 how to understand or how to build that mindset to interpret in the two different ways, just like in mooting their toll that with the same proposition you can think both ways, how to develop that mindset. Deliberately I am not taking the other questions today because I feel that these students, young lawyers would like to understand. I would put it this way. When a brief comes to you, normal tendency is to look to the strengths of the case. What are the strengths on which I can succeed in this case? I think that is a wrong focus. First priority should be to find out weaknesses of your case. Once you find an answer to those weaknesses, then you can locate the strengths and build on them. This leads to a very critical thinking. If you want to imagine the weaknesses of your case, which is difficult because our kids are according to the champions. There is no weakness in my child. But by looking to the weaknesses, what would be happening is you would be trying to decipher what the case of the opponent would be because the respondent's brief starts after the court admits your case. Unfortunately, we are not in CPC region. When you go to the high court or when you go to the administrative tribunal, our first opponent will be Bench itself. They will start asking, what is your right? Then comes the respondent's counsel. They will first think what the respondent's counsel would think to oppose your case. Then you draft your pleading. That is how you can make your case that much more foolproof and you would be able to understand and assimilate both points of view and you would be ready beforehand to know the opposite person's case and keep your ammunition ready to demolish. Therefore, if a respondent comes to you, think as a petitioner's counsel. If a petitioner comes to you, initially think as a respondent's counsel. That is very essential for you to first formulate your case, then develop your case, then argue the case so that judgment will be delivered somewhere near your expectation. I don't say somewhat favorable to your client, but somewhere near your expectation because what we tell the client and what we know as the strength or weakness of the case, sometimes there is a divergence. Just three days ago, I had a case under commercial. By the time half-none of the company came, I had prepared a two-page note as to why their case should be distanced. The moment they came, I gave a copy of that note to the person leading the team on behalf of the commercial enterprise and told him, go through this note and tell me if I have understood your case first. If I have not understood your case, correct me on facts. After so doing, answer me the questions I have posed with you. They are happy they know what is their case. Then to my surprise, the chief executive of that company gave me answers which satisfied my questions slightly above 50%. Then I said, I will try to argue your case because it is an argument. Don't think as a petitioner, don't think as a respondent who is your client. First think of the opposite party's case. Then you are through. That is the only way we can analyze a case. We can say that we should start developing the art of reverse thinking and then start structuring our arguments. Yes, it is more or less like reverse the auction is there now.