THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO SECOND APPEAL No.439 of 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is at the instance of the unsuccessful appellant-plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 21.03.1994, passed in A.S.No.126 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in allowing the appeal filed at the instance of the respondent-defendant modifying the judgment and decree, dated 27.07.1991, passed in O.S.No.53 of 1982 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The appellant filed the suit for eviction of the respondent from the suit garage and for mesne profits. The trial Court decreed the suit after regular trial, but, however, in the appeal, the lower appellate Court once again after going into the merits of the case, found that the suit garage has already been allotted to third parties and they are in occupation of their respective portions and the appellant has not examined any such persons in proof of occupation of the suit garage. It further found that even though such specific plea has been taken in the written statement, the appellant has not impleaded them nor any relief is sought for against them. It also found that if the respondent is not in possession of the suit schedule property, the appellant cannot recover possession by filing such a suit. These aspects have not been paid attention by the trial Court. Hence, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court to the effect that an amount of Rs.7,000/- to be paid by the respondent with interest @ 12% per annum from 27.06.1979 till the date of payment and also Rs.25,000/- towards damages for breach of contract. In view of such findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court and in view of the fact that nothing has been pointed out as to the steps taken by the appellant in regard to lapses on his part, in a comprehensive suit of this nature, no question of law arises for consideration warranting interference in the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) Dated: 22.07.2010 kdl