Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the fair and decretal order dated 24. 2007 made in I.A.No. 511 of 2007 in O.S.No: 266 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit O.S.No.266 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. According to him, originally, he filed the suit O.S.No:620 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore against one H.Samson @ Chandradoss representing the Cheran Regional Charitable And Service Trust for Disabled and three others praying for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by him. Pending disposal of the said suit he also prayed for an order of ad interim injunction in I.A.No:639 of 2005 and the first respondent representing the Charitable Trust claimed title as well as possession of the suit property and opposed the grant of injunction in favour of the petitioner. .3. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned Prl.Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, after a detailed discussion of the merits of the case and perusal of the documents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner herein. As against the same, the defendant representing the Charitable Trust filed CMA No.7 of 2006 which is pending on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore wherein no interim order of suspension of the interim injunction was granted and as such the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner continues in force. In spite of the order of interim injunction the defendants in O.S.No:620 of 2005 continued to interfere with the petitioners possession and hence he filed an application seeking police protection and since the said application was not disposed of for a longer period, he filed CRP.NO.982 of 207 before this court and this court by order dated 4. 2007 pleased to direct the Prl.Subordinate Judge to dispose of the said I.A., within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. 2007 pleased to direct the Prl.Subordinate Judge to dispose of the said I.A., within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 4. Likewise the said H.Samson @ Samson Chandradoss, representing the Charitable Trust also filed CRP.No:1486 of 2007 before this court for a direction to dispose of the CMA No.7 of 2006 pending on the file of the District Judge, Coimbatore and this court also gave a direction to dispose of the said appeal before 26. 2007. However, suppressing all the aforesaid facts, the present first respondent-Trust as if represented by another Trustee P.Vijayakumar and other trustees including H.Samson @ Samson Chadradoss filed the present suit in O.S.NO.266 of 2007 for permanent injunction in respect of the very same property before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The trust also filed an application for interim injunction and suppressing the fact that already an interim injunction was in force in favour of the revision petitioner herein and against the Trust, by way of abusing the process of the court and vexatious suit, obtained an ex parte order of injunction. In other words, the ex parte order of injunction which has been obtained by the respondents 1 to 7 herein in I.A.No:511 of 2007 in O.S.No:266 of 2007 is a counter injunction against the order of interim injunction which has been granted in favour of the petitioner herein after contest in I.A.No:639 of 2005 in O.S.No.620 of 2005. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the first respondent-Trust has purchased the suit property in O.S.No:266 of 2007 from one Lakshmi by way of sale deed dated 28. 2004 for valuable sale consideration and since then the trust has been possession and enjoyment of the property and improved the property and is running the present Charitable Trust therein. While so, the revision petitioner/defendant purchased the suit property from one V.R.Chinnasamy and Muthusamy who have no title by way of three registered sale deeds dated 111. 2005 and immediately thereafter the filed the Suit O.S.No:620 of 2005 for permanent injunction against the seventh respondent herein and against Lakshmi, V.Sundararaj and A.Subbulakshmi. Pending the suit also obtained interim injunction and against the same CMA.No:7 of 2006 is pending before the Appellate Court. .6. 2005 and immediately thereafter the filed the Suit O.S.No:620 of 2005 for permanent injunction against the seventh respondent herein and against Lakshmi, V.Sundararaj and A.Subbulakshmi. Pending the suit also obtained interim injunction and against the same CMA.No:7 of 2006 is pending before the Appellate Court. .6. Learned counsel for the respondents mainly contended that the suit for injunction filed by the revision petitioner/defendant as against one of the trustees namely Samson only and secured injunction only as against him. Therefore, the trust which purchased the suit property and which is in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property is a necessary and proper party to contest the proceedings and therefore the trust filed I.A.No.461 of 2001 in I.A.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No:620 of 2005. However, the said application was dismissed holding that the suit was filed only as against individuals and not as against the Trust besides holding that the suit property is the property of an individual and not of the trust and was only against persons who attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, in order to safeguard its interest, possession and title, they filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction as against the revision petitioner herein and the respondent 8 to 11 herein and also obtained interim injunction making out a prima facie before the learned District Judge. 7. According to the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs the very filing of the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not sustainable as per the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in 2000 (IV) CTC 358 as the petitioner could very well move the same court for vacating the order of exparte interim injunction or move the appellate court. The suit filed by the revision petitioner in OS.No:620 of 2005 before the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for bare injunction is as against the specific individuals and one of the trustees of the first respondent Trust namely the 7th respondent herein, whereas the present suit is for a larger relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction as against the revision petitioner and four others to clear the clouds caused upon the title of the trust property purchased by it much earlier than the alleged purchase by the revision petitioner. 8. 8. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the trust and the trustees have not suppressed any material facts and in fact they have included all the documents along with the plaint in the present suit and they cannot be termed as guilty of suppression of facts as laid down in the decision reported in 1998 (1) LW 630. .9. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that in O.S.No.620 of 2005 it was clearly mentioned in the short and long cause title as well as in the applications as H.Samson @ Samson Chadradoss representing the Charitable Trust. The CMP was also filed by the same Samson Chandradoss representing the Charitable Trust and hence the contention that the Trust was not a party to the earlier suit is false and untenable. Further the pleadings in the plaint is identical to the stand in the counter in I.A.No.639 of 2005 in O.S.No:620 of 2005 filed by the revision petitioner. 10. Though it is alleged by the revision petitioner that the respondents are guilty of suppression of facts, viz., suppression of earlier suit filed by the revision petitioner and the interim injunction obtained by him and also the pendency of the CMA before the Appellate Court, it is disputed by the respondents that since they have filed all the documents like plaint, injunction order, CMA grounds etc., along with the plaint in the present suit, as held by the decisions reported in 1997 (II) CTC 47 and 1999 (1) LW 630 , and therefore they cannot be found guilty of material suppression of facts. In this respect, whether the earlier judicial proceedings as alleged by the revision petitioner have been taken into consideration by the trial court while granting the ad interim injunction is not known, because even as seen from the cryptic order it is clear that only Document Nos.11, 12 and 16 alone have been looked into by the trial court. Since it is alleged by the revision petitioner, that the very same property is the subject matter in both the suits, the failure to take into consideration of the earlier proceedings by the trial court, if it were already on its file, as alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs herein, will amount to non consideration of material facts for deciding the issue of granting the relief. It is also alleged that as against the interim order granted in favour of the revision petitioner as against the 7th respondent herein in the earlier I.A., CMA has been preferred and the same is pending before the Appellate Court. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the grant of ad interim injunction by the trial court in favour of the trust without considering the material facts and considering whether they are relevant for granting the relief of ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, the CRP is allowed setting aside the order dated 24. 2007 passed in I.A.No.511 of 2007 in O.S.No.266 of 2007 on the file of the leaned District Judge, Coimbatore. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.