JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Heard for the petitioners. 2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the order passed by revisional Court on his application paper no.10-Ga filed in Civil Revision No.67 of 2013. The civil revision has been filed against the order passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.1130 of 2010 on 12.4.2013 whereby the application for amendment paper no.55-Ga/2 filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected. During pendency of the revisional proceedings the petitioners filed an application before the revisional Court under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC whereby some documents by way of evidence were prayed to be taken on record. The revisional Court by means of the impugned order has rejected the said application on the premise that taking additional evidence on record being not permissible in revisional proceedings hence the application was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to demonstrate that the additional evidence prayed to be taken on record did exist before the trial Court nor any such mention has been made specifically with reference to paper no.58-Ga/1 in the application filed by him. 4. In any case record of the trial Court at the time of disposal of revision is always open to be seen while deciding the revision and in case such a document exists on record, it is for the revisional Court to look into the matter and decide the petitioner's revision in accordance with law. At this stage, no interference in the impugned order is called for. 5. It is open to the petitioners to point out the existence of relevant evidence before the revisional Court so that the revision filed by the petitioners is finally decided. Needless to say that the observations recorded in the impugned order shall not prejudice the stand of the petitioners if the same is born out from the record of the trial Court. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.