JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. The appellant (here-in-after referred to as plaintiff) has filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,02,035/- from respondent (here-in-after referred to as defendant), on the basis of agreement, for extracting quantity of resin lesser than as was required to be extracted in a work of extraction awarded to defendant in Lot No. 6-R/97. 2. The suit as well as appeal filed by plaintiff-appellant were dismissed, assailing which present appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the findings of the ld. Courts below are erroneous in as much as in not appreciating the fact that the respondent in his written statement has not denied the execution of the agreement and the fact that there had been short fall of resin at the time of extraction, though the short fall had been attributed by the respondent/defendant upon certain factors. Was not the respondent/defendant required to produce evidence at the first instance. 2. Whether the Trial Court below has committed grave irregularity and illegality in placing the onus upon the appellant/plaintiff to prove issue No.1. 3. Both above substantial questions of law are inter-linked, hence are considered together. 4. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that extraction target in the work awarded to defendant was 137.75 quintals, whereas defendant has extracted 94.11 Quintals resin and therefore, as per agreement defendant is liable to pay damages/compensation to plaintiff for the difference of resin i.e. 43.64 Quintals @Rs. 3100/- per Quintal. 5. Defendant had filed written statement disputing the claim of plaintiff assigning reasons for lesser extraction as incessant rains during the pre-monsoon period, dried up blazes and falling of trees on ground due to high velocity wind which were beyond his control. It is further stated in the written statement that defendant had always been informing Officers of plaintiff and factors affecting yield of resin were well within the knowledge of plaintiff and defendant had also represented to plaintiff requesting to fix number of blazes after excluding dried up blazes from which no extraction was possible. He has disputed his liability to pay damages/compensation as claimed in the plaint. 6. The trial Court had framed issues and issue No.1 is as under:- 1. Whether the defendant has failed to extract the agreed quantity of resin as per agreement, as alleged? OPP. 7. He has disputed his liability to pay damages/compensation as claimed in the plaint. 6. The trial Court had framed issues and issue No.1 is as under:- 1. Whether the defendant has failed to extract the agreed quantity of resin as per agreement, as alleged? OPP. 7. It is claim of plaintiff that defendant had failed to extract agreed quantity of resin as per agreement. Therefore, onus of proving this issue was rightly placed on plaintiff. Plaintiff was supposed to substantiate his pleading by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. 8. No replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff. Despite granting six opportunities for leading evidence, plaintiff neither led any oral evidence nor tendered any documents in evidence for determining the issues framed by the trial Court. To adjudicate the controversy in lis, agreement was basic document to be looked into by the Court. Plaintiff has not bothered to prove its case by leading evidence and proving documents i.e. photocopy of agreement, letters and other documents filed with plaint in accordance with law. In the plaint, plaintiff has asserted his claim but in written statement defendant has refuted his liability to pay. In absence of any evidence led by parties, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court has rightly decided that the claim of plaintiff is not proved and suit as well as appeal of plaintiff has rightly been dismissed by lower Courts. 9. It is true that defendant has not denied execution of agreement and shortfall in extraction of resin but the same is not sufficient to cast liability upon defendant to pay damages as prayed in the plaint because defendant has disputed his liability to pay and for determining such liability, terms of agreement are required to be examined. Though defendant has not denied execution of agreement however at the same time defendant has also not admitted that copy of agreement placed on record is the same which was executed between the parties and also it is not proved on record that the photocopy of agreement placed on record is the true copy of the agreement which was signed between the parties. It was for plaintiff to prove the agreement alleged to be signed between the parties in accordance with law enabling the Court to consider rival contentions of the parties. It was for plaintiff to prove the agreement alleged to be signed between the parties in accordance with law enabling the Court to consider rival contentions of the parties. The onus was definitely on plaintiff to prove its case including documents relied upon in the plaint but plaintiff has failed to discharge his duty. 10. In view of above discussion, there is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the Lower Courts. The trial Court has conducted trial in consonance with law of land and both the courts below have correctly and completely appreciated the material placed before them. Substantial questions of law framed in present appeal are answered in above terms. No other point is urged. Therefore, no interference in impugned judgments is warranted in present appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with costs. 11. Before parting with case, I would like to say that plaintiff Corporation was claiming Rs. 1,02,035/- in the year 2000 from the defendant but despite six opportunities granted by Court, no evidence was led to establish claim of the Corporation. The public Corporation is also dealing with public money and loss to public exchequer caused by conduct of Officers/officials of Corporation certainly amounts to loss to people of State and ultimately loss to nation. In a suit filed by Corporation for recovery of an amount from defendant, there was no occasion or reason to Officers of plaintiff Corporation not to appear in witness box and/or not to lead any evidence in support of plaintiff Corporation. It cannot happen without connivance of Officer of plaintiff Corporation and opponent. It is glaring example not only of willful negligence in performing duty by the concerned Officers but also dereliction of duty for which stein action against officer responsible is required. It cannot happen without connivance of Officer of plaintiff Corporation and opponent. It is glaring example not only of willful negligence in performing duty by the concerned Officers but also dereliction of duty for which stein action against officer responsible is required. Therefore, I am constrained to direct Managing Director of plaintiff Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the concerned Officers of Forest Corporation within two months of receipt of copy of judgment, especially against officer holding the charge of the post concerned from August 2002 to July, 2003 and amount equivalent to loss caused to plaintiff Corporation be recovered from the erring Officers whether in service or retired, who was/were Incharge and responsible to monitor the case at the relevant point of time and in case there is lapse on the part of other officials/officers in placing the matter before concerned authority or taking necessary steps on their part, disciplinary proceedings also be initiated against them including effecting recovery from them also. Copy of this judgment be also sent to Managing Director of respondent who shall file compliance affidavit in Registry of this Court on or before 31.3.2017.