JOSHI, J. - (1.) THIS civil second appeal has been filed by appellant- plaintiff Smt. Madan Kumari wife of Shri Chandra Prakash Bhatnagar against the respondent Udaipur University, Udaipur (Mohanlal Sukhadia University) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.12.1992 passed by learned Civil Judge, Udaipur in Civil Appeal No. 46/1990, whereby the learned lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1989 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur City (North), Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 49/1981, whereby the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff Smt. Madan Kumari filed a civil suit against the respondent-defendant University inter alia stating that she appeared in the B.A. Examination of the year 1978 in Mathematics as additional subject. Since the result of the examination did not come as per the expectations of the appellant-plaintiff, she applied for re- evaluation of the answer-sheets of the First and Second Paper of B.A. Second Year and First Paper of B.A. Third Year, but the authorities of the respondent University did not respond despite reminders being given in this regard. THE appellant-plaintiff again applied for re-checking of the First Paper of Third Year, but the respondent-University got re-checked the Third Paper of the Third Year, therefore, the purpose of the appellant-plaintiff could not be served. It, is alleged that had the answer-sheets of the appellant-plaintiff been re-checked on time, she must have passed and got the benefit the pay scale of Second Grade, but the same did not happen. It is further alleged that in order to make available some benefits to one Smt. Shakuntala Pagaria, the concerned Clerk and Examiner of the respondent-University under a conspiracy have changed the marks of the appellant-plaintiff of Second Paper of Second Year to 11 instead of 19 and marks of Smt. Shakuntala Pagaria have been changed from 12 to 24. It is further alleged that said Smt. Shakuntala Pagaria used to take tuitions from the Examiner of the Second paper of Second Year. It is further alleged that if there had been no forgery in the tabulation register of the examination results, the appellant-plaintiffs must have passed. It is, therefore, prayed that on the basis of the original entries of the tabulation register, the appellant-plaintiff may be declared passed. THE respondent-University contested the suit by filing the written statement, wherein they admitted that the appellant-plaintiff filed application for re-evaluation, but it was stated that since there was cuttings in the application, therefore, it was not legible as to for which paper of the Third Year, the appellant plaintiff applied for re-evaluation. Further it was stated that as per the application of the appellant-plaintiff, the result of re-evaluation was declared on 6.5.1980. According to the revised results, the appellant-plaintiff was declared failed in the examination of Second Year, whereas the result of the examination of Third year remained unchanged after re-evaluation, thus, the appellant-plaintiff was declared failed as she could not pass in all the papers and the said result was informed to the appellant-plaintiff. It is further stated that even after that, in response to the letter of the appellant-plaintiff dated 19.7.1979, it was ordered that on the earlier fees paid by the appellant- plaintiff her First Paper of Third Year be re-evaluated. On this re-evaluation, the appellant-plaintiff was declared passed in the First Paper of Third Year, but still she remained failed in additional subject Mathematics of the B.A. Examination as she could not pass in all the papers. Further the allegation of forgery was denied and it was prayed that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff may be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following two issues:- JUDGEMENT_1889_RAJLW2_2012Image1.jpg
(3.) AFTER recording the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and on hearing the final arguments, the learned trial Court decided both the issues against the appellant-plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment and (decree passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, but the learned appellate Court vide the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal of the appellant-plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, the appellant-plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.;