Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR687; 2005(4)MhLj646
..... as filed was not maintainable. therefore, the trial court was right in dismissing the suit by recording the finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the possession of the suit house. in view of this finding, in my judgment, the ..... for my consideration :(a) whether suit as filed is maintainable and whether the suit can be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action i.e. multifariousness of causes of action;(b) whether this court can interfere in the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below regarding status of defendant ..... learned assistant judge has rightly exercised his discretion in passing a decree for possession. he submitted that suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness as on the ground that there are two distinct causes of action. he submitted that the claim put forth by the plaintiff being interdependent, this ..... of the plaintiff. he submitted that the defendant has specifically alleged and averred in the written statement that the suit is bad for multifariousness and is bad for different causes of action. he brought to my notice para 2 of the written statement which reads thus :he therefore, ..... high court. it is contended by the learned counsel that on plain reading of the plaint, it is clear that the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action. he therefore, submitted that the learned assistant judge has committed an error in decreeing the suit by ordering possession in favour .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(3)BomCR711
..... dismissal of the suit. the next alternative is for a court to work out such relief as can be granted in a suit suffering form multifariousness. the first course is not open having regard to the long interval that has gone since the institution of the suit. if necessary, it ..... plaintiffs' contention that there is no misjoinder of causes or parties. be the substance in the stands whatever it be, multifariousness is not fatal in the sense of non-suiting the plaintiffs. there is first the right of the suitor to be called upon to elect ..... that there is no merit in the defence of multifariousness. three slightly disparate causes have been lumped together albeit as alternatives. there is of course a linkage between the alternatives to lend plausibility to the ..... earliest possible opportunity', defendants 1, 3, 4/16 and 28 filed their written statements as late as 1990 i.e. last year. defendants pleadings multifariousness could have taken out motions raising this plea. by their inaction they must be deemed to have waived the contention. this is not to say ..... with my findings recorded against each of them:--- issues findings1. is plaintiffs' claim as laid maintainable in law? 'yes'2. is the suit bad for multifariousness? 'no'3. do plaintiffs establish the validity of thestatutory notices served upon the stategovernment and the municipal corporation? 'yes'4. do plaintiffs establish a binding .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 150Ind.Cas.602; (1934)66MLJ451
..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has been to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme.18. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11, 15 differently from ..... -judge records in his 96th para, that the learned advocate for the plaintiff never represented that in case the court found the suit bad for multifariousness he should have been given this opportunity. he tells us, and this is not traversed by the other side, that he directed the attention ..... years.9. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. ' these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian cases are not otherwise.10. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position, afzal shah v. ..... himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath roy v. brajendra nath dass i.l.r.(1917) cal. 111 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraja mudaliar ..... representative is defendant 15).2. defendants 1 to 4, 8 to 12, and 15 took the plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness (issue 1) and the lower court finding this in their favour dismissed the suit. hence the appeal.3. the learned subordinate judge rightly directed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1934Mad367
..... ever suggested that the defendants would find it more convenient to be relegated to several suits. their sole object has to defeat the suit for multifariousness, not to reconstitute it upon some more rational scheme. we see no reason therefore to treat defendants 4, 8, 11 and 15 differently from ..... no hesitation in finding that the lower court should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to elect, and if we found the suit bad for multifariousness we should have ordered to that effect.16. it remains to consider special pleas which were advanced on behalf of defendant 4, and also on ..... should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality : air1930all180 . when a court is of opinion, that a suit is bad for multifariousness, it ought to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his plaint and to elect.... patna high court 1928 in limaye, k.v. v. j.k ..... years. substantial justice would be sacrificed to a wretched technicality.14. these citations suffice to dispel any illusion that in england dismissal on account of multifariousness is the normal course, and the indian oases are not otherwise. we gave the plaintiffs time to consider their position; afzal shah v. lachmi ..... the suit. hence the appeal. the learned surbordinate judge - rightly directed himself that order 1, rule 3 is the order governing this question of multifariousness; ramendra nath bay v. brajendra nath das a.i.r. 1918 cal. 858 has been approved and followed by our full bench in govindaraju mudaliar .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : 76CompCas670(Delhi)
..... and 4 in favor of defendants nos. 3 and 4 and issue no. 6 against defendants nos. 3 and 4. 16. issue no. 2 : the suit is not bad for multifariousness of causes of action anf parties because defendants nos. 5 and 6 who too become partners of defendant no. 1 have admittedly taken over all the liabilities of the firm ..... the whole amount claimed in the suit. 9. following issues were framed: 1. whether courts at delhi have jurisdiction to try this case? 2. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties? 3. whether the suit is within limitation as against defendants nos. 3 and 4 in view of the dissolution of the firm as on ..... court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. they also pleaded that the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action and parties and the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation against defendants nos. 3 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1960Ori159
..... authority of the earlier decisions in the other high courts referred to in the judgment, the nagpur full bench decided that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. mr. p. kar, learned counsel, appearing for the apposite party while commenting on the nagpur decision cited above, pointed out that in paragraph 16 ..... places one single suit could nor be instituted in the court of the additional district judge of damoh and secondly that the suit was bad for multifariousness. it was held that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction was concerned. section 17, civil procedure code is a complete answer. that section is ..... some in jabalpur tahsil. the suit was filed in the court of the civil judge, damoh and though no objection was taken on the ground of multifariousness and want of jurisdiction, the lower court had held that regard (being had to order 1. rule 3 and section 17 of the code of ..... apart, this certainly would result in multiplicity of proceedings. the only bar to such joinder is that the court has to see that there is no multifariousness, when there is misjoinder of parties and causes of action, which certainly would cause embarrassment and the trial of the action would be prejudiced. that, ..... filed in the court of the munsif, cuttack. it has to be decided whether the suit as filed in the cuttack court is bad for multifariousness and also to consider whether the splitting up of the cause of action is likely to result in multiplicity of proceedings. futhermore, it has also .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad911; 97Ind.Cas.212; (1926)51MLJ194
..... privy council observed that he himself was responsible for the joinder and ought not to complain. i therefore hold that the suit is not bad for multifariousness. the order will therefore be reversed and the suit sent back for disposal according to law, and i agree with my learned brother krishnan, j.' ..... before the learned judge. he relied upon a passage in sethuratnam aiyar v. venkatachela goundan 38 m l j 476 (p c). no question of multifariousness was raised in the case. before the privy council the plaintiff himself complained that evidence relating to one item should not have been used against him for ..... relief that is claimed severally against the different defendants be in respect of the same matter, section 28, civil procedure code, will save it from the objection of multifariousness.14. in my opinion, the above sentences quoted from dampana-boyina gangi v. addala ramaswami 12 m l j 103, though strictly obiter, dicta as ..... against a number of alienees of a deceased member of an undivided family for the recovery of family property illegally alienated by him is not bad for multifari-ousness. in mahomed v. krishnan i.l.r. (1887) m 106 the suit was brought by the junior members of a tarwad against the ..... for misjoinder of parties and causes of action?' this was first argued. the learned judge held that the frame of the suit was bad for multifarious-ness and he passed an order giving leave to the plaintiff to proceed with the suit against such one of the defendants as he may choose .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1930All180
..... be provided against the evil arising from multifariousness of suits which generally result in waste of time and waste of money. unless the joinder of parties and causes of action are calculated to ..... to dismiss the suit. substantial justice should in no case be allowed to be sacrificed to a wretched technicality. even where the defect of multifariousness is patent on the face of the pleadings the plea cannot be entertained unless it was raised at the earliest possible opportunity. safeguards have to ..... of the case, a remand was neither necessary nor desirable.19. the lower appellate court is emphatic in its pronouncement that 'there undoubtedly is multifariousness in the suit.' this finding has been vehemently assailed by the appellant before this court but there can be no doubt as to its correctness. ..... lower appellate court but there was no adjudication of the issues raised.16. the lower appellate court held that the suit was bad for multifariousness and that having regard to the constitution of the action the suit could not proceed in the form in which it was brought and that ..... property has been transferred to him.13. the lower appellate court was not justified in narrowing down the point under enquiry to the plea of multifariousness. where the settlor is possessed of property which has not been either gifted or endowed, the donee of the property cannot be held to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1986All174
..... the right of election to the plaintiff. but the trial court negatived this with the observation that 'in a suit which is itself bad for multifariousness there is no question of giving a right of election to the plaintiff.' this has been referred to by the trial judge in the decision finally ..... till the matter came up for hearing in the course of arguments. the suit was instituted in the year 1958. preliminary issue on the point of multifariousness was decided by the trial court on 15th sept. 1969. this was followed by the dismissal of the suit directed on 7th mar. 1970. the ..... to the validity of the deposits in view of the relevant provisions of the rent control act. these are the distinct facts on which the plaintiffs' multifariousness was overruled in that case. but the factual situation in the present being as it is, the analogy may not be said to be attracted.10 ..... action as resorted to in the present caste. on account, thus, of the mis-joinder, both of parties and causes of action, the action suffers from multifarious ness.9. learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on mst. ramdayee v. .dhanraj kochar, air 1972 cal 313. the plaintiffs' case therein was that the ..... are other reliefs claimed also, a reference to which will be made below. the defendants resisted the suit pleading, inter alia, that this was bad for multifariousness. preliminary issue on this point was decided by the trial court against the plaintiff on 15th sept, 1969. on the basis of the findings thereon the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 6Ind.Cas.327
..... it will not be entertained by a court of appeal or of revision. as stated in story on equity pleadings, section 280, the ground, on which the doctrine of multifariousness rests, is the inconvenience of mixing up in one proceeding several distinct matters having no necessary connection with each other, thus embarrassing the court as well as the defendants, such ..... with this objection, the court must look particularly to convenience in the administration of justice, and if this is accomplished by the mode of procedure adopted, the objection of multifariousness will not lie, unless the course pursued is so injurious to one party as to make it inequitable to accomplish the general convenience at his expense. the first question to ..... and the same witnesses exammed and cross- examined repeatedly, because the case against each person is conducted separately. the essence of the matter is to determine, when the objection of multifariousness is interposed, whether the court can accord f till and substantial relief to all parties, in interest without embarrassing the chances for defence. to put the matter in another way ..... be found in our reports, though the legality of orders under section 36 has been questioned on various grounds, no objection has apparently even been taken on the ground of multifariousness. the learned vakil for the petitioner has, however, suggested that although the objection now taken has never suggested itself to the profession before, it may, nevertheless, be well .....Tag this Judgment!