20.Although the plaintiff in their plaint had relied upon certain communications between the plaintiff and the defendant dated 19.02.1986, 03.03.1986, 03.04.1986 etc., the said communications have not been filed as a document. However, from the pleadings, it appears that these are letters under which the 1st defendant sought for clarification and production of documents by the plaintiff to support their claim. It is no doubt evident that the plaintiff had not availed the opportunity to clear the doubts raised by the Vigilance department in respect of the anonymous letter. In fact the said letter has also not been made available to the plaintiff. Be that as it may be, once the plaintiff has come forward with the claim, the same has to be substantiated by supporting documents. Except for filing Exhibit A2 which is nothing but a self prepared Statement of accounts, there is no records to substantiate the claim either in the form of the stock register, purchase register etc., to show that, as on the date of the floods what was the quantity of raw materials and finished goods lying in the factory premises. Only if details of the opening stock in the factory is available it would be possible to arrive at the loss sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the Surveyor had noted the damages and the defendant could compensate them for the loss however such an argument is without any basis.
