RF.A. NO. 6 0F 2003 Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order 11. 10.8.2004 Being felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division - 11, Sikkim in C. S. no. 14 of 2002 dismissing his suit, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The appellant filed the aforesaid suit against the respondents for recovery of Rs.51,697/- towards cost of stitching charges of the uniforms of field officers of the Forest Department of the state government. The appellant's case is that he applied to the Department of Forest for grant of work of stitching of uniforms for the field officers of the department. Since the work of stitching of uniforms of field officers was of huge quantity and the work being time-bound one, he and the respondents entered into an agreement on 4.8.2000 by which the respondents agreed that after the completion of the work all of them would submit their respective bills and the bill amount would be equally shared amongst themselves. The appellant after completing the work of stitching handed over the bills to the respondents for submission of the same to the department. The respondents assured him that after the receipt of the money his share amount would be paid to him in terms of the agreement dated 4.8.2000. The respondent no. 1 had withdrawn Rs.31,899/- from the Department of Forest but did not pay a single pie R.F.A. NO. 6 0F 2003 Order with Signature a°c:i:Cne(¥°at:y?SDF taken on Ordu to the appellant. The respondent no.2 had als withdrawn Rs.1,12,540/-from the department bu did not pay anything to him. As per th agreement dated 4.8.2000 respondent no. 1 should have paid Rs.10,962/- and responden no.2 Rs.40,735/- to the appellant. The appellan demanded his share but the respondents tume deaf ear. Finding no other alternative h instituted the suit. The respondents in their writte statement admitted the fact of entering into agreement with the appellant on 4.8.2000 bu according to them the agreement is no enforceable in the eye of law. Their further case i that the appellant did not carry out any stitchin work on their behalf and therefore payment of anount to him does not arise. an On the basis of evidence available o record, the learned trial Judge held that th stitching work was not given to the appellant b the department but it was given to th respondents. He further held that the appellan did not produce any evidence to show that he ha undertaken stitching work on behalf of th respondents. On the basis of the aforesai findings, the appellant's suit was dismissed. In course of hearing of this appeal, th appellant filed a petition under Order 41 Rule 2 CPC seeking permission of this Court to allow hi R.F.A. NO. 6 0F 2003 No. of Order Order with Signature Office Note as to action (if any) taken on Order to adduce additional evidence in support of his case by enclosing certain documents. The respondents have ffled objection to this petition. On perusal of those documents, we have noticed that the appellant carried out the stitching work of some uniforms and the Range Officer of the F`orest . Department had issued clearance certificate. The appellant in this petition has averred that those documents were mis-placed for which he could not produce them during the trial and now in May, 2004 he has been able to trace them out and submitted the same for acceptance as additional evidence. We have heard Mr. a. Shamia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Amita Lepcha, leaned counsel for the respondents. On consideration of the submission of the counsel for parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant was not able to produce those documents despite his dmgence. They have now been produced before us and are very much relevant for the Cout to pronounce the judgment. In the circumstances, we allow the prayer for adducing additional evidence made on behalf of the appellant. For this purpose, taking of oral evidence is. necessary. The documents are also required to be proved according to law. The respondents are entitled to tender rebuttal R.F.A. NO. 6 0F 2003 Order with Signature evidence. In the interest of justice the matter has to be retried. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter to the trial LJudge for fresh disposal of the suit according to law. The appellant is permitted to adduce further evidence, both oral and documentary before the trial Judge. The respondents are at liberty to adduce their evidence, if so advised. Counsel for the parties agree that they will appear before the trial Judge on 30.8.2004 to receive further direction from him. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Parties will bear their respective costs. I,ower Court records may be sent back forthwith. A.H.# Chiof Jfustiee lo.8.Z" ta:c{f:ocnne:¥a::r#. - I)ul Cnul:NI# hw#_i,'% ...- :-:`-:i.-i_ ct)-16-e`