Os 86 -12(Jayarama Naik vs g. Venkatramana)

7/27/2019 Os 86 -12(Jayarama Naik vs g. Venkatramana)

1/9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVILJUDGE: MADANAPALLE

O.S.NO: /2012

Plaintiff : B. Jayarama Naik

Defendant : G. Venkatramana

PLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF THEPLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VII, RULE 1

R/W. SECTION 26: C.P.C.1. Plaintiff : B. Jayarama Naik, S/o.Gopala Naik, aged about years, Hindu,

residing at D.NO:III/227/G2,Gollapalle cross road, Madanapalle.

The address of the Plaintiff is as statedabove and also care ofSri B. Bhujanga Rao, B.Sc,LLB,M.Venkatappa, BA,LLB,B. Chandra SekharRao,BA,LLB,M.N.Nagalakshmi,BAL,BL,G.Manohara, BA,LLB,Advocates, Madanapalle.

2. Defendant : G. Venkatramana, S/o.Penchulaiah, aged about yeares, Hindu,

residing at D.NO:III/18-3-487-6,Gajjalakunta, Neerugattuvaripalle,Madanapalle.

The address of the Defendant is asstated above for all purposes of service


2/9

of process, summons, etc., issued fromthis Honble court.

3. The Plaintiff humbly submits that on 06-

02-2009, the Defendant borrowed a sum

of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousands only)

from the Plaintiff for his legal necessities

and justifiable causes, agreeing to repaythe same with interest @24%p.a, on

demand either to the Plaintiff or to his

order and in evidence thereof, the

Defendant executed the suit pronote in

favour of the Plaintiff on the even date.

4. Inspite of repeated demands made by the

Plaintiff, the Defendant has been

postponing to discharge the said debt

along-with interest on some pretext or the

other and the entire debt is still due. The

Plaintiff also caused a legal notice dt:02-

02-2012 to the Defendant calling him

upon to discharge the suit debt for whichalso, the Defendant has not come forward

to discharge his debt. Since the

Defendant has been intentionally evading


3/9

to discharge the Plaintiffs debt, he is

constrained to file this suit.

5. The cause of action for this suit arose on

06-02-2009, when the Defendant

borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff

and executed the suit pronote, and when

the Defendant failed to discharge the said

debt inspite of repeated demands and

inspite of issuance of legal notice dt:02-

02-2012 and at Madanapalle, where the

suit transaction took place within the

jurisdiction of this Honble court.

6. Particulars of valuation:

Principle amount under suit pronote dt:06-

02-2009: Rs.40,000/-

Interest on Rs.40,000/- @24%p.a.,

from 06-02-2009 to 05-02-2009 :

Rs.28,773/-


4/9

Total :

Rs.68,773/-

The value of the suit for purpose of court

fee and Jurisdiction is Rs.68,773/- and a

court fee of Rs. /- is paid under S.20

of A.P.C.F.Act.

7. PRAYER: It is therefore most humbly

prayed that the Honble court may be

pleased to Pass a Decree and Judgment

in favour of the Plaintiff and against the

Defendant:

a) By directing the Defendant to pay the

suit amount of Rs.68,773/- to the

Plaintiff with interest @24%p.a, from

the date of suit till realization;

b) Award the costs of the suit; and

c) Pass such other or further reliefs as

this Honble court deems fit and proper


5/9

under the Circumstances of the case,

in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Plaintiff

Plaintiff

VerificationThe facts stated above are all read overand explained to me in Telugu andadmitted herein to be true and correct tothe best of my knowledge, belief andinformation.

Madanapalle,Plaintiff

Dt:06-02-2012List of Documents:

1. 06-02-2009 : Original suit pronoteexecuted by the Defendant in favour

of the Plaintiff;2. : Xerox copy of Document no:1.3. 02-02-2012 : Office copy of legalnotice issued by the Plaintiff to the

Defendant;


6/9

IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLEO.S.NO: 86/2012

Plaintiff : B. Jayarama Naik

Defendant : G. VenkatramanaCHIEF EXAMINATION AFFIDAVIT OF P.W.-1 FILED UNDER ORDER 18,RULE 4: C.P.C.

I, B. Jayarama Naik, S/o. Gopala Naik, aged about 41 years, Hindu, residing atD.NO:III/227/G2, Gollapalle cross road, Madanapalle, do hereby solemnly affirmand state as follows:1. I am the Plaintiff in the above suit and Deponent herein.2. I submit that I have filed the above suit for realization of the suit amount from

the Defendant along-with interest and costs basing on the suit pronote dt:

06-02-2009 and the Plaint pleadings may kindly be read as part and parcel of

this Affidavit for all material purposes.3. I submit that on 06-02-2009, the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-

(Rs. Forty thousands only) from me for his legal necessities and justifiable

causes, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24%p.a, on demand either to

me or to my order and in evidence thereof, the Defendant executed the suit

pronote in my favour on the even date.

4. Inspite of repeated demands made by me, the Defendant has been postponing

to discharge the said debt along-with interest on some pretext or the other and

the entire debt is still due. I also caused a legal notice dt;02-02-2012 to the

Defendant calling upon him to discharge my debt, and the Defendant, for

which, also the Defendant has not come forward to discharge my debt. Since

the Defendant has been intentionally evading to discharge my debt, I am

constrained to file this suit.


7/9


8/9

demand either to the Plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof, the

Defendant executed the suit pronote in favour of the Plaintiff on the even

date.

3. I submit that the above transaction took place in my presence. On that date,

i.e., 06-02-2009, the Defendant requested me to attend the transaction

stating that he was borrowing Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff and requested me

to attest the pronote. Accordingly, I went to the house of the Plaintiff along-

with the Defendant on that day. At the time of transaction, myself, the

Plaintiff, the Defendant, One B. Sankara Naik, S/o. Narayana Naik and One K.

Nagaraju, S/o. Ramana were present. In our presence, the Plaintiff lent the

sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Defendant, and after counting the same, the

Defendant instructed the above said K. Nagaraja to scribe the pronote. When

the contents were read over to the Defendant by the scribe, it was noticed

that by mistake and oversight, the scribe mentioned the month wrongly, and

immediately, it was corrected properly as February which was only a bonafide

mistake and the same has happened in presence of both the parties. Thereater,

consenting for the same, the Defendant signed in the pronote both across the

stamps and beneathe the same. After seeing the Defendant signing in Ex.A-1,

the above said B.Sankara Naik and myself signed as attestors, and at the end,the said K.Nagaraja signed as Scribe. Thus, the suit transaction took place in

our presence and the Defendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff and

became indebted to him.

Deponent

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on 27-02-2013 at Madanapalle.

Advocate

IN THE COURT OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: MADANAPALLE

O.S.NO: 86/2012Plaintiff : B. Jayarama Naik

Defendant : G. Venkatramana

CHIEF EXAMINATION AFFIDAVIT OF P.W.-3 FILED UNDER ORDER 18,RULE 4: C.P.C.

I, K. Nagaraja, S/o. K. Ramana, aged about years, Hindu, residing atAmmacheruvu Mitta, Madanapalle, do hereby solemnly affirm and state asfollows:1. I am third party to the above suit and Deponent herein. I know both the

parties to the suit, as well as the suit transaction.

2. I submit that on 06-02-2009, the Defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/-

(Rs. Forty thousands only) from the Plaintiff for his legal necessities and

justifiable causes, agreeing to repay the same with interest @24%p.a, on


9/9

demand either to the Plaintiff or to his order and in evidence thereof, the

Defendant executed the suit pronote in favour of the Plaintiff on the even

date.

3. I submit that the above transaction took place in my presence. On that date,

i.e., 06-02-2009, the Defendant requested me to attend the transaction

stating that he was borrowing Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff and requested me

to scribe the pronote. Accordingly, I went to the house of the Plaintiff on that

day. At the time of transaction, myself, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, One

B. Sankara Naik, S/o. Narayana Naik and K.Chalapathi were present. In our

presence, the Plaintiff lent the sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Defendant, and after

counting the same, the Defendant instructed me to scribe the pronote. When

the contents were read over to the Defendant by me, it was noticed that by

mistake and oversight, I mentioned the month wrongly, and immediately, it

was corrected properly as February which was only a bonafide mistake and the

same has happened in presence of both the parties. Thereater, consenting for

the same, the Defendant signed in the pronote both across the stamps and

beneathe the same. After seeing the Defendant signing in Ex.A-1, the above

said B.Sankara Naik and K.Chalapathi signed as attestors, and at the end, I

signed as Scribe. Thus, the suit transaction took place in our presence and theDefendant borrowed Rs.40,000/- from the Plaintiff and became indebted to

him.

Deponent

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me on 27-02-2013 at Madanapalle.

Advocate

Os 86 -12(Jayarama Naik vs g. Venkatramana)

Documents

Transcript of Os 86 -12(Jayarama Naik vs g. Venkatramana)