IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
  
  
  
  FAO(OS) 567/2012
  
  
  
  UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ..... Appellant
  
  Represented By: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr.
  Saurabh Banerjee and
  
  Ms. Monisha Handa, Advocates.
  
  
  
  
versus
  
  
  
  CHANCELLOR , UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and ORS...... Respondents
  
  Represented By: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate instructed by Mr.
  Saikrishna Rajagopal and
  
  Mr. Sahil Sethi, Advocates for R-1.
  
  Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Sourav Seth and
  
  Mr. Rishabh Maheshwari, Advs. for R-2.
  
  CORAM:
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
  
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   27.11.2012
  
  
  
  Caveat No.1188/2012
  
  Counsel as above appears for the plaintiff/respondent No.1/caveator
  and, thus, the caveat is discharged.
  
  CM No.19825/2012 (Exemption)
  
  Allowed subject to just exceptions.
  
  FAO (OS) No.567/2012
  
  1. The tenor of the ad interim order dated October 17, 2012 pending
  disposal of IA No.14632/2012 filed by respondent No.1 under Order 39
  Rules 1 and 2 CPC would suggest that the same is a consent order.
  
  FAO (OS) No.567/2012 Page 1 of
  2
  
  
  
  2. A perusal of the grounds urged in appeal would reveal that the
  grievance of the appellant pertains to the appellant?s understanding of
  the consent order and as reflected in the order dated October 17, 2012,
  i.e., a hiatus between what was intended to be conceded to and what
  ultimately got reflected.
  
  3. Under the circumstances we feel that the appellant would be advised
  to move an application before the learned Single Judge who passed the
  order dated October 17, 2012 clarifying the span of the consent which the
  appellant intended to convey.
  
  4. Needless to state that if such an application is filed, the learned
  Single Judge will decide the same as per law and preferably before the
  ensuing winter vacation for the reason the clarification which the
  appellant intends to seek relates to its course material and would be
  directly relatable to the current academic year/session and would affect
  the academic studies of the students of the University.
  
  5. So observing the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn without there
  being any order as to costs.
  
  CM No.19824/2012 (Stay)
  
  Dismissed as infructuous.
  
  
  
   PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   NOVEMBER 27, 2012 MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
  
  b?nesh
  
  
  
  FAO (OS) No.567/2012 Page 2 of
  2
  
  
  
  $