JUDGMENT Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.: This is a plaintiff's second appeal against a judgement of affirmance in a suit for recovery of money. 2. Money Suit No.10 of 1983 was instituted, on February 25, 1983, in the court of learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court at Alipore contending that the quotation of the plaintiff was accepted and the plaintiff was appointed as contractor for repairing and maintenance of baggage trollies and to ensure availability of the serviceable baggage trollies for arriving international air passengers when in need and for collecting it back after their use. The said job included the custodianship of the baggage trollies handed over to the contractor. The plaintiff was entrusted with the said works by issuing a work order being no. RTB/R&M/l/80-81 dated March 17, 1980. The said contract period was for 12 (twelve) months between April 1, 1980 and March 31, 1981. The plaintiff engaged his men to do said job and the plaintiff satisfactorily under took the job. The plaintiff used to send bills every month and the defendants paid the bills of the plaintiff up to and including the month of August 1980. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent bills regularly for the works done, but the bills were not passed for payment. After the expiry of the period of contract the plaintiff again submitted further quotation and the plaintiff, at the request of the authorities of the defendants, continued with his works at the old rate till the new contract was finalised. The plaintiff continued his works up to June 1981 and submitted his bills at the rate of Rs. 1500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred) only per month. Although the Assistant Director (operations) of the defendant no. 1 personally requested the plaintiff to continue with his work till the new contract was finalised, the defendants did not pay the bills of the plaintiff for the works done by him. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed for a decree of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only as principal amount and Rs. 3,500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred) only as interest on the said principal amount as on the date of the suit. The plaintiff, also, prayed for interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the suit till the actual payment. 3. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only as principal amount and Rs. 3,500/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred) only as interest on the said principal amount as on the date of the suit. The plaintiff, also, prayed for interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of the suit till the actual payment. 3. On December 20, 1983 the defendants filed their joint written statement and denied all the materials allegation of the plaintiff as made in the plaint of the said suit. It is, however, contended that as per clause 4 of the work order dated March 17, 1980, the plaintiff was required to obtain and attach satisfactory report of performance of work from the Assistant Director (operations/ Fal) along with his monthly bills for payment, which the plaintiff avoided to obtain and as such there was no question of making any payment to him. It was, also, contended that the works of the petitioner were never satisfactory. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge by the judgement and decree dated November 30, 1985 dismissed the suit on contest with cost. 5. The plaintiff preferred Money Appeal No.2 of 1986 in the court of the learned District Judge at Alipore, District: 24 Parganas, which was eventually transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, First' Court at Alipore. 6. By judgement and decree dated January 24, 1989 the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal. The learned judge in the lower appellate court held that the defendants did not file any document to show that the work of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory, but as the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the said clause 4 of the work order by submitting satisfactory performance report, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief in the suit. It was, further held that the appellant has failed to prove that he worked even after the contractual period and as such the claim of the plaintiff for his alleged works between April 1981 and June 1981 was, also, rejected. 7. Being aggrieved the plaintiff has come up with this appeal. 8. Mr. It was, further held that the appellant has failed to prove that he worked even after the contractual period and as such the claim of the plaintiff for his alleged works between April 1981 and June 1981 was, also, rejected. 7. Being aggrieved the plaintiff has come up with this appeal. 8. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Das, learned Advocate, appearing in support of the appeal, argued that in view of the findings of the court below that no document was produced by the defendants to prove that the work of the plaintiff was unsatisfactory, the court below was unjustified in rejecting the entire claim of the plaintiff. It was, further, submitted that as the plaintiff has produced documents to show that his men held permits to work inside the security zone even after the period of contract, the courts below were wrong in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for the period between April 1981 and June 1981. 9. Mr. D. K. Dhar, learned Advocate, appearing for the defendants/respondents, however, contradicted the said submissions of Mr. Das and submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below in the second appeal. The plaintiff has railed to obtain satisfactory performance reports and as he failed to submit the said reports along with his bills, the defendants were justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for violation of the mandatory provisions of the contract. Mr. Dhar, further, argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he has worked even beyond the contract period and as such the courts below were right in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the said period. 10. Although no substantial question of law was formulated at the hearing of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my view, this appeal involves the following substantial question of law. 11. 10. Although no substantial question of law was formulated at the hearing of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in my view, this appeal involves the following substantial question of law. 11. Whether the courts below were justified in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for the period between August 1980 and March 1981 in view of failure on the part of the defendants to produce documentary evidence available with them to establish that the works of the plaintiff were unsatisfactory for the said period and whether the courts below ought to have drawn an adverse presumption against the defendants on account of their failure to produce the best evidence before the court? 12. At the outset, 1 must say that 1 am not satisfied with the claim of the plaintiff for the period beyond the contract period, namely, between April 1981 and June 1981 as the courts below have concurrently found, as findings of fact, that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has actually worked for the said period. In my view, it is not open to the plaintiff to assail such findings of fact in this second appeal. 13. The relevant clause of the work order being clause 4 runs as under: "Clause 4- to effect payment monthly bill in duplicate be submitted along with satisfactory report of performance of work as laid down in this contract, obtain report from Asstt. Director (Ops/Fal), IAAI, Calcutta Airport. Payment will be effected to the extent work performed to our satisfaction. The delivery amount payment against this contract is limited upto 18,000/- for a period of twelve months i.e. upto 31-3-81." 14. The said work order has been exhibited as exhibit 2 in the suit. It is true that the plaintiff did not submit satisfactory reports of performance of work along with the bills, but the plaintiff has alleged in the/plaint that he has satisfactorily performed his job. The said certificate was supposed to be issued by the Assistant Director (Operations/Fal), the defendant no. 4 in the suit. The defendant no.4 was made a party in the suit. The defendant no.4 did not come forward to depose in the suit. One Shri Prabir Kumar Ray deposed as the sole witness for the defendants. He has stated that he was attached to the legal department of the defendant no.1. 4 in the suit. The defendant no.4 was made a party in the suit. The defendant no.4 did not come forward to depose in the suit. One Shri Prabir Kumar Ray deposed as the sole witness for the defendants. He has stated that he was attached to the legal department of the defendant no.1. He deposed that "we maintain official records. Operation Deptt. submits monthly report"......... "we have reports relating to the plaintiff after five months. As we have paid the plaintiff, it seems, his work was satisfactory for the first five months. I cannot say which work was unsatisfactory for which plaintiffs payment was withheld. We did not inform the plaintiff in writing that his work for a particular period was unsatisfactory. 15. The reports were lying in the office of the defendants. The defendants chose not to produce them before the court. It is not clear from the materials on record as to whether the bills, for which payments have been made, also, accompanied the said reports. The sole witness for the defendants stated that as the payments have been made, it should be presumed that the work of the plaintiff was satisfactory. Since, the defendants have withheld the documents available in their custody from the court, the courts below should have drawn adverse presumption against the defendants: The defendants have admitted the existence of the reports concerning the works of the plaintiff, but such relevant documents were not placed before the court. A party in possession of best evidence cannot withhold it on the ground that no onus is laid upon him. The court is free to draw adverse presumption if the documents are withheld. In this case for non-production of the reports by the defendants from their custody adverse inference should be drawn against the defendants as admittedly they were in possession of the said documents, but did not produce it during the trial. No explanation has been offered for non- production of the said documents. The defendants were in possession of best evidence, which could throw light in controversy between the parties, but the defendants withheld it and as such I am constrained to draw adverse presumption against them notwithstanding that onus of proof did not lie on them. 16. No explanation has been offered for non- production of the said documents. The defendants were in possession of best evidence, which could throw light in controversy between the parties, but the defendants withheld it and as such I am constrained to draw adverse presumption against them notwithstanding that onus of proof did not lie on them. 16. The suppression of the documents, which are useful evidence, naturally leads to the inference that the documents, if produced, will go against the party concerned and therefore, the party concerned withholds it. The rule is contained in the well-known maxim: omnia praesumuntur contra spoliatorem. 17. Lord Shaw in Mllrugesam Pillai vs. Manickauasaka Pandara and Ors., reported in 44 IA 98 observed "a practice has grown up in Indian procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing, accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best material for its decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in their Lordship' opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition." 18. The plaintiff has actually worked for the period between September 1980 and March 1981 and he raised bills for the same. The bills were not passed in spite of repeated demands. Admittedly, the defendants did not demand the said certificate from the plaintiff in writing nor informed the plaintive in writing that his performance was unsatisfactory. The bills were not paid. When the litigation came to court, the defendants did not produce the reports from their operations department although it was admitted that the operations department maintains monthly reports. In my view, therefore, the courts below substantially erred in law in rejecting the entire claim of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Accordingly, the judgement and decree passed by the courts below are set aside. The suit is decreed in part for Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) only. In my view, therefore, the courts below substantially erred in law in rejecting the entire claim of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Accordingly, the judgement and decree passed by the courts below are set aside. The suit is decreed in part for Rs. 9,000/- (Rupees nine thousand) only. The plaintiff will, also, be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% percent per annum on the said amount from the date of institution of the suit, that is, February 25, 1983 till actual payment is made. The defendants are directed to pay by three months; in default, however, liberty is granted to the plaintiff to recover the said sums by initiating appropriate proceedings for execution of the decree. 20. The appeal is, thus, allowed in part. 21. There will be no order as to costs. 22. Let photocopies of this judgement and decree, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously. Appeal allowed in part.