DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA

PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

        SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., MEMBER.

   SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Friday, 2nd day of January 2009

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  90 / 2008

V. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o Late V. Eswar Reddy,

aged 53 years, Chinnapasapula (Village & Post),

Peddamudium Mandal, Kadapa Dist.                                          ….. Complainant.

Vs.

The Proddatur Municipality, Rep. by its

Commissioner, Proddatur Municipality, proddatur,

Kadapa district.                                                                       …….. Respondent.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 30-12-2008 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri Lalu Saheb,  Advocate for respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R

(Per Smt. B. Durga Kumari, Member),

1.                This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction to the respondent to execute the sale deed and register the HIG plot bearing No. 251 in favour of the complainant and to give possession of the plot, to pay interest @ 18% on Rs. 41,000/- from 7-2-2000 till the date of realization, to pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2.                The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant stated that the respondent acquired 85 acres of land from private persons about 26 years back under Integrated Development for Small, Medium Township (IDMST) scheme.  The respondent divided the land in to 771 plots as HIG and MIG groups and named it as Netaji Nagar lay out and advertised for sale of plots.  The complainant was attracted by this advertisement and decided to purchase one MIG plot at Netaji Nagar, Proddatur.   On 27-4-1998 he participated in auction held by the respondent and he was the highest bidder for plot No. 251 in MIG and the prices for the plot is fixed as Rs. 40,100/- to the extent of Ac. 0.055 cents, on the same day he paid Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,025/- under challan bearing No. 381 & 382 towards 25% of the auction amount.  There upon in the month of February 2000 the respondent called the complainant to pay balance sale consideration and get the plot registered with his own expenses.  The complainant paid balance amount of Rs. 30,075/- under chalaln No. 5549.   As per directions of the respondent the complainant purchased non-judicial stamps for Rs. 4,435/- for the purpose of registration of the plot.   The complainant produced all the materials and get ready for registration.  The respondent has postponed the registration without showing any proper reason. 

3.                The complainant further stated that he paid the total bid amount of the plot on or before 7-2-2000 and it is the bounded the duty of the respondent to register the plot No. 251 in favour of the complainant.  After that there is no communication from the respondent and he has not given any clarification for not developing Netaji Nagar.  The respondent officials refused to register the plot by stating that there is civil litigation pending between the previous land owners and Proddatur Municipality.  But the said litigation was ended in the year 2005 and the complainant received a letter dt. 6-12-2005 from the respondent and in the letter it was informed to 12 members including the complainant to come and to get registered the plots within 15 days as they have paid total price of the plots.  Immediately the complainant approached the respondent office and enquired about the registration of the plot, as usual the respondent postponed the registration.  The complainant approached the respondent for many times but the respondent gave evasive replies and did not register the plot till today.  In the month of July 2008 the complainant met the respondent and requested to register the plot in his favour.  But the respondent demanded to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,26,275/-  for getting registration of the plot.  Then the complainant questioned about the demanding of additional amount.  He gave evasive reply and stated that the prices of the lands were increased.  So the complainant has to pay additional amount to get the plot registered. 

4.                Further the complainant stated that the respondent sent a letter dt.    6-12-2005 through ROC No. 10279/81-G1.  The respondent himself admitted that the complainant and other 14 members have paid the full amount and the respondent is ready to register the plot in favour of the beneficiaries.  But the respondent dragged the matter for a period of 10 years.  The complainant paid the full amount towards registration of the plot bearing No. 251.  But the respondent failed to register the plot in favour of the complainant. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 25-7-2008 calling upon the respondent to execute sale deed and register the plot No. 251 MIG in favour of the complainant and to handover the possession of the  plot.  Having received the notice issued by the complainant the respondent failed to give any reply to the complainant.  The complainant alleged that the respondent received the full payment towards cost of plot but failed to register the plot.  Hence, there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. 

5.                The respondent filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the complainant except those which are specifically admitted by the respondent in the counter.  The respondent took objection that the Hon’ble Forum is not having any territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint as the subject matter of the complaint is not within the purview of the C.P. Act.  The respondent being a Municipality is governed by the Municipal Act which is self contained Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.  The respondent further stated that it is true that the plots in Netaji Nagar, Proddatur are to tender cum auction and the complainant participated in the auction on 27-4-1998 and he was the highest bidder for plot No. 251 in MIG category and the complainant deposited 25% of action amount with the respondent.  As per the sale conditions and instructions the proddatur Municipal council  approved the said highest bid of the complainant vide C.R. No. 38, dt. 26-5-1998  following which the respondent issued order in R.C. No. 473/87 G1, dt. 16-6-1998 to the complainant directing him to pay Rs. 30,075/- being remaining amount 3/4th and instructed the complainant to register the plot within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.    As per terms and conditions of the aforesaid regarding sale of the said plot and in the said order the respondent categorically informed the complainant that in case of default the highest bid of the complainant would be cancelled and deposit amount paid by the complainant would be forfeited. 

6.                The respondent further stated that the complainant failed to pay the said remaining amount of Rs. 30,075/- within the stipulated time and he became default and his highest bid stood cancelled as per terms and conditions.  Now the respondent is free to put aforesaid plot No. 251 in MIG categorically to re-auction.  The Respondent stated that the complainant suppressed the said order in RC No. 473/87 G1, dt. 16-6-1998.  The respondent denied that they have not issued any letter in the month of February 2000 calling upon the complainant to pay the said balance amount of  Rs. 30,075/-.  The complainant created the said document for purpose of the complaint.  The highest bid of the complainant already stood cancelled way back in the year 1998, there is no question of this respondent calling upon the complainant for payment of the balance of the said amount in the year 2000.  The complainant made payment of Rs. 30,075/- of his own accord and such payment after the fact of the cancellation of his highest bid neither creates any right in favour of the complainant nor has been accepted by this respondent as the same is contrary to the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement.   The respondent further stated that the other bidders, who made full payments of their bid amounts within the stipulated time itself, opted to approach the respondent for registration of the plots only in the year 2005 and the list was prepared by the respondent for registering the same in favour of the such eligible persons and due to oversight the complainant’s name was included therein and the endorsement dt. 6-12-2005, was issued to him and the same cannot create any right in favour of the complainant.  The respondent denied that there is no any civil litigation between the respondent and 3rd parties and as such there is no question of the complainant coming to know that due to civil litigations between the previous land owners and this respondent, the registration of Netaji Nagar plots were kept pending and such averments are made by the complainant for the purpose of the complaint and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  

7.                The respondent stated that at this stage there are 25 plots both under HIG and MIG categories were knocked down in favour of the highest bidders including the complainant in the aforesaid auction and among the said 25 successful bidders five bidders got the plots registering as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement and the rest of them, including the complainant became defaulter.  The criteria for registering the above said plot in favour of the  complainant is not that developing of Netaji Nagar but the payment of balance amount was not paid by the complainant within time and he became defaulter.   The respondent further denied that the purchasers of MIG plots has formed as unregistered society and made representations to his respondent for getting the plots register in their favour and this respondent did not respond to the representation of the society was denied by the respondent. 

8.                The Andhra Pradesh State Government (Housing Municipal Administration and urban development Department) passed G.O. (MS) No. 249 MA, dt. 7-5-1984 and exercising the powers under the said G.O. the respondent endeavored to put its plots abutting Jammalamadugu Road, including the aforesaid plot, to fresh auction.  The respondent is entitled under law to reserve to such fresh auction and the complainant cannot question the same.  On humanitarian ground the respondent put the consideration before Proddatur Municipal council which passed a resolution, considering the cases of nine persons, including the complainant, to register plots, respectively at present rates fixed by the committee of the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the said G.O.Ms No. 249.  The prices of the aforesaid plot No. 251 is fixed by the said committee in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the said G.O. @ Rs. 1,66,375/- and the complainant has given opportunity to pay the balance amount to get the plot registered in favour of him.  But without availing the opportunity given by the respondent the complainant preferred the said complaint. The respondent reserves its right to withdraw the said opportunity given to the complainant.   It is true that the complainant issue legal notice dt. 25-7-2007 to this respondent but the complainant rushed to this Hon’ble Forum with the present complaint before a suitable reply could be issued to the same.  There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.  The present complaint is against public policy and is liable to be dismissed. 

9.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A11 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B11 were marked.

10.              On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.  

i.        Whether the complainant is entitled to ask for the registration of the HIG plot bearing No. 251 and to execute the sale deed and give possession of the plot?

ii.       Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?

iii.              To what relief?

11.              Point Nos. 1 & 2. The complainant was attracted by the advertisement given by the respondent through pamphlets that they have acquired 85 acres of land from private persons under Integrated Development for Small, Medium Township (IDMST).  The respondent divided the land in to 771 plots as HIG and MIG groups.  The complainant decided to purchase one MIG plot at Netajinagar at layout of Proddatur  and he participated in the auction held by the respondent and he was the highest bidder for plot No. 251 in MIG and the prices is fixed as  Rs. 40,100/- to the extent of Ac. 0.055 cents.  On the same day of auction he paid Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,025/- under challan bearing Nos. 381 & 382 respectively towards the 25% of the auction amount.  Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of challan receipts of amount which was paid by the complainant, while so in the month of February 2000 the respondent called the complainant to pay the balance sale consideration and get register the plot No. 251 with his own expenses.  As per the respondents demand on 7-2-2000 the complainant paid balance amount of   Rs. 30,075/- under challan No.  5549.  Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of receipt for  30,075/-.  Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of pamphlet issued by the respondent.  As per directions of the respondent the complainant also purchased non-judicial stamp for Rs. 4,435/- for purpose of registration of the plot.  Ex. A5 is the Xerox copy of endorsement given by the respondent to the complainant.  Ex. A6 is the Xerox copy of non-judicial stamp purchased by the complainant.  After purchasing the stamp papers the complainant approached the respondent for registration but the respondent has postponed the registration without showing any reason on or before 7-2-2000, the complainant has paid the total amount towards costs of the plot.  Though the complainant has paid the total amount towards the cost  of the plot, the respondent dragged the matter without registering the same in favour of the complainant.  There was no communication from the respondent and he has not given any clarification for not developing Netaji Nagar.  Every time the officials of the respondent refused for registration of the plot by stating that there is civil litigation between the previous land owners and Proddatur Municipality is pending due to that reason it was kept pending for several years and the said litigation was ended in the year 2005.   The complainant received a letter dt. 6-12-2005 in ROC No. 1027/81/G1 and it is informed to 12 members including the complainant which is marked as Ex. A5.  The Respondent mentioned that the plot was registered within 15 days as they have paid the total cost of the plot.  The complainant approached the respondent for registration of his plot bearing No. 251 MIG. But on that occasion also the respondent has postponed the registration without any reason, like wise the complainant approached the respondent several times to get his plot registered.  But the respondent has postponed the matter for so many years. 

12.              In the month of July 2008 the complainant met with the respondent and requested them to register the plot in his favour, instead of doing the same the respondent demanded the complainant to pay additional amount of Rs. 1,26,275/- for getting registration of the plot.  When the complainant questioned about demanding of additional amount the respondent gave evasive reply that the prices of the land were increased.  Ex. A7 is the Xerox copy of letter issued by the respondent.  Ex. A8 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the respondent dt. 25-7-2008.  Ex. A9 is the acknowledgement of postal card.  Ex. A10 is the acknowledgment postal cover.  Ex. A11 is the Xerox copy of Minutes of Proddatur Municipality meeting. 

13.              The complainant Council argued that they have paid the entire amount way back in the year 2000 and the respondent dragged the matter for so many years without registering the said plot and now demanding for additional amount is unjust.  The respondent himself invited him to approach the office and pay the balance amount and get the plot registered.  The respondent failed to register the plot.  There is no fault on the part of the complainant.  He is the successful bidder in the auction and he paid the entire amount fixed by the respondent.  The respondent failed to register the same in favour of the complainant.  The respondent filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the complainant except those are specifically admitted by the respondent.  1st objection was taken by the respondent is that there is no prima-facie as the Hon’ble is not having jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint,  The subject matter of the complainant is not within the purview of the Forum.  The respondent being Municipality is governed by the Municipal Act which is self contained Act and the present complainant does not come under the purview of the C.P. Act.  The respondent agreed that the plots in Netaji Nagar, Proddatur to tender cum auction and the complainant is the successful bidder in the said auction and plot No. 251 in MIG category to the extent of Ac. 0.055 cents were allowed in favour of the complainant and Rs. 40,100/- was fixed and the complainant deposit 25% of the auction amount.  The respondent further stated that the nature of the said tender cum auction and transaction between the complainant and the respondent is that of a contract.  As per sale condition and instructions the respondent approved the said highest bid of the complainant in vide CR No. 38, dt. 26-5-1998 following which the respondent order No. RC No. 473/87G1, dt. 16-6-1998 directing the complainant to pay Rs. 30,075/- being the remaining ¾ of the price of the aforesaid plot and get the plot registered with his own expenditure within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.  In case of defaulter the highest bid of the complainant would be cancelled and the deposit amount paid by the complainant would be forfeited.  The complainant measurable failed to pay the remaining balance of amount of Rs. 30,075/- within the stipulated time and he became defaulter and his highest bids stood cancel as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.  

14.              Ex. B1 is the Xerox copy of application form of the complainant.  Ex. B2 is the Xerox coy of Proddatur Municipality Terms and conditions.  Ex. B3 is the Xerox copy of letter issued by the respondent to the complainant dt. 30-5-1998.  Ex. B4 is the Xerox copy of list of the plot owners, who already registered their plots.  Ex. B5 is the Xerox copy of G.O. issued by the respondent.  Ex. B6 is the Xerox copy of registration of Chinna Venkata Nrayana and Ex. B7 is the Xerox copy of another registration.  Ex. B8 is the Xerox copy of extract issued by the G.O. dt. 7-5-1984.  Ex. B9 is the Xerox coy of Minutes of Proddatur Municipality.  Ex. B10 is the Xerox copy of letter issued to the respondent and other beneficiers.  Ex. B11 is the Xerox copy of agreement.  Ex. B12 is the Xerox copy of G.O Rt No. 71, HA, dt. 20-1-1996.  

15.              The respondent further stated that now he has free and entitled to put the aforesaid plot No. 251 to re-auction.  The complainant suppressed the said order in RC No. 473/87 G1, dt. 16-6-1998.  The respondent further denied that he has not called the complainant in the year 2000 for payment of the said balance of Rs. 30,075/- and the complainant has created the document for the purpose of present complaint.  The complainant is the  highest bidder of the said plot way back in the year 1998 and the question does not arise for calling the complainant for payment of balance amount in the year 2000.  The complainant made the said payment on his own accord and such payment after knowing that the fact his highest bid was cancelled the payment does not creates any right in favour of the complainant nor has been accepted by the respondent as the same is contrary to the aforesaid terms and conditions of the agreement.  Some other highest bidders, who made full payment on their bid amount within the stipulated time itself the approached the respondent for registration of the said plots only in the year 2005 and list was prepared by the respondent for registering the same in favour of such eligible persons and due to oversight the complainant’s name was included therein and the endorsement, dt. 6-12-2005 was issued to him and the same cannot create any right in favour of the complainant.  The respondent further stated that there is no civil litigations pending between the 3rd parties and the respondent and they have not dragged the matter by showing the said cause.  They made 25 plots under HIG and MIG categories and those were knocked down in favour of highest bidders incouding the complainant.  But the complainant thoroughly failed to pay the balance amount and he became a defaulter.  So the question of registering the plot in favour of the complainant does not arise.  The respondent put Netajinagar plots to tender cum auction, duly showing the plots physically as exist on ground to the bidders and then only the bidders, including the complainant, came forward and participated in the said public auction.   The criteria for registering the aforesaid plot in favour of the complainant is not that of developing Netajinagar but the payment of the balance of the auction amount by the complainant within the time prescribed under the said contract.  The purchasers of MIG plots formed as unregistered society and made representations to the respondent for getting the plots registered in their favour and the respondent did not respond is cooked up story.  The A.P. State Government (Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department) passed G.O.Ms No. 249 M.A ,dt 7-5-1984 exercising the powers in the said G.O. the respondent endorsed to put its plots abutting jammalamadugu Road including the aforesaid plot, to fresh auction.    The respondent is entitled under law to restor to such fresh auction and the complainant cannot question the same.  But on humanitarian grounds the respondent considered the case of the complainant and put the matter before Proddatur Municipal Council which passed a resolution considering the case of 9 persons including the complainant to register the plots respectively in their favour at present rates, fixed by a committee of the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the said G.O. (MS) No. 249 M.a. dt. 7-5-1984.  The price of the said plot was fixed as Rs. 1,66,375/- and the balance amount has to be paid by the complainant.  

16.              The respondent Council argued that the previous bid was cancelled as the complainant has not paid the balance amount within stipulated time and he became defaulter.  He cannot question the respondent now for registering the said plot.  They have received a legal notice from the complainant dt. 25-7-2007.  But without receiving reply from the respondent the complainant rushed the Hon’ble forum so they have not issued any reply to the said notice.    By perusing the documents filed by the complainant and respondent it is clear that the complainant paid total amount towards MIG plot No. 251 as he stood for the highest bidder for the said plot.  The amount was received by the respondent way back and dragged the matter successfully for so many years by saying that the civil litigation is pending between the respondent and 3rd parties and after completion of  the litigation the respondent is stated that the complainant stood as a defaulter.  There is no deficiency of service on their part.  The complainant failed to pay the bid amount within stipulated period, on humanitarian grounds now they have issued a list including the complainant to register the said plot by paying the balance amount which was fixed by the municipal Council.  The respondent wants to take shelter under G.O.Ms No. 249, dt. 7-5-1984 which was issued by State government (Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Department). Assuming for a movement that according to the respondent version the complainant failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time, when the complainant approached them in the year 2000 and paid the balance amount of Rs. 30,075/-.  Why he has agreed for the said amount.  If the complainant stood defaulter in the year 1998 itself, why he has collected the amount from the complainant and advised him to purchase non-judicial stamp papers for Rs. 4,435/-.  We believe that the respondent dragged the matter by stating that the said plots has to be developed and then registration will taken place.

17.              The objection taken by the respondent is that the C.P. Act does not attract the purview of Hon’ble Forum to entertain the said complaint.   But AIR 1994 SC 787 their lordships have clearly stated that the C.P. Act 69 of 1986 Section 21, 16, 11 2 (i) commission jurisdiction complaint about service in relation to immovable property commission’s jurisdiction is not ousted.   C.P. Act 68 of 1986 section 2 (o) service definition words ‘any’ and ‘potential’ meaning of words and phrases words ‘any and ‘potential.  C.P. Act 68 of 1968 section 2 (o) stood before an amendment in the year 1993 service “housing construction or building activity covered by definition of services as it stood even before inclusion of expression ‘housing construction’ by 1993 amendment.  

18.              Similarly when a statutory authority develops land or allots a site or constructs a house for the benefit of common man it is as much service as by a builder or contractor.  Like wise the other decision the Station Commission, New Delhi their lordships have held that according to C.P. Act 1986 section 2 (i) (c) “complaint, negligence, flat,” complainant got herself registered for allotment of flat in 1980 complainant ‘s priority No. left out in the draw complaint filed whether complainant is entitled for flat at cost prevailing in 1987 Yes. 

19.              Basing on the above judgement we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot collect the balance amount from the complainant by stating that the Municipal Council has approved and on humanitarian grounds they come forward to register the plot in favour of the complainant by collecting difference amount.  According to the National Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in appeal 154 of 2003 clearly stated that the C.P. Act is a full of well legislation and is an important check on the arbitrator exercise of powers by the state. 

20.              In another decision of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 73/2002 C.P. Act 1986 section 2(i)(g) Housing plot auction purchaser delivery of possession of after three years complaint fled seeking relief’s discussed by the State commission being not maintainable under the Act.  The said decision complies on all sources to the facts of the present case.  The enhancement of the costs of the plots is also not maintainable. 

21.              In another decision of National Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 798/2005 their lordship held that the respondent has to collect the same rate of the alternative plot from the complainant at which the original plot was allotted to him.  Heard for the learned counsel for the respondent and the complaint perused the material on records it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to  the allotment site and or plot the letter was issued to the complainant way back in the year 1998 and the complainant had paid the bid amount in the year 2000 itself and the respondent unnecessarily dragged the matter for so many years.  We found gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent for which he is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. 

18.              Point No. 3.  In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the respondent to execute sale deed and register with the expenses of the complainant and deliver the vacant possession of the plot bearing No. 251. Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) is awarded towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 2nd day of January 2009

 
MEMBER                                     MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

 
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                       For Respondents :            NIL
Exhibits marked for complainant:-   

Ex. A1         X/c of plots details and pamphlet of R1.

Ex. A2         X/c of challan No. 3555 for Rs. 1.00/-.

Ex. A3         X/c of challan No. 381 and 382 for Rs. 5,025/- and Rs. 5,000/-.

Ex. A4         X/c of challan No. 5549 for Rs. 30,075.

Ex. A5         X/c of endorsement, dt. 16-12-2005.

Ex. A6         X/c of nonjudicial stamps purchased by V. Chandrasekhara Reddy.

Ex. A7         X/c of list of plot registered members issued by the respondent.

Ex. A8         Legal notice from complainant to respondent dt. 25-7-2007.

Ex. A9         Postal receipt ,dt. 25-7-2008.

Ex. A10       Postal acknowledgement card.

Ex. A11       X/c  of booklet towards agenda meeting of the respondent. 

 
Exhibits marked for Respodnent.          

Ex. B1         X/c of application form of V. Chandrasekhar Reddy.

Ex. B2         X/c of terms and conditions of the plots of Netajinagar.

Ex. B3         X/c of letter from respondent to complainant, dt. 22-6-1998.

Ex. B4         X/c of list of registered plots.

Ex. B5         X/c of letter from Respondent to the Sub Registrar,

Proddatur, dt. 30-7-1988.

Ex. B6         X/c of transfer of sale schedule – II, form – II.

Ex. B7         X/c of transfer of sale schedule – II, form – II.

Ex. B8         X/c of G.O. (MS) No. 249 M.A, dt. 7-5-1984.

Ex. B9         X/c of attending officers at the time of tender.

Ex. B10       X/c of council meeting.

Ex. B11       X/c of G.O (Rt) No. 71 MA, dt. 20-1-1996.

MEMBER                          MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT 
Copy to :-

1)      Sri G. Trivikram Singh,  Advocate. 

                            2)   Sri Lalu Saheb, Advocae, D. No. 2/280, T.B. Road,

                                  Proddatur, Kadapa Dist. 

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :
 

 
B.V.P                                                - - - -