BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (S. D.), Nadiad, on 22-12-1976, in Special civil Suit No. 100 of 1973, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("code" for short hereinafter ). The appellants herein, who are the original plaintiffs, instituted the above suit, for recovery of Rs. 14,886. 00 against the respondent herein, who is the original defendant. The appellants/plaintiff, inter alia, contended that plaintiff No. 1 is a registered partnership firm and doing business of selling Motor Trucks on hire purchase basis. It entered into a hire purchase agreement in respect of the diesel Motor Truck No. GTG 1463 with plaintiff No. 2, Mr. S. R. Dave. Insurance proposal was submitted to the respondent/defendant in respect of the aforesaid truck, which was accepted and insurance policy was issued, which was also subsequently renewed. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case of the plaintiffs, there was a road accident, on 29-5-1972, on Bombay-Poona Highway, resulting into heavy damages to the said truck. Plaintiff No. 2 informed the defendant-Insurance Company about the factum of accident. The truck was taken to "gaekwad Garage" under the instructions of the defendant-Company. Plaintiff No. 2 incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 14,886. 00 for carrying out the repairs. The plaintiffs preferred the claim before the defendant-Insurance Company, which was denied. Therefore they filed above suit against the defendant. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT appeared and filed its written statement, at Ex. 34. The claim of the plaintiffs was denied. The averments made in the plaint were traversed and controverted by the defendant-Insurance Company. According to the contention of the defendant, it was not liable for payment of damages as the truck in question was sold and transferred by plaintiff No. 2 to one mr. F. A. Rehman. Thus, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the plaintiffs had no insurable interest in the truck at the relevant point of time. It was also pleaded that though the truck was transferred, on 16-11-1970, the plaintiffs did not inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of interest in the truck. Therefore, the liability for the payment of damages was denied. It was also pleaded that though the truck was transferred, on 16-11-1970, the plaintiffs did not inform the Insurance Company about the transfer of interest in the truck. Therefore, the liability for the payment of damages was denied. It was also contended that the defendant was not bound to pay damages as there was a violation of the terms of insurance policy. Thus, the entire suit was challenged. ( 4 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances and pleadings of the parties, issues were settled, at Ex. 55. ( 5 ) THE trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, reached to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no right, title and interest in respect of the truck involved in the accident at the material point of time. The trial court also held that the plaintiffs had violated the terms of the insurance policy. The trial Court also held that the truck in question was transferred by plaintiff No. 2 to one Mr. F. A. Rehman The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the original plaintiffs have come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 96 of the Code. ( 7 ) DURING the pendency of this appeal, the appellants/original plaintiffs preferred Civil Application No. 2596 of 1977 for production of additional evidence, on 2-8-1977. Rule was issued in the said Civil Application and it was ordered to be heard alongwith this appeal. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the contentions of the plaintiffs, the documentary evidence sought to be produced alongwith the aforesaid civil application is very important for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The documents sought to be produced are insurance policies of different periods and correspondence between the Insurance Company and the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs by way of additional evidence arc relevant and material for the purpose of effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the civil application is required to be allowed. The documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are ordered to be taken on record in the present appeal. The civil application will stand disposed of accordingly. Therefore, the civil application is required to be allowed. The documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are ordered to be taken on record in the present appeal. The civil application will stand disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. ( 9 ) AFTER the production of the additional documentary evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code in the present appeal such documents are required to be proved. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is, therefore, necessary to remit the matter to the trial Court. It may be also mentioned that the trial Court ordered to exhibit certain documents produced by the parties in the suit after the evidence was closed and at the stage of arguments. The practice of giving exhibits after the arguments cannot be encouraged. The trial court admitted and exhibited documentary evidence, Exhs. 109 to 122 after the stage of evidence was over. Obviously, the parties are prejudiced and are adversely affected. No reason is assigned as to why the documentary evidence produced and relied on by the parties was given exhibits after the arguments were heard at the fag end of the trial. The grievance that some other documents are not exhibited is also required to be appreciated. Considering the pleadings of the parties, issues are also required to be recast. ( 10 ) THE trial Court was also required to consider the effect of the transaction in respect of the truck between plaintiff No. 2 and Mr. F. A. Rehman. What was the exact transaction and what was its nature, was also required to be examined, This is pot examined in its proper perspective, ( 11 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court for adjudication afresh, after giving an opportunity to the parties for leading evidence and for proving documentary evidence which is also admitted by way of additional evidence in this appeal. The impugned judgment and decree is required to be quashed and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision. ( 12 ) IN the result the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The impugned judgment and decree is required to be quashed and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court for a fresh decision. ( 12 ) IN the result the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The matter is remanded to the trial court for decision in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity to the parties for leading evidence and for proving the documents. Since the matter is old, the trial Court is directed to accord priority and dispose it of on or before 11-12-1991. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court, on 11-10-1991. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. .