' This is a plaintiff's appeal against the order dated 3-11-1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur, after transferring his suit to his own file, reject its plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the C.
P. C. Therein he had prayed as under :- "(a) that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants to the effect that paper 'A' of A-course of Mathematics regarding B. Sc. First Annual Examination for 1986 having been held on 6-7-1986, the proceedings taken by the defendants for re-examination thereof and notice No, 2194, dated 10-9-1986 issued by defendant No, 10 to the plaintiff is against law and facts and is ultra vires and of no effect so that is not effective against the rights of the plaintiff ;
(b) decree for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff be passed against the defendants to the effect that they may refrain forever from holding re-examination in the aforementioned Paper 'A', after its examination held already on 6-7-1986 ; and
(c) a directory decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants be passed to the effect that they should declare and publish the result on the basis of examination held on 6-7-1986."
2. Learned District Judge held the view that it is the prerogative of the University to conduct the examination in the manner it likes and since the plaintiff has not alleged malice against the defendants, therefore, civil Court cannot compel the University to act in any particular manner. He also took notice of the fact that on account of option given by the University it was not necessary for a student to appear in the examination scheduled for 6-10-1986 and, if desired, he could rely upon the examination already held and concluded that the plaintiff did not have any legal character or right in law to prevent the defendants tram holding he desired examination. He held that the plaintiff was not possessed of any legal character for the suit, the plaint whereof did not disclose any cause of action.
3. It is conceded before me that the plaintiff-appellant had been provided a choice to have his knowledge of the subject evaluated on the basis of examination already taken by him on 6-7-1986 and that he had also exercised the choice accordingly for not sitting in the fresh examination.
Contention of the learned counsel, however, is that since, ultimately, a consolidated result relating to both the examinations would be published, therefore, overall merit of the plaintiff in such consolidated rating is likely to fall below his estimation of his performance in the former examination. The question, however, arises as to how may the plaintiff have a right to prevent others from taking examination in the same subject or even stop further examination being held in such a paper wherein he has already appeared ? Ali the rights that he may have is merely this that he may not be compelled to sit for a fresh examination and this right is A conceded to have already been granted to him, therefore, in the absence of any legal character established in the plaintiff for the purpose, he cannot be considered eligible to claim declaration in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and the view on the point taken by the learned District Judge is unexceptionable.
4. There is no force in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.