J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Civil Suit bearing No. 77/2019, titled as Anita Singh v. NDBA, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking impleadment in the said civil suit filed by the Respondent No.1 herein was dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and Respondent No.2 is the sole defendant in the civil suit.

2.1. The subject matter of the civil suit is with respect to allotment of Chamber No.31 (Advocate Chambers) situated in the Patiala House Court, New Delhi (‘chamber no. 31’).

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein was in possession of the entire chamber no.31 and it is the case of the Petitioner herein that though there is no formal letter of allotment in his favour however, he has completed all formalities for the allotment and was therefore in rightful possession of chamber no. 31. He states that he was illegally dispossessed from the said chamber no. 31 by Respondent No. 2, i.e., New Delhi Bar Association (‘NDBA’) on 20.09.2018.

3.1. He states that the Petitioner herein has filed a separate civil suit bearing no. 1439/2018 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against Respondent No.2, NDBA. He states that the Respondent No.1 herein has also been impleaded as a party to the suit filed by the Petitioner.

3.2. He states that since the Respondent No.1 has filed an independent suit bearing No. 77/2019 claiming her allotment rights in chamber no. 31 to avoid conflict of orders, he is also seeking impleadment in the said suit. He states that the Petitioner herein has competing claims with the Respondent No.1 for allotment of chamber no. 31.

4. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has entered appearance. He states that the Petitioner has supressed in this petition the material fact of the dismissal of an earlier application filed by the Petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, by the Trial Court vide order dated 11.07.2019 holding that the Petitioner herein is neither a necessary nor a proper party. He states that the said order has become final and hence a 2nd application filed by the Petitioner herein on 09.09.2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was not maintainable on the principle of res judicata.

4.1. He states it is the 2nd application which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.04.2023.

4.2. He states that the order dated 11.07.2019 has become final and is binding on the Petitioner.

4.3. He further states that no allotment letter was ever issued by Respondent No.2, NDBA in favour of the Petitioner for chamber no.31, therefore, Petitioner has no right, title and interest in chamber no. 31. He states that the Petitioner herein is a trespasser and was illegally occupying chamber no. 31. 4.4. He states that there are two allottees of chamber no. 31 i.e., Respondent No.1 herein and another Advocate Mr. Bhupendra Kumar.

4.5. He states that Respondent No.1 herein is opposed to impleading the Petitioner as a defendant in the suit as no rights are claimed against the said Petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2, NDBA has entered appearance. He states that as per the record maintained by Respondent No.2, NDBA the Petitioner herein is not an allottee of chamber no. 31.

5.1. He states that the chamber no. 31 is presently lying vacant and the lock and key of the said chamber is in the possession of Respondent No.2, NDBA. 5.2. He states Respondent No.2, NDBA will abide by the final decision of the competent Court.

5.3. He states that as per the records of Respondent No.2, NDBA the Petitioner has been allotted chamber bearing no. 943, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi which as per the Respondent No.2, NDBA the Petitioner has further sold/transferred to a third-par