ORDER 1. The respondent had taken a quarry on lease on 8 May 2002. The term of the lease was for three years to end on 31 March 2005 and the annual lease rent reserved was Rs.3,30,000/-. The quarry was for excavating minor minerals i.e. sand at village Shekhupura, Hadbasat No.228 having an area of 5.510 Acres. At the time of the auction, the respondent gave the highest bid and deposited an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-and an agreement was executed by the State Government in his favour. 2. The respondent filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Patiala, inter alia, for an order restraining the State from recovering any amount. By a judgment dated 18 August 2005, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala issued a declaration that the State was not entitled to recover an amount of Rs.63,515/-and granted an injunction restraining the State from making any recoveries. An appeal filed by the appellants came to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Patiala on 29th April, 2006. The Additional District Judge, Patiala came to the conclusion that it was not open to the State to either make a demand for any subsequent installment and was liable to refund the amount which had been forfeited by it subject to the payment of requisite court fees. 3. A Second appeal filed against the order of the first appellate court was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The High Court while disposing of the Second Appeal on 1 April 2009 on merits has held that no substantial question of law was raised to warrant its interference. The High Court has entered the following finding: “The first appellate Court after analyzing the evidence had also concluded that it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to provide a free and unobstructed passage/access to the quarry but they failed to do so and resultantly, the plaintiff – respondent could not reach the quarry and excavate the sand and as such, the appellants are not within their rights to withhold his security and the installment so deposited by the plaintiff at the time of the auction.” 4. The present appeal by way of special leave was filed. 5. The present appeal by way of special leave was filed. 5. On 20 August 2010, learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants sought time to produce a copy of the plaint to show that the suit was filed to seek the relief of injunction and to buttress the submission that the Court had granted some other relief. The order of the Court directing production of the copy of the plaint has not been complied with by the State even as of date. Hence the only submission which was canvassed during the hearing of this appeal has not been supported by production of relevant documentary material. The High Court having come to the conclusion that no substantial question of law arose, we do not consider it fit and proper to interfere with that finding which led to the dismissal of the Second Appeal. 6. Consequently and in the light of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.