REPLY
AFFIDAVIT No.2
by
the complainant
In
the context of the Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination of the
Opposite Party dated august 12, 2013 (less the exhibits B1 and B2
mentioned there in ) handed over to the complainant in the Hon'ble
Forum on the same day,
THE
COMPLAINANT BEGS TO SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS:-
1.
The contents of the of the Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination
of the Opposite Party dated august 12, 2013 is a ditto copy of the
written version dated December 29, 2012 but for the exhibits B1 And
B2 mentioned in the present version. (
The exhibits B1 and B2 as has not been included in the copy handed
over to the complainant as is he usual practice with the Opposite
Party.)
And the complainant had responded to it with his reply affidavit
dated february 15, 2013
where
in he had prayed to the Hon'ble Forum.that he may be “allowed
to get some clarifications from the Opposite Party in person at the
time of the hearing”.
2.
This
second reply affidavit is mainly to impress on the Hon'ble Forum the
indispensability of the presence of the Opposite Party in the Forum
just for one
day for the following reasons:
a. There
is no written agreement and the Petitioner is basing his claims on
corroborative evidence to prove his point. To bring out the truth the
presence of a person who can be held directly responsible for what he
says is essential.
b.
As mentioned by the Opposite Party in para 5 of his version of
december 29, 2012 the Opposite Party “has well experience in
building construction field” and this experience will stand in good
stead in clarifying the intricacies of the construction field to the
Hon'ble Forum.
c.
Also the Petitioner would want to clarify the veracity of the gross
allegations against him made by the Opposite Party in his version.
The
Petitioners humble submission therefore to the Hon'ble Forum is that
the presence of the Opposite Party in person in the Forum during
“evidence” stage is absolutely necessary for the dispensation of
justice.
3.
Again, it will not be asking too much of the
Opposite Party for he on his own had appeared before the Forum on an
earlier occasion. However the Petitioner will not be
surprised if the Opposite Party will find it embarrassing to make an
appearance in the Forum again in view of what happened in the
aftermath of that first visit.
That
day on december 15, 2012, in the Forum, the Opposite Party
volunteered for an out of court settlement. The Petitioner made a
compromise plan wherein he offered to meet the opposite party half
way and on 17 December 2012 had sent it the Opposite Party and
delivered a copy to their counsel's office .However there was no
response whatsoever to this proposal from the Opposite Party. And
using the information provided there in by the Petitioner the
Opposite Party finally filed the reply the dated 29 December 2012.
The
Petitioner considers this the latest of the dirty tricks the Opposite
Party had played on him.
Not
only the Petitioner, the Oppoisite Party that day had succeeded in
hoodwinking the Hon'ble Forum into
allowing them a further 15 days grace time, and that when the
opposite party had already over shot the time limit by 45 days.
In
view of the above, the complainant's humble
PRAYER
is
that the Opposite Party may be directed to be present in the Forum
during the evidence taking stage.
sd.
Complainant
