AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 17 ::67 Pun LR 117 ::1964 8 SCR 273 ::1964 2 SCJ 796 ::1965 (1) SCWR 136 ::1965 SCD 578

Supreme Court Of India

(From Punjab : AIR 1960 Punj 66) 8th May, 1964

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ajit Kumar Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, J. R. Mudholkar , JJJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.114— Non-production of relevant documents - Adverse inference as to negligence. In an action for negligence the defendant deliberately failed to produce, in spite of an order of the court, reports and documents kept by the defendant in its canal office which would have thrown light on the question of negligetice of the defendant. Held (Per Sarkar and Mudholkar JJ.):that in the circumstances an adverse inference that the defendant was negligentin the management of the canal arose from the non-production of documents.(Para 4 31) (B) Tort - Negligence - Proof - Damage caused due to breach of canal - Rule of res ipsa loquitur - Applicability. Per Sarkar J.: In an action for damages for inundation of plaintiff's land due to breach of a canal in the management of the defendant, the rule of res ipsa loquitur would apply because canal banks are not breached if those in management take proper care and the breach itself would be prima facie proof of negligence unless the defendant can show that the breach was due to act of God or to act of a third party or any other thing.(Para 5) Per Hidayatullah J.: The rule in Rylands v. ....