The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases, and the High Court should direct the party to avail alternative remedies before resorting to a constitutional remedy.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 22.05.2008 made in I.A.No.468 of 2008 in O.S.No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Vacation Judge at Tiruvallur, District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.186 of 2008 is the revision petitioner before this Court.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.186 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif at Poonamallee, for a judgment and decree granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from interfering in any manner with the plaintiffs administration, right and management of the suit property. The suit property is a public temple by name Sri Nathamman temple, situated in S.No.7/3 and 3/3 in Nazarathpettai Village, Poonamallee Taluk measuring an extent of 9600 sq.ft.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff before the trial court is that the suit property is a public temple maintained by the plaintiff Sangam i.e. Sri Nagathamman Alaya Vazhipattu Valarchi Sangam. The members of the plaintiffs ancestors constructed a small superstructure wherein the Deity was installed in the year 1972. The suit property is partly situated in S.No.3/3 belonging to S.Kajah Moideen Vahaira and the remaining part is situated in S.No.7/3 belonging to Sri Sankara Madam. The defendant, the revision petitioner herein, is one of the devotees of the said temple often attempts to obstruct the performance of the day to day poojas in the temple without any right. The above said S.Kajah Moideen Vahaira on 16. 2006 consented to have the temple inside their property and constructed a compound wall for the temple. The President of Nazarathpet Panchayat and the Councillors have also given the written consent in favour of the plaintiff Sangam in respect of performance of Poojas and other allied activities. On 15. 2008, the defendant in the suit with an ulterior motive came to the temple with his henchmen and attempted to obstruct the devotees and the performance of Pooja. But, the same was thwarted by the plaintiff Sangam and the villagers. Hence, the Sangam filed O.S.No.186 of 2008 for the above said relief.

5. Along with the suit, the plaintiff Sangam filed an Application in I.A.No.468 of 2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., praying to grant an ad-interim injunction. On 22.05.2008, the trial court granted an order of ad-interim injunction till 25. 2008. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit was originally filed before the Vacation Judge (District Munsif) at Tiruvallur, as O.S.No.119 of 2008. On 25. 2008, the injunction order granted earlier was extended till 26. 2008. But, on 6. 2008, the hearing of the application was advanced suo moto and the suit was transferred to District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for disposal on 26. 2008. The District Munsif Court, Poonamallee received the suit papers by transfer from the Vacation Court, Tiruvallur and the suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.186 of 2008. The District Munsif Court, Poonamallee issued fresh notice to the defendant by 8. 2008 and extended the interim order till then. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, in extending the order of interim injunction and also against the order dated 25. 2008, the above revision petition has been filed by the defendant in the suit under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the entire documents available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that, the respondent/plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the plaintiff Sangam is guilty of suppressing the material facts. According to them, the present suit is an abuse of process of law, as already the revision petitioner herein filed O.S.No.1051 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee with respect to the very same property seeking for a permanent injunction, in which, one Thiru K.Kumar who is the so called Secretary of