A
NO-BONER
The
claim of the opposite party that my complaint about the builders was
not maintainable was a boner – or shall I say a “no-boner” ?
To support this claim the
learned lawyer of the opposite party in his eminent wisdom quoted a
decision by the national commission which goes like this :- “in
the absence of any written agreement/contract mere filing of
affidavit ipso facto
without corroborative and other supportive material would not
constitute sufficient evidence.”
when
the matter was heard this illiterate imbecile, that is me, just
turned the ruling back on to the learned lawyer.
You
see, a direct corollary of the above ruling is that corroborative and
other supportive material will do in the absence of a written
agreement / contract! - the logic should be obvious to any student of
IV form B of LBC, MHE ( B means B division and
your second language is malayalam, you are in A if your second
language is hindi; but if your second language is french you can be
either in A or B – you alternate every year) but not to
everybody else!
The
opposite party was flat on the mat with a heavy
thud !
See
if the opposite party had just said that there was no written
agreement and the case is not viable and left it at that I would have
been in trouble – I will have to produce evidence to contradict
that. Where can I, a nincompoop who's communication systems are
under the clutches of the silliest member of the spy networks or even
their stooges gain access to the decisions of the national commission
and such.
So,
I must thank the learned lawyer for the help though inadvertent. And
I shall try to return the favour like say for example when I sue his
clients for criminal breach of trust he can take up that case as
well.
Remember
THIS
IS JUST THE TRAILER;
the
movie has not yet started.
& & &
& & &
