Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c13.15

c13.15

Besides these,² there were other sorts of परोक्तदोष. The plaintiff had to make his rejoinders the very day the defendant had answered, for it was presumed that the plaintiff was ready to go on with the case; otherwise he was guilty of परोक्त. But if the defendant was not ready for the case, he was allowed three or seven nights to prepare his defence. If he failed to make his defence within that time, he was punished with a fine ranging from three to twelve paṇas. If he could not answer even after three fortnights, he was guilty of परोक्त, and the plaintiff could recover out of the defendant's property the amount sued for, unless he (plaintiff) agreed to accept in its stead some good service from the defendant. The same punishment was inflicted on the defendant who utterly failed in his defence. If the plaintiff failed to prove his case within the aforesaid time, he committed a परोक्त. If he failed to substantiate his charge against a deceased person, he was made to perform some of his funeral rites. If¹ he was not a Brāhmaṇ he might be ordered to perform the ceremonial रथोत्तरचितम्. The fine for परोक्त generally was पञ्चमम्. Making an assertion without any evidence to support it was another परोक्तदोष, the fine for which was दशमम्.²