JUDGMENT : 1. The first defendant filed the present appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 17.10.2015, dismissing the suit filed by the first respondent for permanent injunction. The appeal is already admitted on 15.07.2016. Today the matter is posted for consideration of I.A. No. 1/16 for dismissal of the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the first respondent filed an application contending that the present appeal filed by the defendant against the findings recorded by the trial Court when the suit came to be dismissed as not maintainable. 3. In support of his contention, he relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S. Sadiq Pasha vs. Aktharunnisa, reported in (2013) 3 AIR Karr 716. 4. Sri. Chithappa, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is another comprehensive suit is pending between the same parties for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same suit schedule property. Therefore, he submits that any finding recorded by the trial Court in the injunction suit filed by the respondent will affect his rights. 5. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is well settled that an appeal does not lie against mere findings recorded by the trial Court unless the finding amount to a decree or an order. Where a suit is dismissed, the defendant against whom an adverse finding might have came to be recorded on same issue has no right of appeal and he cannot question those findings before the appellate Court in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva Ram and Another vs. Ishwar Chand and Another, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 733 and in the case of Ganga Bai vs. Fijay Kumar and Others, reported in 1974 2 SCC 393 . 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra nor shown any other subsequent judgment to show that the said law laid down in the said cases has been subsequently modified. In view of the same, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 7. It is needless to observe that it is always open for both the parties to establish their respective case before the appropriate Court.