MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- The respondent was a regular student of Government College, Lahore, who appeared in B.A. Examination conducted by the appellant University in August/September, 1969.
Statistics was one of his subjects. He was declared unsuccessful in the examination in the result announced on 22.11.1969. He represented the University of the Punjab for rechecking of his Statistics Paper but the was Reclined and the result earlier announced was reiterated.
2. The respondent/plaintiff again appeared in the supplementary examination and was declared successful. However, on 29.5.1970, the University informed the plaintiff that, he was successful in examination held in 1969 and having obtained 321 marks.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for damages on account of erroneous declaration of his result in which he claimed damages for mental torture, physical illness, effect upon his future career stoppage of stipend and loss of honour and dignity. This suit was contested by the appellant and the trial Court after framing of issues decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.1974 by awarding him damages to the tune of Rs. 18,500/-. Against this judgment and decree the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.1975. However, the amount of damages was reduced to Rs. 8000/-. It is these judgments and decrees which have been assailed through the present appeal.
4. The arguments of the counsel for the parties have been heard. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant's counsel that the appellate Court below has misread the evidence on record, because there was no material to substantiate that the respondent was entitled to a sum of Rs.
8000/-. It is further argued that under section 42 of the West Pakistan University of Punjab Ordinance, 1961 the present suit was barred and incompetent.
5. As far as the question of misreading of the evidence is concerned I have gone through the relevant evidence and find that the respondent has amply proved entitlement for damages and the loss which has been awarded to him by the Appellate Court. There is no misreading or nonreading of evidence by the lower appellate Court.
6. Regarding the other objection of bar, it has been contended that the University or any other authority or the employees of the University are duly protected for having done or purported to have been done in good faith. In this regard it has been stated that the respondent himself did not appear for his examination at the appropriate center and rather had gone to another center for the practical examination which took place on 7.10.1969. It is thus the case of the appellant that due to this negligence of the respondent/plaintiff his result could not be properly complied.
7. I am afraid, this contention of the appellant is not well founded because as held by the learned Additional District Judge it is admitted by the appellant's witness that the respondent was allowed to take part in the practical examination on 7.10.1969, by the Conduct Branch of the University which was competent to grant this permission bur unluckily for the respondent that the Conduct Branch failed to inform the authorities at New Campus about the change of arrangements.
8. I find that this is a clear case of negligence on the part of the University which is not covered by the provisions of section, 42 of the Ordinance mentioned above, thus the suit was not barred under the law. There are concurrent findings of fact regarding the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff particularly by the first appellate Court and the amount of original decree was reduced to Rs.
8000/- and there is no misreading of evidence on record requiring reversal of this determination.
Consequently, I dismiss this appeal and the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.