IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3456 of 2009 Date of Decision: June 09, 2009 Dharam Pal ...... Petitioner Versus Suresh Kumar and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This revision has been filed against an order rejecting an application for additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the pendency of the civil suit for permanent injunction that he is a tenant on the property in dispute and that he should not be dispossessed except in due course of law, the respondents have been convicted of offences under sections 457/411/447/427 IPC in relation to the same property. He has argued that this evidence clearly reveals that the petitioner was in possession on the date the suit was filed. The learned trial Court has rejected the application on well reasoned and cogent grounds holding that firstly, the conviction is subject to appeal and that secondly, the civil suit Civil Revision No. 3456 of 2009 -2- would necessarily have to be decided on the basis of evidence which would be led in the trial and thus would be much more relevant than this conviction order. In my opinion there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Consequently this revision is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE June 09, 2009 sunita