$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 783/2024 MR. ABDUL KHALIQ .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Aquib Ali and Mr. Arsh Kaul, Advs.

versus MR. ABDUL SHAQIR & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj and Mr.

Deepanshu Mathpal, Adv. for D-1 &

D-3.

Mr. S.U. Mirza, Adv. for D-2 & D-4 with D-2 & D-4 in person.

Mr. Umesh Joshi, Adv. for D-7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 24.02.2026 I.A. 32876/2025 (under Section 151 CPC seeking directions from Court against D-2 & 4 regarding unhindered access of terrace of suit property no.2 for plaintiff in terms of the order dated 27.09.2024 passed by this Court)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants, more particularly to defendant nos. 2 and 4 and their families to immediately remove the lock placed on the door leading to the terrace of the suit property no.2 bearing C-5/187, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi -

110053.

2. Mr. T.K. Ganju, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the present suit has been filed seeking partition of the suit properties of Late Abdul Jamil Burney. The plaintiff and defendant no.2 are legal heirs of Mr.

Burney.

3. He submits that this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 had directed the parties to maintain status quo as to the title and possession of the immovable properties left behind byLate A.J. Burney.

4. He contends that notwithstanding the said order of status quo, defendant nos. 2 and 4, as well as, their families have locked the door leading to the terrace above the second floor.

5. He submits that the plaintiff has always been using the terrace and the access to the terrace is also required for the purpose of cleaning the water tanks.

6. He submits that specific averments has been made in paragraph 6 of the application that defendant nos. 2 and 4 and their family members have put a lock on the door leading to the terrace, which averment has not been denied bydefendant nos. 2 and 4 in their reply.

7. To buttress his contention, attention of the Court has been drawn to paragraph 6 of the application and corresponding paragraphs of the reply.

8. On the other hand, Mr. S.U. Mirza, learned counsel for defendant nos. 2 and 4 submits that it is the defendant no.4, who has been continuously using the terrace to the exclusion of other defendants. However, he fairly concedes that the water tanks of all the floors are installed on the terrace above the second floor.

9. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, learned counsel for defendant nos. 1 and 3 also supports the contention of Mr. T.K. Ganju, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff and states that the lock has been put by defendant no.4 after the status quo order was passed bythis Court.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties and the fact that the averment with regard to placing of lock after the status quo order has not been specifically denied, this Court deems it appropriate that there should be set of two keys of the lock that would be placed on the door leading to the terrace, and one key should be kept by the plaintiff and another will remain with defendant no.4, so that both plaintiff as well as defendant no.4 could use the terrace above the second floor.

11. The above arrangement will continue during the pendency of the suit, and the same is without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties in the pleadings of the suit.

12. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.

CS(OS) 783/2024 & I.A. 40649/2024, 45695/2024

13. List on 15.07.2026.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J FEBRUARY 24, 2026/dss