Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT TADEPALLIGUDEM.

PRESENT: - SRI P.DAVID, M.A., B.L.,


SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
Thursday, the 9th day of February, 2017.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 44 OF 2014.


Between:

Chidam Paparao … Plaintiff.


And

Gantasala Anjaneyulu … Defendant

This suit coming on 31-01-2017 for final hearing in the presence of

Sri. P.V.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Plaintiff and of defendant has

been remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration

till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:

1. This is the suit seeking decree for Rs.3,76,000/- with

subsequent interest, costs and such other reliefs.

2. The particulars of the plaint in brief are:-

The querens’ contention is that out of necessity the defendant

borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 27-10-2012 for his

business investment and to discharge sundry debts and executed a demand

promissory note to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum.

Thereafter, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the debt due

under the above promissory note. But, the defendant failed to pay any

amount and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Finally, on

27-02-2014 the plaintiff got issued a registered notice to the defendant. But,

the defendant neither gave any reply notice nor paid any amount due under

the above promissory note. Hence, the suit.


2

3. Though defendant appeared through his counsel, but not filed

written statement and he was called absent and set exparte.

4. The plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1 and also examined One

Buddala Venkata Satyanarayana, scribe of promissory note as PW2 and

exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.

5. Heard the plaintiff’s Counsel.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as


Prayed for?

7. POINT: - P.W.1’s evidence is nothing but replica of the plaint

averments. PW2 scribe of promissory note also d’accord with PW1. Ex.A1 is

the promissory note dt. 27-10-2012 stands in the name of Chidam Paparao–

Plaintiff executed by Gantasala Anjaneyulu for Rs.2,50,000/-, rate of interest

is 24% per annum duly attested by one attestor and scribed by PW2. On

Ex.A1 the defendant subscribed his signature across the revenue stamp. The

plaintiff’s evidence is unchallenged. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief

as sought for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.3,76,000/- together with subsequent interest on the principal amount of

Rs.2,50,000-00 at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till date

of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till date of

realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this


the 9th day of February, 2017.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,


TADEPALLIGUDEM.
3

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:
P.W.1 Chidam Paparao - None -
P.W.2 Buddala Venkata -
Satyanarayana

DOCUMENTS MARKED:
FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 27-10-2012 Suit promissory note executed by the


defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
Ex.A2 27-02-2014 O/c. Legal notice
Ex.A3 - Receipt

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

S.C.J.,
TPG.