Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 11 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Aug 29 2001 (HC)

Rafat Umar Vs. Vikas Khurana

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2001(4)AWC2769

..... . the contention of shri deo raj singh, learned counsel for the applicant is that the causes of action in the two suits are different, and the suit is bad for multifariousness. he relies on the provisions of order ii, rule 4, c.p.c. and contends that the suit for rent and ejectment is a suit for immovable property and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 2006 (HC)

Arun Kumar Tiwari Vs. Smt. Deepa Sharma and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2142

..... without payment of court fee on the relief sought in the suit was not maintainable.(iii) that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and for multifariousness.(iv) that when preliminary issues regarding jurisdiction of the court and regarding valuation and sufficiency of the court fees had been framed by the court, it was necessary for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1979 (HC)

Brij Lal and ors. Vs. Vijay Kumar and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1979P& H192

..... necessity and the same were not binding on him. on a preliminary objection raised, the trial court held vide order dated nov. 10, 1972, that the suit was bad for multifariousness and all the causes of action joined in the single suit could not be conveniently tried. vijay kumar was directed to amend the plaint and to continue the suit only .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1985 (HC)

Karam Dass and ors. Vs. Som Parkash

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1986P& H89

..... . written statement to the amended plaint was also filed on 3rd dec. 1963. later on, the trial court framed two preliminary issues as to whether the suit was bad for multifariousness and whether the suit had not been properly valued for court fee and jurisdiction. the trial court vide its order dt 23rd jan. 1964, came to the conclusion that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1966 (SC)

Sheodan Singh Vs. Smt. Daryao Kunwar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1966SC1332; [1966]3SCR300

..... 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 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!

Jan 23 1969 (HC)

Virendra Saigal Vs. Sumatilal Jamnalal

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1970Delhi14

..... 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 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!

Jul 15 1993 (HC)

Faqir Chand (Through L.Rs.) Vs. Laila Ram (Through L.Rs.)

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1993IIIAD(Delhi)168; AIR1994Delhi161; 51(1993)DLT505

..... property. following issues were framed :1. is the suit liable to be stayed under section 10 or section 151 of the civil p.c.? 2. is the suit bad for multifariousness ? 3. is the suit not correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? 4. did the defendant construct any tin-shed on any portion jointly owned by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1987 (HC)

Bank of India Vs. Vinod Kumar Bhalla

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1988Delhi79; [1991]70CompCas340(Delhi)

..... and two accounts maintained with parliament street branch thereof. in para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, the contention of the defendantis: 'the suit is bad for multifariousness of parties and causes of action, hence the same merits dismissal. the suit comprises accounts of two different branches of the bank with different causes of action. each branch is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1972 (HC)

Sita Ram Talwar and anr. Vs. Jai Dev Sharma

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1972Delhi769

..... allowing whereof would be necessary for bringing out before the court the real and pertinent aspects of the controversy in order to promote a final adjudication. it is intended that multifariousness be avoided. (8) while dealing with order 6, rule 17 of the civil procedure code the supreme court in jai jai ram manohar lal v. national building material supply, gurgaon, : [1970]1scr22 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 10 1984 (HC)

Kunhappa Nair and anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar and anr.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1984Ker99

..... 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 of a technical mistake, or for failure on the pan of the plaintiff to produce probate or letters of administration or succession certificate when the same .....

Tag this Judgment!


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