Vusa Joshma Sri

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Vusa Joshma Sri,

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur,

Tuesday, the 25th day of November, 2025. O.S. O.S. No.641/2025 No.641/2025 Between: Paladugu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Late Subba Rao, Hindu, A/57 years, Agriculturist, R/o. D.No. 11-5, Salapadu Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur.

…....Plaintiff.

- And - Jasti Sambasiva Rao, S/o.Sivaiah(late), Hindu, A/63 years, Agriculturist, R/o.Salapadu Village, Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur. …….Defendant.

This suit coming before me on 05.05.2025 in the presence of Sri Muppaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon considering the material on record, hearing on the plaintiff, the suit having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2.)In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. Originally the father of the plaintiff by name late Paladugu Subba Rao was the owner of an extent of Ac.0.74 cents acquired in the oral partition between him and his brother. The said Subba Rao during his life time executed a regd. Gift Deed dated 20.06.1991 vide doc.No.1896/1991 of SRO, Tenali in favour of his daughter by name Jasti Vijaya

Lakshmi in respect of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land out of aforesaid Ac.74 cents. The said Subba Rao he was in sound and disposing state of mind also executed a regd. Will dated 01.08.2018 vide doc. No. 123/BK-III/2018 of SRO,

Tenali in respect remaining extent of Ac.0.24 cents of land out of aforesaid in 2

Ac.0.74 cents in favour of plaintiff. The plaint schedule property is situated to the southern side of the property covered under the aforesaid Gift Deed.

The Plaintiff further stated that said Subba Rao died on 21.10.2019 without either altering or cancelling the said Will. After the death of said Subba

Rao, as per the recitals of the said Will the plaintiff took possession of the property covered under the said Will, which is the plaint schedule property, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any obstructions or objections from anybody. The revenue authorities also mutated the name of the plaintiff in revenue records. The Plaintiff has been paying the cist to the revenue authorities in his name. The sister of the plaintiff by name

Jasti Vijaya Lakshmi died on 11.06.2018. Since then the defendant who is no other than the husband of the said Vijaya Lakshmi has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under the said Gift Deed. While the things stood thus, from the month of June, 2024 the defendant is objecting the agricultural operations in the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff made mediations through village elders to pacify the matter, but there is no change in the attitude of the defendant, then the plaintiff filed PLC

No.163/2024 before the Hon'ble District Legal Services Authority, Guntur. The defendant received the notice in said PLC, but he did not appear before the

Hon'ble District Legal Services Authority, Guntur and kept quiet. From the last

one week the defendant is again objecting the plaintiff in agricultural works and making hectic efforts to occupy the plaint schedule property by dispossessing the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff approached the SHO,

Chebrolu PS for proper action against the defendant, but the police advised the plaintiff it is the civil dispute and approach the Hon'ble Court for proper redressal. The defendant has no right or title over the plaint schedule property.

3

The defendant is much influenced person in the locality and he has relations with political leaders of higher cadre. The village elders also advised the defendant not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. Inspite of the same the defendant did not stop his highhanded acts and causing obstruction to the plaintiff in order to dictate terms to him. The plaintiff is unable to prevent the highhandedness of the defendant.

Hence the suit.

3)The defendant was set exparte on 09.10.2025.

4) On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 along with

PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is Certified copy of Registered WILL vide Doc.No.128/BK-III/2018 of SRO, Tenali, dated 1.8.2018 executed by the father of plaintiff by name Subbarao in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property. Ex.A2 is Adangal/Pahani, dated 27.3.2025 issued by the

Grama-ward Sachivalayam in the name of plaintiff. Ex.A3 is Form-1B, dated 27.3.2025 issued by the Grama-ward Sachivalayam in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A4 is Office copy of Petition in PLC.No.163/2024 on the file of the DLSA,

Guntur.

5.) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?

6.) Heard and perused the record.

POINT:

7) PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments as contemplated under Order 18,

Rule 4(1) C.P.C. The unchallenged evidence of PW.1 shows that on 01.08.2018 the father of the plaintiff by name Subba Rao executed Ex.A1. Regd. Will vide doc. no. 128/BK-III/2018 of SRO, Tenali, in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint 4 schedule property. Later on 21.10.2019 the father of the plaintiff died without altering or cancelling the said Ex.A1/Will. Since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In the month of June, 2024 the defendant objected the plaintiff in doing agricultural works in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff filed PLC No.163/2024, the defendant received the notice in the said PLC and failed to appear before the Hon’ble DLSA under

Ex.A4. The defendant again making hectic efforts to dispossess the plaintiff from plaint schedule property and to grab the same. The plaintiff approached the

SHO, chebrolu PS and the police advised the plaintiff it is the civil dispute and approach the Hon’ble court for proper redressal.

8) The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 shows that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

In a suit for injunction, the primary question to be considered is possession, however, incidental title may have given into. There is no basis to discard the unchallenged evidence of PWs.1 and 2. So, the plaintiff by relying upon the evidence of PW.1 apart from Ex.A1 proved their claim.

9) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, except by due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For defendant:-

P.W.1 : Paladugu Srinivasarao. - None - P.W.2 : Bethaupudi Prasadarao.

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of Registered WILL vide Doc.No.128/BK-III/2018 of SRO, Tenali, dated 1.8.2018 executed by the father of plaintiff by name Subbarao in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property.

Ex.A2 : Adangal/Pahani, dated 27.3.2025 issued by the Grama-ward Sachivalayam in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A3 : Form-1B, dated 27.3.2025 issued by the Grama-ward Sachivalayam in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of Petition in PLC.No.163/2024 on the file of the DLSA, Guntur.

For Defendant :- NIL.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Vusa Joshma Sri,

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur,

Monday, the 22nd day of December, 2025. O.S. O.S. No.770/2025 No.770/2025 Between:

1. CHSR Cotton Traders Represented by its Managing partner, Cherlopalli Samba Siva Rao, S/o.Cherlopalli Sri Ramulu, Hindu, A/31 years, Business, R/o.D.No. 4-86, Mutluru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur.

2. Cherlopalli Samba Siva Rao, S/o. Cherlopalli Sri Ramulu, Hindu, A/31 years, R/o,.D.No. 4-86, Mutluru Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur.

…....Plaintiffs.

- And -

1. Lakshmi Pranathi Cotton Traders, Rep. by its Managing Partner Mannava Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Mannava Rama Krishnaiah, Hindu, A/72 years, R/o.D.No. 4-67/A, Chintapallipadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur.

2. Mannava Seshagiri Rao, S/o. Mannava Rama Krishnaiah, Hindu, A/72 years, Managing partner of Lakshmi Pranathi Cotton Traders, R/o.D.No. 4- 67/A, Chintapallipadu Village, Vatticherukuru Mandal, Guntur. …….Defendants.

This suit coming before me on 05.05.2025 in the presence of Sri RVBS Kumar, Advocate for Plaintiffs and the defendant remained set exparte and upon considering the material on record, hearing on the plaintiff, the suit having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

2.)In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property. The defendants offered to let out the schedule property namely Lakshmi Pranathi Cotton Traders on annual rental basis to the plaintiff. Accordingly on 10.11.2024 the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a rental agreement. The rental agreement was commencing from 10.11.2024 to 09.11.2027 for a period of three years. As per the rental 2 agreement the rent was Rs.2,40,000/- per year and Rs.20,000/- per month. On that date advance rent was paid for Rs.1,00,000/- for five months. Recently the property value was abnormally raised-up and increased, for that reason the defendants demanded the plaintiffs to pay rent for Rs.3,50,000/- per annum otherwise asked to vacate the plaint schedule property immediately for the plaintiffs requested the defendants and that they will pay the reasonable rent to the defendants and not to necked out himself and his mill godown from that premises.

It is further stated that to meet the same the defendants and their followers threatening the plaintiffs to vacate the plaint schedule property on the plan of demanding to enhance the rent heavily without observing the earlier enhancement norms and when the plaintiffs unable to meet the illegal demands of the defendants that he is trying to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property illegally with his followers muscle power by taking the services of the anti-social elements by taking the services of their staff and other labour who are under his thumb.

It is further stated that the plaintiffs regularly paying the every month agreed rental amount to the defendants and never committed default of rent of the schedule property, the defendants received the rent till 11.02.2025. They used to pay the monthly rents to the defendants before the date as per agreement every month and the defendants are used to receive the same. The plaintiffs never been default in payment of monthly rent. From 16.012025 the defendants and their followers have been trying to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property by way of using illegal methods and has been continuously threatening the plaintiffs to evict the plaint schedule property.

Immediately and openly proclaiming unless otherwise, the plaintiffs evict the 3 said property the defendants will forcibly evict the plaintiffs with the help of anti social elements and goons. It is also pertinent in this correction to the state that since few days more particularly since last one month the defendants and their followers also sending several persons who are threatening the plaintiffs at the plaint schedule property.

It is further stated that the plaintiffs are statutory tenant and they cannot be evicted forcibly from the plaint schedule property except under give process of law. The defendants are influential and having support of unruly elements beside money power and the plaintiff a sober land and law abiding citizen not in a position to resist the illegal and high handed activities of the defendants and his henchmen.

Hence the suit.

3)The defendants were set exparte on 15.10.2025.

4) On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW.1 along with

PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is Rental Agreement, dated 10.11.2024.

5.) Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as

prayed for?

6.) Heard and perused the record.

POINT:

7) PW.1 reiterated the plaint averments as contemplated under Order 18,

Rule 4(1) C.P.C. The unchallenged evidence of PW.1 shows that the defendants offered to let out the schedule property to the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to give the plaint schedule property on yearly rental basis to the plaintiffs and accordingly both the parties entered into a Ex.A1/Rental Agreement and the rental agreement was 10.11.2024 to 09.11.2027 for a period of three years and as per Ex.A1/rental agreement the rent for every year Rs.2,40,000/- per year 4 and Rs.20,000/- per month. On that date the rent of schedule property rental amount as paid in advance for Rs.1,00,000/- for five months. Later the property value was abnormally raised up and increased, for the reason the defendants demanded the plaintiffs to pay rent for Rs.3,50,000/- per annum otherwise asked to vacate the plaint schedule property immediately for the plaintiffs requested the defendant. Since few days the defendants have been trying to evict the plaintiffs from the plaint schedule property by way of using illegal method. The plaintiffs regularly paying the every month rent agreed rental amount to the defendants and never committed default of rent of the schedule property, the defendants receive the rent till 11.02.2025 and the plaintiffs never been default in payment of monthly rent. From 16.01.2025 the defendants has been continuously threatening from the plaintiffs to evict the plaint schedule property immediately and openly proclaiming unless otherwise the plaintiffs evict the said property he will forcibly evict him with the help of anti social elements and goons.

8) The testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A1 shows that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. In a suit for injunction, the primary question to be considered is possession, however, incidental title may have given into. There is no basis to discard the unchallenged evidence of PW.1. So, the plaintiff by relying upon the evidence of

PW.1 apart from Ex.A1 proved their claim.

9) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, except by due process of law.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 22 nd day of December, 2025.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For defendant:-

P.W.1 : Cherlopalli Sambasivarao. - None -

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Rental Agreement, dated 10.11.2024.

For Defendant :- NIL.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present:Smt. Vusa Joshma Sri,

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur,

Tuesday, the 25th day of November, 2025.

O.S. O.S. No.1063/2025 No.1063/2025

Between :

State Bank of India, Nehru Nagar Branch, Guntur, Rep. by chief manager, V.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Bala Subbaiah, Hindu, A/45 years, SMEC, Arundelpet, Guntur.

....Plaintiff.

AND Epuri Sita Maha Lakshmi, Proprietor The Galaxy Tiffen and Meals, Hindu, A/41 years, R/o.Flat No. 201, Venkata Krishna Apartments, 6/18, Brodipet, Guntur.

…..Defendant.

This suit coming before me on 19.11.2025 in the presence of Sri K.V.R.H.Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon considering the material on record, the suit having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of

Rs.1,51,979/- with subsequent interest at 11.40% p.a. as per the terms and conditions from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2)In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is State Bank of India Bank having various branches all over India and one of its

Central office at Mumbai and the present branch is Nehru Nagar Branch,

Guntur. The plaintiff used to give loans to the needy individuals.

2(a). The defendant approached the bank for EB-MSME-DOD SBF Mudra

Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 17.07.2023 and the plaintiff bank sanctioned 2 the credit facilities to the defendant on 26.07.2023 and the defendant undertook to repay the amount at monthly rests and with interest @11.40% per annum calculated on daily balance of loan amount at monthly rests and also undertook to hypothecate the stock in business as security for due repayment of loan amount. The defendant signed on the sanction of credit facilities. In token of receipt of amount the defendant executed Letter of Arrangement and Agreement of Loan cum

Hypothecation hypothecating the stock in trade as security for due repayment of loan amount. The defendant made part payments and an account number 42117993142 was opened in the name of the defendant all the transactions are entered into it and the defendant made last payment on 18.11.2024 and acknowledged his liability under the loan.

As per the account the defendant owe an amount of Rs.1,51,979/- on 17.07.2025. Upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the said debt. Thereafter on 20.07.2025 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte on 08.10.2025.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff bank, the Chief Manager by name

V.Venkateswarlu was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6.

Ex.A1 is Original Loan Application, dated 17.07.2023. Ex.A2 is Original

Letter of Arrangement, dated 26.07.2023. Ex.A3 is Original Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, dated 26.07.2023. Ex.A4 is Office copy of 3 registered notice issued to the defendant, dated 20.07.2025. Ex.A5 is

Original Postal receipt, dated 30.07.2025. Ex.A6 is Original Account copy 42117993142, dated 17.07.2025 along with Sec.65-B Certificate.

5.Now the point for consideration:

Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit

amount as prayed for?

6.Heard and perused the record.

POINT:

7. The Chief Manager of Plaintiff Bank by way of Chief affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim has produced Exs.A1 to A6. The evidence of PW.1 is that the defendant applied for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 Loan application and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan on 26.07.2023 to the defendant and that the defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest @11.40% per annum at monthly rests under Ex.A2 and also hypothecated stocks in business as a security for repayment of loan amount under Ex.A3 on the even date. Thereafter the defendant opened an account bearing No. 42117993142 with the plaintiff bank. Since then the defendant made part payments and thereafter the defendant failed to discharge the due debt. As per the statement of account, under Ex.A6 the amount due as on 17.07.2025 is Rs.1,51,979/-. Upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay the 4 debt, even after receipt of the registered notice under EX.A5, the defendant kept quite.

9. A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.W.1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by P.W.1, reveals that the defendant availed the loans from the plaintiff bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly, even after receiving the legal notice. The defendant did not choose to appear before the court, even after receipt of summons. Hence the defendant was set exparte and it appears that defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of PW.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus the evidence of P.W1 is unchallenged and that the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.1,51,979/- (Rupees One Lakh

Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) along with interest at 11.40% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs.1,51,979/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty One

Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Nine Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 25 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For defendant:-

PW.1 :- V.Venkateswarlu. – Exparte – 5

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Original Loan Application, dated 17.07.2023.

Ex.A2 : Original Letter of Arrangement, dated 26.07.2023.

Ex.A3 : Original Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, dated 26.07.2023.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of registered notice issued to the defendant, dated 20.07.2025.

Ex.A5 : Original Postal receipt, dated 30.07.2025.

Ex.A6 : Original Account copy 42117993142, dated 17.07.2025 along with Sec.65-B Certificate.

For Defendants :- NIL.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Guntur.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present:Smt. Vusa Joshma Sri,

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur,

Wednesday, the 26th day of November, 2025.

O.S. O.S. No.1071/2025 No.1071/2025

Between :

State Bank of India, Sangadigunta Branch, Guntur, Rep. by chief manager, V.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Bala Subbaiah, Hindu, A/30 years, SMEC, Arundelpet, Guntur.

....Plaintiff.

AND Mohammad Salma, Proprietor Yasin and Salma cloth and Fancy, A/30 years, R/o.#68-1-37/5, 1st lane last, Near NTR Statue, Sangadigunta, Guntur.

…..Defendant.

This suit coming before me on 19.11.2025 in the presence of Sri K.V.R.H.Prasad, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon considering the material on record, the suit having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Bank for recovery of sum of

Rs.2,02,291/- with subsequent interest at 12.15% p.a. as per the terms and conditions from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2)In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is State Bank of India Bank having various branches all over India and one of its

Central office at Mumbai and the present branch is Sangadigunta Branch,

Guntur. The plaintiff used to give loans to the needy individuals.

2(a).The defendant approached the bank for EB MSME DOD SBF

Mudra Loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the credit 2 facilities to the defendant on 27.08.2024 and the defendant undertook to repay the amount at monthly rests and with interest @12.15% per annum calculated on daily balance of loan amount at monthly rests and also undertook to hypothecate the stock in business as security for due repayment of loan amount. The defendant signed on the sanction of credit facilities. In token of receipt of amount the defendant executed

Letter of Arrangement and Agreement of Loan cum Hypothecation hypothecating the stock in trade as security for due repayment of loan amount. The defendant made part payments and an account number 43345915008 was opened in the name of the defendant all the transactions are entered into it and the defendant made last payment on 05.03.2025 and acknowledged his liability under the loan. As per the account the defendant owe an amount of Rs.2,02,291/- on 19.07.2025.

Upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to repay the said debt. Thereafter on 30.07.2025 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant.

Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant remained exparte on 22.10.2025.

4. On behalf of the plaintiff bank, the Chief Manager by name

V.Venkateswarlu was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5.

Ex.A1 is Original Loan Application, dated 27.08.2024. Ex.A2 is Original

Letter of Arrangement, dated 12.09.2024. Ex.A3 is Original Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, dated 12.09.2024. Ex.A4 is Office copy of 3 registered notice issued to the defendant, dated 30.07.2025. Ex.A5 is

Original Account copy 43345915008, dated 19.07.2025 along with

Sec.65-B Certificate.

5.Now the point for consideration:

Whether the plaintiff Bank is entitled to recover the suit

amount as prayed for?

6.Heard and perused the record.

POINT:

7. The Chief Manager of Plaintiff Bank by way of Chief affidavit reiterated the averments made in the plaint and to prove the claim has produced Exs.A1 to A5. The evidence of PW.1 is that the defendant applied for loan of Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 Loan application and the plaintiff bank sanctioned the said loan on 27.08.2024 to the defendant and that the defendant agreed to repay the said loan with interest @12.15% per annum at monthly rests under Ex.A2 and also hypothecated stocks in business as a security for repayment of loan amount under Ex.A3 on the even date. Thereafter the defendant opened an account bearing No. 43345915008 with the plaintiff bank. Since then the defendant made part payments and thereafter the defendant failed to discharge the due debt. As per the statement of account, under Ex.A5 the amount due as on 19.07.2025 is Rs.2,02,291/-. Upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay the debt, even after receipt of the registered notice under EX.A4, the defendant kept quite.

4

8. A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.W.1 coupled with documentary proof relied upon by P.W.1, reveals that the defendant availed the loans from the plaintiff bank and later failed to repay the installments regularly, even after receiving the legal notice. The defendant did not choose to appear before the court, even after receipt of summons. Hence the defendant was set exparte and it appears that defendant has no defence to rebut the evidence of PW.1. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus the evidence of P.W1 is unchallenged and that the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.2,02,291/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One Only) along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till date of realization on the adjudged amount of Rs.2,02,291/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Two Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff :- For defendant:-

PW.1 :- V.Venkateswarlu. – Exparte – 5

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff :-

Ex.A1 : Original Loan Application, dated 27.08.2024.

Ex.A2 : Original Letter of Arrangement, dated 12.09.2024.

Ex.A3 : Original Agreement of Loan-cum-Hypothecation, dated 12.09.2024.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of registered notice issued to the defendant, dated 30.07.2025.

Ex.A5 : Original Account copy 43345915008, dated 19.07.2025 along with Sec.65-B Certificate.

For Defendants :- NIL.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Guntur.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), GUNTUR

Present: Smt Vusa Joshma Sri,

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur,

Wednesday, the 26th day of November, 2025.

O.S. O.S. No.1171/2025 No.1171/2025

Between : Bezzam Anil, S/o. Bhaskara Rao, A/33 years, Business, R/o. D.No. 4-17-89/7, 3rd line, Velangini Nagar, Amaravathi Road, Guntur.

…..Plaintiff.

AND Gudavalli Ravi Babu, S/o. Chinnappa, A/38 years, Govt. Employee, R/o.D.No. 2- 31-18, TMC Road, Nandulapeta, Tenali, Guntur.

…..Defendant.

This suit coming on 24.11.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri Arani Srinivasa Rao, Advocate on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant remained set exparte and upon considering the material on record, the suit having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.)This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,58,000/- together with interest and costs based on promissory note,

dated 08.06.2023 for Rs.3,00,000/-.

2.) In brief, it is the case of the plaintiff that on 08.06.2023 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of plaintiff, agreed to pay the same with interest @24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Upon repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to discharge the said debt under promissory note.

Hence, the suit.

3.) The defendant remained exparte on 27.10.2025.

4.) On behalf of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as P.W.1 along with

PW.2 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is Original Promissory note dated 08.06.2023.

2 5.)Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as

prayed for?

6.)Heard and perused the record.

POINT:

7.) PW.1 deposed in detail as alleged in his plaint. The unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals that the defendant having borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 promissory note. Ex.A1 promissory note also reveals the said fact. It also appears the unchallenged evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A1 established that the defendant having borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 promissory note dated 08.06.2023, undertak- ing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In- spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to discharge the same and kept quiet.

8.)A plain reading of Sworn affidavit of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with documen- tary proof relied upon by P.Ws.1 and 2, reveals that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff under Ex.A1 promissory note dated 08.06.2023, undertaking to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Thereafter the defendant did not choose to repay the debt, even after receiving the legal notice. The defendant did not choose to appear be- fore the court, even after receipt of summons. Hence, the defendant set exparte and it appears that defendant has no evidence to rebut the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. This suit is filed within limitation. Thus the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is unchallenged and that the point is answered in favour of plaintiff.

3 9.) In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,58,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight

Thousand Only) and thereafterwith interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs

Only).

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26 th day of November, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

On Behalf of Plaintiff :- For defendants:-

P.W.1: Bezzam Anil. -Exparte- p.w.2: Yerikala Siva Vishnu.

Documents Marked

On Behalf of Plaintiff :- For Defendants :- NIL.

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note dated 08.06.2023.

Sd/- Smt. V.Joshma Sri.

III Addl. Civil Judge(Junior Division), Guntur.

4