History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.448

v4.c63.448

Nār. (II. 40) lays down⁶⁰⁷ a qualification that when a party has been defeated by his own conduct (i. e. by his demeanour or by his having adduced manifestly false witnesses or forged documents) there is to be no retrial or review of judgment, but where a man has lost his cause through (the dishonesty of) witnesses or the *sabhyas*, the cause may be tried anew. There are four exceptions to the finality of the judgments of the king's court. Where a litigant either through folly or insolence⁶⁰⁸ thinks a decision to be wrong, he may be allowed a retrial, provided he agrees to pay double the fine inflicted on the losing party (Yāj. II. 306, Nār. I. 65, Kāt. 496). Secondly, where the former judgment is obtained by fraud or force, it may be set aside (Yāj. II. 31)⁶⁰⁹. Thirdly, where the litigant was incompetent, i.e. was a woman or a minor or a lunatic or intoxicated, seriously ill or distressed by a calamity or where the proceeding was carried on by another on behalf of a litigant who did not appoint him or with whom he was not connected in any way or was held inside a house or outside a town or village (i. e. in a forest) or by an enemy, the decision may be set aside and a retrial ordered (Nār. I. 43 in S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 16, Yāj. II. 31-32). Fourthly, a king could set right a former decision of his predecessor which was unjust and arrived at through ignorance (Mit. on Yāj. II. 306)⁶¹⁰.