Civil Revision No.4902 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4902 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.08.2011 Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus Jagdev Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr. O.P.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar ,J. (Oral) The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Jagdev Singh s/o Ranjit Singh respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that charge sheet served on him, vide Memo No.18236-41 dated 6.8.2002, inquiry report and the impugned punishment order, stopping his annual increment without cumulative effect, are illegal, capricious, discriminatory and liable to be ignored, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Punjab Agricultural University (for short “PAU”) and its Vice Chancellor and officers respondent-defendants No.2 to 5 (in short “the defendants”) from implementing the impugned order. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC and placed on record certain documents. Sh.Parminder Pal Singh, Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the defendants, admitted the documents, vide his separately recorded statement. 3. Now the defendants have moved the present application (Annexure P1) that the admitted documents cannot be made admissible on the basis of admission of their counsel. The plaintiff contested the prayer of the defendants and filed reply Civil Revision No.4902 of 2011 -2- (Annexure P2), inter-alia denying the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants, by virtue of impugned order dated 22.1.2011. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the trial Court, the petitioner- PAU filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-PAU, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this respect. 7. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner-PAU that the documents cannot be relied upon, merely on the basis of admission of counsel for the defendants and the trial court fell in error in dismissing their application in this context, lacks merit. 8. As is evident from the record that in the wake of application under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC, the plaintiff has placed on record the documents, which were put and Sh.Parminder Pal Singh, counsel for the defendants has admitted the documents on 18.5.2007. Once the counsel for defendants have duly admitted the documents, then, the plaintiff-PAU cannot possibly be heard to say that the documents are not admissible in evidence. 9. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application of the defendants, by means of impugned order dated 22.1.2011. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is hereby Civil Revision No.4902 of 2011 -3- maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. 16.08.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE