ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. This second appeal is time barred by 522 days, however, in support thereof application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of the delay in filing of the second appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. Heard finally. 4. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff appellant against the judgment and decree dated 12.9.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer, whereby the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer, has been affirmed. 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit asserting that he was student of LL.B. Second Year and he appeared in the final examination conducted in the year 2005 but he was declared fail. He again applied for and appeared in the examination of LL.B. Second Year conducted in 2006, but the respondents did not declare his result, despite repeated requests made by him to defendants no. 1 and 2, which compelled him to file the civil suit. The defendants contested the same by filing written statement thereto. 6. Learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant argued that learned courts below have committed serious illegality in passing the impugned judgment and decrees, as they failed to properly appreciate the material on record, particularly the fact that when the plaintiff-appellant appeared in the examination conducted by the defendant University, the defendants ought to have declared his result. 7. Having heard learned counsel for plaintiff-appellant and perused the material on record, this court does not find any error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts. The plaintiff-appellant himself admitted in cross-examination that he appeared in the examination of LL.B. Second Year during the period from 2002 to 2005 and as per Ordinance 163 (11) of the University, if a student remains unsuccessful for the first time then he shall be allowed to appear in next two examinations only, but here in this case the plaintiff-appellant has been allowed to appear in the next four examinations but he could not succeed and he appeared in the LL.B. Second Year examination for fifth time, which was contrary to the aforesaid provision. Only because his name appeared in the list of ex-students, it cannot be taken that he had become entitled to appear for the fifth time in the LL.B. Second Year examination, as he had already appeared for four times in the LL.B. Second Year examination. Learned courts below have categorically recorded that though it is not in dispute that he filled the examination form but the burden lies on the plaintiff-appellant to prove whether he mentioned therein that he had already appeared for four times in the LL.B. Second Year examination and he appears to have not disclosed this fact as even in the plaint he has only mentioned that on failure in the examination held in 2005, he applied and appeared in the examination held in 2006 and this fact has been admitted by him only in his cross-examination that he failed four times in the LL.B. Second Year examination. A student of law and persuing law, ought to have brought correct facts on record and was not expected to hide vital facts. 8. In my view, when the courts below have correctly arrived at a concurrent finding after analysing the material available on record and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity being committed by the courts below in arriving at the concurrent finding, no interference by this court is needed. 9. Consequently, this second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.