DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.34368#0013
A.D. 1806.]
REGULATION II.
3
by Section X. Regulation VIII. 1795, Section II. Regulation LV. 1795,
and other special clauses. The original process so prescribed is a summons
on the defendant, requiring him to accompany the officer deputed to serve
it, or to deliver sufficient security to appear in person or by vakeel and
answer to the complaint against him on a day appointed. In the event of
the defendant's being found and his not giving the required security, the
officer charged with the summons is to take his pefson into custody and
bring him before the court, which is empowered to commit him to close
custody until he shall giie the requisite security, or perform the decree
which may be passed upon the complaint against him. For the relief of de-
fendants in cases of undue or exaggerated demands, the judges of the Ziliah
and City Courts were authorized by Section II. Regulation III. 1802
(corresponding with Section VIII. Regulation XIV. 1803, for the ceded
provinces), to fix the extent of the security to be required for the appear-
ance of the defendant; with directions, whatever may be the claim of the
plaintiff to demand from the defendant such security only as may appear
necessary to secure his appearance during the trial of the suit. But except
in petty causes for money or property not exceeding in amount or value
the sum of ten sicca rupees (in which the native commissioners are
restricted by Section IX. Regulation XVI. 1803, and Section XVII.
Regulation XLIX. 1803, from requiring security, unless they shall receive
certain information that the defendant is about to abscond), the Civil
Courts of Judicature are not empowered to dispense with the requisition
of bail from defendants in any case not specially provided for by the Regu-
lations, although in many instances the small amount of the claim and the
known property and responsibility of the defendant render the demand of
security unnecessary and vexatious. On the other hand, with an exception
to the power vested in the native commissioners of attaching the personal
property (instead of confining the person) of any defendant who may not
give the security required for his appearance, the Civil Courts are not
authorized to attach the property of any defendant until a judgment be
given against him, even when the defendant against whom a summons may
issue shall abscond or shut himself up in any building, or retire to any
place so that the process cannot be served upon him, an ex-parte trial and
decision only being provided for such cases after proclamation in the court
and at the defendant's place of residence. A dishonest debtor, therefore,
by concealing himself and disposing of his property, is enabled to defraud
his creditor and to defeat the ends of justice, at the same time a strict
application of the existing rule of final process in execution of decrees
(whereby the Civil Courts are directed to levy the amount adjudged by
the public sale of a sufficient portion, or if requisite of the whole of the
lands, houses, and effects belonging to the party against whom the judg-
ment is given, or if necessary, both by the sale of his property and attach-
ment of his person, without any discretion to grant relief from personal
attachment in cases of insolvency), enables rigorous creditors to exercise
undue severity towards their debtors, by keeping them in conAnement (at
a small charge for their subsistence) when they have no means of discharg-
ing the amount demandable from theih. And doubts have been enter-
tained whether the terms of the existing rules admit of'any indulgence oA
time being allowed by the courts for the satisfaction of a Anal judgment,
without the express consent of the party in whose favour such judgment is
B 2 i
REGULATION II.
3
by Section X. Regulation VIII. 1795, Section II. Regulation LV. 1795,
and other special clauses. The original process so prescribed is a summons
on the defendant, requiring him to accompany the officer deputed to serve
it, or to deliver sufficient security to appear in person or by vakeel and
answer to the complaint against him on a day appointed. In the event of
the defendant's being found and his not giving the required security, the
officer charged with the summons is to take his pefson into custody and
bring him before the court, which is empowered to commit him to close
custody until he shall giie the requisite security, or perform the decree
which may be passed upon the complaint against him. For the relief of de-
fendants in cases of undue or exaggerated demands, the judges of the Ziliah
and City Courts were authorized by Section II. Regulation III. 1802
(corresponding with Section VIII. Regulation XIV. 1803, for the ceded
provinces), to fix the extent of the security to be required for the appear-
ance of the defendant; with directions, whatever may be the claim of the
plaintiff to demand from the defendant such security only as may appear
necessary to secure his appearance during the trial of the suit. But except
in petty causes for money or property not exceeding in amount or value
the sum of ten sicca rupees (in which the native commissioners are
restricted by Section IX. Regulation XVI. 1803, and Section XVII.
Regulation XLIX. 1803, from requiring security, unless they shall receive
certain information that the defendant is about to abscond), the Civil
Courts of Judicature are not empowered to dispense with the requisition
of bail from defendants in any case not specially provided for by the Regu-
lations, although in many instances the small amount of the claim and the
known property and responsibility of the defendant render the demand of
security unnecessary and vexatious. On the other hand, with an exception
to the power vested in the native commissioners of attaching the personal
property (instead of confining the person) of any defendant who may not
give the security required for his appearance, the Civil Courts are not
authorized to attach the property of any defendant until a judgment be
given against him, even when the defendant against whom a summons may
issue shall abscond or shut himself up in any building, or retire to any
place so that the process cannot be served upon him, an ex-parte trial and
decision only being provided for such cases after proclamation in the court
and at the defendant's place of residence. A dishonest debtor, therefore,
by concealing himself and disposing of his property, is enabled to defraud
his creditor and to defeat the ends of justice, at the same time a strict
application of the existing rule of final process in execution of decrees
(whereby the Civil Courts are directed to levy the amount adjudged by
the public sale of a sufficient portion, or if requisite of the whole of the
lands, houses, and effects belonging to the party against whom the judg-
ment is given, or if necessary, both by the sale of his property and attach-
ment of his person, without any discretion to grant relief from personal
attachment in cases of insolvency), enables rigorous creditors to exercise
undue severity towards their debtors, by keeping them in conAnement (at
a small charge for their subsistence) when they have no means of discharg-
ing the amount demandable from theih. And doubts have been enter-
tained whether the terms of the existing rules admit of'any indulgence oA
time being allowed by the courts for the satisfaction of a Anal judgment,
without the express consent of the party in whose favour such judgment is
B 2 i