K.T. Sankaran, J.

The respondent in the revision, viz., Jaisy K. Joseph was a student in the Vimala College, Thrissur, undergoing her studies for B.Sc. with Mathematics main and Statistics and Physics as subsidiary subjects for the academic year 1991-94. She appeared for the first year examination conducted by the University of Calicut in 1992. She was awarded with 57 marks for Mathematics main paper and 42 marks for Statistics. The student applied for re-valuation of the answer sheets. After re-valuation, the marks awarded for Statistics was changed to 51 instead of 42. However, the marks awarded for Mathematics main paper was not changed on the ground that the answer sheet of Mathematics main paper was not available for re-valuation. The University offered a chance to the student to appear for the next examination which was proposed to be conducted in the year 1995 without paying any further fee.

2. Jaisy K. Joseph instituted O.S. No. 52 of 1995 on the file of the court of the I Addl. Munsiff, Thrissur against the University of Calicut, Controller of Examinations and the Registrar of Calicut University claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Only the Controller of Examinations appeared and filed a written statement. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte and they did not file any written statement. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendants filed appeal as A.S. No. 8 of 2003 before the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendants in the suit have filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the concurrent decisions of the courts below.

3. The plaintiff contended that she was sure of getting higher marks in Mathematics if the answer sheet was re-valued. The marks obtained for the first year examination would also be taken note of for admission to other courses. The plaintiff stated that she could not secure admission for M.Sc. or B.Ed. in a regular college in Thrissur district and she had to join for B.Ed. in a college at Wynad. She stated that she had to spend a lot of money to complete her studies at Wynad.

4. The second defendant contended that the plaintiff could not expect more marks in the first year Mathematics examination since the answer sheet was properly valued. As per clause 7 of Chapter 14 of the Handbook of Calicut University, it is provided that "in the event of answer scripts required for re-valuation/scrutiny not becoming available for any reason, the original valuation will be treated as final and fee remitted in such cases will be refunded".

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 while D.W.1, Section Officer, Pareeksha Bhavan was examined on the side of the defendants. The trial court held that the suit is maintainable and the appellate court confirmed this finding. It has come out in evidence that one Mohammed Koya of Christian College was the examiner and that he did not return the answer sheets after valuation. But, curiously enough, such a contention was not raised in the written statement and the name of the person who was responsible for not returning the answer sheets was not disclosed. The appellate court held thus in this context :

"11. Though in the written statement of the second defendant it is stated that the examiner did not return the answer sheet to the University and hence the defendants were not able to get it revalued, the name of the examiner is not mentioned in the written statement filed by the second defendant. It was only when D.W. 1 was examined the name of the examiner revealed. The name of the examiner is stated as Mohammad Koya of the Malabar Christian College, Calicut. Had the second defendant taken a contention that it was Mohammad Koya who was negligent, the plaintiff would have got an opportunity to implead Mohammad Koya also in the suit. Since this is not done by the second defendant, the defen