Sri. Y.Bennaiah Naidu

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PEDDAPURAM

Present : Sri Y.BENNAYYA NAIDU

Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.14/2023

Between :

Pugamalla Hari Prasad, S/o.Apparao, 43 years, Hindu, Business, Harijana Peta, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.

… Petitioner.

and

Pugamalla Veera Lakshmi, W/o.Hari Prasad, 39 years, Employee, Hindu, D/o.Devarapalli Rama Krishna, D.No.11-45, Jaggampeta Village, Jaggampeta Mandal.

… Respondent.

This Petition is coming on 28.03.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Suguna Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner; and of Sri S.Murali Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent; and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner against his wife/Respondent under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between petitioner and respondent on 25.06.2005 at Tiles Manufacturers Association

Building, Jaggampeta, Jaggampeta Mandal on the ground of cruelty and desertion and to grant such other reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows :

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 25.06.2005 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Tiles Manufacturers 2

Association Building, Jaggampeta, Jaggampeta Mandal. Immediately after the marriage, the respondent joined with the petitioner for matrimonial life at Jaggampeta and the marriage was consummated and no children were born during their wedlock.

The marriage with the petitioner was performed against the will and wish of respondent and under the pressure of family members of the respondent. Due to that reason, from the beginning the respondent did not choose to lead matrimonial life with the petitioner and did not choose to provide minimum necessities and comforts and used harass the petitioner intentionally both physically and mentally and used to leave the matrimonial house without any intimation to the petitioner or his family members and went to her maternal home. The petitioner used to take back the respondent with great difficulty. The respondent used to give reports to the police with false allegations. The respondent intentionally raised disputes in public places, quarreled with neighbours without any reason.

Subsequently, on 10.10.2020 the respondent finally left the matrimonial home without intimation and information to the petitioner by taking away all her belongings. On enquiry the petitioner came to know about the respondent’s stay at her parents’ house. The petitioner requested the respondent to join with him, but the respondent refused to join with the petitioner. Then the petitioner raised a dispute before the elders, but the respondent did not choose to come and join with the petitioner to lead happy marital life. Several efforts were made by the petitioner, family members, elders with the respondent all are in vein.

3

Hence, the petitioner filed this petition seeking for decree of divorce.

Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent filed Counter by denying most of the averments made in the petition except their marriage and further averred that at the time of marriage, the parents of the respondent gave an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner and other lanchanams as per demand by petitioner and his family members. The petitioner led matrimonial life with the respondent happily for sometime only. Later there are disputes arose between the both the petitioner and respondent due to the attitude of the both and they separated from 10.10.2020. After several mediations the elders finally advised the petitioner and respondent to obtain decree of divorce before the court. Therefore, the respondent pray to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent.

4.In support of the same, the petitioner examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. On behalf of the Respondent, R.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

5.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief of

decree of divorce against the Respondent as prayed for

or not? and to what relief?

6.The counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner came to the

Court with clean hands and the petitioner has successfully established his case and allegations against the Respondent by virtue of his plea and by virtue of his conventional evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence.

4

Further, he argued that the matter was already settled in between the petitioner and Respondent before the elders. Further, he argued that the petitioner and Respondent agreed to take divorce as amicably in the presence of elders and the elders have settled the issue between petitioner and Respondent and so the petitioner and Respondent agreed to take divorce with their free will and consent without any influence from anybody.

7.The counsel for the Respondent argued that the matter was already settled before the elders. Further he argued that the Respondent is intending and willing to give divorce to the petitioner as they have settled the above matter before the elders in out of Court. Further argued that as per settlement of dispute in between Respondent and petitioner

before the elders, the Respondent agreed to take divorce from the

petitioner and also the Respondent has no objection to give divorce to the petitioner due to amicable settlement occurred between Respondent and petitioner before the elders.

8.POINT :

Whether the petitioner and Respondent settled the

matter as amicably in the presence of elders or not? and

whether the petitioner and Respondent have agreed to

take divorce with their free consent and will or not? and

whether the petitioner is entitled to take divorce from

the Respondent as per settlement or not?

(a)Upon careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1/petitioner available in chief and cross-examination evidence and upon careful scrutiny of Exs.P1 to P4 documentary evidence of the petitioner and upon careful scrutiny of evidence of 5

R.W.1/Respondent, I found that P.W.1/petitioner deposed in his evidence as that he has no objection to take divorce from the

Respondent herein and also the Respondent has also no objection for give divorce to him by reason that himself and

Respondent have settled the matter in out of Court in the presence of elders. Similarly, P.W.1 has clearly deposed in his evidence that himself and Respondent have agreed to take divorce as amicably in the presence of elders and also the elders have settled the issues between himself and Respondent and so himself and Respondent agreed to take divorce with free consent and without any influence from anybody.

(b)Similarly, R.W.1/Respondent has clearly deposed in her evidence as that herself and petitioner have already settled in the presence of elders and as per settlement between herself and petitioner before the elders, she agreed to take divorce from the petitioner and also she reported no objection to give divorce to the petitioner due to amicable settlement occurred between her and petitioner before the elders.

9.Under the above facts and circumstances of the case and also on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1/petitioner available in chief and cross-examination evidence and also on careful examination of evidence of

R.W.1/Respondent available in her chief and cross-examination evidence, I am of the opinion that both the parties i.e., petitioner and Respondent were already settled the matter in the presence of elders in out of Court and also as per settlement of the matter between the petitioner and 6

Respondent, the Respondent has agreed to give divorce to the petitioner and also the petitioner intending to give divorce to the Respondent with his free will and consent in the presence of elders as agreed between the petitioner and Respondent, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/petitioner and also in supporting evidence of R.W.1 who is Respondent in this case.

10.Further, I have no hesitation to hold that the matter in between the petitioner and Respondent was already settled in the presence of elders. As per settlement between the petitioner and Respondent, the Respondent has reported that she has no objection to give divorce to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has also reported that he has no objection to take divorce from the Respondent as per settlement in between the petitioner and

Respondent in out of Court in the presence of elders. Therefore, I hold that both the petitioner and Respondent have agreed to take divorce with their free will and consent and without any influence from anybody. Therefore, under these circumstances I hold that the petitioner is absolutely entitled to seek divorce from the Respondent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent dated 25.06.2005 from the date of this order in view of settlement in between the petitioner and Respondent and also in view of aforesaid reasons and findings.

11.Hence, in the result, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner against the Respondent without costs under the circumstances of the case. Further, the decree of divorce is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner against the Respondent by dissolving the marriage, dated 7 25.06.2005 in between the petitioner and Respondent from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER :

P.W.1: P.Hariprasad.

FOR RESPONDENT :

R.W.1: P.Veeralakshmi

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.P1 : Wedding Invitation card, dated 25.06.2005 relates to petitioner and Respondent.

Ex.P2 : One marriage photo along with C.D. relates to petitioner and Respondent.

Ex.P3 : Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner.

Ex.P4 : Identification certificate issued by the Gazetted officer in the name of the petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT : -- NIL --.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PEDDAPURAM

Present: Sri Y.BENNAYYA NAIDU

Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P. No.10/2023

Between :

Chikkam Durga Devi, W/o.Somesh, 23 years, Hindu, House-wife, D/o.Garapati Rajababu, D.No.10-326, Hindu, Thatiparthy Village, Gollaprolu Mandal. … Petitioner.

and

Chikkam Somesh, S/o.Thirupathi Rao, 32 years, Hindu, Cultivation, D.No.6-242, Kandrakota Village, Peddapuram Mandal.

… Respondent.

This Petition is coming on 10.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Kameswara Rao and Sri P.V.S.Narayana, Advocates

for the Petitioner; and of Sri B.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent; and

upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1.This is a petition filed by the Petitioner against Respondent under

Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking for decree of divorce for dissolution of the marriage took place between the petitioner and respondent on 13.06.2019 on the ground of cruelty; and to award costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows :

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent was took place on 13.06.2019 at Aparna Devi Amma vari Devastanam at Thatiparthi Village as per Hindu rites and caste customs. Immediately the petitioner joined with the respondent to lead conjugal life and after two months the 2 respondent and his family members ill-treated the petitioner with filthy language and harassing the petitioner both mentally and physically without any reason. The respondent and his family members demanded more money from the petitioner parents and the petitioner’s parents obliged their demands as per their wishes even though the parents of respondent did not satisfy with the same and demanded more money from the petitioner’s parents. When the petitioner pleaded her ill-help, then the respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner both mentally and physically. In those circumstances the petitioner felt dangerous to her life. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition seeking for decree of divorce. Hence, the petition.

3. The respondent filed Counter by denying most of the averments made in the petition except their marriage and relationship and further averred that subsequent to filing of petition, the respondent raised dispute

before elders and the elders settled the matter and as per the settlement

of elders, the respondent agreed to pay Rs.9,00,000/- to the petitioner towards full and final settlement of all matrimonial claims and the petitioner agreed to receive the same. Accordingly, the respondent paid

Rs.3,50,000/- to the petitioner before elders and the petitioner received the same. As per the settlement of elders, the respondent agreed to pay the balance of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioner before giving evidence and the petitioner agreed for the same. The petitioner and respondent made exchange of belongings of each other before elders. There are no exchange transactions pending between the parties. Both parties undertake that they will not take any civil or criminal actions against each other in future. Both parties undertake that they will not interfere with the lives of 3 each other after obtaining decree of divorce. Since the matter is adjusted

before elders, the respondent did not specifically deny the each and every

allegation made in the petition. Hence, the respondent has no objection to give divorce to the petitioner as prayed for. Therefore, the respondent prays the Hon’ble court to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent as prayed for.

4.In support of the same, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 is examined and Exs.P1 to P4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent,

R.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

5.Now the point for consideration is;

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief of

decree of divorce against the respondent as prayed for

or not? and to what relief?

6.The Counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner came to the

Court with clean hands and the petitioner has successfully established her case and allegations against the respondent by virtue of her plea and by virtue of her conventional evidence and by virtue of documentary evidence. Further, he argued that the matter was already settled in between the petitioner and respondent before the elders. Further, he argued that the petitioner and respondent agreed to take divorce as amicably in the presence of elders and the elders have settled the issue between petitioner and respondent and so the petitioner and respondent agreed to take divorce with their free will and consent without any influence from anybody.

7.The Counsel for the respondent argued that the matter was already settled before the elders. As per settlement the respondent is intending 4 and willing to give divorce to the petitioner as they have settled the above matter before the elders in out of Court.

8.POINT :

Whether the petitioner and respondent have agreed

to take divorce with their free consent and will or not?

and whether the petitioner is entitled to take divorce

from the respondent as per settlement or not?

(a)Upon careful perusal of evidence of P.W.1/Petitioner available in chief and cross-examination evidence and upon careful scrutiny of Exs.P1 to P4 documentary evidence of the petitioner and upon careful scrutiny of evidence of

R.W.1/Respondent, I found that P.W.1/Petitioner deposed in her evidence as that she has no objection to take divorce from the respondent herein and also the respondent has also no objection for give divorce to her by reason that herself and respondent have settled the matter in out of Court in the presence of elders.

Similarly, P.W.1 has clearly deposed in her evidence that herself and respondent have agreed to take divorce as amicably in the presence of elders and also the elders have settled the issues between herself and respondent and so herself and respondent agreed to take divorce with their free consent and without any influence from anybody.

(b)Similarly, R.W.1/respondent has clearly deposed in his evidence as that himself and petitioner have already settled the matter in the presence of elders. As per settlement between them before the elders the petitioner has given no objection to 5 give divorce to him as they have settled the matter before elders in out of Court.

9.Under the above facts and circumstances of the case and also on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.W.1/petitioner available in chief and cross-examination evidence and also on careful examination of evidence of

R.W.1/respondent available in his chief and cross-examination evidence, I am of the opinion that both the parties i.e., petitioner and respondent were already settled the matter in the presence of elders in out of Court and also as per settlement of the matter between the petitioner and respondent, the respondent has agreed to give divorce to the petitioner and also the petitioner intending to give divorce to the Respondent with her free will and consent in the presence of elders as agreed between the petitioner and respondent, the same facts are clearly reflected in the conventional evidence of P.W.1/petitioner and also in supporting evidence of R.W.1 who is respondent in this case.

10.Further, I have no hesitation to hold that the matter in between the petitioner and respondent was already settled in the presence of elders as per settlement between the petitioner and respondent in the presence of elders in out of Court and the petitioner has reported that she has no objection to give divorce to the Respondent and the Respondent has also reported that he has no objection to take divorce from the petitioner as per settlement in between the petitioner and respondent in out of Court in the presence of elders. Therefore, I hold that both the petitioner and respondent have agreed to take divorce with their free will and consent and without any influence from anybody. Therefore, under these 6 circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is absolutely entitled to seek divorce from the respondent by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent dated 13.06.2019 from the date of this order in view of settlement in between the petitioner and respondent and also in view of aforesaid reasons and findings.

11.Hence, in the result, the petition is allowed in favour of the petitioner against the respondent without costs under the circumstances of the case. Further the decree of divorce is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondent by dissolving the marriage dated 13.06.2019 in between the petitioner and respondent from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER :

P.W.1 : Ch.Durga Devi.

FOR RESPONDENT :

R.W.1: Ch.Somesh.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.P1 : Wedding invitation card, dated 13.06.2019 relates to petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P2 : Two marriage photos along with C.D. relates to the petitioner and respondent.

7

Ex.P3 : Copy of aadhar card of petitioner.

Ex.P4: Identification certificate issued by the Gazetted officer in the name of the petitioner.

FOR RESPONDENT : -- NIL --

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PEDDAPURAM

Present: Sri Y.Bennayya Naidu

Senior Civil Judge

Thursday, the 13th day of April, 2023

H.M.O.P.No.26/2023

Between:

1.Palanki Venkata Maruthi Sai Pattabhi Ram, S/o.Jaggarao, 31 years, Hindu, Brahmin, D.No.6-172/1, Main Road, Annavaram, Sankhavaram Mandal.

2.Palanki Ramyakrishna Santhi Sri Lakshmi, W/o.Venkata Maruthi Sai Pattabhi Ram, D/o.Chamarthi Subrahmanyam, 28 years, Hindu, Brahmin, House-wife, Pithapuram Village, Pithapuram Mandal.

… Petitioners

and

NIL … Respondent

This petition is coming on 11.04.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and upon hearing and perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by legally wedded couple U/sec.13-B of

H.M.Act seeking for divorce by mutual consent.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that:

The marriage of the petitioners was took place on 21.11.2020 at Sri

Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam at Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy

Temple, Annavaram Village, Sankhavaram Mandal as per Hindu rites and caste customs and the marriage was consummated and no children were born out of their wedlock.

2

Immediately after marriage, the 2nd petitioner joined with the 1st petitioner at Annavaram and lead happy conjugal life for 6 months. Later some misunderstandings arose between the petitioners and they could not continue to lead marital life and inspite of intervention of the elders from time to time they could not led marital life and ultimately from January, 2022 the petitioners got separated and residing separately. On 30.08.2022 the 1st petitioner got issued legal notice to 2nd petitioner to come and join with 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner received the same on 02.09.2022 and kept quiet. The elders made several attempts to bring reconciliation between the petitioners, but no effect. The 1stpetitioner filed

H.M.O.P.171/2022 U/Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of

conjugal rights and other reliefs against the 2nd petitioner to come and join conjugal life with 1st petitioner and the same is allowed. Meanwhile the efforts of the elders to reunite the petitioners proved futile. Therefore, both the petitioners have amicably settled out of court in terms of compromise as follows;

a) The petitioners finally decided to live separately and dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and that the 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner and she agreed to receive the same in lump-sum towards the past, future maintenance, permanent alimony and towards full and final settlement and the 2nd petitioner received the same before the elders and also both the petitioners agreed to receive articles and cash etc., given by them at the time of marriage.

3

b) The 1st petitioner shall not make any claims against the 2nd petitioner including claim for damages, malicious prosecution, defamation or otherwise in future.

c) Both parties agreed and admit that accept the above conditions and hereby undertake and admit that they will not raise any claim and propaganda against each other in future in connection with the marriage.

Therefore, the petitioners pray the Hon’ble court to dissolve their marriage by decree of divorce by mutual consent. Hence, the petition.

3. In support of the case P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.P1 to P5 documents were marked.

4.Heard both sides and posted for orders.

5. The point for consideration is;

Whether the petitioners are entitled for mutual

divorce as prayed for?

6.On perusal of record, both the petitioners are legally wedded couple whose marriage was took place on 21.11.2020 at Sri Srinivasa Kalyana

Mandapam at Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Annavaram

Village, Sankhavaram Mandal as per Hindu rites and caste customs. On coming to the fact of the marriage, the petitioners filed the documents i.e., wedding Invitation card, One marriage photo along with C.D. relates to petitioners, copies of Aadhar Cards of petitioners 1 and 2 and Joint identification certificate issued by the gazetted officer in the name of petitioners, before the Court and they are marked as Exs.P1 to P5. It is 4 further case that they have been living separately since more than one year.

7.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they have been living separately for the last more than one year. They also deposed that there is no possibility of any reconciliation or re-union between them and they have decided to take divorce from Court of law. It is also found that the petitioners finally decided to live separately and dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and that the 1st petitioner agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent alimony to the 2nd petitioner and she agreed to receive the same in lump-sum towards the past, future maintenance, permanent alimony and towards full and final settlement and the 2nd petitioner received the same before the elders and also both the petitioners agreed to receive articles and cash etc., given by them at the time of marriage. The 1st petitioner shall not make any claims against the 2nd petitioner including claim for damages, malicious prosecution, defamation or otherwise in future. Both parties agreed and admit that accept the above conditions and hereby undertake and admit that they will not raise any claim and propaganda against each other in future in connection with the marriage. Therefore, the above arrangement between both the petitioners shows that there is no collusion in between them and there is no chance of re-union in between them.

8.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they have been living separately for about last more than one year. They also deposed that there is no possibility of any reconciliation or re-union between them and they have decided to take divorce from Court of law.

5

9.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and as seen the contents of petition filed by the petitioners, I found that the petitioners 1 and 2 have been living and residing separately since more than one year without showing any interest and efforts to lead matrimonial life and also the petitioners are not showing any interest for reunion for the purpose of leading conjugal life inspite of having knowledge about advices of elders and then also they have reiterated before the elders to live separately.

Further, I found that they are clearly deposed that there is no possibility of any reconciliation or reunion between the petitioners and also they have already decided to take divorce from the court of law.

10.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the observation of statutory period of 6 months as colling off period is not necessary on ground that the petitioners have been living separately since more than one year. So, I found that the waiving of cooling off period i.e., statutory period is very essential in this matter by reason that there is no possibility for reconciliation or any reunion between the petitioners.

Further, I found that it is very fit case to waive the cooling off period of 6 months in view of above circumstances. So, the cooling off period of 6 months is hereby waived and permitted the petitioners to get divorce from the court of law.

11.Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, this Court feels that if no divorce is granted no useful purpose would be served since they have been living separately for about last more than one year. Hence, the point is answered accordingly by holding that the petitioners are entitled for divorce on mutual consent.

6

12.In the result , the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners 1 and 2 that took place on 21.11.2020 on the ground of mutual consent. Under the above facts and circumstances no costs are awarded.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS :

P.W.1:P.Venkata Maruthi Sai Pattabhi Ram.

P.W.2:P.Ramyakrishna Santhi Sri Lakshmi.

FOR RESPONDENT :-- None --

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.P1:Wedding Invitation card, dated 21.06.2019 relates to petitioners.

Ex.P2:One Marriage Photo along with C.D. relates to petitioners.

Ex.P3:Copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner.

Ex.P4:Copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner.

Ex.P5:Joint identification certificate issued by the gazetted officer in the name of petitioners.

FOR RESPONDENT : -- NIL --

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

PEDDAPURAM

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Sri. Y. Bennayya Naidu,

Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Monday, the 17th day of April,2023.

E.P.NO.34/2016 in OS No.242/2012

Between

Chinta Bapireddy, S/o.Ammireddy, aged about 39 years, Hindu Business, D.No.16-2- 39, Medaraveedhi, Peddapuram, Peddapuram JCJ, E.G.District.

... Petitioner/ D.Hr

And

Gummadi Sudha, W/o.late.Gummadi Sunil, aged about 36 years, D.No.14-21-48/1,

Opp. RTC complex road, Chintalapudi, Chintalapudi Mandal, W.G.District.

... Respondent/J.Dr

This Petition coming on 17-04-2023 before me for notice to J.Dr in the presence of Sri.M.K.Mohiuddin, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a Petition filed by the D.Hr to peruse petition and certified copies of the decree IA 1115/2012 garnishee served pro-order and affidavit of decree holder and pleased to order issue send for notice to garnishee lying in the hands of garnishee attached death leave salary amounts of late.Gummadi Sunil, S/o.Chintayya worked as

Psychology lecturer in Saint John’s college, J.R.G. Road, Somavarappadu, Eluru,

W.G.District, under order 21 Rule 46-A(1) and Sec.151 CPC.

DHR called absent. Counsel for DHr reported that D.Hr has not turn up and D.Hr has not furnish correct address particulars and so petition may be closed for the present. So, in view of above facts and circumstances of case I found that it is fit case to close the EP for the present. So, accordingly EP is dismissed for default without costs.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

Senior Civil Judge

Peddapuram.

Appendix of evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

S.C.J

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PEDDAPURAM.

Present: Sri. Y. Bennayya Naidu,

Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram.

Monday, the 17th day of April,2023.

E.P.NO. 30/2016 in OS No.218/2010

Between

Konujula Veera Venkata Raja Sekhar, S/o.Sri Ramulu, age 40 years, cultivation, Peda Rayavaram, Rangampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ.

... Petitioner/ D.Hr

And

Vundavilli Suryanarayana, S/o.Peda Atchanna, aged 65 years, cultivation, Peda Rayavaram village, Rangampeta Mandal, Peddapuram JCJ.

... Respondent/J.Dr

This Petition coming on 17-04-2023 before me for sale in the presence of

Sri.K.Chanti Babu, Advocate for petitioner/D.Hr and J.Dr was set exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This is a Petition filed by the D.Hr to order attachment of EP schedule property under order 21 Rule 54 CPC later order issue of sale notice under rules 64 to 66 CPC thereby put the schedule property in auction for realization of the decree debt in the interest of justice.

D.Hr called absent. No representation. D.Hr has fail to pay sale proclamation batta inspite of having a knowledge about orders of court. Further D.Hr has fail to pro- duce bidders and also fail to file market value certificate. Further D.Hr has fail to pros- ecute the petition inspite of conditional orders passed by court. So accordingly EP is dismissed for default without cost.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

Senior Civil Judge

Peddapuram.

Appendix of evidence

No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Sd/- Y.Bennayya Naidu

S.C.J