Calcutta: Days after the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) produced a communication from Najam Sethi, the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman, to Sanjay Patel, the BCCI's secretary in 2014, the PCB has responded with what it insists is a "contract" bearing Patel's signature which was sent to Sethi.

And, to cap it all, it has Sethi's signature as well.

"There was no communication from our side on March 9 that year. Instead, there was one from Mr Patel to Mr Sethi on April 9 which we regard as a contract...

"Somebody in the BCCI has, obviously, resorted to creative editing is all that I can say at this point in time," a key figure in the PCB set-up told The Telegraph rather caustically on Friday.

While the April 9, 2014, communication does bear Patel's signature, it nevertheless contains the following: "The BCCI and the PCB will enter into a long-term FTP agreement in respect of the above (six) Future Tours."

[The letter made available to this Reporter by the BCCI mentioned five bilateral series only. It had been indexed pages 113 and 114 in the relevant file.]

Also, while the PCB claims it was a contract signed by Patel on behalf of the BCCI, it states: "Please counter-sign this letter where indicated below..."

Surely, such a communication can never be a contract! Has Sethi got something else up his sleeve?

To know, the world must wait till October 1-3, when the International Cricket Council's Disputes Resolution Committee (DRC) panel holds its hearing.

The hearing has been scheduled in Dubai, where the world body is headquartered.

Patel is overseas and, so, wasn't available for comment, but a well-placed source in the BCCI said: "The fundamental issue is not that Patel signed that communication, but that the BCCI did not enter into any Agreement with the PCB."

The well-placed source in the BCCI added: "Contracts are legal documents, not a two-page communication between two parties...

"Let the PCB produce the Agreement."

Subsequent to what was exchanged between Patel and Sethi, the PCB apparently did draft an Agreement and sent it across to the BCCI. It was not inked.

The BCCI's case rests there.

In fact, even the PCB is claiming a "breach of contract" by the BCCI, not reneging on an agreement.

Sethi didn't respond to WhatsApp messages. However, while in Calcutta, he'd made the point that everything would be placed before the "proper forum." In other words, the disputes panel.

Forget the coldness in relations between New Delhi and Islamabad, there's little warmth between the BCCI and the PCB too.