M UHAM M AD NAEEM ANW AR, J.- Impugned through the instant petition filed under section 115 of "the Civil Procedure Code 1908" is the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, Peshawar, whereby the petitioners' appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2025 of the learned Civil Judge-XX Peshawar, summarily decreeing the suit of Respondents No.1 to 3, was dismissed.
2. Facts of the case are that Respondents No.1 to 3 were enrolled as students in the BS (4-Years)
Commerce Program at Shaheed Alamzeb Government Girls Commerce College, affiliated with the University of Peshawar, for the Fall Semester of 2022. Upon appearing in the first semester examinations, Respondents No.1, 2, and 3 secured GPAs of 1.46, 1.19, and 1.25 respectively. In accordance with Regulation 12 (iv) of the University of Peshawar's Semester Regulations for the BS 4-Year Program in affiliated colleges, 2010, any student failing to secure a minimum GPA of 1.5 in the first semester shall automatically be dropped from the college roll and shall not be re- admitted by the same college, the respondents were accordingly dropped. They challenged this action through Civil Suit No.345/1, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to continue regular classes and sit for the second semester examinations. The suit was entertained, and ad-interim relief was granted on 15.12.2023 for 14 days, subject to notice. Pursuant to the said relief, the respondents were allowed to attend classes and appear in the second semester, wherein they secured CGPAs of 2.08, 1.89, and 1.99 respectively. However, Suit No.345/1 was later dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 25.06.2024. Subsequently, the respondents instituted Civil Suit No.184/1 of 2024, seeking a declaration that they were entitled to appear in the third semester examination, and that the University and the College had no authority to drop them or deny their eligibility. This suit was contested by the defendants on legal and factual grounds. Nevertheless, the learned Civil judge, through summary judgment dated 27.02.2025 under Order XV-A CPC, decreed the suit in respondents' favour. The University's appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the learned Additional District judge-VI, Peshawar.
3. I have heard the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners and respondents and perused the record.
4. It is an admitted fact that the respondents were students at the College affiliated with the University of Peshawar. Two sets of semester regulations are in force: one for the University itself and another specific to affiliated colleges under the 13S 4-Year Program. It is undisputed that respondents, having failed to achieve the minimum required GPA in the first semester, stood disqualified under Regulation 12(iv) of Regulation, 2010 and were rightly dropped from the roll. The continuation of their studies during the second and third semesters was made possible solely due to the ad-interim relief granted in Civil Suit No.345/1, which was always subject to the final outcome of the suit. However, for reasons best known to the petitioners, they chose not to pursue the suit on merits and instead requested its unconditional withdrawal. Since an interim order merge with the final order and if the final order is against the petitioner, it. is deemed that the petitioner had no favourable order in his favour at any time. Notably, after the withdrawal of the first suit, the respondents initiated a second suit (No.184/1 of 2024) on 23.07.2025, seeking substantially the same relief. Pursuant to interim directions, they appeared in the third and fourth semester examinations, and the suit was decreed through a summary judgment, despite the University's objections. Regulation 12 (iv) of Regulation, 2010 clearly stipulates that students who fail to secure 1.5 GPA in the first semester or 1.70 CGPA in any subsequent semester shall stand automatically dropped and shall not be re-admitted by the same college. This regulation is decisive for adjudication of the matter. When confronted, learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the matter required determination on merits in the original suit. Their continued enrolment in semesters 2 to 4 was, therefore, in violation of the said regulation. The key question before the courts was whether the respondents, having failed to attain the minimum GPA in the first semester, could nonetheless claim entitlement to continued enrolment? The respondents' promotion to the second semester was contingent upon attaining a minimum GPA of 2.00 in the first semester, a prerequisite applicable to all students. Failure to meet this requirement resulted, under the t University's regulations governing its affiliated colleges, in the student's removal from the rolls of both the college and the University. Both the learned trial and appellate courts failed to address this core issue in its true legal context. It is an established principle of law that when the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner then that thing be done in that manner and not otherwise. Reference may be made to the principle enunciated in cases titled "Qamar laved vs. Gul Jaime (2005 M LD 1329), "Syed Bashir Hussain vs. Abdul Waheed" (2013 M LD 1675), "SNGPL VS. OGRA" (PLD 2013 Lahore 289), "Cantonment Board Clifton vs. Sultan Alunad Siddique" (2016 CLC 919), "Muhammad Akram Javid vs. Bashir Alunad Soak"
(2016 CLC 1751), "Hassan Bakhsh vs. Sultan" (2016 MLD 1157). "Ajmir Shah, Ex-Sepoy vs. the Inspector General, Frontier Corps Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another" (2020 SCMR 2129). "Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi" (PLD 2018 SC 189), "Shahida Bibi v. Habib Bank Limited" (PLD 2016 SC 995) and Human Rights Cases Nos.4668 of 2006 and others (PLD 2010 SC 759)."
5. The plaintiffs/respondents sought. declaration of irming their entitlement to continue their studies, which is undoubtedly a fund unental right under Article 25-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, but subject to the law. They were required to achieve the requisite GPA in the first semester; however, they failed to do so, and according to the regulations, those who do not meet the minimum threshold are removed from the roll. In the case of MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus BAHAUDDIN ZAKARIYA UNIVERSITY, MULTAN and another (2005 SCMR 961) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. that: "We have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant regulation. At the outset it may be noted that as far as the rules/regulations framed by the University Authorities for the purpose of conductive/regularizing examination etc. of University arc concerned these are required to be interpreted by the University Authorities itself and Courts should avoid to interpret the same unless a case of grave injustice is not made out otherwise it would become difficult for University administration to run its internal affairs relating to examination, etc. Further, a perusal of Regulation 8(F) and its other parts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner was required to obtain
(CGPA) independently in each semester for the purpose of promotion to the next semester. As it has been pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner did not obtain requisite (CGPA) in the 3rd semester i.e. 2.00 (CGPA) therefore. University Authorities in exercise of power conferred upon them under Regulation 8(F) rightly removed his name from the roll. The learned ICA Bench after examining the case of petitioner in depth reached to the conclusion that he was required to obtain 2.00 CGPA in the 3rd semester, therefore, his name was rightly removed from the roll of University as impugned judgment is just and legal, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(0) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pak.istan."
To obtain the relief sought, the plaintiffs were under an obligation to establish not only the existence of their right but also its denial by the petitioners. However, the regulations governing the affiliated colleges under the control of the petitioners' university are clear, self-explanatory, and unambiguous. These regulations admit. of only one interpretation, that promotion to the second semester is conditional upon securing a minimum GPA of 2.0. As the plaintiffs failed to meet this academic threshold, no vested right accrued in their favour. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgments rendered in the cases of Muhammad Mustansar Maqbool v. Bahauddin Zakariya University through Vice Chancellor and others (2009 MID 1441); Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad Sig v.
Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan through Vice Chancellor and others (2009 YLR 1841); and Eng.
Muhammad Ryas Khattak v. University of Engineering and Technology, Peshawar through Vice Chancellor and others (2016 YLR 106).
G. The concept of summary disposal of suits within the framework of civil litigation is encapsulated in Order XV-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This provision authorizes the Court to dispose of a suit at the first hearing, provided the parties are not in dispute over any material question of law or fact, or if the defence is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or illusory. The issue belbre this Court. is whether the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents can be disposed of under the provisions of Order XV- A, or whether the case necessitates the recording of evidence. Since the petitioners have unequivocally contested the allegations in the plaint, which manifests that the parties are at issue, thereby excluding the applicability of Order XV, Rule 1, or Order XV-A, Rule 1, CPC. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' continued eligibility to sit for examinations and attend classes in subsequent semesters was contingent upon the outcome of Suit No. 345/1, which was not decided in their favour.
Additionally, the plaintiff's have neither challenged the relevant regulations nor demonstrated any legal basis entitling them to continue their studies, particularly considering their failure to achieve the requisite GPA in their first semester. Furthermore, the plaintiff's have failed to provide any legal or factual basis to support their claim for the determination of their suit within the framework of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act., 1877. The law mandates that where the lis does not demonstrate a violation of law, rules, or regulations, and fails to disclose a cause of action, it is the duty of the courts to prevent any further progress in the matter. Reference may be made to the case of Misree Khan versus Abdul Ghafoor (PLD 2025 SC 24), Ahmed Ali Talpur versus Sub Registrar, Latifabad Hyderabad (PLD 2025 SC 325). Learned counsel for plaintiff's-respondents admitted the facts that the college of the plaintiff's was being regulated by the Petitioners' I Jniversity through the Regulations for affiliated colleges.
7. Adverting to the last submission of learned counsel for respondents that since the respondents have been promoted to the fourth semester and, now, they are at the verge of completion of their studies suffice is to say that the fact that a wrong was previously permitted to continue does not, in any manner, justify its perpetuation. Past inaction, oversight, or even deliberate tolerance cannot be invoked as a lawful basis for maintaining an illegality. In addition, one wrong can never justify another. The commission of a wrongful act by one party does riot confer upon the other the moral or legal right to respond in kind. justice and the rule of law require that each act is to be assessed on its own merits and consequences, without allowing retaliation or counter-misconduct to obscure the truth or excuse unlawful behavior. To condone one wrong merely because it was provoked or preceded by another would undermine societal order, encourage vigilantism, and erode the very principles of fairness upon which justice rests. Furthermore, the respondents' participation in the second and third semesters was solely pursuant to an interim order of the Court, which ultimately stood withdrawn upon dismissal of the suit; hence, they cannot derive any benefit from such interim arrangement. No doubt there are concurrent findings in favour of respondents but such findings are not immune from interference by this Court where they are based on misreading or non-reading of the record, or are perverse, unjustified, or contrary to law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases titled "Nazim Ud Din and others v. Sh. Zia ul Qamar and others" (2016 SCMR 24) and "Noor Muhammad and others v. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi" (2012 SCMR 1373) that erroneous concurrent findings based on misreading and non-reading of evidence are no longer sacrosanct.
8. Based on the foregoing, it is held that both the learned courts below erred in law and committed irregularities in rendering their decisions, which are contrary to established legal principles and, therefore, unsustainable. Consequently, this civil revision is allowed, the impugned judgments and decrees are hereby set aside, and the suit of the respondents is dismissed. No order as to costs.