1 ( 7 )
2 person to conduct his suit; but such individual should if possible be a
3 relative or friend, as the employment of persons, who gain’a livelihood:
4 solely by instituting and carrying on suits for others in the Courts, is dis-
5 couraged, their services being deemed both prejudicial and superfluous
6 under a system of simple procedure.
7 50, Should the Head of a Court be aware of any valid objections to
8 the employment of an individual deputed to conduct a suit, -he is at
9 liberty to prevent him from pleading, and should any person employed
10 as a Vakeel behave in a tricky or dishonest manner, he is prohibited
11 from ever again practising in the Courts of this Territory.
12 51. Foreigners are, as a matter of necessity, permitted’ to employ
13 strangers as Vakeels.
14 52. The declaration on oath was abolished on the 25th of March
15 Declaration on oath «1840, and a Circular Order was issued by the Com-
16 . ae becolrager ae missioner, substituting in lieu of it the solemn affir-
17 tion. mation authorized by the Government of India in
18 ‘Act No. -V. of 1840.
19 53. In the matter of fees and fines several alterations have taken
20 placé since the first establishment of the Commis-
21 sion, and there is scarcely any subject connected
22 with the Civil procedure of the Country which has given rise to the same
23 amount of discussion. A passing mention, therefore, of the three differ-
24 ent systems with regard to fees and fines which have been tried within
25 this Territory since its assumption may lead to fair inferences with re-
26 gard to the working of each. Until 1834 the institution fee was enforc-
27 ed in all suits, and.as a natural result, they were not very numerous,
28 for only those who were well able to pay, or who by the goodness of their -
29 cause were able to raise the money, applied to the Courts; it was found,
30 however, that it prevented false litigation, or the influx of professional
31 Vakeels, but in consequence of the authorities having come to look upon
32 it as a tax upon justice, it was finally abolished in 1834.
33 54. For some time, apparently, the abolition of the institution fee
34 did not cause any very great difference in the number of suits; but, as
35 goon as its discontinuance became generally known, the Courts of Justice
36 became crowded with needy impostors, who, by inciting the people to
37 litigate, and by the institution of false, vexatious and exaggerated suits,
38 carried on the most systematic extortion, and so swelled the files of the
39 Courts, that-no increase of either the Judicial Establishments, or of
40 Fees and Fines,