JUDGMENT Ajit Kumar, J. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the trial court modifying its earlier interim injunction order dated 22nd February, 2021 and also the order passed in revision petition by the court below rejecting revision petition under its order dated 18th November, 2022. 3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the temporary injunction order was granted in favour of the petitioners and only order that was passed by this Court in previous proceedings was to permit the contesting defendants respondents to move an application for modification of the order, the court ought not to have modified the order in terms in which it has been done. 4. The observations made in the operative portion of the order that family partition/ arrangements that had taken place at the time of predecessor-in-interest should be maintained and accordingly, the parties would be permitted to do agriculture activity upon the suit land, was bad for the fact that partition suit was still pending consideration. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the record and the pleadings raised in the present petition, I find that the plaintiff himself to have admitted that there is partition suit pending consideration before the revenue court between the parties in which the subject matter of suit property is the same as is involved in the present case. He submits that the petitioners dispute any such family arrangements and that is why the injunction order earlier granted could not have been modified. It is an important question that arises consideration before this Court that while suit for partition is still pending between the parties how an individual co-sharer can come forward to institute a separate suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against another co-sharer. 6. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to what stand the petitioners have taken in the partition suit, he very fairly concedes that partition suit is still pending consideration and the order to stay that proceedings passed by the revenue court has been set aside in a appeal filed at his instance by the Commissioner. 7. 7. In such above view of the matter, therefore, once the partition suit is pending, no separate suit was maintainable at the instance of one of the co-sharers. The law is well settled by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhedi Lal and another v. Chhotey Lal, AIR 1951 Alld 199 that no injunction can be granted to the co-sharer against another co-sharer ordinarily. This principle is, of course, not universally applied and the court while maintaining the suit for injunction have to ensure that the suit property stands protected equally by all the co-sharers and, therefore, to a limited extent if anyone is raising any constructions upon the unpartitioned land, can be injuncted so that such a party may not appropriate a portion of the land by raising such construction without there being any partition in metes and bounds. To this extent only the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction can be maintained. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where the partition suit is still pending consideration, a separate suit for permanent prohibitory injunction would not be maintainable as rights with regard to protection of agricultural holdings can be maintained in the partition suit itself and a co-sharer could have applied for temporary injunction if any other co-sharer was raising constructions. 9. However, in the present case, I find that since the suit is pending and there is no challenge of the suit proceedings before this Court and the order of temporary injunction has been modified by permitting the parties to do the agricultural activity and the construction activity has been stayed inasmuch as the transfer/ alienation of the property in question has been stayed, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned and the same cannot be said to be a flawed one so as to warrant any interference by this Court in its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 10. The petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.