Judgment : 1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by second defendant in O.S.No. 239 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Musiri. 2. O.S.No. 239 of 1998 was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in this case for injunction, restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs in making use of B schedule pathway. Even though injunction was claimed against two defendants, as against the first defendant, injunction was not granted on the ground that the first defendant was living abroad and he has not given rise to any dispute or cause of action for the grant of injunction. But, as against the petitioner, an ad-interim injunction was granted and subsequently after hearing both parties ad.interim injunction was confirmed and an order of injunction was granted till of the suit. 3. The plaintiffs claim title and possession over the A schedule property on the basis of Settlement Deed executed by one Kesavamurthi who is none other than the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff. Kesavamurthi has obtained right over the items covered in the settlement deed by virtue of the partition deed of the year 1984 and also on the basis of a sale deed obtained from a third party. All the properties belonging to Kesavamurthi have been gifted to plaintiffs. 4. B schedule property is a cart track, which according to the plaintiff, is earmarked for the common use of all the sharers in the partition deed, 1984. No person is entitled to interfere with the right of enjoyment and use of the pathway. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are interfering and obliterating the pathway and annexing the portion with that property, the same was sought to be prevented by filing this suit. The suit was filed on 27. 98. On the very same date they also moved for injunction and the same was granted in I.A.No.427 of 1998. 5. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, opposing the grant of injunction, it was said that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts. The suit was filed on 27. 98. On the very same date they also moved for injunction and the same was granted in I.A.No.427 of 1998. 5. In the counter statement filed by the petitioner, opposing the grant of injunction, it was said that the plaintiffs have suppressed material facts. The reason for taking such a contention is that an earlier suit, O.S.No.223 of 1998 was filed by the mother- in- law of the first plaintiffs, and injunction was also sought for in respect of the very same B schedule property. Though ad-interim injunction was granted in that case, after hearing the petitioner, the ad-interim injunction was vacated on 27. 1998, and it was on the very same date, the present suit was filed through the same counsel. It is said that neither in the plaint nor in the injunction application, there is any statement about the earlier litigation and therefore the application should not have been entertained. The contention is that both suit as well as the injunction application is without any bona fides and the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands. It is also contended that even on merits, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. .6. After the objection was filed, the lower Court appointed the Commissioner, who also filed the report. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed various documents which included certified copies of the Commissioners report and plan prepared in O.S.No.223 of 1998 in the suit filed by the mother- in -law. The petitioner also filed documents in support of his objections. 7. The lower Court, thereafter, heard the injunction application on merits. The ad-interim order was confirmed. It came to the conclusion that in the B schedule property, there is a cart track, which is necessary for a convenient enjoyment of A schedule property. B schedule property is in and there is a pathway. It also came to the conclusion that when the pathway is shown on the date of suit, it is only proper that both the parties should maintain status quo i.e., the pathway should not be obliterated or in any way changed. It also came to the conclusion that the pathway is a common pathway not only to the petitioner and the plaintiffs, It also goes north-west and it has to be enjoyed by other persons also. It also came to the conclusion that the pathway is a common pathway not only to the petitioner and the plaintiffs, It also goes north-west and it has to be enjoyed by other persons also. It came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case and it is only proper that the cart track should be maintained as intact. Any destruction of the cart track will make the suit itself infructuous and the plaintiffs will also put to great hardship. 8. It is against the said order, this revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this Court should exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution India i.e. judicial supervisory jurisdiction, since the lower court has not taken into consideration the material fact i.e. the plaintiffs have suppressed the filing of the earlier suit by the mother-in-law and subsequent dismissal of the injunction application and also, false case has been put forward against the first defendant who is residing in Saudi Arabia. It is submitted by the counsel that on these two grounds, revision under Article 227 has to be entertained, though a regular appeal is maintainable under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .10. As against the said contention of the petitioner, it is submitted by the respondents that they were not aware of the pendency of O.S.No.223 of 1998 nor the dismissal of the injunction application filed in the suit filed by the mother-in-law on the date of the suit was filed. But, subsequently, after counter statement came, first respondent came to know about the suit and took certified copies of the case and produced the same in this case. It is also submitted that there is no suppression of any fact and her conduct should not be suspected in not mentioning of the above suit. It is also stated that as against the first defendant, even though an allegation was made, it was only a bona fide mistake and the petitioner is also not aggrieved by the same since the injunction application as against him was dismissed. Petitioner cannot take the cause of the first defendant and no ground has been made out to invoke the powers of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner cannot take the cause of the first defendant and no ground has been made out to invoke the powers of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The reasons mentioned for filing this revision also could be taken in the regular appeal and this case is not an exception as in any other case. 11. After hearing both the counsel, I do not think the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this case. The main argument put forward by the counsel was that the plaintiffs have suppressed the filing of O.S.No.223 of 1998 and subsequent dismissal of the injunction application on 27. 98. It was submitted that it was on the date when the injunction application was dismissed, the suit was filed through the same counsel. At the first blush, the argument seems to be attractive, but on going through the facts of the case in O.S.No.223 of 1998, I do not think the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner could be accepted. It is true that the grant of injunction is purely discretionary and no party to the suit can claim injunction as of right. The conduct of the party in coming to the Court is also a matter which should be considered while passing the order in injunction application. If he had come with a dishonest intention and not with clean hands, even if the plaintiff has got a good case on merits, the discretion cannot be exercised in his favour. 12. It is true that while granting an injunction, if there is a suppression of material facts, injunction will not be granted. Therefore, the question arises is whether the non-mentioning of the filing of O.S.No.223 of 1998 is suppression of the material fact. .13. The material fact is a fact necessary for proper determination of the suit. If the earlier suit has no bearing or not even remotely connected with the result of this suit, the non-mentioning of the pendency of the earlier suit cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fides of the plaintiffs. Except the fact that the plaintiff in the earlier suit happens to be the mother-in-law and both the mother in law and the daughter-in-law have engaged the same counsel, I do not think that there is anything in common to both the cases. It is true that B schedule is the same in both the suits. Except the fact that the plaintiff in the earlier suit happens to be the mother-in-law and both the mother in law and the daughter-in-law have engaged the same counsel, I do not think that there is anything in common to both the cases. It is true that B schedule is the same in both the suits. Both parties wanted injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering or obliterating the cart track. The plaintiffs herein claim their right on the basis of the Settlement Deed executed by one Kesavamurthi who obtained right over the A schedule property in this case in a partition deed of the year 1984, to which he is a party and also on the basis of the sale deed taken by him. In the partition deed, there is a provision for cart track and it has also been declared therein that no one should obstruct the use of the cart track, and all the sharers/persons claiming under that, are entitled to make use of the same. Kesavamurthi executed the settlement deed in respect of all his properties in favour of the plaintiffs. 14. Mother-in-law filed O.S.No. 223 of 1998 claiming as a sharer in the 1984 partition deed of a different property and claimed the B schedule property is also part of that item. She apprehended that the petitioner herein is going to destroy the pathway. The A schedule property is both the suits are different, though the pathway is common for both these items. 15. The injunction application filed in O.S.No.223 of 1998 was dismissed. The main reason for such dismissal was that in the plaint in O.S.No.223 of 1998, there is a statement that the pathway in B schedule is earmarked for the A schedule owners. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, it is stated thus: 16. A contention was taken before the Munsif s Court that this statement in the plaint is wrong. The lower Court, by dismissing the application, came to the conclusion that the B schedule cart track does not belong to the plaintiffs exclusively, but there are other users, since it goes through the properties belonging to others also. In view of the mistake in the statement of fact in the plaint, the District Munsif did not think of granting any injunction. 117. In view of the mistake in the statement of fact in the plaint, the District Munsif did not think of granting any injunction. 117. In this case, the plaintiffs have a definite case that the B schedule property is common to other sharers also and the common enjoyment is now attempted to be interfered with by the petitioner. It was also alleged that apart from the cart track, there was no access to their property in A schedule. The lower court while considering the same, held that the B schedule cart track is the common pathway in existence and it should not be destroyed during the pendency of the suit. It also found that the plaintiffs have no other pathway so as to enter the A schedule property. 118. I do not think that the contention of the learned counsel that non-mentioning of the suit O.S.No. 223 of 1998 will have any bearing in this case. It is only if there is suppression of those facts which are necessary for the proper disposal of this litigation, the question may arise as to whether the petitioner has come to Court with clean hands. When the pendency of the earlier litigation has no bearing in the result of this suit, it cannot be said that there is suppression of material facts. I also do not find any lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiffs. Merely because the same advocate appeared, it will not show that the plaintiffs have come to Court with bad faith. 119. Learned counsel submitted that even though the plaintiffs have stated that they have no knowledge about the mother-in-laws suit, the documents filed in the case are filed in the suit. That shows, the plaintiffs have come forward with a false statement. That is also well explained by the respondents. It is said that after filing of the counter by the petitioner, they applied to the lower court for getting certificate copies. 120. Even though an allegation has been made as against the first defendant, the lower court dismissed the application as against him. That also cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fides of the plaintiffs claim. In drafting a plaint, especially from rural areas, the parties are giving instructions to the counsel as to how the pleading has to be drafted. That also cannot be a ground to doubt the bona fides of the plaintiffs claim. In drafting a plaint, especially from rural areas, the parties are giving instructions to the counsel as to how the pleading has to be drafted. When the facts are stated, the counsel prepares the same and files it in Court. Merely because there is a statement in the plaint that the first defendant also attempted to enjoy with the cart track may not be correct, that by itself cannot be a ground for dismissing the injunction application as against the second defendant. As against the second defendant, the cause of action was found to be true. If the argument of the counsel is accepted, it will mean that even the relief which the plaintiff is entitled to must be refused. I do not think that should be the approach of the Court of law. 121. Since I have already decided the question on merits, I do not want to dismiss the revision petition on the ground that an appeal is maintainable. When the entire injunction application is heard on merits, it is only proper to consider the revision on merits. .22. The lower Court has also considered all facts and has exercised its discretion properly. The impugned order is also well within its jurisdiction. It has also considered the material facts which are necessary for the disposal of the injunction application. No irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration. 123. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision and consequently, it is dismissed. C.M.P.No. 15793 of 1998 is also dismissed.