$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 48/2026 NIKKY BRAR @ VANDANA BRAR & ANR. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate versus SONYA KAPUR .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 13.02.2026 CM APPL. 10260/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The above application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 10261/2026

1. By way of present appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs seek to assail the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby, while deciding the applications filed by both parties under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was directed that the keys of the main gate be provided to the respondent/defendant.

2. Notably, appellant no. 2 is the father of appellant no. 1 and the respondent, who are his two daughters. Appellant no. 1 claims that, by virtue of a registered will and assignment deed, the suit property was bequeathed and assigned to her, and she is stated to be in possession thereof. The respondent is residing in Chandigarh and is stated to be an occasional visitor to visit her father.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that, prior to the passing of the impugned order, the keys of the main door were exclusively in the possession of the appellants and the Trial Court erred in going beyond the prayer in the application and providing the key of the main door to the respondent as well. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 26.12.2025 vide which the parties were directed to maintain status quo. It is further submitted that the underlying suit has been filed seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions, inter alia, for protection of the appellants’ exclusive and peaceful possession of the suit property and for restraining the respondent from interfering with or disturbing the appellants’ exclusive possession.

4. Issue notice to the respondent by all modes including ‘Dasti’ through counsel.

5. Till the next date of hearing, the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.

6. Mr. Mehta, on instructions, further submits that the locksmith has taken away the lock and the main door is presently without any locking system.

7. Considering, the aforesaid and the fact that the appellant no. 2, a senior citizen, aged 91 years, is presently living in the said property. It is deemed apposite to direct that for the time being, the appellant shall be at liberty to put a lock system with keys to appellants. This however, will not create any equity in favour of the appellants.

8. Renotify on 21.07.2026.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 13, 2026 sn