PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 275
Clauses 4 to 11 were added to the Bill.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : On a point of information, in regard to clause 9 may I know from the Hon. Minister what is the need for saying “execution of a decree of any revenue court in any State in any other State”. Could it not be “a revenue court in that State”? Why should it be augmented?
Dr. Ambedkar : The object of putting it in larger terms is to facilitate.
Dr. R. U. Singh : When the general discussion on the motion for consideration was on, I raised the same point and the Hon. Law Minister was pleased to say that the word ‘Ruler’ is used in some of the sections of the Civil Procedure Code under discussion. I have looked through the various sections of the Civil Procedure Code which are under discussion under clause 12 of the amending Bill, and I dare say that the word ‘Ruler’ is not used anywhere else. As I said earlier, it is only the sub-title that uses the word “Foreign Rulers”. In the sections themselves the word ‘Ruler’ is not used. ‘Ruling chiefs’ may have been used because this term was in vogue in this country or some such term may have been used, but I dare say, Sir, the term ‘Ruler’ has not been used.
As the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code stand, it was not necessary to define the term Ruler. The point that was made by me was that it has been done unnecessarily and I reinforce that argument by saying that when we are dealing with questions of International Law, we might use terminology which is familiar to International Law. I observe that the term “Ruler” is not used. The words used generally are, “Head of a State” or “Sovereign”, “foreign State” or “Foreign Sovereign”. I do think that Government have taken pains unnecessarily to introduce the term “Ruler”. I do feel that if the word ‘Head’ only is substituted now, because they have re-arranged the section and framed the thing in such a manner, some of the clauses will become clumsy. In some places ‘Head of the State’ will have to be used, in some places ‘Head’ only will do. Therefore, while sticking to my original point of view, I observe that it is unhappy that the term “Ruler” has been used. I think the clumsy phraseology used