Public Administration in Ancient India c15.75

c15.75

If the case was a simple one, it was decided then and there. But if it was one which involved any important questions of fact or of law, and was not a matter of any urgency, the parties were given time to prepare their respective sides of the case.¹ Where the defendant denied the charge or claim, the plaintiff had to prove his accusation or demand. Under certain circumstances, however, the burden of proof might be shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant.² If the plaintiff failed to produce witnesses, or did not appear within three fortnights, he was non-suited. And if it was proved that the plaintiff had no just cause for bringing the suit, he was ordered to pay a fine. Counter-charges, were not, as a rule, permitted. “One accused,” says Nārada, “of an offence must not lodge a plaint himself, unless he have refuted the charge raised by the other party.”³ But in certain classes of civil actions, such as disputes between members of a trade guild or between merchants, or in quarrels leading to duels, counter-suits were allowed.⁴ When two persons brought suits against each other, he was admitted as plaintiff whose grievance was the greater, or whose affair was the more important of the two, and not the person who was the first to go to law.¹ A person who had already been accused by another person could not be accused by a different party of the same offence, “for it is wrong to strike one again who has been struck (by another).”²