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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom213; 1980MhLJ725
..... suit several causes of actionagainst the same defendants jointly. ithink, that submission is correct. i holdthat in view of this position the suit cannot be said to be barred by multifarious-ness.17. one more contention that was raised on behalf of the defendants was that three pieces of lands were mortgaged under three mortgages. the pieces of lands so mortgaged ..... way, i would proceed to see whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by multifariousness. admittedly, the mortgagee in respect of thethree mortgages was the same. it is truethat the three pieces of lands were mortgaged by three different persons. however, on the facts found ..... of the defendants that one suit for three mortgages was not maintainable as the mortgagors were not common. it appears that the contention that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by multifariousness, was pot taken up in the lower appellate court. the only question canvassed before the lower appellate court was with regard to the adverse possession claimed by the defendants. any ..... the said lands. the defendants' contention that they had become the owners of the suit land by adverse possession was upheld. their further contention that the suit was barred by multifariousness was also upheld. in view of these findings, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiffs were not entitled for redemption and possession of the suit land and that therefore .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom255; (1946)48BOMLR795
..... of action whose inclusion in the same suit resulted in multifariousness. when the plaintiffs elected to proceed with one cause of action only, the defendant who was then defendant no. 6, had nothing to do with that cause of action, and ..... plaintiffs were obliged to give up the defendant and the claim made against him, in obedience to the finding of the court that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness. the election to proceed with one cause of action against one set of defendants did not in such a case amount to the withdrawal or abandonment of the other causes ..... of the deposits said to have been made in ms shop by deceased deoram-the very relief asked for in the present suit. as such u suit was bad for multifariousness, the plaintiffs were called upon to elect, and they gave a purshis confining it to their claim against defendants nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 13. as the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom287; (1935)37BOMLR288; 159Ind.Cas.911
..... not only in the commission agency business but also in the pearl business of chaturbhuj pitamberdas & co. i also hold that the suit is not bad on the ground of multifariousness, and is maintainable as framed.8. the most important question, however, in the suit relates to the liability of the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants who contend that they are ..... question of the 7th defendant's partnership later, because if it is held that he was a partner, the suit cannot be said to be bad on the ground of multifariousness.6. the original 1st defendant and the 4th, 6th and 7th defendants were the principal defendants in the suit. the original 1st defendant is dead, and the other 6th and ..... ).5. there is one other preliminary issue which i should like to deal with before' dealing with the main issue, viz., whether the suit is maintainable on the ground of multifariousness. it was argued by counsel for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants that there was a misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, as the suit is for an amalgamated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1935Bom131; (1935)37BOMLR62; 155Ind.Cas.7
..... . the second rent-note purporting to have been executed jointly in favour of the mortgagee and divali was repudiated in that suit by divali, the suit was, however, dismissed for multifariousness and for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court did not go into the merits. in 1928 muli died, and towards the end of 1929 plaintiff has brought ..... between landlord and tenant, to raise the question of his rights as against the rights of muli or the mortgagee. to do so would have made the suit bad for multifariousness, and again it would have been dismissed without being considered on the merits. this question was, therefore, not constructively in issue in the suit of 1922, and on that ground .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Nagpur
..... of the view that the composite application filed by the petitioners against respondent nos. 6 to 11 was maintainable and did not suffer from the defect of multifariousness. the petition has already been withdrawn against respondents nos. 12 to 14 and the other respondents are formal parties. we, therefore, hold that the ..... which is reproduced hereunder :"8. with regard to the plea of multifariousness in respect of respondents nos. 6 to 11, we might point out that section 15(2) provides that after an election petition is filed, an ..... application of the principles as contained in the civil procedure code, the common election petition was maintainable. it was not a case where the petitions were suffering from multifariousness inasmuch as different causes of action were sought to be combined in one election petition. the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is paragraph (8), ..... was different for each of the election petitioners. hence, the election petition was not suffering from the vice of multifariousness. if multifarious causes of action were to be considered, the learned judge would have been within his right not to entertain a petition containing ..... multifarious causes of action. therefore, in the light of the judgment of the learned single judge of this court in bhimaji laxman .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR471
..... issues which were raised at the hearing and which read as follows:-(1) whether this honourable court has jurisdiction to try this suit ?(2) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?(3) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit?(4) whether there were any books of accounts of the four trusts mentioned in the plaint ?(5) whether the defendant ..... the two questions involved in the first issue which were argued before me.16. as regards the second issue, mr. k.k. desai argues that the suit is bad for multifariousness because there are four charities involved in the suit and the accounts of four different charities will have to be taken. in my opinion this is in substance the advocate ..... , whose duty it is to protect charity moneys, whether belonging to one charity or several charities, and it is against the same defendant. i, therefore, hold that there is no multifariousness, and i answer that issue in the negative.17. so far as issue no. 3 is concerned, it was argued that on the facts of the case the plaintiffs were .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom214; (1961)63BOMLR692; ILR1962Bom101
..... proper steps to assert their claim in the land acquisition proceedings.(3) on these pleadings, several issues were framed. the trial court held that the suit was not bad for multifariousness inasmuch as both the plaintiffs claimed a right to receive rs. 150 out of the vasool from the village of chincholi by grant and judicial decisions, whereas plaintiff no. 1 ..... . 2 came to be struck off from the suit as he had been removed from the office. the other contentions of the defendants were that the suit was bad for multifariousness, that plaintiff had no title to receive rs. 417-4-0 out of the vasool of the village of chincholi; that the prior proceedings were not binding on defendant no .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR363
..... inconvenience and expense caused to the defendants. the written statement of the present appellants (as is common in india) contained a plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness, but their lordships have not been satisfied that at any time before the commencement of the trial any appropriate and serious application was made to the court upon the face .....Tag this Judgment!