Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: andhra pradesh Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.018 seconds)

Mar 11 1958 (HC)

Sajjanam Wadla China Rajayya Vs. Chappal Venkateshwar Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Mar-11-1958

Reported in : AIR1959AP349

..... to bring fresh suits, as has been the case in 'the three authorities cited by the advocate for the defendants. when the court insisted that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the pleader for the plaintiff merely expressed his willingness to continue the suit as against the 2nd defendant,thereupon the court did not order the suit to 'be withdrawn but ..... two sets of defendants for recovery of money due to him by the defendants on babi khata accounts.a preliminary objection was taken to the plaint on the ground of multifariousness. the trial court expressed the opinion that the defect in the frame of the suit was there and actually ordered that the plaintiff should elect as to which of the ..... remaining, names. the plaintiff is given time of three days to produce fresh plaints.'there is no controversy that if the trial judge had dismissed the suit as framed, for multifarious ness and the plaintiff had brought fresh separate suits against each of the defendants, he would not have been handicapped by the provisions of rule 2, of order 23, order ..... the principal debtor.5. it would thus be seen that their lordships were dealing with a case which was properly constituted as originally framed and in which' no question of multifariousness was involved. had it been allowed to proceed as such it might have resulted iii a decree against the four trustees or any of them. the plaintiffs by having their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //