व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

14 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S I 1 26-28
[ M p 101 So. p. 111 18
As to the text —
A plaint containing several padas ( vyavahāra-padas causes of action )
cannot hold good
it is to be explained as meaning that such a plaint (containing several causes
of action) cannot be simultaneously proceeded with (as to all causes) but only
step by step ( i e the causes will be investigated one after another¹ )
The plaint being thus reduced to writing Yājñavalkya ( 27 ) describes
what is to be done thereafter
The reply ( of the defendant ) who has heard the matter (of complaint)
should be written down in the presence of the plaintiff
²Nārada defines the reply ( of the defendant
Men versed in the ( law ) hold that to be a (proper) reply which meets
(all the points raised in) the plaint which is pithy ( or reasonable ) unambi-
guous not inconsistent (with itself) which is intelligible without explanation.
Kātyāyana mentions the four varieties of it ( i e of the reply )
A reply is of four kinds viz either by denial ( of the allegations in the
plaint ) by confession (or admission) by a special plea or by the plea of a
former judgment ( i e by the plea of res judicata )³
⁴The same author defines a reply of denial
If the defendant should deny the claim ( of the plaintiff ) that reply is
known in judicial procedure as one of denial.⁴
The same⁵ author declares that (the reply of denial) to be of four kinds
This is false I do not know I was not present then I was not
born at that time , thus the ( reply by ) denial is of four kinds.
The answer by confession is described in another smṛti
Statement ( by the defendant ) of the truth of the claim ( made by the
plaintiff ) is declared to be the answer by confession
Nārada defines the reply of special plea ( or admission and avoidance )
If the defendant admitting the allegations set out in the plaint puts
forward a plea it is known in the smṛtis as a reply of special plea
Kātyāyana describes the reply of former judgment

---

1 This is a dictum of Kātyāyana. For explanation of these two dicta of Kātyāyana
vide notes to V. M. pp. 25-26 and Kāt. vv. 136-137
2. This is not found in the printed Nārada.
3. Compare the very similar words of Nārada p. 2, v. 4
4. This is ascribed to Bṛhaspati by the Vy. Māt. and Par. M.
5. This is the same as Kāt. p. 6, v. 5.
P 15 (text)