14.The defendants have denied the allegation of the plaintiffs that they are attempting to let in the effluents and other drainage water into the lands of the plaintiffs. As rightly determined by the Courts below, the best evidence that could be made available for establishing the above case of the plaintiffs is to take out a Commission of the inspection of the area concerned. If a Commission had been taken, as rightly found by the Courts below, the plaintiffs could have very well established the discharge of effluents and other drainage water into their lands, if any, as the result of the work contemplated by the defendants in the ditch area. On the other hand, the plaintiffs had not endeavoured to take out any Commission with reference to the same. They had chosen to be satisfied only with the examination of P.W.2, the resident of the locality and when the evidence of P.W.2 about the existence of the dyeing units are found to be not buttressed by any acceptable materials and when it is found that, as determined by the Courts below, P.W.2 is already inimical towards the first defendant and the Block Development Officer and already a suit is pending between the above said parties in O.S.No.219 of 1999, no safe credence could be attached to the evidence of P.W.2 for accepting the plaintiffs' case.
