HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED S.A .No. 969 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the decree and judgment dated 30.03.2009 passed in A.S.No. 221 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam confirming the decree and judgment made in O.S.No. 6 of 1993 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam dated 14.06.2006. The unsuccessful appellants are the plaintiffs in both the courts below. They filed a suit i.e. O.S.No. 6 of 1993 for permanent injunction with regard to an extent of Ac. 18.64 cents of land situated in several survey numbers. The trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, appellants filed appeal i.e., A.S.No. 221 of 2006 and the same was also dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dated 14.6.2006 passed in O.S.No. 6 of 1993. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for appellants contended that since they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as such they are entitled to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule lands. I have perused the order impugned. The trial court considered the matter elaborately and held that the plaintiffs have failed to produce the relevant documents in their favour and they failed to establish prima facie case and balance of convenience. On appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Therefore, in my considered opinion the trial court has considered the matter objectively and dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate court. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by both the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the grounds in the memorandum of second appeal, this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law framed in the second appeal involve appreciation of facts and evidence on record, which both the courts below have elaborately considered. This Court cannot once again appreciate the facts and evidence on record, that too, in the second appeal. In the above circumstances, there is no question of law much less substantial question of law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment by this court. The Second Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 8.10.2010 KA