( 1 ) THIS Ex. SA. is by the original defendant 3 against the decree parsed by the Civil Judge, at, Hassan in RA. 84 of 1972 confirming the order passed on IA. 6 in OS. 202 of 1966 by the Munsiff, Channarayantna. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF instituted OS. 202 of 1966 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, he obtained an interim order of injunction. That suit came to be dismissed. RA. 149 of 1967 filed against the said decree was also dismissed. RSA. 898 of 1968 filed against the said decree was also dismissed by this Court on 5-7-1971. During the pendency of this litigation, the plaintiff had the benefit of the interim order of injunction. ( 3 ) THE appellant filed an application under S. 144 CPC for restitution on the ground that on the strength of the interim order passed in the, suit, she was dispossessed and, therefore, she is entitled to restitution. The application was resisted on the ground that the remedy of the appellant was not by way of an application under S. 144 CPC but by means of a regular suit. This objection was sustained and the application of the appellant was dismissed. The order has been affirmed by the learned Civil judge. Hence, this execution second appeal. ( 4 ) THE suit being one for permanent injunction, the fact that the plaintiff's suit has been dismissed resulting in the vcation of the interim order of injunction granted during the pendency of the suit, does not, in my opinion, entitle the appellant to seek restitution by means of an application under S. 144 CPC. The only remedy for the appellant in the circumstances, is to file an appropriate suit for necessary reliefs. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff by obtaining an interim order of injunction prevented the defendant from interfering with his alleged possession. The interim order did not direct delivery of possession by the defendant to the plaintiff. The dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction on the grcund that he was not in possession on the date of suit, does not amount to conclusively holding that the defendant was in possession on the date of suit It may be that the defendant was also not in possession. The dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction on the grcund that he was not in possession on the date of suit, does not amount to conclusively holding that the defendant was in possession on the date of suit It may be that the defendant was also not in possession. If in such a case restitution is ordered it would amount to awarding possession to the defendant in the absence of adjudication of his right, which can only be made in a regular suit brought by him. S. 144 or S. 151 CPC cannot be invoked to give positive relief to the defendant which relief he can secure in a suit brought by him. The view I have taken also accords with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Baa Singh v. Khiwala. ( 6 ) AS I am agreering with the Courts below that the proper remedy available to the appellant is to institute a suit, this appeal has to fail. ( 7 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, this appeal is dismissed without costs. --- *** --- .