Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 87 results (0.009 seconds)

Mar 05 2008 (HC)

Som Parkash Vs. Karam Dass Through His L.Rs. and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)151PLR700

..... relief on the basis of subsequent agreement ex.d1 dated 2.8.1962. when respondents amended the suit and claimed alternative relief, their suit was dismissed for multifariousness. ex.p1 dated 1.12.1957 if executed would have vested larger chunk of land in favour of the respondents. ex.d1 was executed to restrict claim ..... fresh agreement ex.d1 dated 2.8.1962 was executed to bind the parties and accordingly the suit was amended and subsequently after same was dismissed for multifariousness it is too late in the day to bar the respondents from seeking relief which will flow to them out of subsequent agreement ex.d1 dated 2 ..... lall seal : [1952]1scr179 .having laid much stress upon ganesh shets case (supra), mrs. gandhi urged that once despite dismissal of the suit being bad for multifariousness an option having been given to the respondents to rely either upon agreement ex.p1 dated 1.12.1957 or agreement ex.d1 dated 2.8.1962, learned single ..... amended plaint was filed on 3.12.1963.8. lateron, the trial court framed two preliminary issues as to whether the suit was bad for multifariousness and whether the suit was not properly valued for court fee. the trial court came to the conclusion on 23.1.1964 that the suit was bad ..... for multifarious-ness and accordingly gave the respondents an option to remove the defects. on 28.1.1964 amended suit was filed. it was prayed in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2009 (HC)

Lakhbir Singh Vs. Darshan Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2009)155PLR765

..... led on issue no. 6, still it was left undecided.20. issue no. 7 was decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. issue no. 8 was decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that there was no defect in the frame of the suit. the suit was held to be within ..... , its effect? opd-56. whether defendants no. 11 an 12 are bona fide purchasers for consideration and without notice? opd-11 and 12.7. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? opd8. whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? opp9. whether the suit is within limitation? opp10. whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit? opp11 ..... , 7 to 9 and 13 by filing separate written statements. however, grounds of challenge were similar.8. the case set up in defence was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit was also challenged. plea that the suit was not properly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1998 (HC)

Sarupa and ors. Vs. the Panchayati Akhara and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1998)119PLR713

..... they cannot be challenged in civil court. on the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed on 6.8.1968 :1. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?2. whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction ?3. whether the full particulars of the land have not ..... jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?6. whether no valid notice under section 80 c.p.c. was served by the plaintiff ?7. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?8. whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?9. relief.4. on consideration of evidence brought on record .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1999 (HC)

Balbir Kumar Jatti Vs. Shivala Bhikhamsar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)125PLR539

..... mala fidely to grab the land and the same is not maintainable in the present form; that the plaintiffs have no cause of action; that the suit is bad for multifariousness and that the suit is barred under order 2 rule 2 c.p.c. on merits, the stand of the defendant no. 1 was that there was a shivala temple .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1958 (HC)

Seth Roshan Lal Etc. Vs. Dewan Bhagwan Das

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1959P& H367

..... grounds (a) that the tribunal at delhi had no jurisdiction because, excepting govind ram, the remaining judgment-debtors were residing outside its territorial jurisdiction, (b) that it was bad for multifariousness because one application had been made in relation to a debt that had already been split up into there and in fact the creditor should have made three separate applications ..... civil procedure are attracted and the learned tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction against all the judgment-debtors in this case.the question of multifariousness is also connected with the question of jurisdiction because the substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the judgment-debtors is that if separate applications had been brought ..... held decrees was to gain an advantage over them to attract the jurisdiction of the delhi tribunal and in fact in that he succeeded. the application is, therefore, bad for multifariousness, but if this was the sole defect, i agree on the basis of it the claim of the creditor could not possibly be defeated.11. in so far as govind .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1974 (HC)

Sant Singh and ors. Vs. Des Ram and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1974P& H276

..... that the right to relief alleged to exist against the respondents arises not out of the same act or transaction or series of acts and transactions. the suit is, therefore, multifarious and one not permitted by rule.3.8. for the reasons stated, the impugned order is affirmed and the petition is dismissed with costs. the records shall be transmitted at ..... transaction, etc; was alleged to exist and that, therefore, the provisions of rule 3 above extracted were not applicable to this cease. the finding given was that the suit was multifarious and it is that finding which is challenged by the petitioners.7. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and am of he opinion that no fault can be ..... in the case on the 16th of november, 1972. issue no. 1 which was treated as a preliminary issue runs thus:'whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for multifariousness and causes of action?'4. the issue is not happily worded and the words 'and causes of action' appear to have crept in through a slip of the pen. however ..... where 'houses are under construction' is shown in yellow.2. in their written statement the respondents raised preliminary objections including one to the effect that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, therefore, deserved dismissal. on merits it was stated that each of the respondents had been allotted a plot in the said three khasra numbers on the 19th of september .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1976 (HC)

Kul Bhushan and ors. Vs. Faquira and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1976P& H341

..... has jurisdiction to try the suit?9. whether the suit is barred by time?10. whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action and multifariousness ?'the findings recorded on the above-quoted issues by the trial court in its judgment, dated november 30, 1970, were that bihari lal had died in december, 1960, that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1991 (HC)

Municipal Committee Through Its' President Vs. Ram Kumar and Ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1992)102PLR51

..... the present suit opd5. whether the civil courts have no- jurisdiction to entertain the present suit opd6. whether the suit is within time opd7. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness opd8. whether the plan of the property is necessary to be filed if so, its effect opd9. whether the property in dispute is a public street opd10. whether the plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2008 (HC)

Hariender Kaur Vs. Sharan Gurdev Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)2PLR478

..... dismissed by the trial. court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiff s appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or misjoinder of parties or multifariousness, or on the ground that the suit was badly framed, or on the ground of a technical mistake, or for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce probate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1980 (HC)

Ram Kali and anr. Vs. Pardip Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1980P& H345

..... and for legal necessity ? 4. whether the suit land has not been properly described in the plaint arid if so, to what effect? 5. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness? 6. whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties? 7 whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction? 8. whether the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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