JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.1.2004, passed, in Money Appeal No. 04/2002, by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Tezpur, affirming and upholding the judgment and decree, dated 30.3.2001, passed, in Money Suit No. 11/1999, by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Tezpur, whereby the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party herein for realization of sale price of goods, namely, motor parts and accessories allegedly supplied to the defendant-petitioners has been decreed. 2. The case of the plaintiff is, in brief, thus: From time to time, the defendants placed orders with the plaintiff for supply of motor parts, on credit, promising to make full payment of the materials after receiving the delivery thereof, in terms of the demands, so placed, the plaintiff supplied the motor parts, on credit, to the defendants, but the payment due therefore was not made. The plaintiff, then, served a notice under Section 80 CPC on the dependants. As the defendants failed to make payment of their dues, a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,270 together with interest and cost of the suit was instituted. 3. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statements wherein it was contended, inter alia, that there was no valid contact entered into between the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the plaintiff and that nothing was due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff. The learned trial court, having found the case of the plaintiff proved, decreed the suit as indicated hereinabove. 4. Heard Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite Party. 5. While considering the present revision, what attracts the eyes, most prominently, is that at paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment and order, dated 28.1.2004, the learned appellate court has observed that though the learned trial court appreciated the evidence of PW 1, the evidence of PW 1 is not found in the record. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned appellate court did not find the evidence of PW 1 on record, it relied upon the pleadings in the plaint and also the documents, which were exhibited by PW 1, in upholding the learned trial court's decree. 6. Notwithstanding the fact that the learned appellate court did not find the evidence of PW 1 on record, it relied upon the pleadings in the plaint and also the documents, which were exhibited by PW 1, in upholding the learned trial court's decree. 6. It needs to be pointed out that an appeal is an extension of suit and it is the duty of the appellate court not only to examine the pleadings of the parties, but also appreciate the evidence on record before upholding, or interfering with, the trial court's decree. In the case at hand, the learned appellate court appears to have relied upon the pleadings of the plaintiff the judgment of the learned trial court for the purpose of determining as to whether or not the plaintiff had proved its case. It also needs to be pointed out that one of the contentions of the defendants is that the challan, dated 28.3.1996, whereunder the articles, in question, were claimed by the plaintiff to have been received by the defendants, had not been proved in accordance with law inasmuch as there was no evidence on record to show as to who was the person, who had received the materials under the said challan, which has been proved as ext. 4. In such a case, when the evidence of the plaintiff's sole witness was not found in the record of the trial court, the learned appellate court ought to have either traced out the evidence or reconstructed, the evidence on record. Without having even a cursory glance on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the learned appellate court could not have closed the appeal and delivered the judgment as has been done in the present case. 7. Because of what have been pointed out above, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 28.1.2004, cannot be maintained. 8. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal partly succeeds. The impugned and decree, dated 28.1.2004, shall stand set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned appellate court with directions to bring the evidence on record by way of re-construction or otherwise and, thereafter, dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 9. 8. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this appeal partly succeeds. The impugned and decree, dated 28.1.2004, shall stand set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned appellate court with directions to bring the evidence on record by way of re-construction or otherwise and, thereafter, dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. 9. In order to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal, it is hereby directed that the learned appellate court shall deal with the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the LCRs alongwith a copy of this order. 10. With the above observations and directions, this revision shall stand disposed of. 11. Send back forthwith the LCRs with a copy of this order to the learned appellate court below.