[48] The Commentator has enabled us to supply the ellipsis, but he does not fully explain the author's meaning. It would seem, that in those primitive times, it was considered harsh or inexpedient to harass a defendant, or accused person with two legal proceedings, of any sort, at the same time. The sentence will, however, bear the sense, that no stranger or intervener shall be permitted to come in and interrupt the progress of a pending suit.
[49] The Commentator, observing that this prohibition would seem to be implied in the terms of the sixth sloka, explains (on the authority of Nárada) that the latter refers only to the general object of the suit, e.g., that if his verbal complaint be of a loan of money, his recorded complaint shall not be of a loan of apparel—but that this clause, in the ninth sloka, ensures further uniformity in the description of the grievance and character of the suit, e.g., where one has originally complained of retention of 100 pieces of money lent, he shall not vary his complaint to a forcible taking of 100 pieces.
[50] These are expressed by one word, kalaha: but the Commentator notes its comprehensive character, as we have translated it. See the analogous passage in Manu, ch. 8, sl. 6, where an equally ambiguous word párushya is similarly explained in the text itself. The term rendered "slander" by Sir Wm. Jones is simply, reviling or verbal abuse.
[51] sáhasa, explained by the Commentator, assault by means of poison, or any instrument destructive of life. The word has another and more particular signification, as infra sl. 230.
[52] Manu (ch. 8, sl. 59) inflicts a fine of double the debt upon the mendacious debtor.
[53] párushya, explained by the Commentator kalaha: see note [50].
[54] We have followed the Commentator in rendering these terms, which are very general and indefinite.
[55] i. e. restlessly before the Court.
[56] Manu ch. 8, sl. 25, 26.
[57] ibid, sl. 55, 56.