JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Moradabad dated 16-2-1980 accepting the appeal of the appellant and declaring that the order of the respondent Agra University cancelling the plaintiff's result of B. Sc. Part IT examination held in 19 75 was null, void and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts briefly stated are these. The plaintiff was the student of B. Sc. Fart II in 1975. He applied for appearing at the B. Sc Part II examination conducted by the Agra University through K. G, K. College, Moradabad. His application was accepted and he was allotted roll No. 3285 to appear at the examination. The plaintiff alleged that he appeared along with others in the second paper of Chemistry on 1-10 1975. The senior Superintendent of Examinations reported the University authorities that some torn papers were found on the seat of the plaintiff which, according to the plaintiff, was incorrect. The plaintiff received a notice on 20th December, 1975 calling upon him to explain his conduct regarding torn pieces allegedly found on his seat. The plaintiff appeared before the Examination Committee and offered his complexation He claimed that he did not use any unfair means and as such no action could be taken against him. By notification No. CQNF/UFM/94 of 1976, the plaintiff's result was cancelled. The plaintiff was. therefore, compelled to bring the suit for relief of declaration that the order dated 25th October cancelling his result was null and void. 3. The Suit was contested by the Agra University. The allegations made in the plaint were denied. The plea was that the plaintiff was found in possession of nine torn pieces of papers. Or being asked at the examination hall, the plaintiff could not give any explanation and accepted his fault. Therefore, the matter was referred to the Examination Committee which found the plaintiff guilty of having used unfair means and recommended for the cancellation of his result. Upon which the action was taken by the University. The University pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the U. P. Universities Act, 1973 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed a number of issues. It found that the result of the plaintiff was rightly cancelled by the defendant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff went up in appeal. The University pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 69 of the U. P. Universities Act, 1973 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed a number of issues. It found that the result of the plaintiff was rightly cancelled by the defendant and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff went up in appeal. The lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant filed the present second appeal. 5. The first question that needs determination in this appeal is about the maintainability of the suit. Section 69 of the U. P. Universities Act provides for the bar of suit. It lays down that no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against the authority or body thereof in respect of anything done or purported or intended to be dene in pursuance of this Act or rules or the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder. 6. Relying upon the aforesaid Section 69, Sri B. D. Agrwal, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant urged that the plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the cancellation of the result through the suit In the civil Court. He regard that the action of cancellation was performed by the prescribed authority n pursuance of the Act and as such tie suit ought to have been dismissed on this ground. 7. Section 69 imposes bar on the maintainability of the suit challenging the action of the Bodies or authorities mentioned thereunder if the same has been done in pursuance of the act, or Rules or the Statutes or Ordinances made thereunder, If the action is ultra vires of the Act or Ordinances and Status, the same may be liable to be challenged. But the Civil Court has no Jurisdiction to go into the propriety of the action taken against and to assume function of a court of appeal and to set aside the same on taking the view that the action was improper. The court has a limited jurisdiction to perform. The court cannot convert itself into an enquiry committee and examine the charge levelled against the examinee, it cannot review the finding .reached by the statutory authorities even if they be erroneous. 8. The court has a limited jurisdiction to perform. The court cannot convert itself into an enquiry committee and examine the charge levelled against the examinee, it cannot review the finding .reached by the statutory authorities even if they be erroneous. 8. In the instant case, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit for declaration on the ground that the plaintiff had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing to which he was entitled under the law. From the papers filed on record, it is apparent that the plaintiff was given opportunity by the examination Committee before which he appeared and admitted his guilt. The Sub Committee looked into the paper and reported that the plaintiff had made use of the material which was detected from his possession. Upon the aforesaid recommendation, the decision taken by the authority was "B. Sc. II Examination of 1975 be cancelled and you be further debarred from appearing at any examination of the Agra University till 1979." It is, therefore, wrongly alleged that the plaintiff has not been given the opportunity to which his suit and apologised for the same. He could not challenge the impugned order and seek the declaration in aspect thereof. The action of the Agra University cannot be branded as illegal or ultra vires of the Act and Statutes framed thereunder. The trial Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the suit and the lower appellate court was unjustified in allowing in the appeal. 9. Sri A.K. Yog, counsel appearing for the plaintiff referred to Section 68 of the U P. Universities Act and pointed out that under the aforesaid Section, the Chancellor has right suo muto to set aside the order of the University authorities and to declare that the plaintiff has passed the examination. It Is not for me to give any pronouncement on lids argument. It law permits the plaintiff to invoke Section 68 of the U. P. Universities Act, it will be open to him to do so. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court restored. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.