is liable to be set aside? If so, to what extent and to what relief?

15.Point:-

To answer the said point, the following points have to be verified. (1)

When the accused denied the issuance of cheque, whether the complainant proved his contention of issuing cheque for discharge of liability?,(2) Whether

Ex.P1/Cheque was issued in the year 2009 and the said cheque was issued as “security” as contended by the accused,(3) Whether there is no transaction between complainant and accused as is the defence of accused is established?

(4) Whether the cheque covered under Ex.P1 is fabricated.

16.On perusal of evidence, it is found that on various dates, accused herein borrowed amounts from complainant and that agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 36% p.a. initially on 11-8-2011 borrowed Rs.25,000/-.

Again on 12-5-2012 an amount of Rs.50,000/- and again borrowed on 2.6.2012

Rs.50,000/-. It is found that on complainant demands, accused made payment endorsements of Rs.1,000/- on 3.5.2014 again Rs.1,000/- on 26.5.2014 and again Rs.1,000/- on 27-4-2015 as part payments for the debt covered under promissory notes under Ex.P6, P7, P8 and endorsements are marked as Ex.P6-

A, P6-B, Ex.P7-A and Ex.P8-A.

17.Ultimately, on the demand made, on 22.9.2016 accused issued cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Peddapuram as part payment and the same was deposited in Union Bank of India, Samalkot for collection on 26.9.2016 but the same was remained unpaid as ‘exceeds arrangement’.

On which, complainant got issued legal notice dated 18-10-2016 demanding the accused to repay the same within 15 days. For the said statutory notice issued reply on 26.10.2016. As the amount is not repaid, complainant was compelled to file C.C.No.29/2017 for discharge of cheque issued by him covered under Ex.P1.

6

17.P.W.1 in his evidence consistently stated the above facts and nothing found from his testimony to disbelieve his contention and he consistently said even in his cross-examination that the amounts covered under Ex.P6, P7 and

P8 were paid to the accused and accused made part payment endorsements on 3.5.2014, 27.4.2015 under Ex. P6A,P6B, P7A, P8A.

19.As against the evidence of P.W.1, accused entered the witness box stated that he and his brother-in-law borrowed loans from the complainant and he discharged the loan but his brother-in-law did not discharge and he borrowed in the year 2009 and in that connection, he handed over the cheque to the complainant as security and he repaid the entire amount but complainant retained his pronote and cheques with him and since deposed evidence in SC & ST Atrocity case, present CC.No.29/2017 was filed by complainant and in fact, there is no legally enforceable debt in between them.

But it is fact found from the record that as well cross-examination of accused

Ex.P6, P7 and P8 promissory notes were written by him in his own hand writing as well accused admitted payment endorsements covered under Ex.P6A, P6B,

P7A, P8A. Thus, from the endorsements and admissions, it is clear that there is loan transaction in between complainant and accused and that to overcome the contention of complainant, the accused gave a defense of fabrication.

When accused says that he discharged the entire debt, and accused being a

Teacher, he must have placed material that he has discharged the debt and admittedly, he has no legal evidence to show that he has discharged the debt.

20.Two aspects are clear from the testimony of accused. One is in the year 2009 he issued Ex.P1/cheque and that was misused by the complainant, for which absolutely, no evidence on record by the accused to make believe that

Ex.P1/cheque was issued in the year 2009 and it is being misused by the complainant by filing the same as document in this CC.No.29/2017.

21.More so, it is established that the cheque was issued by him once he has admitted that the cheque is with that of him, presumption arises under Sec.118 and 139 of N.I. Act that he has passed for consideration. The accused is 7 expected to place a rebuttal evidence with all preponderance of probabilities that the debt covered said to be discharged is proved, for which absolutely no evidence on record. Since the accused admittedly issued Ex.P1/cheque and admitted the signature on cheque, there is a judgment of Hon’ble. Supreme

Court in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets reported in 2009 (2) SCC Page

513. In which, Hon’ble Apex Court considered provisions of Negotiable

Instruments Act as well as evidence act referred to Sec.139 at Page Nos.519 to 520 at Para No.14, 15, 18 and 19 and 20 are relevant and stated as follows:

14. Section 139 of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

15. Presumptions are devices by use of which the courts are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient evidence. Under the Evidence Act all presumptions must come under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the Act, namely, (1) “may presume” (rebuttable), (2) “shall presume” (rebuttable), and (3) “conclusive presumptions” (irrebuttable). The term “presumption” is used to designate an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact, conveniently called the “presumed fact” drawn by a judicial tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption literally means “taking as true without examination or proof”.

18. Applying the definition of the word “proved” in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it becomes evident that in a trial under Section 138 of the Act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once the execution of negotiable instrument is either proved or admitted. As soon as the complainant discharges the burden to prove that the instrument, say a note, was executed by the accused, the rules of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act help him shift the burden on the accused. The presumptions will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused, that is, the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any 8 debt or liability. A presumption is not in itself evidence, but only makes a prima-facie case for a party for whose benefit it exists.

19. The use of the phrase “until the contrary is proved” in Section 118 of the Act and use of the words “unless the contrary is proved” in Section 139 of the Act read with definitions of “may presume” and “shall presume” as given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, makes it at once clear that presumptions to be raised under both the provisions are rebuttable. When a presumption is rebuttable, it only points out that the party on whom lies the duty of going forward with evidence, on the fact presumed and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of the presumption is over.” “20. … The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. …”

22.From the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para 14 held that what shall be presumed under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that when presumption made only contrary is proved, the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to Sec.138 for the discharge in whole or part of any debt. In Para No.18 of the above, Apex Court held a presumption under

Secs.118, 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act have to be made that every Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of debt or liability once execution of Negotiable 9

Instrument is either proved or admitted. In view of the above judgment, it is

for the accused to place evidence to make believe his defence is true. For the

same, absolutely, there is no evidence on his behalf.

23.So far as the other defence of the accused is concerned, he has issued the cheque as security. In so far as giving the cheque as security is concerned, it is settled law that one has to keep in mind the expression cheque given as security is not statutorily defined in the entire Negotiable Instruments Act. The

Negotiable Instruments Act per say carved out expression in respect of security cheque, to say a complaint in respect of such cheque would not be maintainable. There can be mirage situated in which the cheque issued by way of security that has to provide an assurance or comfort to the drawee that in case of failure of the primary consideration on the due date or on the happening of contingency, the security may be enforced. Even if a blank cheque is given towards liability or even as a security, when the liability is assessed, quantified, the cheque is filled up and presented to the Bank, the person who had drawn cheque cannot avoid criminal liability arising out of

Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. For such a proposition, I am fortified upon the judgment reported in 2006(6)SCC Page 39 in between M.S.Narayana

Menon alias Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Another and the same is discussed at Para No.30 of the judgment. As there is no concept of security under law as per above referred judgment, the defence of accused that he issued the cheque as security has no legs to stand.

24.On close reading of the entire evidence on both sides in particular accused when his defence is neither definte nor consistent with his pleadings, when he say he discharged, it is the duty to prove that he discharged the loan availed by him from the complainant, but that is not proved. Thereby, it raises presumption in favour of complainant. No doubt, it is a rebuttal but he must place evidence by raising a probable defence. Except denying the contention, accused could not lead any cogent evidence to make believe his defence is true and disbelieve the entire case of complainant. Therefore, this court is of 10 the opinion that accused could not able to prove his defence by way of rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the presumption raised in favour of complainant under

Sec.118 and 139 of N.I Act.

25.The trial court after appreciating the entire evidence found the complainant successfully proved all the ingredients and accused placed any evidence to disbelieve the presumption raised in favour of complainant and found the accused failed to prove his defence as well and held guilty for committing the offence. This court on perusal of entire material on record found there is no warranting circumstances to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. On the other hand, trial court after weighing the evidence before it and came to conclusion that the complainant proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt and accused unable to establish his defence and found guilty for committing offence under Sec.138 of N.I. Act., this court is also found no merits in the appeal. Thereby, I answered the point accordingly.

26.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by trial court against the appellant/accused for the offence

U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide Calendar and Judgment dated 24.08.2018 in C.C.No.29/2017 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Court, Kakinada.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade -II), transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18 th day of July, 2022.

Sd/-V.Srinivas

III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAKINADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/-V.Srinivas

III ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

KAKINADA

//t.c.f.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer

Copy to:- The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kakinada.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT::KAKINADA

Present:- Sri.V.Srinivas

III Additional District Judge, Kakinada

Monday, the 25th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.96/2015

Between:-

Sathi Venkata Reddy, S/o.Sathi Veerreddy ... Plaintif

And

1. Kurma Lakshmana Murthy, S/o.Veera Raghavalu

2. Talatam Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramu

3. Nimmakayala Subrahmanyeswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy

4. Pemmadi Ramamohana Rao, S/o.Veeraju,

5. Totha Pundrikakshulu, S/o.Satyanarayana

6. Rolla Durgaprasad, S/o.Ramakrishna

7. Ryali Narayana Vara Prasad, S/o.Satyanarayana (Defendants 2 to 7 are added as per order dated 19-8-2016 passed by the

Hon’ble. Court in I.A.No.2283/2015)

….Defendants.

The suit is filed with a prayer to grant decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 8-7-2014 in favour of plaintif directing the 1st defendant to execute a regular sale deed in his favour or in the name of his nominee for the plaint schedule property on receipt of balance of sale consideration and put him/his nominee in possession. In case of 1st defendant failed to do so, execute the registered sale deed through the Hon’ble Court or in alternative to pass decree for Rs.15,18,734/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on Rs.13,00,000/- from the date of suit with charge on the schedule property on fixing date for redemption and for costs of the suit.

The suit coming on this day before me in the presence of Sri.Chinnam Sai Baba Reddy, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri.M.Dharma Reddy, advocate for D1 and the D2 to D7 having remained ex-parte, and when the suit is coming up for pay- ment of costs to defendant, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Costs not paid. Plaintif called absent. No representation. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 25th day of July, 2022.

II Additional District Judge Kakinada. Appendix of Evidence - Nil -

III Additional District Judge Kakinada.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT::KAKINADA

Present:- Sri.V.Srinivas

III Additional District Judge, Kakinada Friday, the 15th day of July, 2022

A.S.No.138/2016

Between:-

Kadiyala Maha Lakshmi, S/o.Musalayya,

... Appellant/1st defendant.

And

1. Kalapala Sunitha, D/o.K.Seetharamadas and Puli Satyaveda, W/o.Gangavarapu Seth

2. Kalapala Sudhir, S/o.K.Seetharamadas and Puli Satyaveda and W/o.Gangavarapu Seth, ….Respondents/Plaintiffs

3. Palika Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Late.Veerraju

4. Palika Venkataramana, S/o.Late.Veerraju ….Respondents/2nd and 3rd defendants.

The appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 15-7-2016 in

O.S.No.20/2010 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada.

Between:-

1. Kalapala Sunitha, D/o.K.Seetharamadas and Puli Satyaveda, W/o.Gangavarapu Seth

2. Kalapala Sudhir, S/o.K.Seetharamadas and Puli Satyaveda and W/o.Gangavarapu Seth, ….Plaintiffs

And

1.Kadiyala Mahalakshmi, 2.Palika Veerabhadra Rao 3.Palika Venkataramana ….Defendants.

The appeal is filed under Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC with a prayer to set aside the decree and judgment dated 15-7-2016 in O.S.No.20/2020 on the file of II

Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada.

The appeal coming on this day before me for hearing and no representation

for appellant and of Sri.R.A.Kidwai, advocate for appellant and of Sri.B.Radha

Krishna, advocate for R1, R2 and of Sri.V.Srirama Murthy, advocate for R2 and R4 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Costs not paid. Appellant called absent. No representation till 3.40 p.m.

Appeal is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day July, 2022.

II Additional District Judge Kakinada. Appendix of Evidence - Nil -

III Additional District Judge Kakinada.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT::KAKINADA

Present:- Sri.V.Srinivas

III Additional District Judge, Kakinada

Friday, the 15th day of July, 2022

C.M.A.No.26/2017

Between:-

Koppisetti Veerraju, S/o.Suryanarayana

... Appellant/respondent/defendant

And

Nagella Sreenivas, S/o.Suranna ….Respondent/petitioner.

The appeal against the order and decree dated 2.6.2017 in I.A.No.493/2017 in O.S.No.203/2017 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

Between:-

Nagella Sreenivas, S/o.Suranna

... Petitioner/Plaintif

And

Koppisetti Veerraju, S/o.Suryanarayana ….Respondents/defendants.

The appeal is filed under Order 43 rule 1 of CPC with a prayer to allow the appeal by setting aside the order and decree dated 2-6-2017 in I.A.No.493/2017 in

O.S.No.203/2017 passed by I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Kakinada.

The appeal coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.D.L.Narasimha Rao, advocate for appellant and of Sri.P.Malleswara Rao, advocate for respondent and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Memo filed by the counsel for the appellant prays to permit to not press the appeal. Memo recorded. Hence, C.M.A. is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open court this the 15th day of July, 2022.

II Additional District Judge Kakinada. Appendix of Evidence - Nil -

III Additional District Judge Kakinada. Copy to: The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2 3

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

EAST GODAVARI AT::KAKINADA

Present:- Sri.V.Srinivas, III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

Wednesday, the 20th day of July, 2022

O.S.No.54/2016

Between:

Chodavarapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Suryanarayana Murthy ..Plaintif

And

1. Sodabattula Seshagiri, S/o.Late.Venkata Rao

2. Kandella Jagga Rao, S/o.Bhayyanna

3. Kuppala Sivannarayana Murthy, S/o.Late. Satyanarayana

4. Prathipati Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Late.Satyanarayana ….Defendants.

This suit is filed with a prayer to declare the title of plaintif over plaint schedule property and grant consequential injunction restraining the defendants, their men, and person claiming through them from interfering with the possession of plaintif, his men and persons claiming through him over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

This suit coming on 20-7-2022 for before me in the presence of Sri.B.Radha Krishna, Advocate for plaintif and of Sri.M.Jawahar Ali, advocate for D1 and D2 and D3 and D4 having remained ex-parte and the matter is coming up for payment of costs, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

Costs not paid. Plaintif called absent. No representation. Record kept aside till 4-00 p.m. Hence, this suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of July, 2022.

III Additional District Judge Kakinada Appendix of Evidence - Nil –

III Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

2