Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: kolkata Page 1 of about 109 results (0.008 seconds)

Apr 15 1910 (PC)

Hari Charan Sarkar and ors. Vs. the District Judge of Dacca

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!

Feb 02 1906 (PC)

Jaggeswar Dutt Vs. Bhuban Mohan Mitra

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal425

..... the mortgage and setting up a title 'paramount to that of the mortgagor and mortgagee, are sought to be investigated, is open to objection on the ground of misjoinder and multifariousness.10. under sections 44 and 45 of our civil procedure code there cannot be joinder of causes of action of this description see sarada sundari v. sarada prosad (1904) 2 c.l ..... party and litigate and settle his rights in that case.' the reason assigned was that a suit so framed would be open to objection on the grounds of misjoinder and multifariousness (see story on equity pleadings, 10th edition, section 230), where it is stated on high authority that no person need be made a party to a suit, who claims under ..... dismissed from the mortgage suit, their lordships observed that, if the defendants, who alleged paramount titles in themselves, had been allowed to remain as parties, the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest degree, if it had gone on in that shape, as the defence raised was quite foreign to a mortgage suit. in a subsequent passage, while .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1876 (PC)

Treeporasoondery Dossee Vs. Debendronath Tagore

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal45

..... came on to be heard before me in settlement of issues, and debendro and ganendro set up three principal grounds why the suit should be dismissed: 1st, that it is multifarious; 2nd, that the plaintiff has no right to sue in respect of any of the matters complained of by her; and 3rd, that the plaintiff is barred by limitation and ..... plaintiff had, in fact, any right or interest under the deed of settlement, and having regard to the wider and more liberal view latterly taken with respect to objection for multifariousness, as shown in the cases of pointon v. pointon l.r. 12 eq. 537 and coates v. legard l.e. 19 eq. 56. i should not have been disposed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 2005 (HC)

Chandi Prasad Sikaria Vs. Premlata Nahata and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2005(4)CHN664

..... election by way of an application for amendment upon which the suit of the remaining plaintiffs against the defendant will stand dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. it will, however, be open to other plaintiffs to file separate suits against the defendant in respect of their respective agreement and/or claim ..... right of the appellant/petitioner and the appellant/petitioner has been prejudiced and would suffer if the suit is not dismissed on the ground of multifariousness as pleaded by the appellant/ petitioner. hence, we have to hold that the order so passed by the hon'ble first court rejecting the ..... to a consideration of the plaint alone in determination whether the suit is barred by any law.the 'law' in question is the rule prohibiting multifariousness.a basis suit envisages one plaintiff suing on one cause of action against one defendant. however, the law permits joinder of several plaintiffs, defendants and ..... of action. according to him, the point which has been taken by mr. banerjee is only to delay the proceedings. he further submitted that multifariousness is not a ground for rejection of a plaint. if the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes ..... /petitioner applied before the hon'ble first court for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action.3. it appears from the facts that the instant suit was filed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1952 (HC)

Sm. Nagendra Bala Debi and ors. Vs. Provash Chandra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1953Cal185,57CWN97

..... possible to give effect to mr. banerji's contention and, in our view, the learned subordinate judge was right in deciding the issue of multifariousness against the plaintiffs.9. there is, however, one matter which requires to be noticed at this stage. the learned subordinate judge gave the plaintiffs ..... before and the relevant discussion in --'anukul chandra v. province of bengal', 51 cal wn 295, above cited, where the defence plea of multifariousness was upheld.8. in the present case, the defaults were separate and made by separate individuals in respect of different separate accounts. the payments ..... involved in the case, were both satisfied and the present suit was protected by the said provisions against any challenge on the ground of defect of multifariousness. mr. banerji in this connection drew our attention to three decisions of this court reported in --'ramendra nath v. brojendra nath', 45 cal ..... , therefore, did not decide -- any of the said other issues in the case. having regard to his finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate judge and against that decision the present appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs.5. on behalf of ..... of the payments alleged to have been made by them.4. the learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, although he made certain observations with regard to the other issues arising on the facts of this particular case, he did not, as already .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2004 (HC)

Premlata Nahata and anr. Vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : IV(2004)BC602

..... cannot be said that there is no nexus between the two causes of action. so there is no reason to say that the suit is bad for multifariousness.21. for the foregoing reasons, i am of the view that this application should be dismissed; and hence it is hereby dismissed.22. costs of this ..... the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it. it is therefore clear that a plea of multifariousness is not to be examined with a rigid approach.20. i find that in this case if the plaintiffs brought separate suits, then such suits would ..... order 7 rule 11 (d) of the cpc for rejection of a plaint; and (2) whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for multifariousness.9. the word 'multifariousness' does not find a mention in the cpc. in connection with pleading it means the improper joining the distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding ..... two or more plaintiffs by joining their separate causes of action. misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action are only obstacles to one trial. multifarious ness is not a ground for rejection of a plaint. since a suit cannot be defeated for misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes of action, ..... plaintiffs, and hence there was no legal basis for the plaintiffs to join their independent causes of action against the defendant in one suit. according to him multifarious ness will attract the provisions of order 7 rule 11 (d) of the cpc, and hence the plaint is liable to be rejected.5. mr. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1972 (HC)

Mst. Ramdayee Vs. Dhanraj Kochar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1972Cal313,76CWN513

..... the plea for a period of more than twelve years from the date of the framing of the issues, is fatal to their claim.' in our case the plea of multifariousness was raised more than five years after the framing of issues and after various other proceedings have taken place both in the trial court and in this court. from this ..... by this court, as late as the 17th september, 1968, the two defendants made the present application objecting to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and multifariousness. the objections were overruled and the trial judge passed his order on january 21, 1970. immediately thereafter the defendants obtained the present rule.15. on these facts this rule ought ..... not be sufficient for a lawful ioinder of the several causes of action against the several defendants and that, accordingly, it would be no answer to the defence objection of multifariousness. this court made the rule absolute and set aside the order of the trial judge. this court was of the view that the allegation of conspiracy in the plaint, as ..... plaintiff and a further declaration that defendant no. 2 is a trespasser. an objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was bad for multifariousness. in the plaint, there was a specific allegation of conspiracy amongst all the defendants for keeping the plaintiff out of possession ofthe disputed property, but the learned trial judge held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 1957 (HC)

Ranjit Kumar Pal Chowdhury Vs. Murari Mohan Pal Chowdhury and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1958Cal710,62CWN390

..... action in the same suit upon a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case. the omission of the defendants to raise the plea of multifariousness for a period of more than twelve years from the date of the framing of the issues, is, in my opinion, fatal to their claim. ..... in this suit were settled on 11-11-1942. on that date all the defendants who have obtained these rules could have raised the plea of multifariousness because the amendments by which the properties in which they claim interest were included in the plaint, were made in the months of april and june, ..... or whether harendra nath ghose is or is not a benamdar for the joint family is quite foreign to the question whether the suit is bad for multifariousness. as the plaintiff alleges that harendra nath ghose is a benamdar for the joint family, the properties standing in his name nave been rightly included ..... the suit was taken up for peremptory hearing on 20-6-1954, when the defendants filed an application for raising an additional issue on the question of multifarious-ness. this issue was raised and decided in favour of the plaintiff by the learned subordinate judge by his order dated the 3rd of august, 1954, ..... instead of raising that plea on that date they waited for twelve years and raised the plea of multifariousness only on 20-8-1954, when the suit was taken up for peremptory hearing. the rule of multifariousness is a rule of convenience and it is primarily in the discretion of the court to decide; whether .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 1899 (PC)

Nistarini Dassi Vs. Nundo Lall Bose and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1899)ILR26Cal891

..... judgment the vice-chancellor says: 'next, as to the question of multifariousness, i think that there is no more in the objection on that ground than there is in that for want of parties. there are three analogous vices ..... him in all respects, and with all losses occasioned by his mismanagement, and for a receiver and for an injunction, a demurrer by the uncle for multifariousness and for want of parties was overruled.26. the frame of that suit is not unlike that of the present suit.27. in the course of his ..... assets of a deceased person, and the fact that in the claim acts of mal-administration are complained of, and sought to be redressed, does not render it multifarious.25. in the case of pointon v. pointon (1871) l.r., 12 eq., 547, where three out of four testator's children, residuary legatees (the ..... sought, as the old form of the demurrer for multifariousness shows. misjoinder of subjects of suit is where two subjects distinct in their nature are united in one bill, and for convenience sake the ..... to which bills in equity are subject--misjoinder of plaintiffs, misjoinder of defendants, and multifariousness or misjoinder of subjects of suit. it is the last which is imputed to this bill. multifariousness, properly so called, exists when one of the defendants is not interested in the whole of the relief .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 07 2008 (HC)

Rajmani Sharma and ors. Vs. Khitish Debnath

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2008(4)CHN471

..... separate suits, the joinder of all the defendants in the suit is permissible under order 1 rule 3 of the c.p.c. the suit is, therefore, not bad for multifariousness or mis-joinder of causes of action.14. in view of the aforesaid discussion, i am of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment ..... up or on the evidence or on the decree awarded to the plaintiff.13. in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the question of multifariousness is to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. as per the averments made in the amended plaint, it appears that the defendants allegedly had ..... the pleadings or rather, the plaint, for our present purpose, and, inview of the allegation of conspiracy, made therein, the present suit should be held maintainable and not bad for multifariousness.it has been further held by the hon'ble court in the said decision as follows:it is true that, in the plaint, there are also other claims, namely, of ..... out by the learned court. there is, therefore, no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned courts below on this point.11. secondly, as regards the question of multifariousness or mis-joinder of parties and causes of action in the suit, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the provisions of order 1 rule 3 of the c .....

Tag this Judgment!


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