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

18 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. I. l. 84-86
[ M p. 181 25-p. 14 l. 3
But this (dictum) applies to all replies other than a reply of admission,
since a reply of admission has only two parts, as Bṛhaspati says ¹
In a reply of denial Vyavahāra has four parts and also in (a reply
of) special plea, but in replies of admission it has two parts (only)
Yājñavalkya (II 9-10) says
(A defendant) should not countercharge (or counter-claim against)
the plaintiff (or complainant) until he has met the claim (made against
him) One who is already labouring under a claim (should not be
allowed to be charged) by another (until he is free from that litigation)
(The plaintiff) should not change what he has already stated ² In quarrels
(violence of speech and act i. e. defamation and assault) and in offences in
which force enters a counter charge is allowable (even before clearing one-
self from the original charge or claim)
*Nārada (p 29 v 24) says
That man who abandoning his former ground of claim has recourse to
another shall be regarded as a losing party since he wanders from one
ground of controversy to another
The person who shifts his pleading is liable to fine but he does not lose the
suit he has brought. This is the meaning. This (rule) should be under-
stood as applying to civil proceedings ³ as the same author (Nārada p 29 v
25) says
In all civil disputes (a litigant) does not lose (altogether) for verbal
deceit (i e for changing his statements) In disputes about (seducing)
another's wife about land and non-payment of a debt the party though
liable to be punished (for fraudulent speech) does not lose his property ⁴
1 When there is an admission of plaintiff's claim there is no necessity to adduce
proof and so there is no kriyā and the moment there is an admission there is nothing to be
established by examination of evidence, but judgment follows at once. Hence there is no
sādhyasiddhi.
2 These words may apply not only to the change of pleading by plaintiff but
also to the change of pleading by defendant The Mit. takes it to apply to the plaintiff's
change of pleading, while Par M. applies it to both plaintiff and defendant. Vide notes to
V M p. 38. The words 'what was alleged should be written down in the presence of the
defendant refer to the things about which allegations were made (i. e if the plaintiff first
complained about theft of rupees, he cannot write down theft of clothes) while here he is
forbidden to change the title i. e if he alleged that one hundred rupees were borrowed at
interest he cannot allege that they were stolen from him by the defendant.
3 The eighteen titles of law are classified as either dhanamūla or hiṁsāmūla
(arising out of property or injury i e civil or criminal) Vide notes to V M p
4 The printed Nārada read 'Pas'ustrīgo'—meaning in disputes about cattle women
This verse means that in civil disputes a man does not lose his case altogether by a change
of pleading, though he may be fined but in criminal matters his complaint may be dis-
missed altogether if he shifts his position
P 12 (text)