History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.167

v4.c63.167

In one of his most famous soliloquies Shakespeare (in Hamlet III. 1 'Oppressor's wrong, the proud mans's contumely, the pangs of despised love, the *law's delays*') enumerates law's delays among the principal evils of human life. In modern India as in England⁴⁰⁹ before 1873 delay in the decision of causes is a crying evil. In the rough and ready methods of administering justice in ancient India care seems to have been bestowed on disposing of cases as quickly as possible. The story of king Nṛga who caused delay has already been referred to (p. 243). Kauṭ. (III. 1) states that if the plaintiff, after the defendant files his answer, does not on the same day begin to support his case (by evidence) he would be declared to be defeated, since the plaintiff comes to court after determining the strength of his case, but the defendant does not do so (he is dragged to the court); that the defendant may be allowed an adjournment of three or seven days for his defence; if he is not ready with his defence within that time he may be punished with a fine ranging from 3 to 12 paṇas; if he does not answer even after three fortnights he shall be punished with fine for *parokta* (viz. *pañcabandha* or *daśabandha* as stated above in note 407) and the plaintiff's claim would be recovered from the property of the defendant. A similar rule is laid down in Manu VIII. 58. Yāj. II. 12 prescribes that disputes relating to *sāhasa* (killing by poison or weapon), theft, abuse, assault, cows, charges of grave sins and women (about the chastity of all women and about ownership in the case of female slaves), the defendant has to make his defence at once, and that in other cases time may be granted at the discretion of the court. Nār. I. 45 is to the same effect. Nār. I. 44 holds that adjournments may be granted in suits about debts and the like for finding out the truth as such disputes are complicated and as memory is weak. Pitāmaha (q. in Sm. C. II. p. 42) says that adjournments may be granted in disputes about deposits, sealed deposits, gifts, partnerships, transgression of conventions and partition of heritage. Gautama XIII. 28 speaks in general terms of an adjournment for one year, when the defendant does not remember the transaction, but prescribes immediate trial in disputes about kine, women and children or when the matter is urgent i. e. where loss or abandonment of the thing will be the result of delay (Gaut. XIII. 29-30). Bṛhaspati allows time even to the plaintiff if he is not able to put forward his case owing to his immaturity or lack of boldness.⁴¹⁰ Kāt. (145-158 quoted by Aparārka p. 619, Sm. C. II. p. 42, Par. M. III. pp. 69-72) contains elaborate rules about adjournments. He says that according to the importance or otherwise of the dispute, one, three, five, or seven days may be allowed to the defendant to make his defence in disputes about debts, according as the debt was contracted three months ago or 6, 12, 20 or 30 years ago; that even more than a year may be allowed if the defendant is an idiot or lunatic or is suffering from disease or if the subject of dispute or the witnesses are in a foreign country; that more adjournments than one may be granted in such cases; that according to Bṛhaspati in disputes about immoveable property also no adjournments should be granted; that if the act of God (*daiva*) or the king prevents the defendant from making his defence he should not be declared defeated, but time should be granted to him to prove this. It is clear that with the advance of time adjournments became longer and more frequent in Kāt. compared with the rigid rules of Kauṭ.. Kāt. and Śukra (IV. 5. 167, 209) contain the last word on this point. According to them delay in deciding causes is tantamount⁴¹¹ to denial of justice (*dharmavyāpatti*, lit. death of Justice).