THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.141 of 2008 Date: 27.10.2009 Between : M/s. Vijaya Durga Traders … Appellant And Papani Nageswara Rao and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.141 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. 2. This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 17.8.2007, in A.S.No.112 of 1999, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree, dated 9.8.1999, in O.S.No.50 of 1998, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli, dismissing the suit for recovery of money basing on katha transactions. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that the issue regarding registration of the plaintiff firm, which was not sought to be decided by either of the party, was decided by both the Courts below, adversely affecting the interest of the plaintiff firm. It is his further contention that though an application was filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in order to show that the firm is a registered firm, the said application was also dismissed along with the appeal. 4. I have carefully gone through the judgments passed by both the Courts below and also the material available on record. 5. It is not a surprise that when an appeal is dismissed by the lower appellate Court, in normal course, it need not look into the other interlocutory applications, particularly the present application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. It is only a consequential order inasmuch as the main appeal itself was dismissed on merits. It is only the satisfaction of the lower appellate Court as to whether there was any necessity for it to look into all those documents or not. When the lower appellate Court is absolutely satisfied on merits to arrive at a conclusion, it need not go into the other aspects. All the questions involved are pure questions of fact and I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 6. For the foregoing, there is no question of law much less substantial warranting interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C. 7. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27.10.2009 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA SECOND APPEAL No.141 of 2008 27.10.2009 (Msr)