P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) By way of ths revision petition the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra is challenging the order dated 31.1.2005 whereby the trial court directed the petitioner-Institute to permit the plaintiff to attend the classes of sixth semester. Further challenge is to the order dated 22.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby an appeal filed by the petioner against the aforementioned order was dismissed as being not maintainable.
(2.) A reading of the order of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) shows that the institute was not allowing the plaintiff to attend the classes of sixth semester on the ground that he was short of lectures in the fifth semester. It has been noticed in the order of the trial court that this shortage of lectures had occurred on account of the fact that an injunction application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to attend the classes of fifth semester was allowed by the trial Court on 28.8.2004. Before that date the plaintiff could not attend classes as the petitioner-institute was not allowing him to do so. After that date however the plaintiff had been attending the classes of the fifth semester. It was found that if lectures were calculated after 28.8.2004 the plaintiff had sufficient attendance to allow him to join the sixth semester. It is therefore that the trial court permitted the plaintiff to join the sixth semester and attend the classes of the same.
(3.) Today during the course of hearing I was informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the plaintiff has already attended classes of sixth semester on account of the order made by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 31.1.2005. So far as seventh semester is concerned I am informed that the plaintiff even attended the classes of that semester. He however submits that since he could not clear all the papers as also re-appear papers he has been detained from attending classes of eighth semester. I am of the opinion that it is too late today to put the clock back by setting aside the order passed by the trial court. By now when the plaintiff has already attended classes of sixth and seventh semester, the clock cannot be put back. Even otherwise I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the trial court. If the institute itself had not allowed the petitioner to attend the classes of fifth semester then lectures for that period could not be included while counting the total lectures to be attended by the plaintiff to enable him to join the sixth semester. I am of the opinion that the trial court committed no error in computing the total attendance from the date interim order was granted to the petitioner to attend the classes of the fifth semester. This revision petition is therefore dismissed.;