JUDGMENT : Judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Haflong in the district of N.C.Hills in Money Suit No. 4 of 2004 is under challenge in the present first appeal. The learned trial court by the aforesaid judgment decreed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety for Rs.1,48,617/-. After admission of the appeal by this High Court, an interim order was passed directing the appellant/defendants to make deposit of Rs.70,000/- with the Registry of this court and on such deposit being made, the plaintiff/respondent withdrew the amount by an order of this court passed on 24.5.2010. 2. The sole respondent as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 4 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Halflong for realization of Rs.1,48,617/-.along with interest @ 18 % per month. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that on 5.12.1997 and 5.1.1998, the defendants No. 4 and 5 entrusted him for repairing and supply of spare parts of TATA Motor vehicle bearing No. AS-08-0355. Accordingly, repairing was done and necessary spare parts were fitted on the vehicle . Thereafter, the vehicle was delivered in good condition to the departmental driver Tarachand Sharma who was assigned by defendants No. 4 and 5 and a delivery challan was also acknowledged from him . The plaintiff thereafter submitted bills to the defendant No. 4 and handed over the old and damaged parts to the driver Tarachand Sharma on behalf of defendants No. 4 and 5. The driver ultimately left the damaged spare parts to the Haflong firm of the plaintiff. Plaintiff on several occasion verbally requested the defendant No. 4 to receive the old and damaged part of the vehicle but did not get any positive response for which he wrote a letter to defendant No. 5 on 25.7.2000 requesting to take back old and damaged parts. Defendant No.5 did not take any action to take back the spare parts from the plaintiff’s firm. The bill of the plaintiff was also not paid for which he made correspondence on 7.4.1999, 2.9.1999, 22.3.2003 and 19.3.2004, however, to no avail. Ultimately, after serving notice under Section 80 CPC , he instituted the suit for realization of Rs.1,48,617/-. 3. On being summoned, defendants appeared and submitted written stament wherein the defendants have stated their own facts parawise. The bill of the plaintiff was also not paid for which he made correspondence on 7.4.1999, 2.9.1999, 22.3.2003 and 19.3.2004, however, to no avail. Ultimately, after serving notice under Section 80 CPC , he instituted the suit for realization of Rs.1,48,617/-. 3. On being summoned, defendants appeared and submitted written stament wherein the defendants have stated their own facts parawise. Defendants stated that the plaintiff was directed to carry out repairing works and to hand over damaged parts to the Divisional store for audit inspection and the intimation to that effect was given to his firm to take up the work in consultation with defendant No. 4 pending formal work order after completion of the works and approval from DVRC. The defendants did not deny the averments made in para- 4 and 5 of the plaint that spare parts were handed over to driver Tarachand Sharma but asserted that the plaintiff did not deposit the damaged spare parts as instructed by defendant No.5 and also did not submit the cash memo for the spare parts supplied. It was however admitted that the challan copy as signed by Tarachand Sharma on 5.4.1998 have been presented by firm vide letter dated 10.2.2000 as enclosure of the bill for Rs.1,48,617. By para-6 of the their own facts, defendants appeared to have pleaded that the plaintiff was entrusted to do some specified job but without further order, he performed more jobs and submitted bills. Plaintiff did not produce any record to substantiate his claim for payment and so the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned trial court framed three issues from the contention of the parties and allowed the parties to prove their respective case . 5. I have heard Mr. BD Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents although names have been duly shown in the Cause List. 6. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited three documents as Exhibits- 1, 2 and 3. Defendants did not adduce any evidence. However, defendants cross-examined PW-1 at length. In course of his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff stated that he repaired the vehicle and then handed it over to the driver Tarachand Sharma. He exhibited a list of spare parts as Exhibit-1 wherein Exhibit-1(1) is the signature of the driver of the defendants. Defendants did not adduce any evidence. However, defendants cross-examined PW-1 at length. In course of his examination-in-chief, the plaintiff stated that he repaired the vehicle and then handed it over to the driver Tarachand Sharma. He exhibited a list of spare parts as Exhibit-1 wherein Exhibit-1(1) is the signature of the driver of the defendants. Exhibit-2 is the bill and Exhibit-3 is the new motor parts supplied by him in the aforesaid vehicle. He also mentioned 17 challan copies in support of his contention. According to him Exhibit-3(4) is the signature of one D Kar, Head Assistant of the defendant No. 4 in challan No. 3114. In the cross-examination, he stated that considering the volume of repairing work vehicle was sent to Guwahati on 5.12.1997. The Executive Engineer stated that the position of Armature was good and the vehicle needed repairing including supply of glasses. This was mentioned in the letter dated 5.1.1998. He claimed to have sent the vehicle with the departmental driver and handyman to Guwahati for repairing. The garage informed that more spare parts were necessary for the vehicle and he authorized the garage to do so. Accordingly, he supplied the motor parts which were required without taking any written order from the defendants. After repairing the vehicle, he submitted the challan copy and bill except completion report as the official work was done through Silchar for a period of six months. He said that defendants did not prepare any estimate for approval and there is no record for conduction of any DVRC and ultimately no work order was issued by defendants. He denied the suggestion that he submitted false bills. In the plaint, plaintiff requested the defendant No.5 to take back the submitted parts from his shop. The 80 CPC notice and the reply submitted thereto are also available on records but neither of the parties exhibited the same in accordance with law. True, Evidence Act does not apply in letter and spirit in the Sixth Schedule area like the one in hand but even then minimum requirement commensurate with the spirit of the Evidence Act ought to have been complied with by the parties so as to formally bring the papers on records and also to examine necessary witness for the parties. Tarachand Sharma appears to be a pivotal witness who is the driver of the defendants. Tarachand Sharma appears to be a pivotal witness who is the driver of the defendants. But neither the plaintiff made a demand for examining him nor did the defendants produce him to court but for which many of the contentions raised by plaintiff remained unestablsihed. 7. Be that as it may, considering the documents available on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit in entirety and in so doing nothing has been said as to how the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.1,48,617/-.It is not clear as to whether trial court considered the other papers available on record to arrive at the finding that there were challan in records and if those challan were considered in that event, the claims of the plaintiff for Rs.1,48,617/-.would be substantiated. Under such circumstances it has become difficult to uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial court. However, fact remains that there are papers on records which understandably have been submitted by any of the parties. But in the absence of oral evidence to prove the contents thereof , the same is of no value. Under such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that it would be proper in the fitness of things to set aside the judgment and decree and to remand the suit to the trial court for decision afresh affording opportunity to both sides to examine suitable witnesses. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. The appeal stands allowed. 8. The records shall be sent back to the trial court forthwith and the learned trial court shall issue notice to both the sides fixing a date for their appearance and shall afford adequate opportunity to prove their respective cases in accordance with law and thereafter shall pass a judgment afresh. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that it s suit of 2004. 9. Appeal stands allowed. No order as to cost.