CS(OS) 2439/2012, IAs No.14632/2012 (u/O 39 R-1and2), 14635/2012 (for
  exemption), 14636/2012 [u/S 80(2)] and 430/2012 (of D-2 u/O 39 R-4)
  OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and ORS ..... Plaintiffs
  Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal and Mr. Sahil Sethi, Advs.
  Through: Mr. Saurabh Seth, Adv. for D-1.
  Mr. Saurabh Banerjee, Adv. for D-2.
  Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr. J. Raja and Mr. B. Parveen, Advs. for the
  applicant in CM No.3454/2013.
   O R D E R
  IA No.3454/2013 (of the Association of Students for Equitable Access to
  Knowledge, for impleadment in the present suit)
  1. The counsel for the plaintiffs appears on advance notice and though
  seeks time to file the reply to the application but considering the
  nature of the application, it is not deemed appropriate to keep the same
  2. The counsel for the plaintiffs, though initially left the matter of
  impleadment to this Court, but has subsequently argued that though the
  applicant may be allowed to intervene but not be impleaded as a party.
  He has also argued that University of Delhi is already a party in the
  present suit
  CS(OS) 2439/2012 Page 1 of
  and the interest of the applicant, which is an association of students of
  the University, can well be looked after by the University.
  3. The counsel for the applicant has argued that the purpose of the
  applicant will not be served by merely permitting intervention and in
  which they will be entitled to only make legal arguments. It is pointed
  out that another application has been filed for vacation of the ad-
  interim order in the suit as the same is affecting the members of the
  4. The counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that the applicant
  itself is still under the process of registration and has been formed
  only after the institution of the present suit.
  5. This suit is for injunction restraining photocopying by the
  defendant No.1 in the University Campus of the books of which the
  plaintiffs have a copyright and from creating course packs from the said
  photocopy material.
  6. Though traditionally the test for grant of interim relief was on
  the touchstone of three ingredients of prima facie case, irreparable loss
  and injury and balance of convenience but off late as noticed in Smt.
  Ishmali Devi Vs. Delhi Development Authority MANU/DE/1838/2009, the
  Courts have introduced the forth element of public interest and the
  injunctions, even where satisfies the three ingredients, have been
  refused on the touchstone of the test of public interest.
  7. The applicant claims to represent the public interest and being the affected party, it is in the circumstances felt that the presence of the
  applicant is necessary and proper for adjudication of the present suit.
  8. The application is accordingly allowed. The applicant is impleaded
  as defendant No.3 to the suit.
  CS(OS) 2439/2012 Page 2 of
  IA No.3455/2013 (of the newly impleaded defendant No.3 u/O 39 R-4 CPC)
  9. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the plaintiffs
  and the counsel for the non-applicant / defendant No.2. Reply if any be
  filed before the next date. Though the counsel for the newly impleaded
  defendant has expressed urgency but in the facts and circumstances and
  considering the Board of this Court, it is not possible to prepone the
  date from the date already fixed for 25th April, 2013.
  10. List on 25th April, 2013.
  CS(OS) 2439/2012
  11. Written statement by the newly impleaded defendant No.3 be filed
  within two weeks. Replication thereto, one week before the next date of
  12. List on 25th April, 2013.
  MARCH 01, 2013
  CS(OS) 2439/2012 Page 3 of