Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This is a suit for recovery of money of Rs.3,24,162.25 and other reliefs. The plaint case is as follows:- The parties to the suit entered into an agreement dated November 19, 1969, inter alia, to the following effects:- (a) The plaintiff would supply watchmen and escorts for the goods of the defendant passing through Calcutta to Bokaro Still City or any other place specified by the defendant by wagons or trucks. (b) The terms and conditions have been settled accordingly as to rate of supply of watchmen and railway fares of the escorts. (c) The plaintiff had to deposit a sum of Rs.2,000/-as Earnest Money with its tender and such money would be retained by the defendant as security. (d) The plaintiff was required to submit bills in respect of the works done on the first day of each month supported by all relevant documents. The payments would be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of the bills, provided the same were found in order. (e) The plaintiff would not be responsible for loss or damage to the cargo caused by armed decoity, organised looting, fire or natural calamity. (f) The initial contact was for one year. Thereafter, by mutual consent of the parties, the period of duration of the contract was extended from time to time up to January 20, 1973. The plaintiff supplied escorts and watchmen for the goods of the defendant accordingly and he submitted bills in respect of the said works subsequently from time to time to the defendant. The defendant made payments on different bills aggregating Rs.75,857.20, but wrongfully deducted a sum of Rs.6,236.60 against the said bills. The plaintiff was yet to get a sum of Rs.38,396.75 in respect of other bills. After expiry of the first agreement, another agreement was entered into between the parties on January 20, 1971 and the terms and conditions were almost similar to those contained in the first agreement barring a few other terms. Subsequently, after expiry of the second agreement, the period was extended for another year till January 20, 1973. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted bills of Rs.3,12,245.35 and the defendant made diverse payments to the plaintiff towards the bill but deducted a certain amount against the bills. Subsequently, after expiry of the second agreement, the period was extended for another year till January 20, 1973. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted bills of Rs.3,12,245.35 and the defendant made diverse payments to the plaintiff towards the bill but deducted a certain amount against the bills. The plaintiff had performed his obligations under the two contracts but the defendant did not pay up the outstanding dues and thus, a total sum of Rs.3,24,162.25 still remained as dues from the defendant to the plaintiff and so, the suit was filed accordingly. The defendant is contesting the said suit by filing a written statement denying the material allegations raised in the plaint. The defendant has contended that the agreement between the parties was held as claimed and a sum of Rs.2,000/- had been deposited by the plaintiff as Earnest Money against the tender dated July 11, 1969 submitted by the plaintiff and the same agreement was accepted by both the parties. But the plaintiff did not supply escorts or watchmen in accordance with the direction of the defendant as alleged. On various occasions, the plaintiff failed to depute such escorts and watchmen in compliance with the instructions given by the defendant and for that reason, the defendant had to suffer loss. The allegations as to bills were not true. The bills submitted by the plaintiff were duly scrutinised after submission and many of them were found to be not correctly made out for various reasons, such as, works charged for were, in fact, not done or not covered by instructions by defendant etc. Some bills of the plaintiff were not supported by correct documents or contained incorrect statements. The CBI had seized some bills from the office of the defendant in connection with the investigation of a criminal case pending against the plaintiff. The payments had been made in respect of those bills which after scrutiny were found to be correct. It is true that the parties entered into the second agreement on January 20, 1971 on the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated January 20, 1971 written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The earnest money as deposited in the first agreement was also retained by the defendant for the transactions under the second agreement. The claims in respect of the bills as made out in the plaint are denied by the defendant. The earnest money as deposited in the first agreement was also retained by the defendant for the transactions under the second agreement. The claims in respect of the bills as made out in the plaint are denied by the defendant. The contention of the plaintiff that the bills were accepted without any objection is not true at all. The plaintiff did not sent proper watchmen or escorts or those were sent from the beginning of the transit were changed subsequently. As a result, theft and pilferage had taken place causing loss to the defendant and so, the defendant was entitled to be compensated for theft and pilferage and such amount was assessed as Rs.48,000/-approximately being the value of the materials. Materials dispatched in sound condition from Calcutta Port under escorts provided by the plaintiff were received by the defendant in defective condition as per Annexure ‘B’ to the written statement causing loss of Rs.12,126.89. Thirty-five tarpaulins belonging to the defendant in sound condition were used to cover the wagons loaded from Calcutta Port with materials destined for Bokaro Steel City and the same were dispatched under escorts deputed by the plaintiff. Such materials have been described as Annexure ‘C’ to the written statement, but those tarpaulins had been rendered totally useless and unserviceable when the same were received at the destination and thus, causing a loss of Rs.7,234.50 and so, the defendant was entitled to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. There were several irregularities in the bills submitted by the plaintiff and for that reason, the CBI investigation was done and a charge-sheet had been filed by the CBI against the plaintiff. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance of the case. When the trial was about to take place, a proceeding for quashing the said criminal case was started before the Patna High Court and the said criminal case was quashed ultimately on the ground that the plaintiff was not liable but his employee (now deceased) was liable. The claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. So the suit should be dismissed. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the following issue has been framed for decision in the suit:- Is the plaintiff entitled to get any decree or reliefs as prayed for in the suit? The claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. So the suit should be dismissed. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the following issue has been framed for decision in the suit:- Is the plaintiff entitled to get any decree or reliefs as prayed for in the suit? DECISION WITH REASONs:- Admittedly, the parties to the suit entered into an agreement dated November 19, 1969 for supply of watchmen and escorts to the defendant for guarding the materials from the Calcutta to Bokaro Steel City by wagons or trucks initially for one year and the said agreement was extended up to January 20, 1973. Admittedly, the plaintiff was to submit bills supported by correct information / materials to the defendant and the defendant was to make payment in respect of the bills within 30 days provided the bills were correct and in proper form. Now, therefore, the main point to be considered as to the entitlement of the claim made by the plaintiff. As the entitlement is purely based on documentary evidence, in this respect, it may be noted herein that the plaintiff has examined one witness, namely, Shri Atin Bose as P.W.1 and the defendant did not adduce any defence witness. Documents filed by both the parties have been marked as Annexure ‘A’ in the Judge’s Brief of Document. So, on the basis of those materials, the entitlement of the claim of the plaintiff is to be decided. Admittedly, a CBI enquiry was held in respect of the irregularities in the submission of bills by the plaintiff to the defendant and for that reason, a CBI probe was held. Thereafter, the CBI submitted a charge-sheet against the plaintiff, and on the basis of such charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken and the trial was to start against the plaintiff. At that stage, the plaintiff lodged a proceeding before the Patna High Court for quashing the criminal case and the said criminal case was ultimately quashed by the Patna High Court. The CBI seized all the documents from the defendant to investigate into the matter and as such, the defendant was not in a position to verify the claim of the plaintiff. Anyway, since the plaintiff has asserted the claim, the burden of proof lies upon him to prove that the defendant is liable to the amount as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. Anyway, since the plaintiff has asserted the claim, the burden of proof lies upon him to prove that the defendant is liable to the amount as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. The procedure for submission of the bills to the defendant was that the bills were to be prepared in triplicate and the plaintiff was to retain one receipt copy of the bills. So, when the plaintiff placed the claim before this Hon’ble Court, it is expected that he would file the receipt copy of the bills in support of his claim. In this regard, the P.W.1 was crossexamined and by question no.s 315, 316 & 317, the plaintiff has admitted that he possessed the receipt copy of the bills along with the supported documents, the original of which were produced before the defendant. But I find from the exhibited documents that the plaintiff did not produce such receipt copy of the bills before this Hon’ble Court and so, consequently, none of the receipt bills has been marked as exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff. The submission of the bills to the defendant in respect of which recovery of money has been claimed by the plaintiff is not a matter of dispute. But the defendant did not make any payment on the pretext that the investigation by the CBI was going on over the matter. The defendant expressed their willingness to make payment after the matter with the CBI was over. Since, the allegation against the plaintiff in respect of the bills had been quashed by the CBI on the ground that the plaintiff did not sign on the bills but his employee did, the CBI probe against the plaintiff was quashed. But still then, as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff was bound to produce the receipt copy of the bills in support of his claim particularly when the allegation transpired in the criminal case that there was doubt about the bills prepared by the agent / employee of the plaintiff. The defendant has raised the contention in the written statement that the plaintiff failed to depute escorts & watchmen and he was duly intimated about such defaults. Initially, the defendant examined one witness in part but he was not examined by the defendant subsequently and the defendant has abandoned his evidence. The defendant has raised the contention in the written statement that the plaintiff failed to depute escorts & watchmen and he was duly intimated about such defaults. Initially, the defendant examined one witness in part but he was not examined by the defendant subsequently and the defendant has abandoned his evidence. Thus, I find that such contention of the defendant without any materials in support thereof cannot be accepted. Similarly, the contention of the defendant that the materials dispatched from Calcutta were stolen or pilferaged in transit from Bokaro is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant. So, it is difficult to accept such contention of the defendant. Similar position is with respect to the materials which were received by the defendant in defective condition and thirty-five tarpaulins. As regards organised robbery, the P.W.1 was cross-examined. The plaintiff has clearly admitted that there is no report of the guard of the train of any robbery or decoity. When the allegation was that the materials were wrongfully taken away by the decoits, it is expected that the escorts would report the defendant of the matter, but no report was submitted. Consequently, the defendant suffered loss for the valuable property. A correspondence was made by the plaintiff to the defendant by the letter Exhibit ‘E’, but as no the receipt bill, was produced, it was difficult to accept the said bill as genuine because of the fact that the guard of the train did not make any report as to the decoity or robbery. If an organised decoity took place in respect of the properties over which the watchmen and the guards of the plaintiff were escorting those materials, their conduct would have been that they would lodge an appropriate complaint or F.I.R. with the concerned Police Station or the GRP and in that case, copy of the complaint or F.I.R. must have been brought before the Court. But no copy of such complaint or F.I.R. had been brought on record except Exhibit No. E. On the other hand, from the statement of the P.W.1 particularly in reply to the question no.s 286, 287, 290, 291, 367, 370, 374, 375, 379, 380, 383, 384 & 387, I find that the guards did not file any report at all and the P.W.1 has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about it and that a theft took place. He has also admitted that the tarpaulins were not missed but exchanged. So, question of organised decoity did not take place at all but the materials of the defendant had been lost during the transit, while the escorts and watchmen were on duty. It may be noted herein that the C.B.I. investigated over the complaint lodged by the defendant for making false bills in respect of the claim of charges for escorts and watchmen and for that reason, the plaintiff was shown as an accused in the said criminal case. The charge-sheet was submitted against him. At that time, he lodged a criminal revision for quashing the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that application was allowed on the ground that the plaintiff did not sign on any of the challans and other papers but his employee, Gopal Mallick (now deceased) signed on those papers and now, Gopal Mallick is dead. Under the circumstances, the criminal proceeding against the plaintiff was dropped. The defendant had taken the stand that they did not get back the documents, that is, the bills submitted by the plaintiff to it from the C.B.I. as yet and as such, they were not in a position to verify the same. Anyway, the plaintiff had lodged claim for charges for providing escorts and watchmen and also for interest. So, the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defendant for non-production of the bills submitted by him to the BSL. It may be pointed out herein that the defendant lodged a complaint dated January 12, 1973 to the effect that the plaintiff had adopted fraudulent practices of replacement of escorts without any intimation to the BSL and the BSL wrote of the plaintiff that if such replacement happened, the bills would not be paid. It may be pointed out herein that the defendant lodged a complaint dated January 12, 1973 to the effect that the plaintiff had adopted fraudulent practices of replacement of escorts without any intimation to the BSL and the BSL wrote of the plaintiff that if such replacement happened, the bills would not be paid. So, this cast a doubt whether at all the escorts as claimed by the plaintiff, were provided or not. As regards, non-production of the receipt bills, the plaintiff has contended that he is not in possession of the said bills but his lawyer is in possession of the same. Anyway, I find that those receipt bills have not been produced on behalf of the plaintiff. The fact under whose custody those papers remain is the matter of the plaintiff and his lawyer. Had these receipt bills been produced, it would have been clarified whether the service was rendered by the plaintiff as per contract or not. It may be pointed out herein that since the date of first agreement whenever the bills were tendered to the defendant, the defendant paid up the dues from time to time. But ultimately, the defendant deducted certain amount, such as, Rs.6236.60 in respect of the first agreement, Rs.6736.55 in respect of the second agreement and Rs.7856.25 in respect of the supplementary bill and so on. The plaintiff has contended that no objection was raised by the defendant in respect of those bills but the deduction had been done contending financial loss to the defendant. Such deduction, I find, had been done because the services were not rendered by the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement between the parties and the bills were not properly supported by documents, even the services not done had been shown as done. The railway tickets for the escorts were not furnished to prove that the escorts actually had performed their duties. During the argument, Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the plaintiff was exonerated from the criminal case on the ground that he was not directly involved in the submission of the bills. Mr. Gopal Mallick (now deceased) used to raise bills and submitted the same to the BSL and so, he (plaintiff) could not be held guilty. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decision of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. & ors. Mr. Gopal Mallick (now deceased) used to raise bills and submitted the same to the BSL and so, he (plaintiff) could not be held guilty. In support of his contention, Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decision of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRS. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRS. & ors. reported in (1994)1 SCC 1 and thus, submits that non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtaining an advantage amounted to fraud. The decree obtained due to non-disclosure of the release deed amounted to fraud on court and hence, the decree was liable to be set aside. Thus, he submits that the plaintiff cannot take advantage in the instant suit. If the plaintiff withholds a vital document he would be treated as guilty of playing fraud not only upon the court but also upon the opposite party. Since, the plaintiff has deliberately withheld the receipt bills in support of his claim for the reasons best known to him, under the above circumstances, I am of the view that the materials on record are not sufficient to grant the reliefs prayed for in the suit. Accordingly, I am of the view that the suit is bound to fail for non-production of the vital documents in support of the claim. The issue is, thus, decided against the plaintiff. In the result, the suit fails to succeed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed on contests without costs against the defendant.