Bangalore District Court
Sanjay And Co vs Ms J S N Petrol Pump on 16 March, 2026
1 O.S.No.3752/2022
KABC010155332022
Presented on : 09.06.2022
Registered on : 09.06.2022
Decided on : 16.03.2026
Duration : 03 years, 09 months, 07 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.76) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B.(Spl.)
LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2026
ORIGINAL SUIT No.3752/2022
PLAINTIFF: Sanjay and Co.,
Office at 102/104,
1st Floor, Money Chambers,
6, K.H.Road,
Bengaluru-560027.
A proprietorship concern
Proprietor Sanjay P. Bathija,
Represented by his P.A.Holder
Sri.Purshotam T. Bathija,
S/o. Late Thirthdas,
Aged about 65 years.
(By Sri.Samuel S. Dandin., Advocate.)
:VERSUS:
2 O.S.No.3752/2022
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s. J.S.N Petrol Pump,
BPCL Dealer,
No.45/1, Kaikondrahalli,
Sarjapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560035,
Represented by its proprietor.
Corporate Office
JSN Towers,
No.41 and 42,
Bloomingadale layout,
Kasavanahalli,
Next to Vishnavi apartment,
Bengaluru-560035.
2. Smt. Anita,
W/o. Late Jagadeesh Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
3. Sri. Nishanth Reddy,
S/o. Late Jagadeesh Reddy,
Aged about 26 year,
4. Miss. Sanjana Reddy,
D/o. Late Jagadeesh Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are
Residing at # 43, 1st cross,
Near Karnataka Bank,
Ward No.150, Kasavanahalli,
Bengaluru South, Carmelaram,
Bengaluru-560035.
(By Sri.Akash V.T., Advocate for D-1 to 4.)
**********
3 O.S.No.3752/2022
Date of institution of the suit 09.06.2022
Nature of the suit Suit for recovery of
money
Date of commencement of 19.12.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced 16.03.2026
Years Months Days
Total Duration
03 09 07
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
***************
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this instant suit against the defendants seeking the relief of recovery of money of Rs.2,52,800/- along with interest at rate of 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its realization, with costs. 4 O.S.No.3752/2022
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
That one K.S.Jagdeesh Reddy was the proprietor of 1 st defendant and during his life time, he along with the defendant No.2 have approached the plaintiff in 1 st first week of August 2019 for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to improve their business necessities. Taking into consideration of their urgent necessities and difficulties, the plaintiff has arranged amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.260385 dated: 07.08.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the said K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 along with her husband has executed an on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019 for the said amount agreeing to repay the same infavour plaintiff with interest at 1.10% per month within one year from the date of on demand promissory note. The defendant No.2 along with K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy have affixed their signatures on the promissory note. The plaintiff further contends that on 09.06.2021 5 O.S.No.3752/2022 the said K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy is expired. The defendant No.2 is the wife and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the children of Late K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 are managing the affairs of the defendant No.1 business after the death of K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy. Further, out of said borrowed amount Rs.10,00,000/- the defendants have repaid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-
infavour of the plaintiff on various dates through cheques, the defendants were due a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the plaintiff as principle amount. After persistent request made by the plaintiff, the defendants went on postponing for making the payment infavour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff got issued legal Notice on 11.04.2022, however they have not replay for the same. The plaintiff further contends that since the defendants were due total 24 months interest, the same amounting to Rs.52,800/-. The principle amount due is Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore the defendants were liable to pay a total outstanding due of Rs.2,52,800/- infavour of the plaintiff. The defendants had never kept their promise and 6 O.S.No.3752/2022 intentionally deliberately postponed for making payment infavour of the plaintiff and the despite repeated demands and requests, the defendant failed and neglected to repay the amount as and when they fell due and thus committed default of the amount. Hence, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have appeared through their learned Counsel and filed their written statement.
4. The defendants have filed written statement and denied the plaint averments in toto. The defendants contend that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts as the plaintiff has suppressed material facts and it is suppressio veri expressio falsi and the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. The defendants further contend that the plaintiff is a proprietorship concern and the suit filed by it is not maintainable. The defendants deny that one K.S.Jagdeesh Reddy was the proprietor of the defendant No.1 and 7 O.S.No.3752/2022 during his lift time, said K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with the defendant No.2 have approached the plaintiff in 1 st first week of August 2019 for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to improve their business necessities and the plaintiff by taking into consideration of their urgent necessities and difficulties arranged the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and it was by way of cheque bearing No.260385 dated: 07.08.2019 in favour of K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with 2nd defendant. The defendants further deny that the defendant No.2 along with her husband have executed an on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019 for the said amount agreeing to repay the same infavour of plaintiff with interest at 1.10% per month within one year from the date of on demand promissory note and the defendant No.2 along with K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy have affixed their signature on the promissory note and out of the said borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/- the defendants have repaid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- infavour of the plaintiff on various dates through cheques, but contend that K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy 8 O.S.No.3752/2022 had paid the entire sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque and also by way of cash to the plaintiff. The defendants further deny that they were due a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the plaintiff as principle amount and after persistent request made by the plaintiff, they went on postponing for making the payment infavour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued legal Notice on 11.04.2022 and it was served on the them and contend that no Notice from plaintiff is served upon them and there is no liability or outstanding liability to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. The defendants further deny that they were totally due 24 months interest, which amounting to Rs.52,800/- and the principle amount due is Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore the defendants were liable to pay a total outstanding due of Rs.2,52,800/- in favour of the plaintiff and they had never kept their promise and intentionally deliberately postponed for making payment infavour of the plaintiff and despite repeated demands and requests failed and neglected to repay the amount as and when they are due and thus committed default of the 9 O.S.No.3752/2022 amount. The defendants further contend that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit and the same is created and the plaintiff has not valued the suit properly and the Court fee paid by the plaintiff in the present suit is insufficient. The defendants further contend that Late K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy was a popular and well know person to the public in and around Kasavanahalli, Bengaluru and was actively associated with congress party. He is died on 09.06.2021 due to Covid-19 and other health issues, he was hospitalized for more than 2 months before he passed away and his death was mourned by the political leaders in social network and was also published in leading daily kannada new papers. The defendants further contend that K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy was tested positive for covid-19 on 04.05.2021 and immediately he was admitted to Phoenix Hospital on 04.05.2021 and was under treatment with severe medical condition till 08.05.2021, later he was shifted to Svastha Hospital on 08.05.2021 and he was under intense medical care till 09.06.2021 and on 09.06.2021 he died. The plaintiff is a 10 O.S.No.3752/2022 habitual money-lender and is in the business of money lending and charging exorbitant interest on the money lent, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief/decree as the suit is barred by Section 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961. Hence, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office. I have framed additional issues. I have framed Recasted Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, proprietor of 1st defendant Jagadeesh Reddy along with 2nd defendant approached the plaintiff and taken the hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/-
through cheque bearing No.260385 dated:
07.08.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and both executed demand promissory note on 08.08.2019?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendant Nos.2 to 4 are managing the affairs of 1 st defendant after death of K.S.Jagadeesh 11 O.S.No.3752/2022 Reddy and they are liable to pay the hand loan taken by K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy for the 1st defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendants are liable to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest to him?
4. Whether the defendants prove that, K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy repaid entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961?
RECASTED ISSUES FRAMED ON 13.03.2026.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that proprietor of 1st defendant K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with 2nd defendant have availed the hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.260385 dated: 07.08.2019 12 O.S.No.3752/2022 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and both of them have executed on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019 as contended in the plaint?
2. Whether the defendants prove that, K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had repaid entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, defendants are liable to pay interest at rate of 18% p.a?
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case, the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and totally got marked 21 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and closed its side evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked 6 documents and closed their side evidence.
13 O.S.No.3752/2022
7. Heard the arguments of both learned Counsels of both parties at length and perused the materials on record.
8. My findings on the above Recasted Issues are as under:
Recasted Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative. Recasted Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative. Recasted Issue No.3 : In the Negative. Recasted Issue No.4 : In the Negative. Recasted Issue No.5 : In the Negative. Recasted Issue No.6 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. RECASTED ISSUES NO.1 TO 3: These Issues are interrelated to each other and involve common appreciation of facts and evidence. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these Issues together for common consideration.
10. The plaintiff has asserted that one K.S.Jagdeesh Reddy was the proprietor of the 1 st 14 O.S.No.3752/2022 defendant, he along with the defendant No.2 have approached the plaintiff in 1st first week of August 2019 for a hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to improve their business necessities. Taking into consideration of their urgent necessities and difficulties, the plaintiff has arranged amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.260385 dated: 07.08.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru in favour of the said K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 along with her husband has executed an on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019 for the said amount agreeing to repay the same infavour plaintiff with interest at 1.10% per month within one year from the date of on demand promissory note. Out of said borrowed amount Rs.10,00,000/- the defendants have repaid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- infavour of the plaintiff on various dates through cheques, the defendants were due a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the plaintiff as principle amount. The principle amount due is Rs.2,00,000/-, 15 O.S.No.3752/2022 therefore the defendants were liable to pay a total outstanding due of Rs.2,52,800/- infavour of the plaintiff.
11. Per contra, the defendants have contended that, K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had paid the entire sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque and also by way of cash to the plaintiff. Late K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy was a popular and well know person to the public in and around Kasavanahalli, Bengaluru and was actively associated with congress party. He is died on 09.06.2021 due to Covid-19 and other health issues. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs as sought.
12. In order to substantiate the contention, the General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff company has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.3 has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated the contents of written statement. 16 O.S.No.3752/2022
13. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21.
14. The defendants have relied on documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6.
15. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 - Special Power of Attorney dated: 20.08.2018, Ex.P.2 - On demand promissory note dated: 08.08.2019, Ex.P.3 - Ledger account extract of defendant No.1 company from 01.04.2018 to 02.06.2022, Ex.P.3(a) - Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P.3(b) - Signature, Ex.P.4 - Legal Notice dated: 11.04.2022, Ex.P.5
- 7 Postal receipts, Ex.P.6 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.1, Ex.P.7 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.1 company, Ex.P.8 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.2, Ex.P.9 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.2, Ex.P.10 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of 17 O.S.No.3752/2022 defendant No.3, Ex.P.11 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.3, Ex.P.12 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.2, Ex.P.13 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.2, Ex.P.14 -
Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.4, Ex.P.15
- Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.4, Ex.P.16 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.3, Ex.P.17 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.3, Ex.P.18 - Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.4, Ex.P.19 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.4, Ex.P.20 -
Letter issued to the Postmaster dated: 30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.1 company and Ex.P.21 - Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.1 company.
18 O.S.No.3752/2022
16. The defendants have relied on Ex.D.1 - Certified copy of memorandum of private complaint in C.C.No.11347/2016, Ex.D.2 - Certified copy of memorandum of private complaint in C.C.No.36494/2022, Ex.D.3 - Certified copy of orders passed in C.C.No.16188/2016, Ex.D.4 -Death certificate of K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy, Ex.D.5 - True copy of bank account statement of defendant No.1 company and Ex.D.6 - Certified copy of complaint in C.C.No.23341/2018.
17. The learned Counsel Sri.Samuel S. Dandin, appearing for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that out of said borrowed amount Rs.10,00,000/- the defendants have repaid an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- infavour of the plaintiff on various dates through cheques, the defendants were due a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the plaintiff as principle amount and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of sum of Rs.2,52,800/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The learned Counsel Sri.Akash V.T, appearing for the defendants has vehemently argued that the suit is barred under Section 19 O.S.No.3752/2022 11 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had paid the entire sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of cheque and also by way of cash to the plaintiff.
18. The learned Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following decision:
1. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Civil Revision Petition No.1032 of 1973, in case of M/s.Sree Balaji Corporation (Regd.) -Vs-
Jutur Narayana Setty.
I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from this respected decision.
19. The learned Counsel for defendants has relied upon following decision:
1. ILR 2008 KAR 5175, in case of H.R.Halappa and others -Vs- H. Devaraju.
I have bestowed my anxious considerations to the principles emerges from this respected decision.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which shows that, Special Power of Attorney is executed on 20.08.2018. On perusal 20 O.S.No.3752/2022 of Ex.P.2 which shows that the on demand promissory note is executed by the defendant No.2 with her husband for Rs.10,00,000/- on 08.08.2019. The plaintiff has relied documents at Ex.P.3 -Ledger extract which shows of debit of Rs.10,00,000/- on 27.10.2018. On perusal of Ex.P.4 which shows that, the plaintiff has issued legal Notice to defendants on 11.04.2022.
21. On perusal of at Ex.D.1 which shows that the plaintiff/complaint has filed complaint in PCR.No.2555/2016/ C.C.No.11347/2016 against Smt.Krishnaveni under Section 200 of Cr.P.C R/w/Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before XX ACMM, Bengaluru. On perusal of at Ex.D.2 which shows that the plaintiff/complaint has filed complaint in PCR.No.14747/2022/ C.C.No.36494/2022 against M/s.Vijay Steel N Forgings and others under Section 200 of Cr.P.C R/w/Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On perusal of Ex.D.4 which reflects that K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy is died on 09.06.2021. On perusal of Ex.D.5 which shows that Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 14.08.2019, 21 O.S.No.3752/2022 Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 17.09.2019, Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 18.12.2019, Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 18.02.2020 and Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 29.05.2020 to the plaintiff. On perusal of at Ex.D.6 which shows that the plaintiff/complaint has filed complaint in PCR.No.10057/2018/C.C.No.23341/2018 against M/s.Tyche Stone Works and others under Section 200 of Cr.P.C R/w/Sec.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
22. So far as oral evidence of both parties is concerned to lis that the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff company is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated averments of written statement.
23. The defendants have contended that Late K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had paid the entire sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff during his lifetime and there is no amount due to the plaintiff and no legal liability to be paid by the defendants. As per of Ex.D.5 which demonstrates that Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 22 O.S.No.3752/2022 14.08.2019, Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 17.09.2019, Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 18.12.2019, Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 18.02.2020 and Rs.2,00,000/- is paid on 29.05.2020 to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1.
24. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and documents exhibited on both sides, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has proved that, proprietor of 1st defendant K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with 2nd defendant have availed the hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.260385 dated:
07.08.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and both of them have executed on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019. But, the defendants have proved that, K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had repaid entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved that, the defendants are liable to pay interest at rate of 18% p.a. Hence, I answer Recasted Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and Recasted Issue No.3 in the Negative. 23 O.S.No.3752/2022
25. RECASTED ISSUE NO.4: The defendants have contended that the plaintiff is habitual money lender and is in the business of money lending and charging exorbitant interest on the money lent, hence suit is barred by Section 11 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961. The plaintiff has denied these facts. The defendants have not proved this Issue. Hence, I answer this Recasted Issue No.4 in the Negative.
26. RECASTED ISSUE NO.5: The plaintiff has proved that, proprietor of 1st defendant K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy along with 2nd defendant have availed the hand loan of Rs.10,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.260385 dated: 07.08.2019 drawn on Canara Bank, Shanthi Nagar Branch, Bengaluru and both of them have executed on demand promissory note on 08.08.2019. The defendants have proved that, K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy had repaid entire amount of Rs.10 lakhs to plaintiff. The plaintiff has not proved that, defendants are liable to pay interest at rate of 18% p.a. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for suit claim of Rs.2,52,800/- along with interest 24 O.S.No.3752/2022 at the rate of 18% p.a. Hence, I answer this Recasted Issue No.5 in the Negative.
27. RECASTED ISSUE NO.6:. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer online, typed by him corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th day of March, 2026) (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Sri. Purushotam T. Bathija,
S/o. Late Tirthdas.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Special Power of Attorney dated: 20.08.2018.25 O.S.No.3752/2022
Ex.P.2 : On demand promissory note dated:
08.08.2019.
Ex.P.3 : Ledger account extract of defendant No.1 company from 01.04.2018 to 02.06.2022. Ex.P.3(a) : Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature.
Ex.P.4 : Legal Notice dated: 11.04.2022.
Ex.P.5 : 7 Postal receipts. Ex.P.6 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.1.
Ex.P.7 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.1 company.
Ex.P.8 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.2.
Ex.P.9 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.10 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.3.
Ex.P.11 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.3.
Ex.P.12 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.2.26 O.S.No.3752/2022
Ex.P.13 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.2.
Ex.P.14 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.4.
Ex.P.15 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.4.
Ex.P.16 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.3.
Ex.P.17 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.3.
Ex.P.18 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.4.
Ex.P.19 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.4.
Ex.P.20 : Letter issued to the Postmaster dated:
30.05.2022 seeking for track consignment of defendant No.1 company.
Ex.P.21 : Postal track consignment with regard to the defendant No.1 company.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Sri. Nishanth Reddy, S/o. Late K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS: 27 O.S.No.3752/2022
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of memorandum of private complaint in C.C.No.11347/2016. Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of memorandum of private complaint in C.C.No.36494/2022. Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Orders passed in C.C.No.16188/2016.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of death certificate of one K.S.Jagadeesh Reddy.
Ex.D.5 : True copy of bank account statement of defendant No.1 company.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of complaint in C.C.No.23341/2018.
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.