ABDUL GHANI vs THE ADMINISTRATOR, THAL
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's civil suit. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the allotment of Plot No. 356, which had been allotted to him on 14-4-1953 and subsequently cancelled due to alleged failure to perform lease agreement terms. The core legal question concerned the burden of proof regarding default under the contract and the production of departmental records. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the plaintiff bore the responsibility to utilize coercive legal processes to summon departmental records if the opposing party failed to produce them. The key principle laid down is that a party alleging default must properly invoke legal mechanisms for the production of evidence and cannot shift blame for failing to do so.
- Does the burden of proof lie on the plaintiff to summon departmental records through coercive legal processes if the department fails to produce them?
- Can a party blame the opposing department for non-production of records without resorting to legal coercive processes?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Plot No. 356 was allotted to the petitioner on 14-4-1953 and possession was duly delivered to him after a regular contract was entered into on 4-5-1953. This allotment was later cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the lease agreement.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that since the Administrator of Thai Development Authority had defaulted, in performing his part of the contract, he may be precluded from implementing those terms which were to be put into execution by him. The suit was dismissed on 17-6-1974 as the learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in any way in default. The District Judge dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on 13-3-1975 and a Civil Revision No. 688/1975 was dismissed by the High Court on the 30th of June, 1975 where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner because the record was with the Depart--ment. The simple answer to this is that it was for the petitioner to summon the record from the Department. Learned counsel replied by saying that the Department did not produce the record despite that it was called on to do so. Law provides for coercive process and it was for the plaintiff-petitioner to have resorted to that for the purpose of having the record produced and if he did not do so he is himself to blame for it. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.