' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUND-ZADA, J.---This revision petition has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-1-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Peshawar whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners/defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial dated 27-9-2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff was a student of Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad and passed Intermediate in Computer Science (ICS), securing 483 out of 1100 marks, in the year 2002 and thereafter, took the admission in Pak National College of Information Science, affiliated institution of N.-W.F.P. Agricultural University of Peshawar. That the respondent/plaintiff remained as a regular student at the said college for 2 years and completed the course of BBA, consisting of 04 semesters while the last semester (supplementary examination) was taken from the respondent/plaintiff in the main Campus of the University, because at time, the said college has been de-affiliated due to unknown reasons on 16- 7-2005, never shown to the respondent/plaintiff till the last moment of the 5th semester .Examination is conducted at the University. It was on 31-10-2005, that the respondent/ plaintiff obtained her BBA degree from the said college Serial No,000240 dated 31-10-2005 under Registration No,2003- Agr-U-108783 on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff got job in Askari Bank, Islamabad. However, when her promotion was due and the said BBA degree was sent for verification, only then it came to light that the university did not own the degree on which the respondent/plaintiff was called for explanation. Then the respondent/ plaintiff approached the said college but found that the said college was no more in existence which encountered the respondent/ plaintiff with harassm ent and agony. When the respondent/plaintiff approached the university, its administration satisfied her saying that a genuine BBA degree will be awarded upon her. Meanwhile, the respondent/plaintiff also got the transcripts of all the 4 semesters verified from the concerned authorities of the university but later on, a notification dated 30-6-2010 from the appellant/ defendant No,2 was issued wherein the above verification was cancelled on the reason of "being made inadvertently".
' Hence, felt aggrieved, the respondent/plaintiff filed a writ petition in this Hon'ble Court challenging the said notification which was dismissed in limine vide order dated 28-10-2010 with directions that the petitioners are liberty to file a civil suit and thereafter, the matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The same order was challenged in the Apex Court of the country but later on withdrawn on 18-1-2011, hence the present suit.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners by submitting written statement wherein preliminary as well as factual objections were raised. From divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ISSUES.
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action against the defendants?
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(3) Whether this court has got jurisdiction to try the suit?
(4) Whether the instant suit is liable to be dismissed on account of: * Bad in form * Frivolous * Non joinder and misjoinder and * the plaintiff having come to this court with unclean hands.
(5) Whether it was the plaintiff who tampered her IC Certificate and got admission in NCIS and thereafter managed to obtain a bogus BBA degree? And being so, the plaintiff is not entitled to a genuine BBA degree?
(6) Whether the matter comes within the ambit of res judicata?
(7) Whether the defendants have kept the plaintiff in oblivion while taking admission and examinations with the defendants?
(8) Relief.
4. After recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, the learned Civil Judge-XXIX, Peshawar vide his judgment and decree dated 27-9-2011 decreed the suit in favour of respondents/plaintiffs in the following manner:- "As a sequel of the above detailed discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed to the effect that the impugned notification dated 30-6-2010 issued by the defendant university administration, being a nullity and having no legal footings, stands cancelled and the plaintiff is held entitled to a genuine BBA degree. No order as to cost. File to be consigned to record room after necessary completion and compilation".
5. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal bearing No,89/13 of 2011 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-VIII, Peshawar vide his judgment and decree dated 9-1-2012 which is impugned herein.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
7. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the parties conceded that the trial Court has not properly framed the issues in accordance with the pleadings of the parties and has left some material issues unframed due to which the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from miscarriage of justice and agreed for framing of the following additional issues by this Court:--- Additional Issues.
(1) Whether the suit is bad in the present form?
(2) Whether the plaintiff has managed tampering of marks in her DMC?
(3) Whether notification dated 30-6-2010 is ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiff being illegal and void ab initio?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
8. Learned counsel for the parties further requested that the case may be remanded back to the trial Court for giving full opportunity to both the parties to record evidence of their choice in support of the above framed additional issues and then decide the matter afresh in accordance with law because according to them non-framing of the issues in accordance with the pleadings of the parties had deprived the parties from producing evidence of their choice in respect of the above referred issues and thus according to them the impugned judgment and decree is suffering from miscarriage of justice and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.
9. It is well-settled proposition of law that non-framing of issues is an illegality amounting to exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, this Court with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties has framed the material issues in accordance with their pleadings of the parties which needs recording of pro and contra evidence of the parties of their choice which is also the requirement of law and justice, and as such the impugned judgments being suffering from jurisdictional error, illegality and material irregularity are not sustainable in the eye of law and hence liable to be set aside on the acceptance of this revision petition.
10. For what has been discussed above, I allow this revision petition, set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and remit the case back to the trial Court for decision afresh on the newly framed additional issues along with the issues already framed, after providing an opportunity to both the parties to produce fresh evidence, if they so desire and then after hearing the learned counsel for the parties decide the case afresh by giving findings within the meanings of Order XX, Rule 5 and Order XXXXI, Rule 31, C.P.C.
11. The trial Court is directed to summon the parties on receipt of the record and the Office is directed to send the record to the Court concerned forthwith.