JUDGMENT : V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J. 1. A sole defendant in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 2. Both the Courts below held against the defendant/appellant. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the appellant to show a patent perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below and to show substantial question of law that arises in this appeal. Notice before admission was granted and therefore appearance was made for respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments at the stage of hearing before admission. 3. O.S. No. 38 of 2010 is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant with the following prayers: (a) to direct the defendant to vacate from suit schedule premises or if the defendant refused to vacate from the suit schedule premises as per the direction of the Court, the Court may be pleased to evict the defendant from suit schedule premises at the defendant’s costs. (b) for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the defendant for use and occupation of suit schedule premises. (c) costs. (d) together with such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. The property in dispute in that suit is described in the plaint schedule a cement roofed shed in an extent of Ac. 54½ Sq. Yards of site with specific boundaries mentioned therein situated in 9th ward, First Block-T.S. No. 24-11 and T-S No. 27/3, Tenali Municipality of Guntur District. In the plaint it is alleged that plaintiff Smt G.Krishna Kumari owned this property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1984. This property was purchased in her name by her father in law. 4. Sri G. Venkata Rao and Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad are brothers to each other. Sri G. Venkata Rao is the husband of the plaintiff. Smt Rama Tulasamma is the wife of Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad. Father in law of the plaintiff also purchased another tiled shed adjoining the plaint schedule property and that was purchased in the name of Smt Rama Tulasamma who is co-sister in law to the plaintiff. 5. Sri G. Ventakta Siva Prasad has been maintaining the property of his own wife and also the property of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint schedule. 6. 5. Sri G. Ventakta Siva Prasad has been maintaining the property of his own wife and also the property of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint schedule. 6. After the year 1994 disputes cropped up between the brothers and their father. In those circumstances, plaintiff’s father in law and plaintiff’s husband filed O.S. No. 166 of 2005 against Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad and his men praying for permanent injunction. The said G. Venkata Siva Prasad filed O.S. No. 85 of 2006 seeking for partition of the properties. Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad prompted the defendant/Sri Vemu Vidyaranjanroy and made him to file O.S. No. 570 of 2005 for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff and her husband. This plaintiff received summons in that suit and on receiving such summons she for the first time came to know that the present plaint schedule property is under possession of the present suit defendant. In the injunction suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 570 of 2005 he claimed his status as tenant under oral lease. The defendant herein is a trespasser and therefore plaintiff is entitled for damages to an extent of Rs. 1 Lakh for the entire period of his un-lawful occupation of this property. However, as this defendant pleaded oral tenancy in that injunction suit claiming that he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- the defendant can at best called a tenant holding over. 7. The son of the plaintiff is a Software Engineer and is desirous of establishing a business in the plaint schedule property. In the above referred circumstances plaintiff got issued a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property. Defendant received it and issued a reply notice with false allegations. In these circumstances, the suit is filed for eviction with the prayers that are referred earlier. 8. Defendant contested the suit and filed written statement and in total denied the plaint mentioned averments. It is stated that in the year 1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- he obtained the plaint schedule property and also the other portion on lease from the husband of the plaintiff as well as from G. Venkata Siva Prasad. 8. Defendant contested the suit and filed written statement and in total denied the plaint mentioned averments. It is stated that in the year 1994 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- he obtained the plaint schedule property and also the other portion on lease from the husband of the plaintiff as well as from G. Venkata Siva Prasad. Earlier, defendant did business in cement and hiring of construction material and STD Booth and now in the last seven years he stopped up that business and started Sadhana Software and Graphics DTP and Multi Colour Works and also running computer education to the students. The rent has been enhanced from time to time and at present it is Rs. 2,500/- per month. There is no written lease deed. There has been no practice of rent receipts. The total property is in the occupation of defendant and it consists of four rooms which include the two rooms of the plaint schedule. The defendant is not a trespasser and is not liable to pay damages to the extent of plaint schedule. The rent payable is only Rs.1,250/-. The suit is not maintainable and only RCC is maintainable. By way of demand drafts rent was sent to the husband of the plaintiff, but he refused to receive them and they were returned to the defendant. Defendant sent a registered notice to the husband of the plaintiff demanding for furnishing account number, so that the defendant could deposit the rents. Husband of the plaintiff did not do it. Defendant is ready to pay rents and the husband of the plaintiff refused to receive the rents. There is no willful default on the part of the defendant. The suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 570 of 2005 was decreed by the learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali and permanent injunction was granted in favour of defendant. For these reasons he seeks for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. 9. On these rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the court is competent to try the suit as contended by the defendant? 2. Whether there is valid termination of lease? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for eviction as prayed for? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 10. Whether the court is competent to try the suit as contended by the defendant? 2. Whether there is valid termination of lease? 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for eviction as prayed for? 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 10. At the trial, plaintiff testified as PW-1 and her husband Sri Godavarthi Venkata Rao testified as PW-2. Registered notice dated 27.03.2008 got issued by plaintiff is Ex.A1. Reply notice dated 09.04.2008 issued by defendant is Ex.A2. Indicating the ownership of plaintiff over the plaint schedule property, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 20.07.1984 is Ex.A3. To show that the property was not leased out to defendant but it was leased out to two other persons, the plaintiff got marked registration extract of lease deed dated 22.08.1985 as Ex.A4 and another registration extract of lease deed dated 21.08.1985 as Ex.A5. A set of photographs with negatives is Ex.A6. As against that evidence, defendant gave evidence as DW-1 and a person said to have been a witness to the lease gave evidence as DW-2. No documents were exhibited on behalf of the defendant. 11. At trial, the main contention was about jural relationship between the parties to the suit. Whether the defendant has been a tenant or whether the defendant is a trespasser was the question that primarily felt for consideration. By virtue of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court observed that plaint schedule property is owned by the plaintiff and the plaintiff herself never leased it out to the defendant. By the evidence of her husband PW-2 she also proved that he never let out the property to the defendant. However, the defendant was found to be in possession of the property. Since there is no tenancy between them the trial Court recorded the finding that the defendant is a trespasser. With reference to the contentions of the defendant about tenancy it observed that there is no written lease deed, there is no proof of payment of rents and in the light of oral and documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 lease deeds in favour of third parties it disbelieved the version of the defendant and held that he has not been a tenant in the plaint schedule property. Since he was not found to be a tenant it held that jurisdiction vested with Civil Court. Since he was not found to be a tenant it held that jurisdiction vested with Civil Court. It further observed that the defendant has been making claims of tenancy and having been under the impression that PW-2 has not been receiving rents ought to have filed a petition under Section of 9 of A.P. Rent Control Act which he did not do. It observed that as per the evidence, defendant is in un-authorised occupation of the premises and has not been paying any rents and has not been depositing any rents and he has no right to continue his possession in the suit schedule property. Coming to the question of damages it ordered for separate enquiry in terms of Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. Operative portion of judgment of the trial Court dated 21.08.2012 is in the following terms: In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by evicting the defendant from suit schedule premises and defendant is directed to deliver the vacant schedule premises within a period of 30 days to the plaintiff, who is also entitled for damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the schedule premises by the defendant from 27.03.2008 till date of delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiff to be determined by separate application Under Order XX Rule 12 C.P.C. 12. Defendant did not vacate the premises as ordered by the trial Court but filed first appeal in A.S. No. 243 of 2012. Learned XI Additional District Judge, Tenali heard the first appeal and went through the entire record and considered all the evidence of the trial Court and considered the various grounds raised in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and held that all the findings of the trial Court are correct and that the plaintiff and her husband never leased out the property to the defendant and even if one considers the defendant’s contention that he obtained lease from PW-2 who was not the land-lord, there was no evidence to show that the alleged lease was ever approved by the land-lord/plaintiff/PW-1. There is absolutely no evidence to belief the quantum of rent and the injunction suit and decree in favour of the defendant serves no purpose for deciding anything that arose in the suit and appeal concerning eviction and finally it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court Judgment. 13. There is absolutely no evidence to belief the quantum of rent and the injunction suit and decree in favour of the defendant serves no purpose for deciding anything that arose in the suit and appeal concerning eviction and finally it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the trial Court Judgment. 13. It is against that the present second appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit. In the grounds of appeal the appellant states that according to him the following points could be called as substantial questions of law and requests this Court to admit the appeal. Those grounds urged in the Appeal are: (a) Whether the courts below are right, in the light of the specific admission of the plaintiff as PW-1 that the appellant-defendant is a tenant of suit schedule premises, in holding that the appellant-defendant is a trespasser? (b) Whether the first appellate court committed wrong in throwing burden on the appellant-defendant to prove that he is a tenant, even before the plaintiff discharges her initial burden to prove her case. (c) Whether the courts below failed to follow the settled principles of law that the case of the plaintiff shall stand or fall on its own strength and cannot depend on the weakness of the defendant. (d) Whether the courts below failed to consider the crucial fact that when the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was issued to the appellant-defendant, it is conclusive that he is a tenant and as the building is old one and rent is Rs. 1,250/- per month the suit is not maintainable? (e) Whether the courts below went wrong in treating the appellant as trespasser, in the light of admission of PW-1 that he is a tenant, and awarding damages? 14. Learned counsel for respondent submits that none of the points raised indicate any substantial question of law and the grounds urged do not grade admission of second appeal and seeks for dismissal and places reliances on Kanthi Ruby @ Rubisekhar vs. Sathya and Others, 2018 (6) ALD 456 . 14. Learned counsel for respondent submits that none of the points raised indicate any substantial question of law and the grounds urged do not grade admission of second appeal and seeks for dismissal and places reliances on Kanthi Ruby @ Rubisekhar vs. Sathya and Others, 2018 (6) ALD 456 . That was a case between a land-lord and tenant and the second appeal came to be preferred before this Court and after analysis of facts and law this Court found that concurrent findings of Courts below did not suffer from any patent illegality and there is no error on facts and law in the Judgments of the lower Courts and therefore dismissed that appeal at the stage of admission. 15. About a year after filing the second appeal, the appellant filed a petition under Order XL1 Rule 27 C.P.C. praying this Court to receive additional evidence in the form of documents and mark them as Exs.R1 to R8. Those documents are: (i) The certified copy of the order in R.C.A. No. 3/2012, dated 05.10.2015 on the file of the court of the Appellate Rent Controller-cum-Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. (ii) The certified copy of the Order in R.C.C. No. 10/2005, dated 04.05.2012 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller-cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali. (iii) The copy of plaint in O.S. No. 570/2005. (iv) The copy of Written statement of 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 570/2005. (v) The copy of adoption memo filed by 1st defendant in O.S. No. 570/2005. (vi) The copy of written statement of 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 570/2005. (vii) The copy of Judgment in O.S. No. 570/2005 dated 01.12.2005. (viii) The copy of the decree in O.S. No. 570/2005. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is just and necessary to receive those documents as additional evidence and further submits that this Court sitting in the second appeal is entitled and empowered to receive such evidence as was held by Division Bench of this Court in Chapala Chinnabbai and Others vs. Naralasetti Anasuyamma and Others, 2006 (1) ALD 669 . In the sworn affidavit filed by the appellant in support of this application, it is stated that in the pleadings the earlier litigations are mentioned and the documents are not marked. In the sworn affidavit filed by the appellant in support of this application, it is stated that in the pleadings the earlier litigations are mentioned and the documents are not marked. He could not file them either before the trial Court are in the first appeal and now he is filing these documents and these documents would falsify the contention of the plaintiff/respondent herein. 16. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent /plaintiff submits that the petition does not indicate any valid reason as to why the proposed additional evidence was not adduced before the Courts below and states that only to prolong the litigation the application of present nature is resorted to by the petitioner/appellant and submits that all those documents do not make out a case for admitting this appeal in any manner and such application cannot be entertained before an appeal is admitted. For these reasons, learned counsel seeks to dismiss the said application. 17. There is a single thread, on which the litigation is kept alive can be seen from the arguments put forwarded by the learned counsel for appellant. The essence of the contention is that the appellant is a lessee and the fact that respondent/plaintiff issued a quit notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act by itself is an acknowledgment of tenancy between the parties and looking at the quantum of rent to the extent of plaint schedule property a civil suit is not maintainable. It is argued that both the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence. Had the evidence been properly appreciated the facts that could have been found would have disclosed ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court. It is on these points, while referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for appellant urges for admission of appeal. 18. In a second appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. this Court is normally not expected to re-appreciate the evidence on record. It shall not reverse First Appellate Court’s judgment except under a few situations. If it is found that the material or relevant evidence was not considered by the First Appellate Court and if considered it would have led to an opposite conclusion, is one instance where this Court is entitled to interfere. It shall not reverse First Appellate Court’s judgment except under a few situations. If it is found that the material or relevant evidence was not considered by the First Appellate Court and if considered it would have led to an opposite conclusion, is one instance where this Court is entitled to interfere. The other situation is when the findings of the facts were arrived at by the First Appellate Court by placing reliance on inadmissible evidence, which if it was omitted, an opposite conclusion was possible. It is on such occasions also this Court can interfere. It is also to be stated that if the Judgment of the Courts below are contrary to the mandated provisions of the law applicable to the case, then also an interference under Section 100 of C.P.C. is permissible. This has been the law form the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and a reference in that regard can be made to Guruman Singh vs. Lehana Singh, 2019 (7) SCC 641 . 19. Through the above lens of law now the submissions raised have to be considered. Ex.A1 is the quit notice dated 27.03.2008 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. A reading of this notice indicates that the plaintiff/land-lady never leased out the property to the defendant/appellant herein. She states that at no point of time this appellant approached her either for any written lease or by offering any rent. She stated in the notice that she was not even aware of his occupation of the plaint schedule property and for the first time she had come to know that he has been in the occupation of the plaint schedule property only when she received summons in O.S. No. 570/2005 filed by this appellant seeking for permanent injunction. It further mentions that this appellant has been squatting on the property unauthorisedly by taking useless pleas. She further mentioned that she never authorized this appellant for the possession of the property nor consented for continuation of his possession. While explaining as to how she gained the knowledge of this possession of the property through the summons she received, she had mentioned that as per the contention in O.S. No. 570/2005 she understood that this appellant was claiming protection of possession alleging that he is a tenant. While explaining as to how she gained the knowledge of this possession of the property through the summons she received, she had mentioned that as per the contention in O.S. No. 570/2005 she understood that this appellant was claiming protection of possession alleging that he is a tenant. Referring to that aspect, she mentioned in the notice that even as a tenant, he is not paying the rents and has no right to continue in possession and only to answer his claim of tenancy she has been issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Essence of this notice is seen in the plaint also. Essence of this is seen in her examination in chief also. In her cross examination she reiterated these contentions. While giving evidence she referred the appellant as tenant. That always has been understood in the context of her pleadings and the evidence but not in isolation. Thus, the entire case of the plaintiff/respondent is that this appellant/defendant has not been her tenant. Trial Court believed that version and sustained her claim and identified the possession of the defendant /appellant stating that he is a trespasser. After thorough analysis of the evidence, the first appellate Court also reached to the same conclusion. Both the Courts below read the evidence and considered the evidence and did not consider anything that is not part of the evidence and considered the case of the plaintiff/respondent herein on its own and found that there has been no land-lord/tenant relationship between the parties and this appellant is a trespasser. 20. As per the reply notice in Ex.A2 and the averments made in the written statement and the evidence given by appellant before the trial Court as DW-1 one fact is crystal clear. He admits that the plaint schedule property is owned by respondent/plaintiff. He admits, he never took property on lease from the plaintiff and admits he never paid any rents at any point of time to the plaintiff. Thus, between parties there could be no lease at all. However, according to the appellant, he obtained lease hold of this property from the husband of plaintiff/respondent. That husband deposed as PW-2 and denied this version. Thus, between parties there could be no lease at all. However, according to the appellant, he obtained lease hold of this property from the husband of plaintiff/respondent. That husband deposed as PW-2 and denied this version. This appellant who claims to have been the tenant since the year 1994 did not assert a specific date of commencement of tenancy and specific period of tenancy and is without a written lease deed and is without any document indicating that he has been discharging his liability of payment of rents. His transaction is alleged to be with PW-2 at his own admission and PW-2 himself disowned the transaction. It is for appellant to show how he could sustain his claim of tenancy. He by himself stated in his written statement that he had issued a registered lawyer notice to the husband of plaintiff demanding him to furnish the bank account number so that he could deposit the monthly rents. He did not exhibit a copy of notice. He by himself disclosed in the written statement that he is ready to pay the rents, thereby indicating that he has not been paying rents. He did not choose to move either a civil Court or the Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit rents at any point of time. Earlier to the institution of the present dispute in O.S. No. 38 of 2010 and in the case at hand he claims that he has been running business. He has not furnished any of books of his accounts indicating the payment of rents. He did nothing. The fact remains that he is in possession of suit schedule property and the fact also remains that the land-lord/plaintiff never leased out the property to him and the fact also remains that the appellant had no piece of evidence to be considered by the lower courts to recognize him as tenant. All these facts are properly analysed by the courts below and reached to appropriate conclusions. Appellant merely pretend dissatisfaction and preferred this second appeal without any merit to pass the legal muster contained in Section 100 C.P.C. and the law referred earlier. Learned counsel for appellant could not show one question of law that in the facts situation is available in this case. Appellant merely pretend dissatisfaction and preferred this second appeal without any merit to pass the legal muster contained in Section 100 C.P.C. and the law referred earlier. Learned counsel for appellant could not show one question of law that in the facts situation is available in this case. A notice that was cautiously issued by the plaintiff under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act could not be understood as one as admission on the part of the plaintiff/respondent that there existed tenancy since neither logic nor law permits it. According to the appellant, the rent for four rooms is Rs. 2,500/-. According to the learned counsel, by the time of litigation such a matter was amenable for civil Courts jurisdiction in case of eviction. However, in the case at hand the dispute revolves around for only two rooms which are owned by the respondent/plaintiff. Now on what principle of law the appellant is entitled to say that since only part of the premises is sought to be evicted, the rent should be considered at Rs. 1,200/- which means half of what he claims to have been paying. The reply notice under Ex.A2, written statement, the evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 do indicate that for two rooms in the plaint schedule the plaintiff is the land-lord/owner and the adjoining two rooms are not owned by this plaintiff and they are owned by the co-sister in law of plaintiff. The alleged lease of those adjoining two rooms were taken through the husband of co-sister in law. If that be the case, it is crystal clear that he had obtained two different leases for two separate portions which are adjoining each other. Thus according to the appellant there are two leases. In his reply notice, written statement and in his evidence as DW-1 he never whispered what was the agreed rent for each of the two parts of this building. Simply because two adjoining portions were taken on lease, without making a specific plea as to how much rent is for each two parts of the building the appellant cannot, unless legal principal is shown adjudicate for himself and arrive at his own conclusions that the rent is for Rs. 2,400/- and he could reduce it to Rs. 1,200/-. No point of law is argued on any of these aspects. 2,400/- and he could reduce it to Rs. 1,200/-. No point of law is argued on any of these aspects. Learned counsel for appellant has not shown violation of any statute or precedent in the Judgments of the Courts below. A perusal of the lower Courts judgments would show that principles of burden of proof was properly followed and the principles of settled law were kept in mind and decisions were arrived at. Both the Judgments of the Courts below clearly recorded that the appellant is a trespasser and in this appeal no perversity could be pointed out by the appellant nor violation of any principal of law is shown. 21. Coming to the question of additional evidence proposed to be adduced by the appellant by the terms under Order XLII Rule 1 read with Order XL1 Rule 27 C.P.C. the party seeking to produce additional evidence should establish that despite due diligence the proposed evidence was not within his knowledge and could not be produced before the Courts below. On a perusal of the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his prayer for additional evidence, there is a clear omission of facts indicating his due diligence and failure to have these documents being produced before the Courts below. The name of the respondent/plaintiff is Smt G.Krishna Kumari. First two documents pertain to R.C.C 10/2005 and the appeal against it in RCA No. 03/2012. In both the matters the respondent /plaintiff herein is not a party. Thus whatever is mentioned in those Orders could not be used as against the respondent /plaintiff herein. The other documents are pleadings and judgment in O.S. No. 570/2005. In that the first defendant is plaintiff/respondent herein. That suit was filed by this appellant wherein he sought for permanent injunction. There also he raised his claims of tenancy. The Judgment in O.S. No. 570/2005 at Para 11 indicates that the learned Judge clearly recorded that the claims of tenancy and its denial raised in that suit were not considered as they were not germane for consideration and therefore he did not decide that aspect. So far, the appellant never sued for declaration of his legal status as tenant. The Judgment in O.S. No. 570/2005 at Para 11 indicates that the learned Judge clearly recorded that the claims of tenancy and its denial raised in that suit were not considered as they were not germane for consideration and therefore he did not decide that aspect. So far, the appellant never sued for declaration of his legal status as tenant. In fact, in the current litigation the plaintiff/respondent herein mentioned that her knowledge of this appellant holding possession of her property is only through the litigation commenced by the this appellant in O.S. 570 of 2005 and till then he was a stranger to her. The proposed evidence include O.S. No. 570/2005 decided by a Judgment of learned I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali dated 01.12.2008. In the case at hand O.S. No. 38 of 2020 was filed on 22.08.2009 and Judgment was rendered by the trial Court on 21.08.2012. Therefore, document Nos. 3 to 8 were available with this appellant even for two years earlier to commencement of present litigation. He never thought to exhibit those documents either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court and now he believes that in the name of justice and its protection these unnecessary documents should be received even though he failed to say anything relevant in his affidavits. RCC No. 10/2005 was decided on 04.05.2012. Thus even that document was available while the trial was still pending before the trial Court. RCA No. 03/2012 was decided on 05.10.2015. That RCA confirmed the order of RCC Court. Thus, the appellant seeks to produce documents that do not pertain to a litigation between the parties. It is in these circumstances, this Court has to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondent that without any merits, for protracting the litigation, the petitioner/appellant is trying to induct certain documents. There is no merit in the prayer for additional evidence and therefore that application is dismissed. Thus, none of the grounds urged in the memorandum of grounds of appeal raised any substantial question of law as is required to be considered by this Court. Therefore, the present second appeal has to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant shall vacate the plaint schedule property on or before 31.12.2022. Therefore, the present second appeal has to be dismissed at the stage of admission. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent. The appellant shall vacate the plaint schedule property on or before 31.12.2022. The Judgment dated 27.07.2015 of the First 23. Appellate Court in A.S. No. 243 of 2012 of the learned XI-Additional District Judge, Tenali stands confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.