- (1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the first appellate Court reversing the order of the trial court dated 5.1.2002 by which a direction was issued to the petitioner- defendant to admit the non-petitioner/plaintiff in the LL.B. course for the academic session 2001-02.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the non- petitioner had appeared in Bachelor of Arts Examination in 2000-01 and as his result had not been declared, provisionally he applied for admission in the Law course for the year 2001-02. He appeared in the written Entrance Test held on 22.7.2001. Result of the entrance test was declared on 31.7.2001 and his name appeared at Serial No. 56 of the merit list. He deposited the fee on 12.8.2001 but he could not be admitted to the course for the reason that he had applied for re-evaluation of answer-books of Graduation and the result of re-evaluation was declared on 28.8.2001. Moreso, he also appeared ins supplementary examination in one paper, whose result was declared subsequently. Non-petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 199/2001 wherein an application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") was filed. That application was considered by the learned trial court on 5.1.2002 and rejected on the ground that as the result of the non-petitioner was declared on 28.8.2001 and, thus, he was not eligible to deposit the fee on 10.8.2001 or to be declared eligible for admission on 31.7.2001. It was also considered that the non-petitioner got supplementary in one paper, the result of which could be declared on 5.7.2001. The trial court also considered that as there were only 120 seats available which had been filed up, the non-petitioner had furnished false information that he had passed all the papers though on the date of filing the application, he had not cleared all the papers. His form was not considered on the date of finalising the list for the reason that he had not annexed the marks sheet along with the fee deposit receipt. After considering the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury to the party, the trial court rejected the application for interim relief. However, the first appellate court reversed the said order and directed the petitioner to admit the non-petitioner in the Law course. Hence this revision.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made by them.;