ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This second appeal is arising out of judgment and decree passed in OS No. 430 of 2008 dated 20.11.2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, which was confirmed by the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram (appellate Court) vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.2019 passed in AS No. 9 of 2014. 2. The appellants are the unsuccessful plaintiffs in view of the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their men, from causing obstruction in ABCD common lane as shown in the plaint plan in OS No. 430 of 2008 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. 4. On consideration of the material before the Trial Court the suit was dismissed and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The observations of the appellate Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court are that the evidence on record would show that the defendants erected the cement pole in disputed passage and electrical wires were drawn over the disputed passage, therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction. It is also observed that the plaintiffs did not get their plaint amended seeking remedy of mandatory injunction for demolition of the erected cement pole, and electrical wires drawn over the disputed passage. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that since the plaintiffs have not amended the plaint by seeking relief of mandatory injunction the Trial Court has dismissed the suit and the appellate Court has confirmed the same by dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the appellants seek liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available to them under law in view of the observations made by the appellate Court in its judgment. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case it is obvious that there is concurrent finding of both the Courts in respect of rejecting to grant relief claimed by the plaintiffs seeking for permanent injunction against the defendant, from erecting cement polls in ABCD joint lane and the electrical wires over ABCD common lanes as the defendants have already made construction of electrical polls. Therefore, the appellate Court has rightly observed that the appellants have to seek for relief of mandatory injunction as they are no longer entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed, but however in the circumstances, the appellants are given liberty to seek appropriate remedy available to them. 8. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed by giving liberty to the appellants to avail appropriate remedy available to them under law. No order as to costs. 9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the second appeal, shall stand closed.