\o IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GURAZALA Os. \ 12022 BETWEEN Kalangi Kiran Kumar ss PLAINTIF Vs Pavuluri Rosaiah «+: DEFENDANT. PLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF UNDER ORDER VII RULES | TO 6 AND SECTION 26 OF CIVIL PROCEUDRE CODE 1908 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAINITFF: The plaintiff is Kalangi Kiran Kumar, S/o: Nageswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 42 years, business, R/o: Door No.: 11-1-466/3, Rama Talkies lane, Macherla Town, Mandal & JCJC, Guntur District. His address for service is the same as above. The address of his counsel is J. Nageswara Rao, [Link]., B.L., Advocate, Near Rama Talkies, Macherla. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEFENDANT: The defendant is Pavuluri Rosaiah, S/o: Aadaiah, Hindu, aged about 38 years, business, R/o: 11-2-225, SBI road, Near the house of MLA, C/o: Sai Krishna Hotel, Main Road, Opp. to Bus Stand, Macherla Town, Mandal & JCJC, Guntur District. His address for service is the same as above. Ill. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: a) The plaintiff submits that the defendant borrowed the following amounts: Si. Re Date Borrowed Amount of Rupees: (03/08/2017 (third day of August, two | Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two Lakhs fifty thousand seventeen) thousand) 18/09/2017 (eighteenth day of 2 | september, two thousand seventeen} |_R®: 2:00,000/- (Two Lakhs) 11/12/2017 (Eleventh day of 3 | December two thousand Seventeen) | _RS-3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs) 4 TAI OL eleven davon Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) December two thousand Seventeen) 13/12/2017 (Thirteenth day of December two thousand Seventeen) 13/12/2017(Thirteenth day of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs) Rs. 5,00,000/- (Five Laney} [G07 rom the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting his business xpi vn, GUISZ= i +O le 1G Rag lewand on the even date the defendant also agreed 10 repay the same together with interest @ 18% p.a. either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand at Macherla. b) Subsequently the defendant paid the part payments on the suit promissory notes as follows: Promissory Note | Part P Part Payment SUINe: Dated: Amount Date i 03/08/2017 Rs.5,100/- 1708/2020 2 18/09/2017 Rs.5,100/- 15/09/2020 3 HA2RO17 Rs.5,000/- (05/12/2020 4 11/12/2017 Rs.5,000- (01/12/2020 5 13/12/2017 s.5,000/- 10/12/2020 6 13/12/2017 Rs.5,000/- 11/12/2020 and the same were endorsed by the plaintiff himself on the backside of the said suit promissory notes. ) Thereafter, the defendant did not choose to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under the above said promissory notes inspite of his repeated demands in one way or the other. The defendant is intentionally postponing the same in one way or the other by saying empty promises. Besides the above said promissory notes the defendant also borrowed the amounts and executed promissory notes for which the plaintiff filed separate suits. The better counsels and best mediations of the plaintiff were proved futile. ©) The claim is based on the original borrowing. d) The provisions of debt relief laws are not applicable to the facts of the present suit. IV. HENCE, THIS SUIT: Veg (EAUSE OF ACTION: Cpise of actigacfor she sit age an 03/08/2017, 18/09/2017, 11/12/2017, 11/12/2017, 13/12/2017, 13/12/2017 When the defendant has borrowed an amounts of Rs.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- respectively from the plaintiff and executed separate promissory notes in,his favour at Macherla; on 01/08/2020, 5109/2020, 0$/12/2020, 01/12/2020, 10/12/2020, 11/12/2020 when the defendant paid an amount of Rs.5,100/-, Rs.5,100/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/-, Rs.5,000/- respectively to the plaintiff towards part payment under the suit promissory notes respectively; on such other dates when the defendant fails 10 discharge the debt due to the plaintiff in spite of his repeated demands under the TREMIigQE Mees; and where the parties to the suit are residing and where the cause at action is fully arosed (i.e) at Macherla etc,, are one and all comes under purview hi 43H Ble court’s jurisdiction. | Court, ures? RTICULARS OF VALUATION: Rs. 2,50,000-00 Rs. 2,03,250-00 le VefQaq komRs. 4,53,250-00 Part payment Rs.5,100-00 Interest from 01/08/2020 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,397-00 (-) Rs. 6,497-00 = Rs. 4,46,753-00 Po 2) Principle Amount Rs, 2,00,000-00 Interest from 18/09/2017 Fi Rs, 1,58,100-00 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs, 3,58,100-00 ~~ Part payment Rs.5,100-00 Interest from 15/09/2020 — to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,285-00(-) Rs, 6385-00 = Rs. 3,51,715-00 —— 3) Principle Amount Rs, 3,00,000-00 Interest from 11/12/2017 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs, 2,24,700-00 Rs, $,24,700-00 ——~ Part payment Rs.5,000-00 Interest from 05/12/2020 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. R: = Rs. 5,18,640-00 ——~ ,060-00 (-) Rs. Rs. $,00,000-00 4) Principle Amount Interest from 11/12/2017 + to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs. 3,74,500-00 - Rs. 8,74,500-00 Part payment Rs.5,000-00 Interest from 01/12/2020 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,070-00(-) Rs. 6,070-00 = Rs. 8,68,430-00 ke = Tes 5) Principle Amount Rs. 5,00,000-00 _— = Interest from 13/12/2017 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs. 3,74,000-00 Rs. 8,74,000-00 Part payment Rs.5,000-00 Interest from 10/12/2020 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,047-00(-) Rs. 6,047-00’ = Rs. 8,67,953-00_- 6) Prmigiple Afeunt Rs. 5,00,000-00 = —— TRUE COPY Interest from 43/12/2017 10 09/02/2022 @L18% p.a Rs. 3,74,000-00 EXAMINER is yADa. Court Gur Rs. 8,74,000-00 Part payment Rs.5,000-00 Toxpwd Ke HE Qan und,Interest from 11/12/2020 to 09/02/2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,045-00(-) Rs. 6,045-00 Rs. 8,67,955-00 SUIT AMOUNT On which a fixed equrt fee of = Z IRs. (qrg>66 onRs. 4,46,753/-; 2)Rs. Go>6 “Coon Rs. 3,51,715) 3)Rs. 7426200 onRs. 5,18,640/-; 4)Rs. 1 26200 on Rs. 8,68,430/-; 5) Rs. 16 =0070n Rs, 8,67,953/-; 6)Rs. (16522 on Rs. 8,67,955/-; The Total count fee of Rs. $3 4626 on Rs. 39,21,446-00 is to be paid and herewith paid U/S.6 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act. Due to non availability of court fee stamps, the said amount was paid into Bank Account of this court at S.B.I., Macherla, The counter foil dated: 13(+]>+xIv!4fuis herewith filed. VII. VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF JURISDICTION IS THE SAME AS ABOVE. VIII, Therefore, the plaintiff prays that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass a decree in his favour against the defendant for a) the suit amount of Rs. 39,21,446-00; b) subsequent interest from the date of si ©) costs of the sui and 4) pass appropriate orders in the interest of Justice. till the date of realization; S AG Qan kon se ee) k, ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF 1, do hereby declare and state that the above stated facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information. Gurazala, KK Ia4 fever Dr: 10/02/2022. PLAINTIFF LIST OF DOCUMENTS: 1) 03/08/2017 : Suit Promissory note with part payment endorsement dt: 01/08/2020; Suit Promissory note with part payment endorsement 5/09/2020; _ ‘ory note with part payment endorsement 5/12/2020; 4) 11/12/2017 : Suit Promissory note with part payment endorsement. dt: 01/12/2020; 13/12/2017 : Suit Promissory note with part payment endorsement }0/12/2020; 7 + Suit Promissory note with part payment endorsement dt: 11/12/2020; UE Cop TF Nae 0 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF EXGRINER RAD. Court, Gur... 2) 18/09/2017 3) 11/12/2017PRONOTE sri OR =" [Link]. by /2022 This Is a suit for recovery of money of s.2,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs $,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs 5,00,000/ respectively from the defendant basing on six (6) promissory notes dated 03.08.2017, 18.09.2017, 11.12.2017, 11.12.2017, 13.12.2017 and 13 12.2017 respectively with interest @ 18 % p.a and with Future interest and costs. Subsequently, the defendant made part-payments on 03.08.2017 Rs.5,100/-, on 18.09.2017 RS5,100/-, on 11.12.2017 Rs§,000/-, on 14.12.2017 Rs.5,000/,, on 13.12.2017 Rs.5,000/- and on 13.12.2017 Rs5,000/- respectively. Later, In spite of repeated requests, the defendant failed to repay the debt under promissory notes Particulars of claim &Valuation 1 Principal amount of —_Rs.2,50,000-00 promissory note, Interest from dt3.8.2017 to Rs.2,03,250-00 08.02.2022 @ 18% pa Rs.4,53,250.00 Part-payment Rs.5,100-00 Interest from dt.01.82020 to 09.02.2022 @ 18% pa RS.1,397-00 -Rs.6,497-00 Rs.4,46,753-00 2 Principal amount of Rs.2,00,000-00 promissory note, Interest from dt189.2017 to s.1,58,100:00 09.02 2022 @ 18% pa Rs 3,58,190.00 Part payment s.5,100-00 Interest from dt.15.9.2020 to 09.02 2022 @ 18% pa Rs.1,285-00 Rs 6,385-00 Rs,3,51,715:00 3. Principal amount of —_Rs.3,00,000-00, promissory nate, Interest from dt 112.2017 to R5.2,24,700-00 09.02 2022 @ 18% pa Rs §,24.700 00 Part-payment s.5,000-00 Interest from dt OS 12.2020 to 09.02.2022 @ 18% pa Rs.1,060-00 Rs 6,060-00 Rs.5,18,640:00 4 Principal amount of Rs 5,00,0009@ le DIS; promissory note, ty Interest from dt.11,12.2017 to 09.02 2022 @ 18% pa Part payment Rs §,000-00 Interest from dt 01.12.2020 to xD 09.02 2022 @ 18% pa Rs.1,070-00 Rs 6,070.00 R.8,68,430-00 5 Principal. amount of Rs 5,00,000-00 promissory note, interest from dt13 12.2017 to Bs.3,74,000-00 09.02.2022 @ 18% pa Rs.8,74,000-00 55,000.00 / Interest from dt.10.12.2020 to 09.02 2022 @ 18% p.a. Rs.1,047-00 Part-payment Rs.6,047:00 Rs.8,67,953-00 6 Principal amount of _Rs.5,00,000:00 promissory note, Interest from dt.13,12.2017 to R3.3.74,000-00 09.02.2022 @ 18% pa. Rs.8,74,000.00 Part-payment Rs.5,000:00 Interest from dt.11.12.2020 to 09.02.2022 @ 18% p.a Rs.1,045-00 —_—Rs.6,045-00 Rs.8.67,955-00 Amount: — 39,21,446-00 Valvation: ‘The total jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.39,21,446/- (R5.4,46,753/- + RS.3,51,715/- + RS.5,18,640/- + Rs.8,68,430/- + Rs.8,67,953/- and s.8,67,955/- on which which a total court fee of Rs.53,956/-/- (Rs.6,926/- + Rs.6,026/-+ Rs.7,626/- + RS.14,126/- + Rs.11,126/- + Rs.11,126/) is paid U/Sec.20 of APCF and SV Act. The plaint is filed on 18.02.2022. Submitted, ww \ Lr" oer os f'senion Coit 4 [Borne TRUE COP — pil al anobelattpe? wyIN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: GURAZALA 0.8, No: 4/ 2022. Between Kalangi Kiran Kumar Plaintiff And Pavuluri Rosalah Defendant WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT. 1) Most of the material allegations made in the plaint are all false, incortect, untrue and the suit is not maintainable in law. 2 There Is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file this suit, the cause of action alleged in the suit is myth, created and concocted by tho plaintiff for the purpose of filing this suit 3) The allegations in the plaint that the defendant borrowod the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- on 03-08-2017. -Rs.2,00,000/- on 18-09-2017, Rs.3,00,000/- on 11-12-2017, Rs.6,00,000/- on 11-12-2017, Rs.5,00,000/- on 13-12-2017 and Rs 5,00,000/- on 13-12-2017, respectively from the plaintiff for the purpose ‘of meeting the business expenses of the defendant and executed the above six Suit Promissory note in favour of plaintiff, that on the even date the defendant also agreed to repay the said amount together with interest 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or on his order on demand at Macherla, that the defendant paid the part payments and acknowledged the same on the back side page of the respective all suit promissory notes ic. Rs.5,100/- on 01-08-2020 on the promissory note dt.03-08-2017, an amount of Rs 5,100/- on 15-09-2020, on the promissory note dt.18-09-2017, part payment of Rs 5,000/- on 05-12-2020 on the promissory note di.11-12-2017, an amount of Rs 5,000/- on 01-12-2020 on the promissory note dt.11-12-2017, an amount of Rs 5,000/- on 10-12-2020 on the promissory note dt.13-12-2017 and‘an amount of Rs §,000/- on 11-12-2020 on the back of the promissory note dt.13-12-2017, that the TRUF COPY EXAMAIER BAD.J. Court, Gur 0. RLaSday,promissory notes inspite of the repeated demands made by the plaintiff, that the defendant intentionally postponing the same in one way or the other by saying empty promises, that besides the above said promissory notes the defendant also borrowed amounts and executed promissory notes for which the plaintif fled separate suits ete, are all false, false 10 the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the said allegations. 4) This defendant further submits, that in the year 2017 plaintiff and the defendant did hostel business under the name and style of M/s Amar Sai Deluxe Mess Hostel, Hyderabad for which the defendant invested huge amount and the plaintiff also invested along with the defendant. Plaintiff insisted the defendant to execute promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff as security purpose, since the hostel was run by the defendant at Hyderabad where as the plaintiff is staying at Macherla, The defendant looked after the said hostel business, in that contact the alleged promissory notes dated 3-08-2017, 18- 09-2017,11-12-2017, 11-12-2017, 13-12-2017 and 13-12-2017 for an amount of Rs 2,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs 5,00,000/- as mentioned in the plaint are executed as securily without any consideration. The said alleged promissory notes are only nominal and the same are not genuine money transaction documents They are non est in the eye of law ‘Subsequently the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a partnership deed on 12-12- 2018 Alter verifying the accounts till the end of March, 2020 the defendant paid the share amount on 11-06-2020 to the plaintiff and the plaintif’ acknowledged the amount received by him and also signed beneath the relevant pages of the diary maintained by the defendant TRUE GOT EXAMING 3.0 J. COU": hostels were kept open there is no business from April, 2020 even though expenditure This defendant further states that unfortunately due to covid-19 though the was incurred on statf, over head charges, maintenance charges, rents and electricity P- Ressfarychoose to pay Rs 20,00,000/- towards his share in the loss incurred in the business ‘When the defendant is demanding the plaintif to pay the said amount, the plaintiff with ‘a malafide intention filed Creditor | P_No 40/2021 on 2-9-2021 on the file of this Hon'ble court against this defendant, his wife and two others in which the defendant filed detailed counter on 27-10-2021 in 1A No 172/2021 in Creditor |.P No 40/2021 stating the above said facts. Thereafter the plaintiff filed Caveat Petition on 8-11-2021 on the file of X Add! District Judge, Gurajala against the interim order passed in 1ANo.172/2021 in Creditor [Link].40/[Link] the plaintiff filed O'S No 367/2021 on the file of Junior Ci l Judge Court, Macherla on 8-11-2021 against the defendant for recovery of the amount on the alleged promissory note dated 10-11- 2018 for a sum of Rs 3,07,700/- 6) Thos defendant submis that the sut i ht by the prowsions of Order 2 Rule 2 PC as the Plant who already fled the sut-O § 36772021 against the defendant in Junior Civil Judge Cour, Macherla for recovery of amounts allegedly due to him from the defendant and also fled Creditor IP 4072021 on the file ofthis Honble Court di not choose to include the whole claim te the present sut claim in that sul Few days back this defendant came to know thatthe plait also fled ©'S 7/2021 on the fle of X Add) District Judge, Gurazala, basing on the alleged 10 promissory notes, In which this defendant did not receive any nolize The plant played tcaud before the Hon'ble X ADDL. District Judge, Gurazala and obtained exparte decree on 14.02-2023 The alloged promissory notes in the sald sul are barred by limitation. This defendant fed application under order 9 ule 13 GPC along withthe writen statement and the same Is pending The plaiti intentionally suppressed the fact that fing of © & 7/2021 on the file of X ADDL District Judge, Gurazala, in the plaint It shows the characler of the plaintiff 7) This defendant further states that the plaintiff got issued a Legal notice on 23-11- 2021 through his advocate U/s 138 NI Act, to the defendant basing on the alleged cheque bearing No 000585 dit 16-11-2021 for a sum of Rs 20,00,000/- towards the discharging the debt due under promissory note dt 03-12-2018, 03-12-2018 and 06-12- TRUE gppy EXAMINER lable reply on 9-12-2021 to the counsel of the plaintiff. The copy off a.D.J, Court, Gurae ! jewith filed and the contents of the said notice may be read as part QO- do Saa¥4 and parcel of this written statement. In fact there is no legal enforceable debt in between the plaintiff and the defendant The plaintitf fled the creditor IP 40/2021 of against this defendant and others on 19-10-2020 on the file of this Hon'ble court, and this defendant {s contesting the same. Thus itis crystal clear that the matters are pending between the plaintiff and defendant , the defendant issued a cheque on 16-11-2023 for a sum of Rs 20,00,000/- is unbelievable, unacceptable and the same is far away from the truth. It is out and out fraud played by the plaintiff. 8) This defendant further submits that the attesters on the suit promissory notes are kith and kin of the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the altesters on the Suit promissory notes just before filing of the sult. There is an evidence to substantiate the same with the defendant and the same will be produced at appropriate time. 9) This defendant further submits that the plaintiff approached elders namely 1) Yalla Venkatesh S/o Ramanaiah , 2) Nandivelugu Kiran Reddy , S/o. Venkata Reddy, resident of Macherla and others to settle the issue in between the plaintiff and defendant. At that juncture the plaintiff requested the said elders as the suit Promissory notes will be barted-by time and in turn the said elders advised the defendant to make endorsement on the suit promissory notes in the first instance and the matter will be settled in due course. In view of the advice given by them on eposing the confidence on them the defendant make endorsement on the suit promissory notes. 10). The plaintiffs did not choose to issue Legal notice to the defendant prior to the filing of the suit 11), This defendant further submits that the suit is barred by limitation TRUE _COPYiis defendant reserves his right to file additional written statement or amend the EXAMAMittR® statement as and when required [Link], Gurez * : 19) Such other allegations which are not specifically denied herem are hereby 0. Cog5 14) Hence the defendant prays thal the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs A Apofod ¢- tosSar, Advo€ato for dofondant. Dofondant. 1 do hereby declare that tho facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, bellef and information.” F COSS@r Guntur, Dt. 16-03-2023. Dofondant. LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED ON THE BEHALF OF THE DEFENDA\ _A(Stice copy of the roply notice dt.9-12-2021 got issued by tho defendant to tho counsel ofthe p Tao howe SY SAWN? a AL fod Dt. 16-03-2023. Advocate for Defendant. Guntur, TRUE COPY EXATAINER BADad, Gourt, Guraea®IN THE COUHT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GURAZALA Present. Sri B. Lesla Venkata Seshadn, . il Judge Gurazala a Saturday, this the $° day of May 2023 ~ Senior Ci No. 4/2022 Between Kalangi Kiran Kumar Plamtiff vs Pavulur Rosaiah Defendant Heard. Perused the material record. Th2 Following Issues are settled for consideration. 1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 3 3-2017 for Rs. 2,50,000/- executed by the defencant in favour of the plainti is (rue, vali, supported by consideration and binding on the defendant: ? 2. Whother the suit promissory note dat defendant in tavour of the plainitil is true, vat defendant 7 . 189-2017 or Rs. 2,00,000/- executed by the Supported by consideration and binding on the 3. Whether the suit promissory nole dated 11 12.2017 for Rs. 3,00,00U/-_ executed by the defendant in favour of the plairivi's Irie. vaid , seppened Sy consideration and binding on the defendant. ? 4, Whether the suit promissoiy note date«!.1-12-2017 tor Rs. §,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plainil is truv, valic , ypper'ed by consideration and binding on the defendant. > 5. Whethor the suit promissory note dated! 19-12-2077 for Rs. §,00,000/- executed by the Gefendant n favour of the pizintif te true. vare upperied by consideration and t:nding on the delendan' > & _ Whethor the su promissey note dated 19-12. 2017. fo1 As. 5,09,000/- execute detendant in defendant. 7 by the your of the plaints Inc, v2iid sopportea by consiceralion and binding on the 7 Whother the the part payments on the bac! side of six promissory notes dated 1-8-2020, 15- +2020 § 12-2020, 1-12-2020, 10-12-2020. and :.-12-2020 resvectively are true, genuine and made By dhe defendant? B Whether the suit is nit by sie provisions of Crder Il Rule 2 CPC? 9 Whether the suit 's barred Sv tmistior 10. Whethor the plaintiff is entittad for the rebels -taimed > 11. Towhan reliot? Foriist o: witnesses and triat cait en 20-6 202° TRUE Copy EXAMINER, rot E ADJ, Court, GurazaiaSn chee Ackouke [a Plrnk(E Capo 332/26 ocr L Cf P44 OX M222 Pahefene “A. No 232 2026 DSIEBA No 704 | we Nth ae ist COULR™ AZALA - 6 cA pure 1 wre ay hon 28 a : %