JUDGMENT KULDIP SINGH, J. – 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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the documents sought to be placed on record were not in custody of the petitioners and were produced for the first time by RW-2 during his examination in the Court. The said documents are essential for adjudication of the case. The Court below has erred in rejecting the request of petitioners for proving and exhibiting map and estimate. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. 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. 4. THE Court below in the impugned order has observed that petitioners herein had filed reply on 17.11.2009. There is no reference of site plan and abstract of costs in the said reply. 4. THE Court below in the impugned order has observed that petitioners herein had filed reply on 17.11.2009. There is no reference of site plan and abstract of costs in the said reply. The Court below has also observed in the impugned order that Local Commissioner under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC is yet to be deputed by the District Collector. The final decree is yet to be prepared, the Commissioner has not yet visited the spot. It has not been pointed out for what purpose the map and estimate of shop at this stage is required, simply because such documents were allegedly in possession of a witness that does not mean that those documents are necessarily required to be brought on record of the case file unless it is shown how those documents are relevant for purpose of preparation of final decree and that too before the report of the Local Commissioner. 5. THE application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC is completely silent on the point of relevancy of documents sought to be produced nor observation of the Court below has been disputed that in the reply filed by the petitioners herein any reference of map and abstract of costs has been made. The Court below has rightly declined the request of the petitioners herein while rejecting the application vide impugned order dated 15.12.2011. There is no error of jurisdiction. No case for interference has been made out. The petition is dismissed, so also the pending application. Petition is dismissed.