Report On The Administration Of Civil Justice In The Punjab For 1859

· 1859 · Public domain (published pre-1930) · archive.org ↗

1(a

2from all expenditure ; it is desirable rather to encourage the parties to settle claims upon de-

3erces among themselves, without execution being taken out. It will be done much more

4fairly, than by compulsory sales and attachments. Mr. Egerton proposes that a certain

5percentage should be deducted from the amount realized in cach execution of decree case.

6I should rather recommend that executions should be required to be taken out on stamped

7paper of the value, say of 1 per cent. on the amount of the decree.” TI incline to this, and

8will refer to it in my final remarks. ‘ Whether this should be in addition to the amount of

9tulubanah required in the regular suit, or whether any compensatory deduction should be

10made from the rate of such tulubanah, must depend upon whether the Jiovernment desire to

11realize affy Additional revenue from judicial stamps or not; if not, then the present tuluba-

12nah rate in regular suits should be reduced by half or one per cent., as the caso may be,

13after a comparison of the general results of the scheme throughout the Punjab. If the

14assurnption above made is correct, that the applications for execution represent only about

15half of the actual number of decrees, then it would appear that, notwithstanding the pro-

16hibition contained in Board’s Circular, No. 71 of 1852, that all pleas on the part of defen-

17dants of their having already effected adjustments out of Court, are to be ignored altoge-

18ther, there are in the Goorgaon and Delhi districts, 85 per cent, of the claims adjusted

19out of Court, and in Kurnal 75 per cent. I believe that sums are scarcely ever paid into

20Court by the defendants on account of decrees, without regular execution being taken out.

21T should propose, however, to encourage money being thus paid into Court by the defendants

22as much as possible; and no execution percentage would, of course, be required under such

23circumstances, where the defendant came voluntarily into Court; but such sums should be

24paid without any deduction to the decree-holder.”

25REGISTRATION.

2623 —“ The compulsory registration of bonds required by Ciycular No. 19, of 1859

27is of too recent a date to have pretuced any effects which

28Appenvdiz Vk ee

29are as yet recognizable, especisty as regards this Division, in

30which the registry Offices were only re-established duripg the latter part of 1858, so that

31thore are no previous records with which to compare the present results. As far as I have