IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C. R. No. 281 of 2006 Date of decision January 19, 2007 Subhash and another .......Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL Present:- Sh. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 7. **** Viney Mittal, J (Oral) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration that application for additional evidence has been rejected by the trial Judge by making various observations, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the aforesaid order, if an occasion arises for them to file an appeal against the final judgment and decree of the trial Court. Dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. (VINEY MITTAL) JUDGE January 19, 2007 archana