ORDER : R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J. The plaintiff in O.S.No.591 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town has filed the present civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of his interim injunction application which was confirmed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in CMA.No.2 of 2020. (A)Factual Matrix: 2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from constructing any wall or putting up any fence on the eastern boundary of item No.1 of the schedule mentioned properties abutting the Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) and thereby obstructing the free ingress and egress of the plaintiff from Item No.1 through Item No.2. 3.A perusal of the plaint averment reveals that the plaintiff had purchased first item of the property under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017. Under the said document, he had purchased 1670 sq.ft in T.S.No.225/2D. In the boundary recital, Kamarajar Salari, Ramanthapuram Road is shown as northern boundary. Teppakulam West Street (Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned property) is shown as eastern boundary. The other two boundaries are owned by the private parties. 4.According to the plaintiff, both Kamarajar Salai as well as Teppakulam West Street are public roads. It is further averred that in the Teppakulam West Street, the property of the plaintiff and several other properties namely, Punnavana Nadar Marriage Hall, The Gita Nadanagopala Nayagi Manthir, Thiagarajar College of Preceptors, Sri Muktheeswarar Temple, Siddasramam and Meenakshi Sundareswarar Girls Higher Secondary School are situated. It is further averred that the southern end of Teppakulam West Street is connected to Anupanadi Road. 5.It is further averred that the 2 nd item of the property namely Teppakulam West Street is located in T.S.No.210 and it is a cement road used by the general public, vehicles and city buses are plying for over 100 years. It is also contended that the corporation has erected street lights and public drainage run on either side of Teppakulam West Street. A city bus stop is also located. A bus shelter has been erected by Madurai Corporation. All the properties owners, including the plaintiff having property abutting Teppakulam West Street on its eastern side, has got right of ingress and egress through the said street. A city bus stop is also located. A bus shelter has been erected by Madurai Corporation. All the properties owners, including the plaintiff having property abutting Teppakulam West Street on its eastern side, has got right of ingress and egress through the said street. 6.It is alleged by the plaintiff that the officials of the defendants 1 and 2 came to the property on 09.10.2019 and attempted to erect a compound wall on the wester margin of Teppakulam West Street which is the eastern boundary of Item No.1 of the schedule mentioned property. If such a compound wall is constructed, the plaintiff will not have any ingress and egress to the Teppakulam West Street. It further contended that a person having property abutting a street or road or highway has got right to enter through every point of access in his property. On 11.10.2019, the subordinates of defendants 1 and 2 started to dig up pits for erecting pillars for constructing the compound wall. Therefore, the present suit has been filed. Along with the suit, an application seeking interim injunction was filed in I.A.No.575 of 2019 contending that unless an order of temporary injunction is granted and the defendants 1 and 2 are prevented from putting up a compound wall, he would be put to great hardship. 7.The defendants 1 and 2 herein had filed a counter contending that all the four roads surrounding Mariamman Teppakulam in Vandiyur Village belong to the first defendant. Those streets were leased out to Madurai Municipal Corporation on 21.11.1956 only for the purpose of maintenance. The corporation does not own the road. The space between the road and the private property of the plaintiff is still owned by the first defendant temple. 8.It was further contended that various suits have been filed by the temple as against the Municipal Corporation with regard to these properties and those suits have ended in favour of the temple. It was further contended that the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court had passed various orders in W.P.(MD).No.23017 of 2018 where directions were issued to the temple and the Corporation for removal of encroachment and maintenance of the road and for creation of facilities. Only in order to implement the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and to prevent any encroachment, a wall was attempted to be put up. Only in order to implement the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench and to prevent any encroachment, a wall was attempted to be put up. The plaintiff is not having right of access through the 3 rd item of the property. On the other hand, the plaintiff can have access through Ramnad road. Neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor in interest were having any access through Teppakulam West Street. Merely because his sale deed reflects access through Teppakulam West Street, that will not confer any right upon the plaintiff. The second item of property being owed by the temple, interim injunction cannot be sought for as against the real owner. The plaintiff is having direct access to Kamarajar Salai and therefore, he cannot, as a matter of right, claim access to Teppakulam West Street. 9.The trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court after considering the submissions made on either side and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in WP(MD).No.23017 of 2018 had proceeded to dismiss the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff has suppressed the directions issued by the High Court in the writ petition despite the plaintiff being a party therein. The Courts below have further found that the public interest and public convenience has to be taken into consideration before granting an order of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. 10.The Courts below have also found that the plaintiff has admitted that he is having road access through Ramnad road. It was further found that the 2 nd item of the property is not a public road and it belongs to the first defendant temple. In such circumstances, as a matter of right, the plaintiff cannot have any access to Teppakulam West Street. The Courts below also found that the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case and there is no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. 11.On the above said findings, the Courts below have dismissed the injunction application. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff. (B)Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side: 12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1 st item of the property is a corner plot and having access to two different roads namely Kamarajar Salai on the northern side and Teppakulam West Street (suit 2 nd item) on the eastern side. (B)Submissions of the counsels appearing on either side: 12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1 st item of the property is a corner plot and having access to two different roads namely Kamarajar Salai on the northern side and Teppakulam West Street (suit 2 nd item) on the eastern side. Both roads are public roads even as per the records of the Madurai Municipal Corporation. When the Teppakulam West Street is a public street, access to his property from the said street cannot be denied merely on the ground that he is having access to another road on the northern side. 13.In the injunction application, the Municipal Corporation has not filed their counter and they have accepted the case of the plaintiff. He had further contended that even though the property was leased out by the temple in favour of the Madurai Corporation, it is a road. For the maintenance of the said road, it was leased out to Madurai Corporation. At the time of leasing out, no other property was retained by the temple. Only road margin is left out. Therefore, the said property should also be construed to have been leased out only in favour of the Municipal Corporation. He had further contended that the street lights have been put up and drainage have also been created on either side of the road. It is a thorough road where all the vehicles are plying. In such circumstances, the said road can never be considered to be a private road belonging to the temple. 14.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the suits which are relied upon by the temple relate to encroachment of some shops put up during festival. Only if an encroachment is made on the road, the temple is entitled to make an objection. The temple cannot raise any objection with regard to the access of the road from the private property after having leased out the same to the Municipal Corporation. He had further contended that the suo moto public interest litigation initiated by the Hon'ble High Court also relates only to removal of encroachment and maintenance of the road. 15.Even though the plaintiff was a party to the writ petition, there was no prayer as against him and no order was passed as against him. He had further contended that the suo moto public interest litigation initiated by the Hon'ble High Court also relates only to removal of encroachment and maintenance of the road. 15.Even though the plaintiff was a party to the writ petition, there was no prayer as against him and no order was passed as against him. Though an attempt was made to make a claim over the road margin, the Hon'ble Division Bench has refused to go into the said issue. In such circumstances, the Courts below ought not to have dismissed the injunction application on the ground that the plaintiff had suppressed the directions issued by the High Court. In fact, the plaintiff is not aggrieved over the directions issued by the High Court. The plaintiff is not making any attempt to encroach over the public road and he is only seeking access to the Teppakulam West Street. 16.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant temple had contended that at the time of leasing out the roads to the Municipal Corporation, only a limited extent was leased out. Remaining portion was retained by the temple. Therefore, the temple has got every right to put up a compound wall enclosing their own property which was retained by him. He had further contended that the plaintiff is having access to Kamarajar road. Therefore, there is no necessity for him to open an access to Teppakulam West Street. There is no easement of necessity. When the road is not a public road, but owned by the first defendant, as a matter of right, the plaintiff cannot seek access to the Teppakulam West Street. 17.The learned counsel for the respondent had further pointed out that only in order to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the Public Interest Litigation, a wall is attempted to be put up. Therefore, the plaintiff herein who was also one of the party to the said writ petition, having suppressed the direction, had filed the present suit. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. That apart, when the plaintiff is having access to a different road, no hardship would be caused to him by putting up a compound wall. He had further contended that the suit is ripe for trial and the issue could be decided finally, if a direction is issued for disposal of the suit. That apart, when the plaintiff is having access to a different road, no hardship would be caused to him by putting up a compound wall. He had further contended that the suit is ripe for trial and the issue could be decided finally, if a direction is issued for disposal of the suit. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the order passed by the Courts below. 18.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion: 19.The plaintiff has purchased the 1 st item of the property under a registered sale deed dated 05.09.2017 for an extent of 1670 sq.ft. in S.No. 225/2D. As per the said sale deed, the plot is a corner plot having access to Kamarajar Salai on the northern side and Teppakulam West Street on the eastern side. It is not in dispute that S.No.225/2D is a private property of the plaintiff and the temple has not made any claim over the said property. 20.The first defendant temple has entered into a lease deed on 21.11.1956 with Madurai Corporation leasing out three roads lying on the east, south and west of Madurai Teppakulam at Vandiyur. As per Clause(iii) of the said lease deed, the lessee was put in possession during the period of lease and he shall be entitled to form a roads on the demised premises and metal them at its own expense and shall maintain the same till the expiry of the lease. 21.A careful perusal of the description of the property shows that even at the time of leasing out the property, same was a road. In the said lease deed S.No.225 is shown as the western boundary. It is to be noted that S.No.225 has been purchased by the plaintiff in the present suit. Therefore, it is clear that between the private property of the plaintiff and the property that was leased out to the Madurai Corporation, no other land was retained by the first defendant temple for its use. 22.In paragraph No.10 of the injunction affidavit is extracted as follows: “10.I humbly submit that the Teppakulam West Street shown as Item No.2 of the schedule mentioned properties is comprised in Town Survey No.210. It was originally a bitumen road and later, it had been converted into a cement road. The said public street is used by general public, vehicles and city buses for over hundred years. It was originally a bitumen road and later, it had been converted into a cement road. The said public street is used by general public, vehicles and city buses for over hundred years. The third respondent/third defendant had erected street lights in the Teppakulam West Street. The public drainage vested with the third respondent/third defendant also runs under the Teppakulam West Street. There are several manholes projecting over the said street. A city bus stop exists in the said street. A bus shelter had also been erected in the street. All the property owners including myself having properties abutting the Teppakulam West Street on its eastern side have right of ingress and egress through the said street alone. I had produced a rough layout sketch, a map downloaded form Google maps and photographs to show the existence of the Teppakulam West Street.”. 23.The averments in paragraph No.10 of the injunction affidavit which is extracted above have not been disputed in the counter filed by the defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, it is clear that Teppakulam West Street is a public road where Government buses are plying. On either side of the said street, the street lights have been erected and drainage has also been constructed. In fact, a bus shelter has also been erected in the said street. That apart, several manholes, a School and a temple namely Sri Muktheeswarar Temple are located facing Teppakulam West Street. Therefore, the contention of the defendants 1 and 2 that it is a private road can never be accepted. 24.It was contended on the side of the defendants 1 and 2 that when the plaintiff is admittedly having an access to his property from Kamarajar Salai on the northern side, he cannot seek for another access through Teppakulam West Street on the eastern side. 25.This Hon'ble Court had an occasion to consider a similar submission in a judgment reported in (1987) 1 MLJ 409 (Bharathamatha Desiya Sangam, Madhavaram, by its Secretary M.Subramania Naicker and another Vs. Roja Sundaram and others) . It was contended that when the appellants therein had an access through Bazaar Street, they cannot seek access to their property through another street namely Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street. Roja Sundaram and others) . It was contended that when the appellants therein had an access through Bazaar Street, they cannot seek access to their property through another street namely Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street. The relevant portion in the said judgment in paragraph No.8 is extracted as follows: “8.....But even so, it is not for the appellants to say that access could be had to the mill of the first respondent through the Bazaar Street, and, therefore-access to Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street on the north of A D is not necessary for the first respondent. When the first respondent undoubtedly has a right as established by a long series of decisions referred to earlier, it follows that the first respondent can insist upon his right of access from every point along A D line to Sundara Vinayakar Koil Street on the north.....” 26.Following the said judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court in a judgment reported in (1995) 1 LW 451 ( K.V.K.Janardhanan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by the Collector of Salem, etc and three others) in paragrpah No.9 has held as follows: “9.....It is clear from the ratio laid down in the above decisions that neither the Government nor the Municipality or any local body has, got every right to put up any obstruction over the public street so as to prevent it from having any access to the adjoining land. It has been repeatedly held that the owner of the land adjoining the public street has got a right of access at every point where his or her land adjoins public street. In view of the above ratio, the fencing of an iron fence put up between the land of the petitioner and that of the suit cart track is illegal and on that ground alone the petitioners are entitled to an order of injunction as prayed for....” 27.In view of the judgments of our High Court cited supra, it is clear that whenever a person is having a private property abutting a public road, he is entitled to have access to the said public road from every point of his property. It cannot be contended that the private property owner has to access his property only from a particular point or from a particular road. It cannot be contended that the private property owner has to access his property only from a particular point or from a particular road. 28.A perusal of the judgments of the civil Court relied upon by the temple clearly indicate that all those suits were filed only to prevent temporary constructions on the road during the festival season or putting up stages for conducting meeting or political meeting in the road. Therefore, these judgments cannot be put against the present plaintiff who only seeks access to the road. In O.S.No.846 of 2003, the temple was successful in getting an injunction as against the Corporation from auctioning the temporary shops in the road. Therefore, it is clear that none of the civil suits, in which the first defendant temple was successful, has anything to do with the access to Teppakulam West Street. 29.The Courts below have proceeded to dismiss the injunction petition on the ground that the plaintiff had suppressed the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in WP(MD).No.23017 of 2018. A perusal of the order reveals that suo moto writ petition was initiated by the High Court for issuing a mandamus to direct the Revenue, Corporation, Temple, Electricity Board and PWD officials to provide basic amenities and facilities to the public in that locality and for a direction to initiate proper action as against the contractors who are collecting exorbitant amount for parking of vehicles. 30.The writ petition was disposed of by way of final orders on 31.01.2019. In the said writ petition, the plaintiff is not a party. No direction has been issued to the temple to put up any construction whatsoever restricting access to Teppakulam West Street or to any other street in and around the Teppakulam. Directions were issued only for removal of encroachment and for providing various facilities to the general public. 31.One J.Vijay Anand has filed WP(MD).No.15961 of 2020 (not marked before the trial Court, but relied upon by the trial Court) seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that the entire extent of Teppakulam and the road and lands surrounding the four sides of Mariamman Teppakulam, Madurai belong to Arulmighu Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple, Madurai are free from any encroachment of any nature whatsoever. 32.A perusal of the prayer reveals that the 2nd item of the suit schedule property namely Survey No.210 Teppakulam West Street is also part of the prayer. In the said writ petition, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has filed a report pointing out that, except temporary shops selling certain eatables and certain entertainments for children, there are no encroachments in Teppakulam or in the roads around it. After recording the same, the writ petition was closed. In the said writ petition, an attempt was made by the learned counsel appearing for the temple that the temple has certain rights over the road and it can prevent private respondents from using the road as access. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench had pointed out that the said question cannot be addressed in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said writ petition, the plaintiff is the 8 th respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petition was filed only for removal of encroachment in the road surrounding to Teppakulam. 33.Incidentally a submission was made by the temple in the writ petition that they have got some rights to prevent the access to the road. The said arguments was not considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench and the writ petition was closed. Hence, it is clear that the non-filing of these judgments before the civil Court could not be considered to be a suppression. Only if the facts that are likely to be detrimental to a party are suppressed, it should be construed to be a suppression of material facts and the relief could be denied. Therefore, the Courts below were not right in arriving at a finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the interim order on the ground that he had suppressed the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ petition. 34.The Courts below have not properly appreciated the fact that Teppakulam West Street, though owned by the first and second defendant temple, they have leased out the same to Madurai Corporation for formation of a road. The said road is having street light and underground drainage on either side. The Government buses are plying on the said road and bus shelters have been erected. Several important institutions and temples are located facing Teppakulam West Street. The said road is having street light and underground drainage on either side. The Government buses are plying on the said road and bus shelters have been erected. Several important institutions and temples are located facing Teppakulam West Street. Teppakulam West Street is shown as a public road in the website of Madurai Municipal Corporation. In such circumstances, the said street can only be construed to be a public road. 35.The lease deed executed by the temple in favour of the Corporation on 21.11.1956 clearly reveals that the plaintiff's property namely S.No.225 is shown as boundary to the road that was leased out to the Corporation. Hence, it is clear that there is no space in between the road and the private property of the plaintiff. The defendant temple has attempted to put up a compound wall only in front of the property of the plaintiff and not in front of any other property on the three roads which were leased out to the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff's property has been cherry picked for preventing access to the public road. 36.In case, if the any wall is put up in front of the plaintiff's property facing Teppakulam West Street, that will prevent the access of the plaintiff to the said road. Unless an order of interim injunction is granted, the right of the plaintiff would be put to prejudice. On the other hand, granting interim order would not in any way be prejudicial to the defendant temple. Considering the balance of convenience and hardship that is likely to be caused to the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that an order of interim injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff pending suit. 37.In view of the above said deliberations, the orders impugned in the revision petition are set aside and there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for, in favour of the plaintiff. I.A.No.575 of 2019 stands allowed. 38.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on or before 31.10.2025 without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.