JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

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