***

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –

1. This petition, instituted under the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. By the impugned order, the civil miscellaneous appeal preferred by the respondent/defendant was allowed, resulting in the setting aside of the well-reasoned order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul. The petitioner approaches this Court seeking to impugn the said order on the ground that the same is contrary to law, suffers from jurisdictional infirmities, and calls for interference in the exercise of the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227, thereby warranting this Court’s scrutiny and corrective jurisdiction.

2. The factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the petitioner/plaintiff is a co-owner in possession of the suit property to the extent of one-sixth share, the said property being agricultural land which has not been partitioned by any competent Court of law. The respondent/defendant, however, sought to alter the nature of the suit property by raising construction over a specific and valuable portion thereof. In response, the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction, coupled with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from undertaking any construction or effecting permanent changes to the suit property. The learned Civil Judge, upon consideration of the materials and submissions, allowed the interim injunction. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant preferred a civil miscellaneous appeal, which was subsequently allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide the impugned order dated 10.12.2025.

3. Aggrieved by the orders impugned herein, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition. The same is resisted by the respondent/defendant, who has filed a caveat in accordance with law.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have undertaken a thorough and meticulous examination of the record, including the pleadings, documents, and all materials filed before the Court, with a view to appreciating the controversy in its proper legal and factual perspective.

5. The impugned order, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, records that it is an admitted fact that the parties to the suit are co-sharers in the suit property, with the defendant holding a one-sixth share in the joint ownership. The learned Judge observed that the plaintiff himself has admitted that all co-sharers, including the plaintiff, had undertaken construction over Killa No. 94//4 on the alleged basis of an oral partition purportedly effected in respect of the said Killa number. It is, however, the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that no such partition has been effected with respect to Killa Nos. 94//7 and 94//3.

6. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly disbelieved the contention that Killa Nos. 94//7 and 94//3 were excluded from the alleged oral arrangement. The petitioner/plaintiff has failed to establish exclusive possession over any portion of Killa Nos. 94//7 or 94//3. It was rightly observed by the learned Additional District Judge that a party seeking equity must do equity; having himself undertaken construction on the joint portion of the property, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot, on the basis of parity or fairness, restrain other co-sharers from undertaking similar construction. Reliance in this regard was correctly placed upon the judgment of this Court in Gursharan Singh v. Bhupinder Kaur and Others, 2009 (2) LJR 649, wherein it was held that a co-sharer who has raised construction on joint property cannot claim equitable relief in the form of injunction against other co-sharers.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner’s contention that injunction was rightly granted by the learned Civil Judge over Killa Nos. 94//7 and 94//3 is devoid of merit. It is a settled principle of equity that one who seeks equity must act equitably. The petitioner, having raised construction on part of the land, cannot seek to restrain other co-owners from exercising similar rights over the joint property. Furthermore, the petitioner’s own written statement in a civil suit filed by his brother (Karan Singh v. Varinder Singh) explicitly acknowledges that the entire suit land has been partitioned and that parties are in exclusive possession over their respective portions, which constitutes an admission against his claim. Additionally, the transfer deed dated 18.04.2019 executed in favor of the petitioner clearly records that the suit property has been partitioned among co-owners and that each co-owner is in exclusive possession of their respective share.

6.2. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally, arbitrarily, or in excess of jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. Consequently, no interference is warranted in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The instant revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

7. It is, however, made clear that the observations recorded here-in-above are not intended, nor should they be construed, as expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute between the parties. The same are strictly confined to the limited issue presently under consideration and are directed solely towards the resolution of the controversy arising in the context of the instant revision petition. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as binding on the parties in any other proceedings, nor as an expression on the substantive rights of the parties, which remain open for determination in appropriate proceedings.

8. Consequent upon the adjudication of the main petition, all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, connected with or arising out of the proceedings in the present matter shall stand disposed of in view of the above.

Petition dismissed.

********