C. R. No. 2318 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2318 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 28, 2009 Pawan Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Juge, Rohtak. The petitioner filed suit and along with plaint, moved application for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner's case is that he appeared in combined examination conducted by Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (defendant-respondent no.1) for University Research Scholarship (in short – URS) and M. Phil. The plaintiff was at No.3 in the merit list. Option for URS and M. Phil was to be given at the time of counselling. Defendant no.3, who was second in merit list, opted for M. C. R. No. 2318 of 2009 2 Phil and was granted admission in the same. Later on, the plaintiff was called for counselling, but simultaneously defendant no.3 was also given option and he opted for URS. The petitioner has challenged the said action of the University. The petitioner claimed interim relief of directing the University to grant provisional URS to the petitioner during the pendency of the suit. Request of the petitioner was opposed by the University alleging that defendant no.3 was at No.1 in the merit list. At the time of counselling of defendant no.3, there was no seat available for URS and therefore, defendant no.3 opted for M. Phil. When seat for URS became available, option therefore had to be given to defendant no.3, who was higher in merit list than the petitioner. Learned trial court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak vide order dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) directed the University to consider the case of the petitioner as per rules strictly and decide the case of the petitioner within 15 days and to submit the detailed order before the trial court or on before 15.01.2009. Pursuant to order of the trial court, University passed order rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Much thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order dated 24.12.2008 of trial court by filing appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide impugned judgment dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-2) has dismissed the said appeal inter alia observing that the petitioner having accepted the order of the trial court, cannot challenge the same by way of appeal. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Court, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Appellate Court should have discussed the merits of the petitioner's C. R. No. 2318 of 2009 3 case. The contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner himself accepted the order of the trial court, but when adverse order came to be passed against him by the University pursuant to order of the trial court, the petitioner preferred to challenge the order of the trial court by filing the appeal. The petitioner could not do so. The petitioner could not have availed of benefit of the order of the trial court and thereafter challenged the same by filing the appeal. The Appellate Court has taken a correct view of the matter. Even in the instant revision petition, the petitioner has simply challenged the order of the Appellate Court and not of the trial court. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot succeed. Even if the order of the Appellate Court is set aside, the order of the trial court would revive and consequently, the University cannot be directed to grant URS to the petitioner and that too, by way of interim order. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 28, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE