However, oral statement of the plaintiff to this effect cannot be accepted to hold that the disputed Southern gate had been compounded. Defendant no.2 specifically pleaded that plaintiff had compounded Western side gate, whereas the disputed Southern gate was opened after issuance of Completion Certificate. The plea of counsel for respondent no.1-plaintiff, that Western gate was sanctioned gate, and therefore, did not require composition, cannot be accepted because the said gate was not according to the parameters or standard size. However, said violation of the Western gate was compounded. The plaintiff stated in his cross-examination that he had given the break-up of compounding fee on the basis of photostat copy of the record, which he obtained from HUDA office. However, no such record has been produced in evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claim ini this regard. In other words, the plaintiff has withheld the best documentary evidence available to substantiate his version that the disputed gate had been compounded. Consequently, adverse presumption arises against the plaintiff. Learned lower appellate court observed that HUDA has not produced the record. If plaintiff was relying on any such record and if plaintiff had photocopy of the said record, which he obtained from HUDA office, nothing prevented the plaintiff from summoning any such record to substantiate his version. The plaintiff did not do so. On the other hand, HUDA could not produce any such record because according to the HUDA, the disputed Southern gate had not been compounded. Thus, on the basis of
