17.Thus, the stand that the Defendants have now an Affidavit
from Pravin Tubes saying that the invoices issued to the Plaintiff are
forged is without substance. It is obvious why that Affidavit has not
seen the light of the day. It has nothing whatever to do with any so-
called lapse on the part of the Defendants’ Advocates, and I am not
prepared to allow the Advocates at my Bar to undeservedly take
responsibility, whatever be their instructions. That would be unfair
to the Advocates, and I see no reason to let them be made
scapegoats. For, if this argument or submission is to be accepted, the
so-called lapse is not transient or inconsequential: Pravin Tubes’
Affidavit is not annexed to the Reply; it is not as if the annexure was
missed out. There is no plea craving leave to refer to a copy of it
either. No attempt was made at any time to send a copy of that
affidavit to the Plaintiff’s attorneys saying it had been missed out,
despite time being repeatedly taken to file the Reply. No application
was ever made to me before today to have that affidavit of Pravin
Tubes taken on file, or for leave to file a supplementary affidavit. All
of this is said to constitute a single ‘lapse’. That cannot be; and if I
am to accept Ms. Bhansali’s submission that these multiple and
incessant errors are lapses on her part and on the part of her
instructing attorney, then the consequences would be very grave
indeed to both. I have, importantly, nothing at all to show that the
affidavit was given to Ms. Bhansali’s attorney. The Defendants
claim, I notice, to be capable of original design work. Their
Constituted Attorney affirmed this Affidavit in Reply. Surely, after
all these adjournments, that Constituted Attorney or one of the
three Defendants would have noticed that the all-important affidavit
from Pravin Tubes was not placed on record. In any case, as I have
said, this is nothing but a smokescreen. Saying that the invoices are
