THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY SECOND APPEAL No.256 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This second appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed by the IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Kakinada, in A.S.No.270 of 2006 filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, in O.S.No.53 of 2004 dismissing the suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaint schedule property or its business activity. The plaintiff filed the above suit contending that he purchased a Sawmill unit from one Peddisetti Yesubabu of Gollaprlu. The said Yesubabu was running the Sawmill in the leased premises under the name and style of Raja Sawmill, with necessary licence obtained from the authorities concerned. As the lease was not renewed by the owner, Yesubabu requested the plaintiff to provide accommodation for shifting his Sawmill unit to the timber depot where the plaintiff was carrying on his timber business. The plaintiff applied for permission from the Municipality, Pithapuram and the same was accorded on 18.06.2003. On such permission, the plaintiff made necessary constructions in his timber depot and converted it into Sawmill. Thereafter Yesubabu got renewed the licence and ultimately sold away the Sawmill unit located in the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff along with all necessary licences standing in the name of Raja Sawmill under receipt dated 18.01.2004. Due to the rivalry in the business the defendant was sending his officials calling upon the plaintiff to stop the Sawmill. Hence the plaintiff filed the above suit for restraining the defendant by way of injunction. Opposing the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff was sanctioned licence for running a timber depot in the year 2002 and the same was renewed up to 31.03.2005. Yesubabu was running a Sawmill in the name and style of Raja Sawmill in the leased premises till the year 2000. Though the lease was expired in the year 2000 Yesubabu did not make any application for renewal of the licence for his Sawmill beyond the year 2000. If a person running a Sawmill wants to change the place of Sawmill from one premises to another, he should obtain permission from the Forest Department as per Rule 4 of A.P. Sawmill (Regulation) Rules 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). It is further submitted that for leasing out the Sawmill, it is necessary to obtain permission from the licencing authority. The plaintiff has no licence to run the sawmill. It is further submitted that as per the directions of the Supreme Court in W.P.No.2002 of 1995 dated 16.11.2002 no State or Union Territory shall permit unlicenced Sawmills, without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee, and the Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. The said direction was communicated to all the Forest Officials, and hence the plaintiff cannot install the Sawmill without obtaining permission from the authorities concerned. On the above pleadings, the only issue framed by the trial Court is – Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for or not? The plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the defendant, one T. Nageswara Rao, Forest Section Officer, Tuni Section, Kakinada Range, was examined as DW.1 and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. The lower Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. On appeal being filed, the lower appellate Court framed one point for consideration – Whether the plaintiff, who is having a licence to run a timber depot, can be permitted to run a Sawmill in the plaint schedule property and that the so called interference on the part of the respondent/defendant is illegal and to be restrained? On evidence the lower appellate Court observed that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was granted licence for running the Sawmill since from 2000; that the licence issued to the plaintiff for running the timber depot in his name was valid up to 2005, and thereafter, it was not renewed; and that in the absence of any licence obtained by the plaintiff for running the sawmill, and when he claimed that it was earlier granted in the name of Raja Sawmill, which he purchased, he failed to establish approval of the Forest Officials under the Rules, for transfer of licence in his favour, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff only shows that he paid amounts for renewal of licence issued under the name and style of Raja Sawmill, which fact has not been accepted by the Forest Officials and informed the plaintiff that no licence was issued to Raja Sawmill situated at Gollaprolu. Hence, mere sending of amounts by the plaintiff will not amount to grant of licence. In view of the same, the plaintiff is not entitled to injunction restraining the defendant from discharging its lawful duties preventing the unlawful running of Sawmill by the plaintiff without any valid licence. The concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below do not give rise to any question of law much less any substantial question of law for admission of the second appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 4th June, 2010 Js.