History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.171

v4.c63.171

The sequence of stages in a law-suit is as follows: first the plaintiff makes his averments, then the defendant makes his reply; when both have finished, the members of the court speak (or deliberate among themselves) and after them (speaks) the judge (Kāt. 121 q. by Aparārka p. 611, Par. M. III. p. 58). The four stages (*pādas*) of a law-suit, acc. to Yāj. II. 6-8, and Br. are named⁴¹² *bhāṣāpāda* (the plaint), *uttarapāda* (the reply), *kriyāpāda* (the adducing of evidence), *sādhyasiddhi*⁴¹³ or *nirṇaya* (the decision); while Kāt. 31 states them as pūrvapakṣa, uttara, pratyākalita and kriyā. Pratyākalita means 'discussion or consideration among the *sabhyas* about the burden of proof' (vide p. 260 n. 337). If several persons come simultaneously with complaints or plaints, then the order of taking up the cases is regulated by the *varṇa* of the plaintiffs i. e. the suit of a brāhmaṇa is first taken up (Manu VIII. 24). Kauṭ. I. 19 states⁴¹⁴ that the causes of temples (or idols), ascetics, heretics, brāhmaṇas learned in the vedas, about cattle and sacred places, of minors, of the aged, of those afflicted with disease or misfortunes, of the helpless and of women are to be looked into in the order enumerated or according to the importance of the causes or their urgency. Kāt. (122 q. in Sm. C. II. p. 35, Par. M. III. p. 59) says that preference should be given to that litigant whose injury is greater or whose cause is more important than those of the rest. Kauṭ. III. 20 went⁴¹⁵ so far as to say that judges should look into the causes of idols (or temples), brāhmaṇas, persons performing austerities, women, minors, the old, the diseased, the helpless, even if they did not come forward to complain nor should judges put forward the excuses of time (i. e. the long delay in taking cognisance of their causes), place, or (long) enjoyment (of their opponents).