Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 10 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Nov 16 1950 (HC)

Puttamma Vs. Veerabhadra Mudaliar and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1951Kant22; AIR1951Mys22

..... . no. 65/49-50, however, defendant-appellant 1 complained that the lower court erred in not giving findings on all the issues and in not noticing the defects as to multifariousness and jurisdiction. the learned additional subordinate judge heard both the appeals together. he set aside the judgment of the munsiff and remanded the case to him for fresh disposal according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 05 1990 (HC)

M.R. Rajasekharappa Vs. H.N. Siddananjappa

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1990KAR2303

..... the properties mentioned in para 11 of the written statement and para 4 of the reply?12. is the suit barred by adverse possession?13. is the suit bad for multifariousness as contended in para 21 of the written statement?14. is the suit barred by time?15. are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs sought?16. what order?7. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2002 (HC)

V.K. Ferro Alloys (Private) Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh a ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2003(1)ALD10; 2003(2)ALT620

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

Tag this Judgment!

May 11 1949 (PC)

Deep Chandra Vs. Ruknuddaula Shamsher Jang Nawab Mohammad Sajjad Ali K ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1951All93

..... agreement between the plaintiff and the nawab was void, as opposed to public policy under section 23, contract act, (d) the suit was bad for misjoinder of unnecessary parties and multifariousness of causes of action, (e) the plaintiff having received the cheque sent to him in return of his earnest money was not entitled to maintain the suit, and (f) the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1974 (HC)

Smt. Janki Devi Vs. Mannilal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1975All91

..... was about the mis-joinder of causes of action and mis-joinder of the parties. issue no. 8 framed in this connection is as below:--'is the suit bad for multifariousness?' the learned civil judge recorded a finding that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action and directed the plaintiff to remove the defects within .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1932 (PC)

Basharat Beg Vs. Hira Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1932All401

..... kind. consequently, we do not consider that there is any legal defect in the present suit on this ground.3. an objection was taken that the suit was bad for multifariousness; but we consider that it is covered by the terms of order 1, rule 1, civil p.c. each of the plaintiffs received hurts from a body of persons, and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1950 (HC)

Mst. Ulfat and ors. Vs. Zubaida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1955All361

..... amount mentioned in the plaint as the value of the ornaments.6. the defendants have come up in appeal. their learned advocate contended : (1) that the suit was bad for multifariousness and a question of jurisdiction was affected; (2) that there was no evidence to prove that house entered at item no. 1 of list a belonged to zahiruddin and the ..... , plaintiff no. 2 was also one of the persons who should have been sued or the claim reduced proportionately. neither of these courses was adopted. thus the suit was certainly multifarious. nevertheless that cannot be allowed to affect the decision now by reason of order ii, rule 7, c. p. c.8a. order ii, rule 7, c. p. c. provides:'all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1985 (HC)

Bhaggal and ors. Vs. Rangi Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1986All163

..... other pleas were also raised which are not material to be detailed for the disposal of this appeal.18. learned trial court found that the suit was not bad for multifariousness; the suit was not barred by estoppel; defendants 1 to 8 were not bona fide purchasers for value; impugned documents were not validly executed and they were liable to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 1948 (PC)

Jagannath Singh and anr. Vs. Pragi Kunwar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1949All448

..... to the suit were the only persons responsible for the murder of jai ram. it may be noted here that the defendants had pleaded that the suit was bad for multifariousness. consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs had released any of the joint tortfeasors.5. the trial court had pointed out that the suit was maintainable under the fatal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 2008 (HC)

Mohd. Zakaria (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Ishrat Begum (D) by L.Rs.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1579

..... dismissed by the trial court for want of jurisdiction, or for default of plaintiffs appearance, or on the ground of non-joinder of parties or mis-joinder 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!


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