History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.177

v4.c63.177

Kāt. (136 quoted by Aparārka p. 609) specifies several reasons which make a plaint unacceptable viz. one that lacks the mention of the time and place ( of the cause of action ), that omits the statement of the material (*dravya*, which is the subject of dispute ) or the amount thereof and that is wanting in ( stating ) the extent of the relief claimed, that is opposed ( to the interests or usages ) of the country, that is prohibited by the king's order, that mixes up several vyavahārapadas.⁴¹⁶ Certain plaints are declared to be vitiated (*pakṣābhāsa*)⁴¹⁷ and not entertainable viz. a plaint that contains an unknown ( or imaginary ) grievance, that discloses no injury, that contains letters or words making no coherent sense, that states no cause of action, that is incapable of proof or is self-contradictory (Kāt. 140 q. by Mit. on Yāj. II. 6, Par. M. III. 61). Nār. II. 8 also points out the faults (*doṣas*) of a plaint and explains them (II. 9-14). Bṛhaspati states that there is to be no law-suit between teacher and pupil, father and son, husband and wife, and master and servant. This does not mean that law-suits between these pairs are altogether prohibited but that suits between them are undesirable, that the king or judges should persuade them to desist from proceeding in Court, that if they persist the court has to decide the suits according to the śāstra.⁴¹⁸ Manu (VIII. 299-300) prescribing the same punishment as for a thief in cases where a wife, son, slave, servant or brother is beaten for correction more severely than is allowed in the śāstras by the husband, father, master, or elder brother respectively conveys by implication that a legal proceeding by these is possible. The smṛtis did not encourage disputes based on flimsy or trumpery grounds. Bṛhaspati⁴¹⁹ says that a plaint that is *nirarthaka* (i. e. the injury in which is very small or the monetary value involved is negligible) should not be entertained by the king. This is on the principle of *de minimis non curat lex* (the law does not take account of trifles) also embodied in sec. 95 of the Indian Penal Code.