IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
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)
THE CHANCELLOR,MASTER and SCHOLARS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD and ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal and Mr. Sahil Sethi, Advs.
RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICES and ANR..... Defendants
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.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
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
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
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.
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.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
MARCH 01, 2013
CS(OS) 2439/2012 Page 3 of