( ৩২ ) from the Schedule to the County Court Orders in Equity, framed under the 28th and 29th Vic., c. 99, and from the volume of forms published by th: Commissioners appointed to frame the revised New York Code; others from Act VIII of 1859, and the rest were framed by Mr. Broughton, late Recorder of Rangoon, and have stood the test of practice. Having thus mentioned all the substantial additions which we have made to the Bill of 1865, we have now to specify the clauses of that Bill which we have struck out, with the reasons for each omission. Clauses 11 and 12.-Provide that suits against Government (other than suits for land) shall be brought at the seat of Government. We think that such a provision would often cause great hardship to plaintists: and we have accordingly struck it out. Eight clauses of the Bill of 1865, namely 24 and 25, 183 and 184, 314, 315, 316, and 318, deal with the subject of specific performance of contracts. These relate to substantive law, and if ultimately adopted, will come more fitly into the abovementioned Bill relating to specific and preventive relief. Clause 26.-This relates to declaratory suits, and is reserved for the same Bill. Clause 61. – Procedure where there are several defendants, some of whom dwell without the jurisdiction. This is substantially provided for by sections 16, 17, and 18 of our draft, and it is unnecessary to make a separate provision. Classe 65.-Procedure in a suit for immoveable property situate in different jurisdictions. This appears to be sufficiently provided for by sections 28, 24, and 25 of our draft (= sections 20, 21, 22 of the Bill of 1865). Clause 120.-Procedure when desendant is about to leave India. This too seems to us fully provided for by our sections 476, 477, 478 (= sections l 13, 114, 115 of the Bill of 1865). Clause 146.—This relates to refunding half the stamp duty on the plaint if the suit is compromised. The matter was considered and dealt with when the Court Fees Act, VII of 1870, was passed. Clauses 193–196.-These also relate to stamp duty, and the subject is sufficiently provided for by the Stamp Act, XVIII of 1869. Clauses 243–254, and clause 594–Relate to questions respecting religion or custom. We do not think it necessary or expedient to legislate specially regarding this matter. The Evidence Act, I of 1872, sections 13, 48, and 49 provides sufficiently for the solution of all such questions. Clause 280–Provides for the issue of a commission to examine witnesses who are neither within British India nor within an allied Native State. We thiuk that this is sufficiently met by our section 882, which is equal to clause 279 of the Bill of 1865, and section 177 of Act VIII of 1869. Clauses 281, 282, 288 -Provide for commissions to examine persons in jail. This is provided for by the Prisoners' Testimony Act, XV of 1869. Clause 299–Authorises the Court in certain cases to decide a suit on a sworn statement. Without giving any opinion on the policy of this provision, we would observe that the mutter is sufficiently provided for by the Oaths’ Act, X of 1878, sections 8–12. Clause 812-Provides that a copy of every decree for the recovery of a portion of immoveable property with specified boundaries shall be sent to the District Registrar. The expediency of requiring the sending and rogistering of such copies was considered when the present Registration Act (VIII of 1871) was passed, and was decided against. Clauses 468-482-Relate to the summary enforcement of claims on registered bonds, The expediency of having any such provisions in the law was decided against by the legislature when the present Registration Act (VIII of 1871) was settled and passed, and nothing has since occurred to suggest that this decision should be reversed.
