Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jun-13-1930
Reported in : AIR1930All863; 128Ind.Cas.827
..... a second and subsequent suit. in our opinion the learned subordinate judge ought to have acceded to the request of the respondents' counsel that he should ignore the plea of multifariousness raised by the defendants themselves and ought to have tried the case on the merits. it is not suggested that either of the parties have suffered on the merits by ..... the result the learned munsif dismissed the suit. it is to be noted that in the order dismissing the suit he does not give multifariousness as one of the reasons for the order that he was passing.3. on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned subordinate judge started by saying that the munsif decided the ..... munsif framed eight issues and he decided all of them. he found that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. he found that the suit was bad for multifariousness and he found that most of the buildings on the site were more than 12 years old. he also found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages. in ..... remand so far as the aforesaid four persons are concerned. the case will go back to the learned subordinate judge who will decide the appeal on merits. the question of multifariousness need not be gone into. the costs in this court and in the lower courts will abide the result. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-12-1930
Reported in : AIR1931All162
..... appellants is this: simultaneous proceedings will go on in the insolvency court and numerous other courts. this is a position which is hardly desirable. it benefits nobody. it leads to multifarious suits and the very object of insolvency law is frustrated.74. i find that by far most of the decisions of the courts given since their lordships of the privy .....Tag this Judgment!