MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Plot No. 356 was allotted to the petitioner on 14-4-1953 and possession was duly delivered to him after a regular contract was entered into on 4-5-1953. This allotment was later cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the lease agreement.
2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that since the Administrator of Thai Development Authority had defaulted, in performing his part of the contract, he may be precluded from implementing those terms which were to be put into execution by him. The suit was dismissed on 17-6-1974 as the learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant was in any way in default. The District Judge dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff on 13-3-1975 and a Civil Revision No. 688/1975 was dismissed by the High Court on the 30th of June, 1975 where for this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the onus of proof was wrongly placed on the petitioner because the record was with the Depart--ment. The simple answer to this is that it was for the petitioner to summon the record from the Department. Learned counsel replied by saying that the Department did not produce the record despite that it was called on to do so. Law provides for coercive process and it was for the plaintiff-petitioner to have resorted to that for the purpose of having the record produced and if he did not do so he is himself to blame for it. This petition has no merits and is dismissed.