Smt.Y.Saritha

Fair in EP.42/2018

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BADVEL.

Present : Smt. Y. Saritha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel.

Friday, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

E.P. No.42/2018

in

O.S. No.24/2019

Vutukuru Siddamma … Petitioner / Decree Holder

Vs.

Sane Sreenivasulu … Respondent / Judgment Debtor

This Petition has come up before me on 23-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate for Petitioner / D.Hr., and of Sri Elicherla C. Obul Reddy, Advocate for Respondent / J.Dr., upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

O R D E R

This is the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner / Decree Holder under

Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C for arrest and detention of respondent /

Judgment Debtor in civil prison for realization of decreetal amount and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that :

The petitioner / Decree Holder obtained the decree against the Judgment

Debtor in O.S.No.24/2009 on the file of this Court for an amount of Rs.1,20,414/- with costs and subsequent interest on 25-02-2010. In spite of her repeated demands the respondent failed to pay the decreetal amount. The respondent is having movable and immovable properties. Thus, the respondent has sufficient capacity to discharge the decreetal amount, but he willfully and wantonly refusing to pay the decreetal amount. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for arrest 2 and detention of respondent / Judgment Debtor in civil prison in order to realize the amount of decree passed in O.S.No.24/2019 dated 25-02-2010.

3.On the other hand, the respondent / Judgment Debtor filed counter denying the averments of petition-affidavit filed by the Decree Holder. He further contended that the respondent / Judgment Debtor is only breadwinner of his entire family, he has been facing much inconvenience in managing his family as he is not getting any income from agriculture, as he does not possess any inch of landed property. He is having no sufficient means to satisfy the decreetal amount. Having aggrieved with the Decree & Judgment of A.S.No.20/2010 in

O.S.No.24/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Rajampet (FTC) at Badvel. The respondent / Judgment Debtor has moved the

Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for the State of Telangana and for the state of

Andhra Pradesh by way of 2nd appeal as he has good defense. He filed the 2nd appeal with a delay since he could not able to prefer within the prescribed period of limitation because of his poverty. Due to the separation of state of Andhra

Pradesh his application is pending for consideration in the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. There is no deliberate intention on the part of the respondent / Judgment Debtor in discharging his debts which includes the decree in A.S.No.21/2010 in O.S.No.17/2009 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge’s Court (FTC), Rajampeta at Badvel. In the above said facts and circumstances the petitioner / Decree Holder is not entitled to get an order of arrest and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, she herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of Decree in

O.S.No.24/2009 dated 25-02-2010 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Badvel. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of Decree in A.S.No.20/2010 on the file of Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (FTC), Rajampeta at Badvel.

Ex.P.3 is the No.1B account dated 10-07-2018 obtained through Mee-seva.

Ex.P.4 is the No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through

Fair in EP.42/2018

3

Mee-seva in Sy.No.128/4 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents stands in the name of

Judgment Debtor. Ex.P.5 is the No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in Sy.No.89/1 for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents stands in the name of Judgment Debtor.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner / Decree Holder and learned counsel for Judgment Debtor. Perused the entire record. The learned counsel for respondent / Judgment Debtor relied on the authorities of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.281/2015 and 282/2015 in Kapadam

Sangalappa and others V. Kamatam Sangalappa and others, K. Chandraiah V.

Telangana Grameena Bank and another, Aluru Venkata Rao V. Kodali Venkata

Sreekrishna Jaganmohana 1994 (3) ALT 538, Buddana Nageswar Rao V.

Yendeevi Sri Anjaneyulu 2002 (2) ALT 56. E. Murugaiah and another V. C.

Ekambar Reddy 1996 (2) ALD 372. I have gone through the Judgments carefully and gave thoughtful consideration.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner / Decree Holder is entitled for arrest of the respondent / Judgment Debtor in civil prison for recovery of decreetal amount as prayed for?

7.POINT : It is the case of petitioner / Decree Holder that he obtained the decree against the respondent / Judgment Debtor for an amount of

Rs.1,20,414/- with subsequent interest and costs on 25-02-2001. It is the main contention of the petitioner that the respondent / Judgment Debtor is having immovable properties. Inspite of having sufficient source of income, intentionally evading to pay the decree debt in spite of his repeated demands. He failed to pay the decree debt and thus the respondent / Judgment Debtor has to be committed to civil prison for realization of the decreetal amount.

8.Since this is an application filed for arrest and detention of Judgment

Debtor in civil prison in order to realize the decree debt, the initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove that respondent is having sufficient means to pay the 4 decreetal amount as on the date of decree and he has willfully refused and neglected in discharging the amount under the Decree. To prove the means of respondent the petitioner / Decree Holder examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.24/2009

dated 25-02-2010 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Badvel.

Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of Decree in A.S.No.20/2010 on the file of Hon’ble

Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (FTC), Rajampeta at Badvel. Ex.P.3 is the

No.1B account dated 10-07-2018 obtained through Mee-seva. Ex.P.4 is the No.3

Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in

Sy.No.128/4 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents stands in the name of Judgment

Debtor. Ex.P.5 is the No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in Sy.No.89/1 for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents stands in the name of Judgment Debtor. He further deposed that the respondent is having immovable properties in his name. To prove the said fact she got filed Exs.P.3 to

P.5 i.e. No.1B account dated 10-07-2018 obtained through Mee-seva, No.3

Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in

Sy.No.128/4 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents stands in the name of Judgment

Debtor, and No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through

Mee-seva in Sy.No.89/1 for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents stands in the name of

Judgment Debtor. Which clearly reveals that the lands in Sy.No.128/4 of an extent of Ac.0.35 cents and in Sy.No.89/1 of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents stands in the name of Judgment Debtor. Thus, he is having sufficient means to discharge the decree amount, but willfully evading to discharge the amount under decree.

9.It is the contention of Judgment Debtor that since 10 years there were drought conditions prevailing in his village and there were no agricultural operations. As such he could not get any yield. During the course of cross examination of P.W.1, she also admitted that there were drought conditions in

Lakkivaripalli village, but the farmers cultivated the lands with the help of Bore- well. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent / Judgment Debtor has

Fair in EP.42/2018

5

taken the plea that he is not having any landed properties in his village. Along with that he also taken the plea of prevailing drought conditions in his village. If the respondent does not have any landed properties why he has taken the plea of prevailing drought conditions in their village, in order to prove his incapacity.

Thus, from the above discussion coupled with Exs.P.3 to P.5 it can be inferred that the respondent / Judgment Debtor is having agricultural land at his village.

But he has taken false plea and deposed falsely before this Hon’ble Court that he has no immovable properties or capacity to pay the decreetal amount.

10.Relying on the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Exs.P.3 to P.5, this

Court holds that the petitioner is able to establish that the respondent is having sufficient capacity to discharge the amount under the decree and he is willfully neglected to discharge the amount. Anent to the above discussion it is clear that the respondent is showing negligent attitude to discharge the decreetal amount to the petitioner. As adverted above, the respondent did not discharge the amount and waited up to the filing of execution petition by the petitioner, which shows his negligent attitude in discharging the decreetal amount. Hence, the

Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to send the Judgment Debtor to civil prison as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue arrest

warrant under Order 21 Rule 38 CPC against the respondent / Judgment

Debtor on payment of process by 03-07-2026.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Saritha

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

BADVEL.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Petitioner’s side Respondent’s side

P.W. 1. : Vutukuru SiddammaR.W. 1: Sane Sreenivasulu

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Petitioner:

Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.24/2009 dated 25-02-2010 on the file of Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Badvel.

Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Decree in A.S.No.20/2010 on the file of Hon’ble

Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (FTC), Rajampeta at Badvel.

Ex.P.3 : No.1B account dated 10-07-2018 obtained through Mee-seva.

Ex.P.4 : No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in Sy.No.128/4 for an extent of Ac.0.35 cents stands in the name of Judgment Debtor.

Ex.P.5 : No.3 Adangal for faslie 1427 dated 11-06-2018 obtained through Mee-seva in Sy.No.89/1 for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents stands in the name of Judgment Debtor.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent: - NIL -

Sd/- Y. Saritha

P.C.J. (Jr. Dvn.), Badvel.

Fair in EP.12/2025

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BADVEL.

Present : Smt. Y. Saritha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

E.P. No.12/2025

in

O.S. No.150/2019

Muthumala Rama Krishna Reddy … Petitioner / D.Hr.

Vs.

Palakolanu Ramana Reddy … Respondent / J.Dr.

This Petition has come up before me on 08-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D. Brahma Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner / D.Hr., and Respondent / J.Dr. remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing on petitioner’s side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

O R D E R

This is the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner / D.Hr under Order 21

Rule 37 and 38 of C.P.C for arrest and detention of respondent / J.Dr. in civil prison for realization of decreetal amount and for costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that :

The petitioner / Decree Holder obtained the decree against the J.Dr. in

O.S.No.150/2019 on the file of this Court for an amount of Rs.53,461/- with costs

and subsequent interest on 26-07-2019. In spite of his repeated demands the respondent failed to pay the decreetal amount. The respondent is having movable and immovable properties. Thus, the respondent has sufficient capacity to discharge the decreetal amount, but he willfully and wantonly refusing to pay the decreetal amount. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for arrest and 2 detention of respondent / J.Dr. in civil prison in order to realize the amount of decree passed in O.S.No.150/2019 dated 26-07-2019.

3.The notice sent to respondent / Judgment Debtor returned unserved as refused. Hence, deemed as sufficient service of notice and he was set exparte.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, he himself got examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner / D.Hr. Perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner / Decree Holder is entitled for detention of the

respondent / J.Dr for recovery of decreetal amount as prayed for?

7.POINT : It is the case of petitioner / D.Hr. that he obtained the decree against the respondent / J.Dr for an amount of Rs.53,461/- with subsequent interest and costs on 26-07-2019. It is the main contention of the petitioner that the respondent is having immovable properties at Uppaluru village fields, S.A.K.N. Mandal in multiple survey numbers i.e. Sy.No.351/2 of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, in Sy.No.351/1B an extent of Ac.0.77 cents, in Sy.No.310 an extent of Ac.0.15 cents, in Sy.No.295/2 an exctent of Ac.0.02 cents and in

Sy.No.124 an extent of Ac.0.38 cents. Inspite of having sufficient source of income, intentionally evading to pay the decree debt in spite of his repeated demands. He failed to pay the decree debt and thus the respondent / J.Dr has to be committed to civil prison for realization of the decreetal amount.

8.The J.Dr refused to receive the notice and remained exparte. Since this is an application filed for arrest and detention of J.Dr in civil prison in order to realize the decree debt, the initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove that respondent is having sufficient means to pay the award amount as on the date of decree and he has willfully refused and neglected in discharging the amount under the Decree. To prove the means of respondent the petitioner / D.Hr

Fair in EP.12/2025

3

examined himself as P.W.1. He further deposed that the respondent is having immovable properties in his name in Sy.No.351/2 of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, in

Sy.No.351/1B an extent of Ac.0.77 cents, in Sy.No.310 an extent of Ac.0.15 cents, in Sy.No.295/2 an extent of Ac.0.02 cents and in Sy.No.124 an extent of

Ac.0.38 cents of Uppaluru village fields, S.A.K.N. Mandal and thus having sufficient means to discharge the decree amount, but willfully evading to discharge the amount under decree. The respondent did not choose to appear

before this Court in order to rebut the contention of petitioner / D.Hr to prove his

incapacity to pay the decreetal amount.

9.Relying on the evidence of P.W.1, this Court holds that the petitioner is able to establish that the respondent is having sufficient capacity to discharge the amount under the decree and he is willfully neglected and refused to discharge the amount. Further the notice was duly served on the respondent and that he is aware that he has to pay the amount to the petitioner, but he neither appear nor made any efforts to pay the amount. Thus, the said version of respondent clearly shows that his negligent attitude to discharge the decreetal amount to the petitioner. As adverted above, the respondent did not discharge the amount and waited up to the filing of execution petition by the petitioner, which shows his negligent attitude in discharging the decreetal amount. Hence, the Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to send the J.Dr. to civil prison as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10.In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue arrest

warrant under Order 21 Rule 38 CPC against the respondent / J.Dr. on

payment of process by 30-06-2026.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Saritha

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

BADVEL.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Petitioner’s side Respondent’s side

P.W. 1. : Muthumala Rama Krishna Reddy- exparte -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Petitioner: - NIL -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent: - NIL -

Sd/- Y. Saritha

P.C.J. (Jr. Dvn.), Badvel.

1 Fair in O.S.288/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BADVEL.

Present : Smt. Y. Saritha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

O.S. No.288 of 2024

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, B. Mattam Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager.

...Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Jestadhi Devanandam

2. Jestadhi Victor

... Defendants

This suit has come up before me on 24-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, learned counsel for plaintiff and the defendants being called absent and remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing the arguments of plaintiff’s side, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,56,943/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty six thousands nine hundred and forty three only) due by the defendants to the plaintiff’s bank together with future interest from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. Averments of the plaint are summarized as follows:-

The plaintiff’s Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Regional

Rural Bank Act, 1976 having its Head Office at Kadapa. The plaintiff’s bank is being represented by its Branch Manager. On 18-08-2018 the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff’s bank and accordingly, the defendants have executed agreement-cum-deed of Hypothication in favour of 2 Fair in O.S.288/2024 plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 12.00% per annum in equal monthly installments and the defendant No.2 stood as surety. Their liability is joint and several. The 1st defendant has executed an acknowledgment of debt on 18-08- 2021. Later the defendants committed default in payment of loan amount. As per the ledger extract the defendants have to be paid a sum of Rs.4,56,943/-.

Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants have chosen to remain exparte.

4.The Branch-Manager of plaintiff’s Bank himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A.4.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff’s Bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

7.POINT: Perused the record. The Branch Manager of the plaintiff’s

Bank by name Ganjikunta Nagarjuna was examined as P.W.1 and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination, wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff’s Bank to substantiate its case against the defendants, apart from examining himself as PW1, also filed Exs.A.1 to A.4. Original agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff’s bank dt.18-08- 2018 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was marked as Ex.A1. According to Ex.A.1, the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the plaintiff’s bank on 18-08-2018 and promised to repay the same with interest at 12.00% per annum in equal monthly installments. Then the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor and their liability is joint and several. The defendants committed default in payment of loan amount. Apart from Ex.A.1 the plaintiff’s bank filed Ex.A.2 deed of guarantee agreement, Ex.A.3 is acknowledgment of debt, dated 18-08-2021, and Ex.A.4 is the ledger extract dated 16-08-2024. As per Ex.A.4/ ledger extract the defendants have to be paid a sum of Rs.4,56,943/-.

3 Fair in O.S.288/2024

8.In the light of Exs.A.1 to A.4, it is manifest that the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff’s bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 12.00% per annum in equal monthly installments. But defendants No.1 & 2 committed default in payment of loan amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff’s bank by name

Ganjikunta Nagarjuna examined as P.W.1 and by letting Exs.A.1 to A.4 discharged the initial burden of proof. The defendant No.1 being the principal borrower as per Ex.A.1 did not choose to contest the suit and thereby failed to resist the claim of plaintiff’s Bank. Evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence

Exs.A.1 to A.4 remains unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff’s bank proved its case. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff’s bank and against the defendants No.1 & 2.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants No.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff’s bank a sum of

Rs.4,56,943/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty six thousands nine hundred and forty three only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the outstanding balance amount of

Rs.4,56,943/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Saritha

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff’s side Defendants’ side

P.W. 1. : Ganjikunta Nagarjuna- Ex-parte - 4 Fair in O.S.288/2024

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff : Ex.A. 1. : Loan agreement dt.18-08-2018 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A. 2. : Deed of guarantee agreement dt.18-08-2018 Ex.A. 3. : Acknowledgment of debt dt.18-08-2021 Ex.A. 4. : Ledger extract dt.16-08-2024

Sd/- Y. Saritha

P.C.J. (Jr. Dvn.), Badvel.

1 Fair in O.S.387/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BADVEL.

Present : Smt. Y. Saritha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel.

Thursday, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

O.S. No.387 of 2023

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, B. Mattam Branch, Represented by its Branch Manager.

...Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Kanuparthi Rama Subba Reddy

2. Kanuparthi Narayana Reddy

... Defendants

This suit has come up before me on 27-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Pradeep Kumar Pawar, learned counsel for plaintiff and the defendants being called absent and remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing the arguments on plaintiff’s side, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,90,916/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousands nine hundred and sixteen only) due by the defendants to the plaintiff’s bank together with subsequent interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. Averments of the plaint are summarized as follows:-

The plaintiff’s Bank is a body corporate constituted under the Regional

Rural Bank Act, 1976 having its Head Office at Kadapa. The plaintiff’s bank is being represented by its Branch Manager. On 08-10-2020 the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff’s bank and accordingly, the 2 Draft in O.S.354/2024 defendants have executed agreement-cum-deed of Hypothication in favour of plaintiff bank for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and promised to repay the same together with interest at the rate of 11.5% per annum in equal monthly installments and the defendant No.2 stood as surety. Their liability is joint and several. Later defendants committed default in payment of loan amount. As per the ledger extract the defendants have to be paid a sum of Rs.2,90,916/-.

Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants have chosen to remain exparte.

4.The Branch-Manager of plaintiff’s Bank himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3.

5.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff’s Bank is entitled for suit claim as prayed for?”

POINT:

7.Perused the record. The Branch Manager of the plaintiff’s Bank by name

Ganjikunta Nagarjuna was examined as P.W.1 and he filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, wherein he reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff’s Bank to substantiate its case against the defendants, apart from examining himself as PW1, also filed Exs.A.1 to A.3. Original agreement executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff’s bank dt.08-10-2020 for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was marked as Ex.A1. According to Ex.A.1, the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the plaintiff’s bank on 08-10-2020 and promised to repay the same with interest at 11.5% per annum in equal monthly installments. Then the defendant No.2 stood as guarantor and their liability is joint and several. The defendants committed default in payment of loan amount. Apart from Ex.A.1 the plaintiff’s bank filed

Ex.A.2 deed of guarantee agreement, and Ex.A.3 ledger extract dt.30-09-2023.

3 Fair in O.S.387/2023

As per Ex.A.5 / ledger extract the defendants have to be paid a sum of

Rs.2,90,916/-.

8.In the light of Exs.A.1 to A.3, it is manifest that the defendants availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff’s bank agreeing to repay the same with interest at 11.5% per annum in equal monthly installments. But defendants No.1 & 2 committed default in payment of loan amount of Rs.2,90,916/-. Thus, the

Branch Manager of the plaintiff’s bank by name Ganjikunta Nagarjuna examined as P.W.1 and by letting Exs.A.1 to A.3 discharged the initial burden of proof. The defendant No.1 being the principal borrower as per Ex.A.1 did not choose to contest the suit and thereby failed to resist the claim of plaintiff’s Bank. Evidence of P.W.1 and documentary evidence Exs.A.1 to A.3 remains unrebutted and unchallenged. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion, I hold that the plaintiff’s bank proved its case. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff’s bank and against the defendants No.1 & 2.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendants

No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff bank a sum of Rs.2,90,916/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety thousands nine hundred and sixteen only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization on the outstanding balance amount of

Rs.2,90,916/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty one thousands and sixty seven only).

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Saritha

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

BADVEL.

4 Draft in O.S.354/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff’s side Defendants’ side

P.W. 1. : Ganjikunta Nagarjuna- Ex-parte -

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff : Ex.A. 1. : Loan agreement dt.08-10-2020 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.A. 2. : Deed of guarantee agreement dt.08-10-2020 Ex.A. 3. : Ledger extract dt.30-09-2023

Sd/- Y. Saritha

P.C.J. (Jr. Dvn.), Badvel.

Fair in EP.36/2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), BADVEL.

Present : Smt. Y. Saritha,

Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badvel.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026.

E.P. No.36/2024

in

O.S. No.78/2023

Ayanala Venkata Sathya Narayana … Petitioner / D.Hr.

Vs.

Gudime Santhosh Kumar … Respondent / J.Dr.

This Petition has come up before me on 07-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Babu, learned counsel for Petitioner / D.Hr., and the Respondent / J.Dr, remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing on petitioner’s side and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following

O R D E R

This is the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner / D.Hr under Order 21

Rule 48 of C.P.C praying the Court to attach the salary of respondent / J.Dr. for realization of the decreetal amount passed in his favour in O.S.No.78/2023.

2.The petitioner / Decree Holder filed his affidavit along with the execution petition and contends that he obtained decree against the Judgment

Debtor on 25-04-2023 for an amount of Rs.39,800/- with subsequent interest and costs, in the above suit and inspite of his repeated demands the J.Dr. failed to repay the decreetal amount. Due to non payment of the amount due under the decree the petitioner is unable to recover the decreetal amount passed in his favour.

2

3.The petitioner further submits that the Judgment Debtor is a

Government employee working as Teacher, Z.P High School, Chitvel Mandal,

Annamaiah District and drawing salary and inspite of having sufficient source of income he is willfully evading to pay the decreetal amount. Hence the petitioner in order to realize the decreetal amount from the J.Dr has filed this petition seeking to attach the salary of J.Dr so as to enable him to enjoy the fruits of the decree that was passed.

4.Though the notice was served on respondent / J.Dr., he did not appear before this Court and as such he was set ex-parte.

5.On behalf of the Decree Holder no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

6.Heard learned counsel for petitioner / D.Hr.

7.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the Petitioner / D.Hr is entitled to attach the salary of J.Dr for realization of the Decree passed in his favour in O.S.No.78/2023?

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judgment

Debtor is a Government employee working as Teacher, Z.P High School, Chitvel

Mandal, Annamaiah District and hence he is having sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount. But he is intentionally evading to make the payment, as such this petition is filed seeking attachment of the salary of Judgment Debtor who is a

Government employee drawing more than Rs.86,000/- per month towards salary.

9.As seen from the salary certificate of Judgment Debtor his gross income is Rs.86,442/- with basic pay of Rs.58,680/- per month, which means that he is earning good income by way of his salary in order to make payment to the

Decree Holder. This is the 1st E.P..

Fair in EP.36/2024

3

10.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient income but he is willfully neglecting to make payment to the petitioner / Decree Holder. Therefore, the

Court holds that the petitioner / Decree Holder is entitled to seek for the attachment of the salary of respondent / Judgment Debtor for due realization of the decreetal amount. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue attachment

warrant to the Garnishee to attach the salary of Judgment Debtor, subject

to Sec.60 of CPC on payment of process by 01-07-2026.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Y. Saritha

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),

BADVEL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- NIL -

Sd/- Y. Saritha

P.C.J. (Jr. Dvn.), Badvel.