Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. He also contended that the payments made as per Exs.P-7 and 8 are not admitted and in this connection he relied on the cross-examination of P.W-1 to show that the relevant documents and the materials in possession of the plaintiff are not produced and submitted that an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the plaintiff. In this connection, he referred to the cross-examination of P.W-1 and pointed out that a specific suggestion is made to P.W-1 regarding the accounts maintained by the plaintiff and in this connection P.W-1 has admitted that "the day to day transactions are entered in the day book and the account books are audited every year and the last, time was during the year 1997-98 and all the payments made to the defendants have been noted in the day book and those day books are in the custody of the plaintiff and there is no impediment for producing the said books before the Court", Relying on this statement of P.W-1 in the cross-examination, he submitted that, though they have the material evidence to prove the alleged payment made to the defendants, same is not produced, despite same being in the custody of the plaintiff. In this connection, he also relied on a judgment in the case of Gopal Krjshnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. and submitted that adverse inference is required to be drawn against the plaintiff for non production of the relevant document and material for the proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case. He relied on paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision.