Sri V.vijay Kumar Reddy

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET

Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka) · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY, PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET, is posted at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 103 court orders on record since 2021. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, CC, EP cases.

103

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

OS/17/2021

CHANDANALA NAAGA PUSHPAVATI vs KAMMA SAMBASIVARAO

07 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022

O.S. No.17/2021

1. Chandanala Naga Pushpavati

2. Venkata Raman

3. Grandhi @ Chandanala Ranuka

4. Chandanala Lavanya

...Plaintiffs.

Kamma Sambasiva Rao ...Defendant.

This suit came up on 6.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sangameswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendant remained Exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,71,733/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand seven hundred and thirty three only) being the principal of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupee one lakh only) and interest thereon Rs. 71,733/- (Rupees seventy one thousand seven hundred and thirty three only) due on the suit promissory note, dt.5.1.2018 and for subsequent interest and costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

a)That plaintiffs submitted that 1st plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the children of Chandanala Rama swamy. The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from Chandanala

Ramaswamy on 5.1.2018 by executing a promissory note in his favour on the same day itself to the amount borrowed at Murikipudi village,

Chilakaluripet mandal, agreeing to discharge the same together with interest at 24% p.a either to the said Chandanala Ramaswamy or to his order on demand. Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by

Chandanala Ramaswamy, though agreed to discharge the debt, the defendant has been postponing for the payment of the said debt.

b)The plaintiffs further submitted that on 17.5.2019 the said

Chandanala Ramaswamy died intestate leaving behind him, his legal heirs i.e., the plaintiffs, who inherited the estate of the deceased

Chandanala Ramaswamy and since then, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased

Chandanala Ramaswamy. Subsequently, the plaintiffs personally, through elders and also registered notice, dt.29.12.2020 demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due for which, though accepted for the same, the defendant has been postponing for the same on some pretext or the other. Hence, the plaintiffs constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit claim.

3.The defendant called absent on 2.9.2021 and there was no representation on his behalf in any mode. As condition of filing written statement is not complied, he remained exparte and posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.On behalf of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff herself examined as

P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on her behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount as claimed for ?”

7. Point :

The plaintiffs in order to establish their contention, the 1st plaintiff examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. The 1st plaintiff filed her chief-examination affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination. The 1st plaintiff has deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from her husband/Chandanala Ramaswamy on 5.1.2018 by executing Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour on the same day itself to the amount borrowed at Murikipudi village, Chilakaluripet mandal, agreeing to discharge the same together with interest at 24% p.a either to the said Chandanala Ramaswamy or to his order on demand.

Subsequently, inspite of repeated demands made by Chandanala

Ramaswamy, though agreed to discharge the debt, the defendant has been postponing for the payment of the said debt. The 1st plaintiff further submitted that on 17.5.2019 the said Chandanala Ramaswamy died intestate leaving behind him, his legal heirs i.e., the plaintiffs, who inherited the estate of the deceased Chandanala Ramaswamy and since then, the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the estate of the deceased Chandanala Ramaswamy. Subsequently, the plaintiffs personally, through elders and also registered notice, dt.29.12.2020 demanded the defendant to discharge the amount due for which, though accepted for the same, the defendant has been postponing for the same on some pretext or the other. The 1st plaintiff has further deposed that they demanded the defendant orally as well as by issuing Ex.A2 notice to repay the amount along with interest but he failed to repay the same inspite of receiving the Ex.A2 notice. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. A perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from deceased

Chandanala Ramaswamy by executing Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The 1st plaintiff made a demand to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 promissory note by orally and by issuing Ex.A2 notice subsequent to the death of her husband/ Chandanala Ramaswamy. Therefore Exs.A1 to A3 clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased Chandanala Ramaswamy and failed to repay the amount to him druing his life time. Since the defendant is remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he admitted the case of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, by virtue of consistence evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A3, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 and the defendant had failed to discharge the same, as such, the plaintiffs are entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.1,71,733/- (Rupees one lakh seventy one thousand seven hundred and thirty three only) to the plaintiffs with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2022.

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Chandanala Naga Pushpavati -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Suit Demand promissory note dt.5.1.2018 for Rs.1,00,000/-. Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice,dt:29.12.2020. Ex.A3 : Postal receipt.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

OS/16/2022

SINGU SUBBA RAO vs MARTHA VEERANJANEYULU

08 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

O.S. No.16/2022

Singu Subba Rao

...Plaintiff.

Martha Veeranjaneyulu ...Defendant.

This suit came up on 6.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained Exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.4,50,993/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand nine hundred and ninety three only) being the principal of Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees two lakh eighteen thousand only) and Rs.1,24,700/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand seven hundred only) and interest of Rs.68,888/- (Rupees sixty eight thousand eight hundred and eighty eight only) and

Rs.39,405/- (Rupees thirty nine thousand four hundred and five only) due on the suit A and B marked promissory notes, dt.8.6.2019 and for subsequent interest and costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

That plaintiff submitted that on 8.6.2019 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- and Rs.1,24,700/- from the plaintiff, for his family expenses at Ganapavaram village and executed ‘A and B’ marked demand promissory notes on the same date in favour of the plaintiff to evidence the borrowing and to serve as collateral security under taking to repay the said sum to the plaintiff or his order on demand, together with interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant willfully failed to discharge the amount due under the demand promissory notes. Later the plaintiff got issued legal notice also to the defendant demanding to discharge the amount under the above said transaction, but he received the same and kept silent. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3.The defendant called absent. Service of summons on the defendant was held sufficient. Hence, the defendant remained exparte on 4.3.2022 and posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit

amount as claimed for ?”

7. Point :

The plaintiff in order to establish his contention, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. The plaintiff has deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- and Rs.1,24,700/- from him, for the family expenses of defendant at

Ganapavaram village and executed Exs.A1 and A2 demand promissory notes on the same date in favour of the plaintiff to evidence the borrowing and to serve as collateral security under taking to repay the said sum to the plaintiff or his order on demand, together with interest @ 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant willfully failed to discharge the amount due under the above said transaction. The plaintiff has further deposed that he demanded the defendant orally as well as by issuing Ex.A3 notice to repay the amount along with interest but he failed to repay the same inspite of receiving the Ex.A3 notice. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes, it clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- and Rs.1,24,700/- from P.W.1 by executing Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff made a demand to repay the amount covered under Exs.A1 and A2 promissory notes by orally and by issuing Ex.A3 notice. Therefore Exs.A1 to A5 clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- and

Rs.1,24,700/- from the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount to him.

Since the defendant is remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of consistence evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory notes under Exs.A1 and A2 and the defendant had failed to discharge the same, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.4,50,993/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand nine hundred and ninety three only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principle amount of each promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of March, 2022.

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Singu Subba Rao -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : A marked demand promissory note, dt.8.6.2019 for Rs.2,18,000/-. Ex.A2 : B marked demand promissory note, dt.8.6.2019 for Rs.1,24,700/-. Ex.A3 : Office copy of legal notice,dt:23.3.2021. Ex.A4 : Postal receipt, dt.23.3.2021. Ex.A5 :Postal acknowledgment, dt.1.4.2021.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. .

OS/15/2022

KANDULA SUDHAKAR vs GOLI SRINIVASA RAO ALIAS GOLI SRINIVASULU

08 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

O.S. No.15/2022

Kandula Sudhakar

...Plaintiff.

Goli Srinivasa Rao @ Goli Srinivasulu

...Defendant.

This suit came up on 6.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Sangameswara Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained Exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.12,05,331/- (Rupees twelve lakh five thousand and three hundred and thirty one only) being the principal of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eighty lakh only) i.e., Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- and total interest of Rs.4,05,331/- (Rupees four lakh five thousand three hundred and thirty one only) due on the A,B,C and D marked suit promissory notes, dt.12.3.19, 15.6.2019, 24.3.2020 and 13.12.2020 and for subsequent interest and costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

That plaintiff submitted that on 12.3.2019, 15.6.2019, 24.3.2020 and 13.12.2020 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed A,

B, C and D marked suit promissory notes on even date at Appapuram village in his favour to evidence the said borrowings and to serve as collateral security under taking to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand.

Subsequently, plaintiff made many demands personally and through mediators for discharge of the said suit promissory notes, but till date the defendant postponing the repayment of above due amounts on one pretext or other. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit agaisnt the defendant for recovery of the suit amount.

PJCJ, CH.PET 3/5 O.S.No.15/2022

3.The defendant called absent. Service of summons on the defendant was held sufficient. Hence, defendant remained expate on 3.3.2022 and posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit

amount as claimed for ?”

7. Point :

The plaintiff in order to establish his contention, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. The plaintiff has deposed that on 12.3.2019, 15.6.2019, 24.3.2020 and 13.12.2020 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-,

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A4 promissory notes on even date at Appapuram village, in his favour to evidence the said borrowings and to serve as collateral security under taking to repay the said sum together with interest at 24% p.a either to plaintiff or his order on demand. The plaintiff has further deposed that he demanded the defendant personally and through mediators for discharge of the above said suit promissory notes, but till date the defendant postponing the repayment of the above due amounts on one pretext or other. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. A perusal of Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A4 promissory notes, it clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and again Rs.2,00,000/-)

PJCJ, CH.PET 4/5 O.S.No.15/2022 from P.W.1 by executing Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A4 promissory notes in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff made a demand to repay the amount covered under Exs.A1, A2,

A3 and A4 promissory notes by personally and through mediators.

Therefore Exs.A1 to A4 clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount to him. Since the defendant is remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of consistence evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory notes under Exs.A1, A2, A3 and A4 and the defendant had failed to discharge the same, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs. 12,05,331/- (Rupees twelve lakhs five thousand three hundred and thirty one only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principle amount of each promissory note.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 8th day of April, 2022.

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Kandula Sudhakar -Exparte-

PJCJ, CH.PET 5/5 O.S.No.15/2022

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : ‘A’ marked demand promissory note, dt.12.3.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A2 : ‘B’ marked demand promissory note, dt.15.6.2019 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A3 : ‘C’ marked demand promissory note, dt.24.3.2020 for Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.A4 : ‘D’ marked demand promissory note, dt.13.12.2020 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

OS/100/2020

Donepudi Atmarao vs Kola John Babu Prasad

07 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET

PRESENT: V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022

O.S. No.100/2020

Donepudi Atmarao

...Plaintiff.

Kola John Babu Prasad ...Defendant.

This suit came up on 6.4.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained Exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of suit amount of Rs.1,14,613/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand six hundred and thirteen only) being the principal of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) and interest of Rs.34,613/- (Rupees thirty four thousand six hundred and thirteen only) due on the suit promissory note, dt.20.5.2018 and for subsequent interest and costs.

2)The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

That plaintiff submitted that on 20.5.2018 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the suit promissory note on even date at

Chilakaluripet town as a collateral security in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said sum with interest @ 24 % p.a. Inspite of several repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the said sum and on 12.10.2019 the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant through his counsel demanding the amount, the defendant received the said notice on 15.10.2019 and kept silent, and defendant did not discharge the said debt. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3.Summons to defendant were ordered. Inspite of issuing summons to the defendant several times, the same were not served on him.

Hence, the plaintiff substituted the summons to defendant by way of publication and a publication was filed on 13.2.2020 directing the defendant to appear before the Court on 9.3.2022. Inspite of the same, the defendant called absent on 9.3.2022, and therefore, he was set exparte and posted to plaintiff’s evidence.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit

amount as claimed for ?”

7. Point :

The plaintiff in order to establish his contention, he himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. The plaintiff filed his chief-examination affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. The plaintiff has deposed that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from him on 20.5.2018 and executed the Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not repay the said sum and therefore, he issued Ex.A2 notice to repay the amount along with interest but he failed to repay the same inspite of receiving the Ex.A2 notice. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged as the defendant remained exparte. A perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note, it clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from P.W.1 by executing Ex.A1 promissory note in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff made a demand to repay the amount covered under Ex.A1 promissory note by issuing Ex.A2 notice. Therefore, the Ex.A1 promissory note clearly goes to show that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff and failed to repay the amount to him. Since the defendant is remained exparte in the suit, an adverse inference can be drawn against him to the effect that he admitted the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, by virtue of consistence evidence of

P.W.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4, this court is of opinion that the plaintiff has established the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 and the defendant had failed to discharge the same, as such, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as claimed for. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay the sum of Rs.1,14,613/- (Rupees one lakh fourteen thousand six hundred and thirteen only) to the plaintiff with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of filing of suit, till the date of decree and thereafter, @ 6% p.a till the date of realization on the principle amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 7th day of April, 2022.

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

P.W.1 : Donepudi Atma Rao -Exparte-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 : Original promissory note dt.20.5.2018 for Rs.80,000/-.

PJCJ, CH.PET 4/4 O.S.No.100/2020

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice,dt:12.10.2019. Ex.A3 : Postal receipt dt.12.10.2019. Ex.A4 : Served On-line acknowledgment dt.15.10.2019.

FOR DEFENDANT: --Nil--

sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

OS/218/2020 Compromised

State Bank of India. vs Lakkireddy Gopala Reddy

07 Apr 2022

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: CHILAKALURIPET

Present : Sri V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

FAC Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Thursday, this the 7th day of April, 2022.

O.S NO.218/2020

State Bank of India, Main Branch, NRT center, Chilakaluripet represented by its Chief Manager, having office at Narasaraopet center, Chilakaluripet.

..... Plaintiff

1)Lakkireddy Gopala Reddy S/o.Pulla Reddy, Hindu, R/o.D.No.9/644/1, Rajaka colony, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District.

2) National Bulk Handling Corporation Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Sri Ramesh Dorai Swami, having its registered and Corporate Office, at 7th floor, A wing, Dynasty, Business Park, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai-500 059.

3) The Deputy General Manager, National Bulk Handling Corporation Private Limited, office at Sri Sai Nilayam,Opposite VUDA office, church compound and D. No. 5-96-01, 6/10, Brodipet, Guntur -522 002.

4)The Area Manager, National Bulk Handling Corporation Private Limited, office at Sri Sai Nilayam,Opposite VUDA office, church compound and D. No. 5-96-01, 6/10, Brodipet, Guntur-522 002.

5)New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Madhapur Divisional office(613300). 1-98-15-1-192, NJS Towers, Near Image Hospitals, Behind Cafe Nandini, Hi-Tech city, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

6)Boppudi Cold Storage Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Ramineni Venkata Subba Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Hindu, aged about 60 yrs, NH-5, Boppudi Village, now residing in R/o. d.No.1-33-61, Near Vasavi Nagar, 5th-6th lane Extension, S.V.N. colony, Guntur.

.... Defendants

This suit was coming on 7.4.2022 before this court for filing written statement of D1 in the presence ofSri G.L.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri S.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.1, Sri Ravi Teja Padiri, Advocate for Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.3 and 4 are remained exparte and Sri K.Rama Mohan, Advocate for the Defendant No.5 and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Defendant No.6 and upon perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed against D1 to D6 jointly and severally for the suit amount and costs and subsequent interest on the said sum till its realization and for costs.

-2-

Heard the learned counsel for Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed full satisfaction memo praying the court to record the same and to dismiss the suit without costs submitting that the dispute had been settled out of court and the plaintiff had been fully satisfied by received compromised amount.

Heard and satisfied. Since full satisfaction is reported by submitting the memo and the same is within the limitation as prescribed under Law, satisfied upon the contents in the full satisfaction memo and recorded the same. Accordingly Full satisfaction is recorded and the suit is dismissed without costs.

Pronounced in the open court by me, this the 7thday of April, 2022.

Sd/-V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Appendix of Evidence - NIL-

Sd/-V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Order Record 97 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/15/2022	KANDULA SUDHAKAR vs GOLI SRINIVASA RAO ALIAS GOLI SRINIVASULU	08 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/16/2022	SINGU SUBBA RAO vs MARTHA VEERANJANEYULU	08 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/17/2021	CHANDANALA NAAGA PUSHPAVATI vs KAMMA SAMBASIVARAO	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/100/2020	Donepudi Atmarao vs Kola John Babu Prasad	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	—
OS/218/2020	State Bank of India. vs Lakkireddy Gopala Reddy	07 Apr 2022	Judgment	Compromised
OS/57/2018	Bathineni Anjaneyulu alias Anjaiah vs Bathineni Koteswara Rao	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
OS/91/2022	BODA SRINAIAH vs NANDAM RAMESH ALIAS RAMESH BABU	04 Apr 2022	Order	—
CC/200/2020	SHO CHILAKALURIPET URBAN P.S. vs ANNALADASU RAJESH	31 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/270/2021	CHEKURI SRINIVASA RAO vs VEMULAPALLI LAKSHMI NARAYANA	30 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/427/2020	STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, NRT CENTER, CHILAKALURIPET vs YERAMASU RAMANJANEYA PRASAD	30 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/219/2020	State Bank of India. vs Lakkireddy Gopala Reddy	21 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/146/2020	STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER vs NANNAPANENI PRABHAKARA RAO	15 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
CC/91/2020	SHO Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. vs Banavath Krishna Naik	14 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/25/2022	GANGAVARAPU NIRMALA vs NELLURI RAMESH	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/36/2021	CHIMATA MALLESWARI vs PALLAPOPULA ANNAPURNAMMA	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/81/2021	State Bank of India. vs Lavu Lakshmi Parvathi	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/187/2021	SHAIK KARIMUN ALIAS KARUMUNNISA vs SHAIK IBRAHIM	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/419/2020	Chowtapalli Essaku vs Shaik Altaf Mubaraq	12 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/419/2020	Chowtapalli Essaku vs Shaik Altaf Mubaraq	12 Mar 2022	Order	—
OS/113/2021	Dena Bank now Bank of Baroda vs Arugalla Kqanakaiah	02 Mar 2022	Judgment	—
OS/111/2021	DENA BANK NOW BANK OF BARODA, CHILAKALURIPET BRANCH. vs BANDARU JAYA KUMAR	25 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/221/2020	State Bank of India. vs Nallapati Siva Sankara Rao,	25 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/100/2021	Vijaya Bank now Bank of Baroda vs Shaik Lingamguntla Moulali	24 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/37/2020	Manukonda Chandra Sekhar Reddy vs Pathan Janbi	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/197/2020	State Bank of India. vs Borra Venkata Veeranjeneyulu	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/207/2020	State Bank of INdia, Main Branch, NRT centre vs Bandaru Koteswararao and 5 others S/o Venkateswarlu	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/318/2020	State Bank of India. vs Pamidi Yohanu	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/334/2020	State Bank of India. vs Popuri Nageswara Rao	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/388/2020	State Bank of India vs Badaraboina Srinivasa Rao	23 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/336/2020	State Bank of India. vs Yakkala Siva Prasada Rao	22 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/199/2020	State Bank of India. vs Veeragandham Sivaiah	14 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
CC/69/2018	POLISETTY SEETHARAMAIAH vs GUGGILAM RAMESH BABU	11 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/191/2020	STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, NRT CENTER, CHILAKALURIPET REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER vs AMBATI KONDA REDDY	10 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/316/2020	State Bank of India. vs Ponnam Garataiah	09 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/1/2022	KOLLI MOHAN KUMAR vs CHATTI NAGESWARA RAO	07 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
OS/362/2020	State Bank of India. vs Borra Harnadha Babu	07 Feb 2022	Judgment	—
CC/33/2019	SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHILAKALURIPET RURAL P.S. vs Kommanaboina Bhikshapathi	31 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
OS/186/2020	KARUR VYSYA BANK LIMITED REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER vs NARISETTY RAMBABU	28 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
EP/21/2019	Jatapati Yedukondalu vs Jatapati Srinivasarao	27 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
OS/20/2020	Iylam Sai Akhil Ganesh vs Iylam Rangarao	24 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
OS/190/2019	Dondeti Chandana vs Dondeti Srinivasa Reddy	24 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
OS/261/2021	BANGARU VENKATESWARAMMA vs YARRAMSETTY NAGESWARA RAO	20 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
CC/154/2020	SHO Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. vs Kota Srinivasa Rao	20 Jan 2022	Judgment	—
OS/417/2020	Chowtapalli Essaku vs Shaik Jani Begam	06 Jan 2022	Order	—
CC/82/2019	Velupuri Subba Rao vs Shaik jani BEgum	06 Jan 2022	Order	—
CC/90/2019	Kandukuri Kiran Kumar vs Shaik Hussain Saheb	30 Dec 2021	Order	—
CC/63/2018	SRINIVASA MEDICAL ENTERPRISES REP. BY ITS PARTNER RACHUMALLU KAMESWARA RAO vs DURGA MEDICAL AGENCIES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRIRAM CHAITANYA KUMAR	23 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/109/2020	Chittajallu Srinivas vs Ponnam Chandra Sekhar	17 Dec 2021	Order	—
OS/214/2021	KALLURI SRINIVASA RAO vs SHAIK BAJIBI	16 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
OS/215/2021	THOTA ASHOK KUMAR vs MUDDANA SIVA PRASAD	16 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/103/2020	SHO Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. vs Dasari Rama Krishna	15 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/17/2020	M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, NARASARAOPET vs ADUSUMALLA LAKSHMI NARAYANAMMA	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/59/2021	MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED, NARASARAOPET REP. BY ITS FOREMAN / MANAGER vs THOTA RAMESH BABU	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/62/2021	M/S.MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED vs CHALLAGUNDLA BASAVAIAH	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/63/2021	PULIBANDLA RAMBABU vs CHITLURI PRASADA RAO	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
EP/70/2021	SRI LELLA SUBRAMANYA PRASAD vs SRI SUKOORI VENKATESWARLU	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/7/2021	ARVAPALLI VIJAYA LAKSHMI vs BATTULA VENKATA SWAMI	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/38/2019	Vijaya Bank Rep.its, Chief Manager, Chilakaluripet Branch vs Vijaya Podupu Parapathi Sangam Rep.its Convener, Koppuravuri Sujatha	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/72/2021	State Bank of India. vs Alla Chowdary	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/83/2020	Vijaya Bank now Bank of Baroda Chilakaluripet branch, rep. by its Chief Manager B.Maruthi Manohar vs Chirra Koteswaramma	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/84/2020	chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank rep.by Branch Manager E.Chandrasekhar vs Chintala Sankaraiah	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/103/2021	Devireddy Vamsi Kumar vs Thota Lakshmi @ Lakshamma	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/114/2021	DENA BANK,NOW BANK OF BARODA, CHILAKALURIPET BRAREP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, SRI B.MARUTHI MANOHAR, vs MURAKONDA LAVANYA	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/169/2021	Byra Siva Venkata Nagendramma vs TANNERU NAGA VIJAYA BABU	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/199/2021	BYRA SIVA VENKATA NAGENDRAMMA vs TANNERU NAGA VIJAYA BABU	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/217/2021	CHUKKAPALLI VIJAYA PROPRIETOR DANUSH GARMENTS vs MUNNALURI VENKATA RAMA RAO	11 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
OS/313/2019	Shaik Adam Vali vs Dakoji Srirama Rao	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/50/2020	SI of POlice vs Nelaturi Devaiah	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/66/2019	RAvella Muneswara Rao vs Moddavath Kota Naik	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/67/2020	SI of Police vs Pilli Sandeep	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/72/2020	SI of Police vs Uppala Chandraiah @ Venkataswamy	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/77/2018	KOLLA AMAR vs P.V.RAMESH BABU	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/79/2020	SI fo Police vs Kandikattu Hari Babu	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/151/2020	SHO Edlapadu P.S. vs Nelaturi Joji Babu	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/152/2020	SHO Edlapadu P.S. vs Darnasi Ramesh	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/167/2020	SHO CHILAKALURIPET URBAN P.S. vs RAMAVATH PARVATHI BAI	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
CC/168/2020	SHO CHILAKALURIPET TOWN P.S. vs SHAIK MABU SUBHANI ALIAS SUBHANI	11 Dec 2021	Other	—
OS/210/2021	ADAPA VIJAYA LAKSHMI vs KUNCHALA ROJA	07 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/3/2021	M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED, NARASARAOPET vs M/S. SIMHATEJA TRADING COMPANY, NARASARAOPET	03 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/16/2020	M/S. MARGADARSI CHIT FUND PRIVATE LIMITED, NARASARAOPET REPRESENTED BY ITS FOREMAN vs KETHINENI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE	03 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
EP/20/2019	Margadarsi chit fund limited, Represented by its Manager, Narasaraopet. vs A.L. Narayanamma	03 Dec 2021	Judgment	—
CC/64/2018	Kommera Koteswara Rao vs Peddi Narasimharao	29 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/219/2021	AMBATI VENKATESH vs KUNCHALA ROJA	24 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/248/2019	Garapati Bala Swamy vs Garapati Joji	24 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/218/2021	ANNAPAREDDY RAMANJANEYULU vs SHAIK RIYAZ	16 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/218/2021	ANNAPAREDDY RAMANJANEYULU vs SHAIK RIYAZ	16 Nov 2021	Order	—
OS/174/2021	Korivi Raju vs Sannayila Venkata Subbarao	11 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/93/2021	SHAIK MOHAMMAD HANEEF vs SHAIK RAHEEM	10 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/260/2020	Nallamothu Narendra Babu vs Patabandhula Govindamma	09 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
OS/408/2020	Manukonda Veera Reddy vs Tanubnoddi Sundara Rami Reddy	05 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
CC/131/2020	SHO Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. vs Yenumula Raghava Reddy	03 Nov 2021	Judgment	—
EP/6/2021	SHRI RAM CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, CHILAKALURIPET vs KALLURI HARI BABU	27 Oct 2021	Order	—
CC/97/2019	M.V. Subba rao vs Parimi Lakshmi Narayana	27 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
CC/47/2018	Chelli Suresh vs Valluri Dhana Lakshmi	12 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
EP/22/2021	STATE BANK OF INDIA, ADB, NARASARAOPET REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER vs KONDAMEEDI SUBBA RAO	07 Oct 2021	Order	—
OS/303/2019	Nandigam Koteswara Rao vs Parchuri Gajendramma	07 Oct 2021	Judgment	—
EP/21/2021	STATE BANK OF INDIA, NARASARAOPET, REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER vs YANNAM KOTESWARA RAO	06 Oct 2021	Order	—

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2022		7
Mar 2022		16
Feb 2022		17
Jan 2022		11
Dec 2021		36
Nov 2021		10
Oct 2021		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY handled?

SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY has handled 103 court orders since 2021 at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka). The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY hear?

Based on available records, SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka).

Where is SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY currently posted?

SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY is posted as PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY dispose cases?

SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 103 orders handled over their tenure at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka).

Since when is SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY serving?

SRI V.VIJAY KUMAR REDDY has been serving at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka) since 2021.

Case Types

OS 65%

CC 23%

EP 12%

Posting History

Oct 2021 — Apr 2022

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET · 103 orders

Outcomes on Record

Compromised 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri. K. Narendra Reddy

PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET

1,200 orders

← View all judges at Court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet (Taluka)