J. M. MALIK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is yet another case where the file belonging to the D. D. A. /m. C. D. has not seen the light of the day for the last more than three decades. The file is missing and could not be produced before the Trial Court from 15. 06. 1982 till 10. 02. 1995, when the judgment was delivered against the appellant due to non production of that file. The first appellate court dismissed the first appeal on 04. 10. 2006 for the same reason. Such inaction on the part of the appellant would lead to incalculable damage to the public interest. ( 2 ) THE facts of this case are these. The respondent No. 1 was allotted a plot measuring 80 square meters bearing No. 426, Phase-I, Shahjada Bagh, industrial Area by the D. D. A. in lieu of property occupied by respondent No. 1 bearing No. 1540/xiv, Sarai Khalil, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in the year 1976. The respondent No. 1 was asked to deposit damages in the sum of Rs. 8640/- in respect of the property occupied by him earlier as per letter dated 12. 02. 1981 issued by the Director, Slum and J. J. , D. D. A. , Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Jhandelwan Extension, new Delhi. The said amount was deposited on 13. 03. 1981 vide receipts Ex. P/c and ex. P/d. The possession of the abovesaid property in dispute was already given to the respondent No. 1 in the year 1976 vide possession slip Ex. P/b which clearly and unambiguously mentions the area as ?80 sq. mtr?. The D. D. A. also issued a notice Ex. P/e dated 17. 02. 1981, wherein the provisional allotment of plot no. 426 measuring 80 sq. mtr, Shahzada Bagh was confirmed. The D. D. A. issued NOC in respect of the plot for the construction license and power etc. vide Ex. PB dated 26. 05. 1981 which, too, mentions the area as 80 sq. mtr. Respondent No. 1 raised construction thereon and spent Rs. 40,000/ -. On 13. 05. 1982, the respondent No. 1 was informed by the Slum and J. J. Wing (which was then under D. D. A. , respondent No. 2) that demolition slip had been incorrectly issued for 80 square meters plot. mtr. Respondent No. 1 raised construction thereon and spent Rs. 40,000/ -. On 13. 05. 1982, the respondent No. 1 was informed by the Slum and J. J. Wing (which was then under D. D. A. , respondent No. 2) that demolition slip had been incorrectly issued for 80 square meters plot. The respondent No. 1 was required to surrender 40 square meters plot to the Director, Slum J. J. , D. D. A. The d. D. A. alleged that the demolition slip No. 5268 dated 08. 10. 1976 had been incorrectly issued for 80 square meters plot and as such the respondent No. 1 was required to surrender 40 square meters plot. In his reply to the notice, the respondent No. 1 raised the following contentions. He was never allotted a plot in lieu of plot situated in Manglol Puri as was alleged by the D. D. A. On 11. 06. 1982, D. E. S. U. (now N. D. P. L. , respondent No. 3) cut off the electric connection of his house. The D. D. A. also threatened to demolish construction in respect of 40 square meters from the areas held by him. Under these circumstances, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the D. D. A. and D. E. S. U. for permanent injunction restraining them from dispossessing and demolishing the abovesaid suit property and mandatory injunction for restoration of electric connection. ( 3 ) THE appellant-M. C. D. , which took over Slum and J. J. Wing subsequently, hotly contested this case. Their main defence is that due to mistake, plot measuring 80 square meters instead of 40 square meters was allotted in favour of the respondent No. 1. The trial court decreed the suit filed by the respondent no. 1. ( 4 ) I have perused the statement of B. S. Tolia, Superintendent, Allotment, slum and J. J. Department, DW2. According to him, as per the policy of D. D. A. , the respondent No. 1 was eligible for the allotment of plot having an equal area to the area surrendered by him. No such policy saw the light of the day. The d. D. A. or M. C. D. do not have the concerned file. There is not even a scintilla of evidence against the respondent No. 1. No such policy saw the light of the day. The d. D. A. or M. C. D. do not have the concerned file. There is not even a scintilla of evidence against the respondent No. 1. The D. D. A. /m. C. D. could not prove, how much land was in prior occupation of the respondent No. 1, how he is connected with Mangolpuri, what is the actual policy prevalent at the relevant time, how the D. D. A. /m. C. D. would be entitled to demolish constructed plots which cropped up due to its own mistake/inadvertence. There lies no rub in creating stories, one after the other, particularly, when your file is misplaced. I am reminded of the words stated by great CHAUCER, ?nothing comes of nothing?. Learned counsel for the appellant during the arguments prayed that within a week from 13. 02. 2007, he would produce the said policy before 20. 02. 2007. He was orally informed that the judgment would not be announced before 20. 02. 2007. Till today, no application or document or policy was produced by the appellant. In absence of the record, it appears that the appellant is trying to make bricks without straw. No reliance can be placed on the oral depositions which are not supported by any document. Consequently, the appeal has no force. No substantial question of law arises. The same is dismissed in limine. CM No. 532/2007 (Stay) in RSA No. 14/2007 in view of the disposal of the appeal, no further orders are required to be passed in the application. The same is disposed of.