There was a farmer. He brought from market a caged parrot who could speak 7 languages. He paid high price for this precious parrot.
He put cage with parrot in his house and went to his farm.
In evening when he returned home, he did not see parrot in cage.
When he inquired with his wife, she told that she thought that the parrot was brought for cooking. So she killed it and she has made nice cooking from it.
"You should't have done this. This was a special parrot. It could speak 7 languages fluently", husband said grimly.
Wife defended her action and said, "Well, when I was killing it, it should have spoken that it could speak 7 languages. It spoke nothing. Had it said so, I would not have killed it."
I think I read above story in a very famous book called "48 laws of power" many years ago. The book can be searched on Google or on online book stores.
This applies very aptly in court cases.
Sometimes, there is a point in case. But the lawyer does not speak this point when matter is being heard.
And therefore the the judge does not decide this point and dismisses the matter.
The matter then reaches up to Supreme Court, and when we speak this point, the Judge asks, show us where this point is argued before the judge in the court below.
Here we feel helpless.
Moral of Story:
It is not enough to have an arguable point. The lawyer must speak it when matter is being argued. Merely, writing in petition is not enough.
Haresh Raichura
1127
