JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant, claiming therein that a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- being pronounced against it. The suit of the plaintiff stood decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the defendant before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal, whereupon, it dis-concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiff/appellant herein is driven to institute the instant appeal here-before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the Cloth Merchant and is having his shop at Shali Bazar, Theog. The defendant is a Goods Transport Company. It is alleged that in December, 1996 and January, 1997, the plaintiff had purchased various kinds of clothes worth Rs. 1,79,332/- from Ranilia Trading Company, Surat against the bills mentioned in the plaint and thereafter these were entrusted to defendant for transporting the same to Shimla, so as to deliver them to the plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant issued different receipts to the plaintiff and was under an obligation to deliver the said cloth bundles to him. It is pleaded that the defendant did not deliver these cloth bundles to the plaintiff and hence a notice was served upon the defendant on 24.2.1997 and after the receipt of this notice one bundle was delivered to the plaintiff and remaining bundles were not delivered to the plaintiff. It is pleaded that because of non receipt of cloth bundles, the plaintiff suffered huge loss and he also could not sell the same in his shop. As such, he has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the defendant. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. In its written statement, the defendant has taken preliminary objections inter-alia jurisdiction, maintainability and non compliance of provisions of Section 6 and 10 of the Carriers Act. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff had no property in the goods nor he had entrusted any goods to him at Surat for transportation. In its written statement, the defendant has taken preliminary objections inter-alia jurisdiction, maintainability and non compliance of provisions of Section 6 and 10 of the Carriers Act. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff had no property in the goods nor he had entrusted any goods to him at Surat for transportation. According to the defendants, the goods had been booked by a third party at Surat for transportation to Shimla and the delivery was also to be made by a third party, namely, P.K. Transport Company, which sent the goods through truck No. HR-38-4879 but the said truck caught fire and the cloth bundles had burnt. Therefore, FIR No. 14 dated 21.2.1997 lodged with Police Station, Laldu. It is pleaded that there was no negligence in handling the goods and the same were transported with reasonable care and the loss has been caused on account of act of God. After this incident consignor of the goods were duly informed and at his instance the information was also given to the plaintiff and the original documents were sent to the plaintiff to negotiate a settlement of claim, as a matter of good will only but the matter could not be settled. The value of the goods is also stated to be not more than Rs. 20,000/-. It is pleaded that in view of the provisions of Section 6 of the Carriers Act, the suit is not maintainable and the suit is also bad for want of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. 4. The plaintiff/appellant herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/ respondent, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount as prayed? OPP 2. Whether this Court has jurisdiction? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 of the Carriers Act? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not disclosed the material facts? OPD 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is barred under Section 10 of the Carriers Act? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not disclosed the material facts? OPD 6. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/respondent herein before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed the appeal and reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiff/appellant herein, has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court, wherein he assails the findings recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. 8. The plaintiff under Exts.P-1 to P-9, purportedly purchased bundles of cloth from M/s Ranilia Trading Company, Surat. The bundles of cloth were entrusted to the defendant, for their onward delivery at the commercial premises of the plaintiff. However, the defendant omitted to deliver the bundles of cloth at the commercial premises/establishment of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff was led to institute the instant suit against the defendant claiming therein, that a decree in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- being pronounced against the defendant, the sum aforesaid comprising the price of the undelivered bundles of cloth. 9. The learned First Appellate Court had alluded to Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4, exhibits whereof display qua theirs standing prepared with respect to Yog Brothers, Theog, hence, apparently with the aforesaid exhibits not bearing/carrying the name of the plaintiff, hence, it concluded that imputation of credence thereto, being shaky. Consequently, the learned Appellate Court concluded that the purchases as made by the plaintiff under the aforesaid exhibits also constraining a sequeling conclusion that “no evidence” hence, surging forth with respect to entrustment thereof by Ranilia Trading Company vis-a-vis the defendant. Also the learned First Appellate Court, had alluded to the factum of all bills of consignment comprised in Ex. P-10 upto P-18 “excepting Ex.P-17” wherein the plaintiff stands displayed as the consignee, “not” therein specifically displaying the plaintiff to be consignee thereof, rather with in the apt column of consignee thereof, a coinage “self” occurring, hence, it concluded that the bills of consignment comprised in the aforesaid exhibits, being prepared “not” with respect to the bundles of cloth purchased by the plaintiff from Ranilia Trading Company. In sequel, the learned First Appellate Court concluded that “no” entrustment of the relevant goods being made by Ranilia Trading Company vis-a-vis the defendant, for the latter transporting them upto the commercial establishment of the plaintiff, hence, for want of the relevant goods being received by the plaintiff at his commercial establishment, it, concomitantly concluded that he could not stake a claim for recovery of price thereof. 10. Be that as it may, since during the pendency of the instant appeal before this Court, the plaintiff/appellant has instituted here-before, an application cast under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, application whereof bears CMP No. 4569 of 2016, hence, it would not be befitting to make any pronouncement upon the legality of the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon the contentious issue, significantly, when through the documentary pieces of evidence, proposed to be hence with the leave of the Court adduced into evidence, the plaintiff is striving to establish the factum probandum “of” apposite connectivity surging forth inter se the relevant purchases made by him vis-a-vis the bills of consignment prepared in respect thereto, consignment bills whereof are comprised in Ex.P10 to Ex.P18. Before proceeding to permit the appellant/applicant/ plaintiff, to adduce the aforesaid documentary evidence, it is incumbent upon this Court, to record findings qua the plaintiff/applicant begetting satisfaction of the mandate of the provisions of Order 41, Rule 27, of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), relevant provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court: (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if:- (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted. (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined..... (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined..... 2........................” 11. Though, clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) to Order, 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, enjoin upon the aspirant, to establish that despite exercise of due diligence, the proposed evidence, oral or documentary, for adduction whereof, he with the leave of the Court, hence, makes a concert, being not previously within his knowledge or dehors his holding previous knowledge thereto, he, despite exercise of due diligence, yet for pressing reasons, stood constrained to not produce, it, before the Court concerned. However, clause (b) of sub-rule (a) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, empowers the Appellate Court, to dehors the appellant/applicant not begetting satisfaction of the statutory ingredients, cast in clause (aa) of sub-rule (a) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, to, yet grant the apposite leave, to the aspirant concerned, on its apt discernments qua the nature of the dispute engaging the contestants besides the issues whereupon the parties to the lis are at contest, hence, goading its wisdom to record a conclusion that, its, adduction into evidence, is required for facilitating it, to pronounce a judgment. The subtle nuance of the aforesaid clause (b) of sub-rule (1) to Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, is of the Appellate Court being enjoined to make a clinching conclusion that prima facie the documents purposed, to, with its leave adduced in evidence is/are just and essential for hence facilitating it to pronounce a judgment on the relevant issue. 12. Be that as it may, even if, assumingly, the statutory parameters or the ingredients embodied in clause (aa) of sub-rule (1) of Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, may not apparently beget their apposite satiation, nonetheless, when construed in the light of the learned First Appellate Court, for reasons aforesaid, dispelling the vigour of the aforesaid exhibits, on the short ground of their existing no apparent connectivity inter se Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4 vis-a-vis the nomenclature of the commercial establishment of the plaintiff also with “excepting” Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-4 vis-a-vis the nomenclature of the commercial establishment of the plaintiff also with “excepting” Ex. P- 17, other bills of consignment not therein depicting the name of the plaintiff, whereupon, it was led to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, whereas, with the proposed documents, with the leave of the Court, strived to be adduced into evidence, making a prima facie display of the defendant, making a communication addressed at the commercial establishment of the plaintiff also with the proposed documentary evidence, bringing to the fore that the bills of consignment prepared with respect to the purchased made by the plaintiff from Ranilia Trading Company, Surat, prima facie holding the apposite analogity with the exhibits comprised in Exts. P10 to P-19 besides with respect thereto it articulating that for want of the plaintiff dispatching to the defendant, the relevant claim papers, for hence facilitating it to settle his claim, hence, constraining it to not settle claim of the plaintiff. Moreover, with the aforesaid displays occurring in the documents proposed to be adduced into evidence, with the leave of the court, being in consonance with the written statement of the defendant. Corollary thereof beside effect is that, if leave to adduce it into evidence is granted, it may dispel the vigour of the findings erected by the learned First Appellate Court, for its hence non suiting the plaintiff. Consequently, the permission to the plaintiff to adduce it into evidence would obviously facilitate, the cause of justice also would facilitate this Court, to pronounce a just and effective decision up-on the relevant issue, whereupon, the parties are at contest. Conspicuously, with hence, the adduction of documents proposed to be hence adduced, is just and essential for resting the entire gamut of the controversy, whereupon, the parties are engaged, hence, this Court deems it fit to grant the apposite permission to the plaintiff, for adducing it into evidence. Consequently, CMP No. 4569 of 2016 is allowed. 13. However, since the aforesaid piece of documentary evidence, did not exist before the learned First Appellate Court, in sequel, when its probative vigour or impact upon the apposite issues could obviously not be pronounced upon by it, hence, it is deemed fit, to permit the plaintiff/appellant to tender it in evidence before the learned First Appellate Court. 13. However, since the aforesaid piece of documentary evidence, did not exist before the learned First Appellate Court, in sequel, when its probative vigour or impact upon the apposite issues could obviously not be pronounced upon by it, hence, it is deemed fit, to permit the plaintiff/appellant to tender it in evidence before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, is also directed to permit the respondent/ defendant to adduce evidence in rebuttal thereto. Since, this Court has concluded that for want of its existence before the learned First Appellate Court, it stood precluded to pronounce upon both its probative vigour or impact upon the contentious issue, hence, unless the learned First Appellate Court after its being tendered into evidence by the plaintiff before it, pronounces upon its probative vigour or upon its impact upon the relevant issue, whereupon, the parties to the lis are at contest, it would be also unbefitting, for this Court, when it would find its existence only before the First Appellate Court also would in accordance with law, stand proven thereat, whereat, its worth also would be appraised, to hence scuttle the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. For obviating the aforesaid, also with this Court directing the plaintiff, to tender it before the learned First Appellate Court, it is deemed fit that the learned First Appellate Court, after its being tendered into evidence before it by the plaintiff, it shall appraise its worth, whereafter, it shall record its findings upon the apposite issues whereupon, the parties to the lis are at contest. In aftermath, obviously, it is deemed fit to remand the case to the learned First Appellate. Consequently, only in the light of the aforesaid directions, the impugned judgment and decree is quashed and set aside. The instant appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The parties are directed to appear before this learned First Appellate Court on 23rd June, 2017. The learned First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal within six months from today. All pending applications also stands disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.