JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - After going through the voluminous documents and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we feel the entire case is much ado about nothing, inasmuch as out of Ten issues, Nine have become final and concluded. 2. Money Suit No. 20 of 1975 was filed by the original respondent No. 1 (since deceased), a businessman, as the sole plaintiff inter alia praying to pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,98,441.60 towards cost of paddy/rice, etc. and damages, morefully described in Schedules "A", "B" and "C" of the plaint, together with costs of the suit and pendentelite and future interest. But subsequently the suit claim was reduced to Rs. 26,11,731.76 as the plaintiff was unable to pay the court-fees required on the amount initially claimed. 3. According to the plaintiff, he was working as a Purchasing Agent under the State of Orissa in the district of Kalahandi for the year 1966-67 and also worked as Purchasing-cum-Milling-cum-Storage Agent for the Khariff year 1973-74. He was a licence holder under the Orissa Paddy and Rice Control Order and was also appointed as a Miller Agent by the Collector, Kalahandi. According to him, Government of Orissa owed to him nearly about Rs. 40,22,600.00 towards the cost of rice supplied by him and towards cost of gunny-bags, milling charges, commission and transport charges for the Khariff years 1966-67 and 1973-74. He made a demand of the said money from the then Collector, Mr. K. V. Verma (defendant No. 1) 4. It is alleged that being enraged by such demand, defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff to cancel his licence if he insisted upon his claim. The plaintiff was facing acute financial difficulties and he again demanded payment of the money payable to him and stated that if the same was not paid, he would be constrained to file an Arbitration Case. Defendant No. 1 thereafter passed an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short "MISA") and got him arrested and detained on the midnight of May, 31, 1974. Thereafter defendant No. 1 ordered defendant Nos. 3 and 4, two Executive Magistrates, to seize the entire paddy and rice of the plaintiff stocked in his Junegarh Rice Mill and to deliver the same to R.C.M.S., Junegarh. He further ordered to seize the rice and paddy stocked by the plaintiff in his Kesinga Rail Road Mill. Thereafter defendant No. 1 ordered defendant Nos. 3 and 4, two Executive Magistrates, to seize the entire paddy and rice of the plaintiff stocked in his Junegarh Rice Mill and to deliver the same to R.C.M.S., Junegarh. He further ordered to seize the rice and paddy stocked by the plaintiff in his Kesinga Rail Road Mill. The orders of defendant No. 1 were immediately carried out. The premises of the two Mills were ransacked and the properties including rice, paddy, etc. were all damaged. Some APR Force was deployed to prevent entry of any of the representatives of the plaintiff to enter into his Mills. The Chowkidars and other employees of the plaintiff were assaulted and the office rooms of the Mills were also ransacked. The plaintiff, after being released on bail, served a registered notice u/s 80 of the CPC on September 3, 1974 whereafter, the defendants returned some of the stocks of paddy and rice to the plaintiff, but did not return the entire stock or the articles seized. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the Money Suit claiming damages and cost as set out in the various Schedules to the plaint, and prayed for a decree in his favour. 5. Defendant No. 1 filed his written statement on March 9, 1977 repudiating all the averments made in the plaint and contending that the steps taken by him were perfectly legal and justified, ft was stated that huge amounts of money had been advanced by the State Government to the plaintiff to procure rice and supply the same to the State Government. But the plaintiff diverted the said money for his own purposes and did not supply the rice and paddy, as a result of which many beneficial programmes sponsored by the State Government came to stand still position. In spite of repeated requests, the plaintiff failed to supply rice and paddy though he hoarded huge quantities of paddy and rice in his Mills. Finding no way out, the Collector exercised his powers under MISA and seized the paddy and rice, which, according to defendant No. 1, were purchased utilising the funds of the State Government and, therefore, belonged to the State Government. 6. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 and filed a Memo, to that effect. 6. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 and filed a Memo, to that effect. Another written statement was filed by the Collector, Kalahandi on behalf of the State, defendant No. 2, which is more or less in the same line as the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 also filed an additional written statement on 18.3.1978. Defendant No. 5 did not file any written statement and was set ex parte. 7. On the basis of the inter se pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following Ten issues : "1. Whether the defendants have right to seize the paddy and rice of the plaintiff and take them away ? 2. Whether the defendants have damaged the Mills, plant, machineries, tools and other articles of the office, books of accounts and other various articles belonging to the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff has sustained any loss of business on account of the seizure ? 4. Whether the detention of the plaintiff under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act is illegal and void ? 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to question the detention of the plaintiff under Maintenance of Internal Security Act ? 6. Whether the plaintiff has suffered humiliation and loss of reputation on account of his detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act ? 7. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action ? 8. Whether the notice u/s 80, CPC is bad in law ? 9. Whether the suit is maintainable as framed in this Court ? 10. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled ?" 8. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined ten witnesses and exhibited fortyfour documents. On the other hand, the defendants examined seven witnesses and exhibited about fiftyfive documents. 9. Late Ranjit Mohanty, Bar-at-Law appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned Advocate-General of the State appeared for the State and other defendants in court below. Both the learned counsel, in course of their arguments, did not press Issue Nos. 7, 8 and 9, and the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that only Issue Nos. 1 to 6 were contested. 10. Both the learned counsel, in course of their arguments, did not press Issue Nos. 7, 8 and 9, and the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that only Issue Nos. 1 to 6 were contested. 10. After a thread-bare discussion of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Trial Court answered Issue No. 6 in negative and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any damage on account of the humiliation or loss of reputation as alleged. Under Issue No. 3, the Trial Court held that there was no positive evidence to substantiate the issue and that the plaintiff had failed to prove any loss of business on account of seizure of paddy and rice from his Mills. Under Issue No. 2, the Trial Court, after discussing the evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the plaintiff had totally failed to prove any damage to have been caused by the defendants to his Mills, plants, machineries, tools and other articles and/or the fact that the defendants took away his Account Books and other articles. Under Issue Nos. 4 and 5, the Trial Court rejected the contentions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that defendant No. 1, the Collector, acted in bad faith in ordering detention of the plaintiff under MISA. It was further held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to question the order of detention of the plaintiff under MISA by the Collector, or the validity or otherwise of the said action. Under Issue No. 1, the Trial Court came to the finding that, in fact, defendants had seized and taken away the paddy and rice belonging to the plaintiff and the plea of the defendants that they only verified the stock was not correct. Under Issue No. 10, the Trial Court observed that no specific denial having been made in the written statements as to the quantum of loss claimed to have been sustained by the plaintiff, as per the plaint Schedules, it was to be presumed that the plaintiff had sustained some loss and was entitled to compensation. 11. On the basis of such observations, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of 21,589.00 quintals of paddy, i.e., Rs. 16,19,175.00. To the said cost, the Trial Court added the cost of gunny-bags and decreed a sum of Rs. 11. On the basis of such observations, the Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to the cost of 21,589.00 quintals of paddy, i.e., Rs. 16,19,175.00. To the said cost, the Trial Court added the cost of gunny-bags and decreed a sum of Rs. 17,05,530,00 in favour of the plaintiff. It further directed that the plaintiff was entitled to realise the amount decreed from defendant No. 2 - State, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, both pendentelite and future, till the date of realisation, with proportionate cost of the suit. 12. The State has filed this First Appeal challenging the decree of the Trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff neither preferred any independent appeal nor filed any Cross Objection challenging the findings the Trial Court in respect of other Issues. Thus, the same have become final and binding. 13. A perusal of the entire pleadings in the plaint would clearly reveal that the plaintiff based his claim on the loss alleged to have been sustained by him due to alleged removal of paddy and rice from his Mills. Admittedly, the defendants seized and carried away both rice and paddy stored by the plaintiff in his Mills. But then, as the evidence reveals, the defendants also returned some of the seized paddy and rice. Thus, to substantiate the loss caused to the plaintiff, the onus heavily lies on the plaintiff to prove the loss sustained by him by adducing cogent evidence and to satisfy the Court as to what was the exact quantity of paddy and rice stored by him in the two Mills, what quantity of stock was carried away by the defendants, what was the quantity which was returned and the balance stock which was not returned, so as to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion and assess the loss sustained by the plaintiff. 14. Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, strenuously urged that the plaintiff has not adduced an iota of evidence to prove his loss. The plaintiff being the custodian of the entire stock, it was incumbent upon him to produce and exhibit documents revealing what were the quantities of paddy and rice stored by him in his Mills. No such account has been filed in Court nor exhibited. The plaintiff being the custodian of the entire stock, it was incumbent upon him to produce and exhibit documents revealing what were the quantities of paddy and rice stored by him in his Mills. No such account has been filed in Court nor exhibited. Similarly, there is also no evidence with regard to the quantity of stock seized and carried away by the defendants. The only evidence available on record is with regard to 8552.58 quintals of paddy admittedly returned back by the defendants to the plaintiff on September 3, 1974. 15. Mr. Mohanty, forcefully submitted that the Trial Court only relying upon the quantities mentioned in the Schedules to the plaint has passed the decree on the ground that the defendants had not specifically denied the same and, therefore, the same was presumed to have been admitted. It is further contended by him that as the plaintiff had filed the suit for realisation of loss sustained, onus lay heavily on the plaintiff to substantiate the loss caused to him, so as to enable the Court to appreciate the same and pass a decree. No documentary evidence having been adduced by the plaintiff to prove his loss, the Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in passing the decree only on the ground that the defendants had not specifically denied the quantum of loss said to have been sustained by the plaintiff as described in the plaint Schedules. Such a finding, according to Mr. Mohanty, was unsustainable and is liable to be interfered with. 16. Mr. S. D. Das, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, brought to our notice Schedule 'A' of the plaint and submitted that schedules are part of the plaint. According to him, Schedule 'A' gives a detailed statement of damages caused and the stocks removed by defendant No. 2 through its agents from the premises, Mills and Godowns of the plaintiff between June 3, 1974 and September 3, 1974. According to Mr. Das, the Schedules specify the total quantities of paddy and rice stored in the Mills and Godowns and also the number of gunny-bags stored. They also reflect the total amount of loss caused to the plaintiff, which, as it appears from Schedule 'A', is Rs. 35,04,085.00. Mr. According to Mr. Das, the Schedules specify the total quantities of paddy and rice stored in the Mills and Godowns and also the number of gunny-bags stored. They also reflect the total amount of loss caused to the plaintiff, which, as it appears from Schedule 'A', is Rs. 35,04,085.00. Mr. Das strenuously submitted that the said averment has not been categorically denied in the written statements of the defendants and should be construed to have been admitted, applying the principle of non traverse. 17. It was also submitted by Mr. Das that as there was no specific denial of the averments made in Schedule 'A', it was not required for the plaintiff to prove his claim and, in fact, no proof was necessary, and the plaintiff had no obligation to produce his Books of Accounts in proof of his claim as per Schedule 'A'. He further submitted that In view of the admitted fact that the defendants had seized and removed the stocks of paddy and rice from the promises of the plaintiff for distribution under the public distribution system, it was incumbent upon them to produce the said accounts. Failure of the defendants to do so reveals that the defendants had not come to the Court with clean hands, and had suppressed vital materials. 18. In support of his contention, Mr. Das relied upon the decisions reported in Badat and Co. Vs. East India Trading Co., (Shyamlal Marwari v. Mirtunjaya Mandal) AIR 1964 Pat 348 (Punit Ray v. Md. Majid) and Punit Rai and Another Vs. Mohammad Majid and Others, . 19. On the basis of such submissions, Mr. Das contended that there is no error in the findings arrived at by the Trial Court and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the decree and that it is a fit case where the First Appeal should be dismissed in limine. 20. Before traversing the factual disputes, we propose to discuss the point of law involved. Under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the Court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such admission. The Proviso makes the principle very clear. 20. Before traversing the factual disputes, we propose to discuss the point of law involved. Under the proviso to Rule 5 of Order 8, CPC, the Court may, in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such admission. The Proviso makes the principle very clear. While construing the pleadings, the Proviso can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances to prevent obvious injustice to a party or to relieve him from the result of an exceptional slip or omission, but not to help a party who designedly make vague denials and thereafter sought to rely upon the same for non-suiting the plaintiff. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Badat and Co. Vs. East India Trading Co., that the discretion under the Proviso must be exercised by a Court having regard to the justice of a cause with particular reference to the nature of the parties, the standard of drafting obtaining in a locality and the traditions and conventions of a Court where such pleadings are filed. Order 8, Rule 5 specifies that every allegation of fact averred in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleadings of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted. Of course, the said Rule is not applicable to a person under disability. The doctrine of "non-traverse" stipulates that a written statement need not reproduce every allegation of the plaint and specifically deny the same. The language of the written statement is to be construed in the context of the plaint allegations and is not to be considered in isolation. The provisions contained in Order 8, Rule 5, CPC must also be read with Rule 3 thereof, which stipulates that it is not sufficient to make a general denial, but then it is not meant that every allegation in the plaint should be reproduced at length in the written statement for the purpose of denial. There is certainly distinction between "denial of the allegation" and the statement "allegation is not admitted". There is certainly distinction between "denial of the allegation" and the statement "allegation is not admitted". The latter expression means that when the allegations are not admitted by the defendants, the plaintiff to be put to strict proof thereof; whereas in the former expression, the defendant not only requires the plaintiff to prove the allegations, but at the same time asserts that the facts alleged did not exist at all [see (1989) 31 OJD 67 Shankarlal v. State of Orissa]. 21. In the light of the aforesaid principles of law, now we would proceed to examine the pleadings. Para - 25 of the Plaint reads : "That on account of loss of business, damages, as the business of the plaintiff has completely failed and the financial condition of the plaintiff has been ruined, the plaintiff suffered damages of Rs. 35,98,441.60 as per Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C.'" The said amount was subsequently reduced by amendment of the plaint to Rs. 26,11,731.75. Para - 27 and para - 29 of the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 read as follows : "The contents of para - 25 of the plaint are false and mischievous" and "that the allegations made in the plaint unless specifically admitted in this written statement shall be deemed to have been denied." 22. The same averment has been reiterated in the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 2. Para - 3 of the additional written statement filed by defendant No. 1 on March 18, 1978 reads as follows : "That the claim of the plaintiff towards compensation as given in the Schedule are quite false. He has not sustained any loss as claimed and if he has sustained any imaginary loss for his detention under MISA, defendant No. 1 is not responsible, as defendant No. 1 passed the order in exercise of his power for good and sufficient reasons." (Emphasis provided) Surprisingly, the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid statement made in the additional written statement though the same was accepted. 23. 23. Judging the inter se averments in the touch-stone of the law and the provision enunciated under Order 8, Rule 5, CPC, we have no hesitation to hold that the principle of non traverse shall not apply to the present case and the plaintiff who claims for the decree, for loss was required to prove his case so as to satisfy the Court about the quantity of loss sustained by him. 24. At the cost of repetition, we once again reiterate that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to prove the quantum of loss sustained by him. At this juncture, it would be profitable to quote a few sentences from the evidence of the plaintiff himself who was examined as P.W. 1. In paragraph 24 of his deposition, P.W. 1 has stated : "I do not know whether the Books of Accounts were produced in this Court for the purpose of trial. The stock claimed by me in Court is not by any rough estimate, but is made with reference to the papers showing the stock. I cannot say if those papers have been produced in Court, because they were given to my advocate. *** *** ***. It is not a fact that there are such papers with me and I am making an imaginary claim regarding the quantum of stock." 25. Thus though the Books of Accounts were available with the plaintiff or with his advocate, no attempt was made to produce the same in Court. At the same time, the defendants who seized the stock and removed the same were also supposed to maintain records to reveal what was the stock seized and removed, but they have also failed to produce the said documents in Court. Thus it is a case where both sides though possessed the materials, for the reason best known, suppressed vital documents which were very much necessary for an efficacious adjudication of the inter se disputes. Be that as it may, if the plaintiff has come to Court praying for a decree basing upon the alleged loss sustained by him, the onus lay upon him to prove his contention and loss sustained. The omission of a party to an action to produce evidence to substantiate his claim raises a presumption against his claims, except where the evidence is not within his power. 26. The omission of a party to an action to produce evidence to substantiate his claim raises a presumption against his claims, except where the evidence is not within his power. 26. This Court in a decision reported in AIR 1955 Ori 60 (Nathu Lal v. Full Chand) held that when a party possessing the piece of evidence which would throw light on the issue fails to produce the same, adverse inference should be drawn against that party. 27. In view of the aforesaid position of law and also the fact that plaintiff (P.W. 1) categorically admitted in his evidence that he possessed the required Books of Accounts which were given by him to his advocate and that the same were neither produced nor marked as exhibits, the High Court feels that it is a fit case where presumption is to be drawn against the plaintiff who failed to substantiate the quantum of loss sustained by him, though the onus lay on him. 28. We have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the submission of Mr. Das that this is a case where the plaintiff was not required to produce evidence to prove his case and the suit should be decreed applying the doctrine of Non Traverse. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as the same are bereft of any evidence. It is needless to say that this is not a case where the principle of Non Traverse would apply. A cumulative reading of paragraph 25 of the written statement and paragraph 3 of the additional written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the defendants specifically denied the averments made in the plaint Schedules. Thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to substantiate his claim as to the quantum of loss sustained by him. It is once again reiterated that the plaintiff totally failed to discharge the onus and the Court below committed an error In decreeing the suit in part. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the Court below are bound to be set aside. 29. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are set aside. The suit is dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs in both the Courts. P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 30. I agree. 29. In the result, the First Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are set aside. The suit is dismissed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs in both the Courts. P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 30. I agree. Final Result : Allowed