1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the caveator non-petitioner No.2.

2. The petitioners-plaintiffs are aggrieved against the orders of the trial Court dated 19.2.2003 by which the trial Court dismissed the injunction application of the petitioners and against the order dated 10.3.2003 by which the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners-plaintiffs against the trial Court's order dated 19.2.2003.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, who are the wife and sons of deceased-Achal Singh, filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants non-petitioners; State of Rajasthan, U.I.T. Jodhpur and Devanand Gehlot who is son of deceased-Achal Singh and plaintiff No. 1 and brother of plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 The plaintiffs alleged that the property in dispute described in para No. 2 of the plaint is the Patta Sud land of theirs and defendant No. 3's ancestor Anal Singh. Patta was granted by the Mahamandir Thikana in the Samvat Year 1982. The original Patta was lost; therefore, on the application of Achal Singh, new Patta was issued by the Mahamandir Thikana on 12.10.1954. From the period of life time of Achal Singh, Achal Singh as well as plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 were in possession of the plot in dispute and after the death of Achal Singh in the year 1985, the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 are in possession of the plot in dispute. It is alleged that in the month of July, 2002, employee of defendant No. 2 along with defendant No. 2's officers started demolishing the stone-slabs which were put on the plot by the plaintiffs, upon which the plaintiffs raised objections and informed the employees and officers of defendant No. 2 that the property in dispute is the Patta-Sud land of the plaintiffs. The employees and the officers of the defendant No.2 directed the plaintiffs to bring the Patta otherwise defendant No.2 U.I.T. Jodhpur will raise a community building over the land in dispute.

4. It is submitted that despite showing photo-copy of the Patta. the officers of the defendant No. 2 insisted that plaintiffs should bring the original Patta. According to the plaintiffs, the Patta of the property was lying with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur in security against some loan advanced by the bank. The plaintiffs could get the Patta from the Bank only on 14.1.2003. Plaintiffs though mentioned in the plaint that the employees of the defendant No. 2 U.I.T. Jodhpur started demolishing plaintiffs stone slabs in the month July 2002 but filed the suit for injunction in the month January 2003, without disclosing any date or even specific month in the plaint on the allegations that the defendant No. 2 through its employees, started digging the foundation for raising construction of building. According to the plaintiffs the action of defendant No. 2 was high handed and illegal. The plaintiffs further submitted that defendant No. 2 is using the money from quota of either M.L.A. or M.P. as they are having money in their discretionary quota to invest public money. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2 has no right to invest public money illegally and also has no right to raise construction over the plaintiff's Patta-Sud land. It is stated in the plaint that the defendant No. 2 is raising construction at war level, day and night despite the fact that the plaintiffs 40 did not give possession of the land to the defendant No. 2. Despite pleading that defendant No. 2 started digging foundation and raising construction day and night at war level, still the plaintiffs submitted that not only legal but actual physical possession of the plot in dispute is with the plaintiffs.

5. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs sought relief of mere injunction as that defendant No. 1 (State of Rajasthan) and defendant No.2 (Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur) be restrained from raising any construction over the plot in dispute and be restrained from doing any act against the rights and inte