by the petitioner in the second respondent Corporation. Therefore, it was after providing opportunity to file respective claims and hearing the petitioner it was found that petitioner failed to establish the case put forth by the petitioner in order to avail the claims raised. The findings are rendered based on factual circumstances, which this Court is not expected to sit over and disturb. On the other hand what is discernible from Ext.P11 is that, sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to contest the proceedings. Thereafter only Ext.P11 order is passed. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, irrationality or impropriety in Ext.P11 order passed by the second respondent. However, in view of the liberty granted by the second respondent to the petitioner to produce relevant documents to establish his claim within a period of one month and even though the same was not utilised, I think it is only appropriate that further one month time can be provided to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents to establish his claim before the second
