HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.1260 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.8 of 2003 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No.190 of 2001 dated 06-07-2004 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff contended before the trial Court that she purchased an extent of 398.80 square yards of land in Survey No.17 situated at Shyampet Village, Warangal and the defendants tried to cut down the bushes in the said suit property to occupy the same. Defendants contended in their written statement that vendor of the plaintiff was owner and possessor of the suit property etc. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed for ? 2. To what relief ? ” 5. To substantiate her case, plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1, her vendor as PW.2 and her husband as PW.3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. 6. The trial Court based on the evidence available on record, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved of the same, she filed A.S. No.8 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Warangal and the same was also dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, this second appeal is filed by the plaintiff. 7. Now, learned counsel for the plaintiff (appellant) contends that though there is material in favour of the plaintiff, the Courts below have erroneously dismissed the appeal on a single ground that she (plaintiff) has purchased the property from Survey No.17 and not from Survey No.16. 8. During the course of arguments, it is reported that plaintiff has filed O.S. No.147 of 2003 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, for putting her into possession of the suit schedule property after ascertaining its true location in pursuance of the sale deed, Ex.A-1. In view of the same, when such a suit is pending, there is no justification in interfering with the concurrent findings of the Courts below as the entire pending issues can be decided in the above suit and as the questions raised cannot be decided in a suit for permanent injunction. For that single reason alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Therefore, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J August 24, 2010. PV