JUDGMENT : These two Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed by appellant-owner of Tata Ace commercial vehicle challenging the Judgment and award dated 01.07.2016 passed in MVC No.1508/2013 and MVC No.1507/2013. 2. It is the case of the appellant that in the year 2007 he bought Tata Ace commercial vehicle bearing registration No.KA-11-7610 and on 03.05.2012 he had sold the said vehicle to M/s. Prerna Motors Private Limited who are authorized dealers of Tata vehicles and had surrendered all the original documents including RC Book and transfer forms related to said vehicle. Said delivery receipt clearly stipulated that they will be responsible for the maintenance, accident, road tax, insurance challans or any kind of misuse after taking delivery of the vehicle. The delivery challan issued by M/s. Prerna Motors Private Limited and other documents are produced as additional documents along with these appeals. 3. The appellant has received summons in MVC No.1508/2013 and MVC No.1507/2013 and contended that relevant documents for sale of the vehicle were given to the counsel, who was representing him before the Tribunal but the counsel did not place the same before the Tribunal and the ownership on the date of the accident is to be determined and documents produced along with these appeals along with additional documents are necessary to adjudicate the said issue and hence applications-I.A.2/2018 (in both the appeals) filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure for production of additional documents may be allowed and matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by considering the said documents. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondents-claimants contend that the matter is of the year 2013 and though appellant has been represented before the Tribunal did not choose to adduce any evidence or produce documents and there is delay in filing these appeals also and instead of complying the Judgment and award of the Tribunal, appeals are filed after a lapse of 698 days and same has to be taken note of and there are no grounds to remand the matter for fresh disposal. 5. These appeals are listed for orders along with I.A.1/2018 for condonation of delay of 698 days in filing the appeals and I.A.2/2018 for production of additional documents. 6. 5. These appeals are listed for orders along with I.A.1/2018 for condonation of delay of 698 days in filing the appeals and I.A.2/2018 for production of additional documents. 6. Having heard appellant counsel and respondent counsel and appellant having taken specific contention that the original documents of sale transaction were not produced before the Tribunal even though the documents were entrusted to the advocate, who is on record before the Tribunal and due to mistake on the part of the advocate, appellant should not be punished. Having taken note of the contentions and vehicle being sold in the year 2012 and the ownership has to be determined by Tribunal and in view of the additional documents produced before this court and those documents are necessary for adjudication of the matter on merits. Hence, I am of the opinion that matter has to be remanded for consideration afresh and in the light of additional documents having been produced. Hence, I.A.1/2018 and I.A.2/2018 in both the appeals are allowed. In the result, appeals are allowed. Judgment and award dated 01.07.2016 passed in MVC No.1508/2013 and MVC No.1507/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal and both the parties may be given an opportunity to adduce evidence. Parties are hereby directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.12.2018 without expecting notice and this order itself is a notice for the parties. Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from 14.12.2018. The parties shall assist the Tribunal to dispose the matter within the time limit. Appellant-owner has approached this court in the year 2018 and award was passed in the year 2016 and there is a delay of 698 days in filing the appeals and taking note of the delay in filing the appeals, appellant is directed to pay cost of Rs.5,000/-each in both the appeals to the claimants. The payment of cost is pre-condition to contest the matter before Tribunal. Sri P Mahadevaswamy, learned counsel submits that he has already filed vakalathnama on behalf of respondent in MFA No.7086/2018 and same is taken on record. Appellant is permitted to withdraw statutory deposit.