' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 23-12-1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby appeal brought by petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 7-5-1994 passed by learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Zeshan Ahmad, plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration and others against the petitioners/defendants to the effect that his result for Annual Intermediate Examination 1990 was incorrect and based on mala fide and that re-checking was not made in accordance with law. The plaintiff/ respondent stated that he appeared in Annual Intermediate Examination 1989 and was declared "fail" in paper of 'Islamiat'. He again appeared in Annual Intermediate Examination, 1990 (in papers of Islamiat) but he failed and result card was accordingly issued. He maintained that he submitted application before petitioners/ defendants for rechecking his Papers (Islamiat A & B) but petitioner/Board informed him vide letter dated 12-8-1990 that on re-checking result already conveyed to him, was correct. He alleged that he had solved all questions correctly, therefore marking was based on mala fide. He asked the defendants to show him papers but they refused, therefore he was constrained to file suit. The petitioners/defendants mentioned in written statement that marks were given according to the answers and he was accordingly declared "fail".
They further mentioned that A & B Papers of Islamiat were re-checked on the application of plaintiff but his marks were not increased. Learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
1. Whether the result of plaintiff in The Intermediate Annual Examination, 1990 of Papers Islamiat A & B whereby the plaintiff was declared unsuccessful is against facts and is based on mala fide? If so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the re-checking of plaintiff's Islamiat Papers A & B is not in accordance with law and rules? If so, its effect? OPP
3. Relief.
3. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and learned trial Court decreed the suit brought by plaintiff/respondent vide judgment dated 7-5-1994. The petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 23-12-1996. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. As mentioned above Zeshan Ahmed, respondent had filed suit for declaration to the effect that result regarding his Islamiat papers (A & B) in Intermediate Examination, 1990 declared by petitioners/defendants was illegal, void and based on mala fide. He produced Iftikhar-ud-Din Tariq as P.W.1. He stated that plaintiff was entitled to get one mark of question No,6 as he had mentioned plural of "Khalifs" correctly. Zeeshan Ahmad, plaintiff appeared as P.W.2 in support of his case and stated that his papers were not correctly rechecked and that he appeared twice in the Annual Intermediate Examination. During cross-examination he admitted that the had no enmity with the officials of the petitioners (Board). He also admitted that he had no enmity with Examiner or Sub- Examiner. He denied that his papers were correctly marked. On the other hand, petitioner/defendant examined Muhammad Ashiq, Assistant Controller (Secrecy Branch) as D.W.1.
He stated that plaintiff obtained 34 marks in Paper-A and 20 marks in Paper-B and failed in the Annual Intermediate Examination 1990. He further stated that papers are sent to Sub-Examiners for marking and they send back the same after marking. He deposed that plaintiff had submitted application for rechecking whereupon his papers were rechecked and order was accordingly conveyed to him vide Exh.D.3. He had no enmity with plaintiff. As mentioned above case of respondent-plaintiff is that the result declared by petitioner-defendant was illegal, void and based on mala fide and that rechecking was not made in accordance with law. However, he had not prayed for re-evaluation of his papers. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has re-evaluated the papers of plaintiff but according to law plaintiff could not be permitted to ask for the same. He further submits that under rule 11, of Chapter V of the Calendar of Board only re-checking is permitted. He has relied upon 1994 CLC 947 (Munazza Khalil v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and -Secondary Education, Faisalabad and another), 1996 SCM R 676 (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad) and 1996 SCM R 1872 (Tahir Saeed Qureshi v. The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Sargodha and 3 others). According to statement of R.W.1 rechecking was made correctly. The plaintiff-respondent has not pointed out any illegality in re-checking. Rule 11 of Chapter V of the Calendar of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala reads as under:-- "The Chairman or any officer authorized by him may on receipt of an application on the prescribed form within 30 days of the declaration of the result and accompanied by a fee of Rs,300 per paper, satisfy himself that:--
(i) there is no mistake of the ground total on the title cover of the answer book;
(ii) the total of various parts of a question has been correctly made at the end of question;
(iii) all totals have been correctly brought forward on the title page of the answer book;
(iv) no portion of any answer book has been left unmarked;
(v) the answer book or any part thereof has not been unmarked;
(vi) the candidate or anybody on his/her behalf has no right to see or examine the answer book for any purpose."
6. So it is clear that according to rule 11 respondent could not ask for reevaluation. As stated earlier he had not prayed for the same. However perusal of record shows that learned trial Court and learned Additional District Judge reevaluated the papers of petitioner, therefore impugned judgments are liable to be set aside. Even otherwise impugned judgments are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which justified interference, by this Court.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is accepted; impugned judgments are set aside and suit brought by respondent-plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.