SUREINDER SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 15.12.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, rejecting the application of petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC to produce and exhibit the map and estimate has been assailed in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the respondents have filed an application for passing final decree. On 15.12.2011 the statement of RW-2 Daya Kant was recorded, who produced map and estimate of the shop in question but was not allowed to place on record these documents. On that date, an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC was filed for placing on record the map and estimate of the shop. The said application was dismissed and evidence of the petitioners was closed, hence the present petition.

(3.) IT appears after preliminary decree, an application under Order 22 Rule 18 CPC was filed for passing the final decree by respondents No.1 to 9. This application was contested. On 21.4.2010 the issues were framed. The evidence of the applicants was over on 25.8.2011 and the case was fixed on 15.9.2011 for RWs. On 22.11.2011 the case was fixed for evidence of petitioners herein as last opportunity. On 15.12.2011 the statement of one RW recorded and on that date an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC was filed for placing on record the map and estimate of the shop on the ground that during examination of RW-2 Daya Kant those documents were refused to be taken on record.