A party must demonstrate specific legal prejudice to be considered aggrieved and eligible to seek intervention under Article 227; mere speculation of harm is inadequate.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Asha Menon, J. (Oral)

CM APPLN. 17332/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CM APPLN. 17333/2021 (Exemption from filing affidavit, etc., in support of the applications)

1. The application is allowed subject to the applicant filing duly affirmed affidavit(s) along with the court fees/deficit court fees, if any, within 72 hours from the date of resumption of the regular functioning of this court.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM (M) 382/2021, CM APPLN.17334/2021 (by the petitioner u/S 151 CPC for interim orders and directions)

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers:

"(i) Pass appropriate orders and directions to the respondents and/or to the learned Trial Court i.e. Court of learned District Judge (Commercial Courts),-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi conducting trial of Commercial Civil Suit bearing CS (Comm.) No.242/2020 tiled as `Wellness Pathcare India LLP & Anr. Vs. Wellness Health Lab (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.' to de-seal the petitioner's room in the premises bearing No.1/4, First Floor, Single Story, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and to remove the seized items/material/documents/papers, as mentioned in the Supardari Memo (ANNEXURE-P-6) from the said room and to make the same available to the petitioner for his use to store the samples and other. Path-Lab purposes;

(ii) Pass any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, under the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice."

4. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by Mr. Avadh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner's room had been sealed in proceedings between the respondents i.e., respondents No.1 & 2 (plaintiffs) and respondents No.3 & 4 (defendants), where the plaintiffs were seeking a permanent injunction restraining the infringement, passing of and unauthorized use of their trade mark and for rendition of accounts and delivery up etc. against the defendants. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that directions be issued by this Court to either or both of them to remove the goods which are lying in the room forming part of premises of the petitioner bearing No. 1/4, First Floor, Single Storey, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, which be also de-sealed so that the petitioner could use the premises for its purposes, particularly in the present pandemic conditions as it was running a pathology lab from the premises.

5. The first query that arises for consideration is the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition, as admittedly it is not a party before the learned Trial Court. While the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not an appeal, the principles governing a challenge to an order by a person not a party before the learned Trial Court would remain the same. A petitioner must fall under the category of an aggrieved person before he can be heard if he is not a party to the suit.

6. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in V.N. Krishna Murthy And Another v. Ravikumar And Others, (2020) 9 SCC 501 has observed that merely saying that the appellants therein are prejudicially affected by the decree is not sufficient. It was further held:

"22...It has to be demonstrated that the decree affects the legal rights of the appellants and would have adverse effect when carried out.....

23. The appellants have thus, failed to demonstrate that th