IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1342 of 2006 SHRI GIRIRAJ PRASAD BHAGERIA @ GIRIRAJ BHAGERIA Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2 30.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court once the Bank says that the document in question, insurance policy, is not available with it, the Court below could not have compelled the Bank to produce such a document. To that extent, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. However, Counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct in submitting that the Bank cannot be allowed to now take a different stand inasmuch as in paragraph no. 22 of the written statement, it was stated that the original policy of the New India Insurance Company Limited was with the Bank which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore if now the Bank is taking a contrary stand, this should be taken as a circumstance against the Bank and to that extent, the case of the petitioner can not be prejudiced. The law also in this regard is well settled that an evidence in possession of a party which could be produced and yet is not produced on the ground 2 that if the same was produced could be unfavourable to the person who is withholding the same, will of- course lead to drawing an adverse inference against the person concerned. In that view of the matter, the petitioner will always have the liberty to press the provision of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act if the Bank has offered no reasonable explanation while refusing to produce a document, admittedly in its possession. With the aforementioned observations this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)