R.S.A. No. 2625 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2625 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 8, 2009 Satish Chander Sethi …..Appellant Vs. Jarnail Kaur …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff- appellant for injunction has been dismissed by the Courts below holding that he is not in actual physical possession of the suit property. The Courts below have, on the basis of material placed arrived at a conclusion that the portion of Khasra No.40//25 in possession of the plaintiff is different from the portion of the same khasra number in possession of the defendant- respondent. R.S.A. No. 2625 of 2009(O&M) [2] In para 16 of its judgment the trial Court had observed that question regarding title of the plaintiff or defendant cannot be decided in the suit for permanent injunction pertaining to construction and that for that purpose, the plaintiff must seek appropriate remedy of law. The plaintiff- appellant instead of availing the appropriate remedy filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court in para 14 again observed that the plaintiff has not sought the relief of possession and has only filed suit for permanent injunction when the constructions by the defendant- respondent had already been completed. Instead of availing the appropriate remedy, as advised by the Courts below, the plaintiff- appellant has filed this appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Dismissed. If advised, plaintiff- appellant may avail the appropriate remedy, in case permissible under law. December 8, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE