IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA S.A.NO : 301 OF 2009 Between: Kotha Chinnaiah ..... PETITIONER AND B.Krishna Reddy and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA S.A.No. 301 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The respondents herein instituted a suit in O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, seeking permanent injunction. On notice, the appellants herein contested the suit. However, the trial Court, accepting the submissions of the respondents-plaintiffs decreed the suit and granted injunction as sought for. The same was questioned by the appellants by filing A.S.No.2 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, but, the learned Senior Civil Judge, by his judgment dated 08-12-2008, dismissed the appeal. Hence, the appellants approached this Court and filed the Second Appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. 2. Sri M.Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, has mainly contended that both the Courts below have mis-interpreted the documents and the same would go to the root of the title, as such, it is a substantial question of law, and hence, the second appeal is maintainable. 3. This Court is unable to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Apparently, the Courts below have gone into all the documents relied on by both the parties in coming to the conclusion as to whether the plaintiffs’ suit is to be decreed or not and thus, gave a finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is purely a question of fact and it cannot be said that it is a question of law much less substantial question of law. 4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a comprehensive suit is filed by the appellants before the Court below for declaration of title and consequential possession. 5. In the light of the said suit, this Court directs the Court below to dispose of the said suit without being influenced by any of the observations made by the trial Court in the suit for injunction. 6. Accordingly this second appeal is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ 13th August 2010 KVR