Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1929All148; 114Ind.Cas.881
..... questions of fact which arose in each case would have been considered separately and threshed out in detail. the plaintiff, however, has chosen to bring one multifarious suit, and the allegations in the plaint, even after they were supplemented by his application dated 9th july 1923, were by no means specific or ..... not decreed. it is, therefore, not possible for us to dismiss the suit in appeal on the preliminary ground that it is bad for multifariousness.5. in his plaint the plaintiff admitted that a firm styled sham lal gokul chand was started about 1860 at hathras and another one was opened ..... defendants was very inconvenient and embarrassing. but now that the whole evidence has been recorded it is too late for us to consider the defect of multifariousness, as under section 99, civil p.c., an appellate court cannot interfere on this ground unless the defect has affected the merits of the ..... denial that the plaintiff had in any way been prejudiced. several defendants also took the plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as numerous causes of action had been wrongly jointed together.3. the learned subordinate judge framed several issues including the one as to the ..... question of multifariousness. unfortunately he postponed the decision of the last mentioned issue till all the evidence had been recorded and then summarily disposed of it, .....Tag this Judgment!
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!
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 : 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!
Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1973Ori47
..... such adoption is within the period of limitation prescribed under article 118 of old limitation act the suit must fail as barred by time; (2) the suit is bad for multifariousness. the causes of action in respect of 'kha' and 'ga' schedules being separate have been clubbed together and, therefore, the suit must also fail.6. plaintiff filed, a simple suit ..... . 3 was never adopted by bhaban barik, this point has no legs to stand upon and accordingly fails.7. the next contention agitated is that the suit is bad for multifariousness inasmuch as it unites two separate causes of action, one for partition of schedule 'kha' properties and the other for a declaration of title to schedule 'ga' properties. there has ..... been disapproved in the madras case quoted above (air 1955 mad 300).for the aforesaid reasons i am satisfied that the present suit does not suffer from any infirmity of multifariousness. this point accordingly fails.11. in the result, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissedwith costs.Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys159; ILR1962KAR809
..... to insist upon the plaintiff bringing two separate sets of suit for that purpose which would only result in dilatoriness and delay. in my opinion, far from there being any multifariousness in the suit, it is the order of the court below which will result in multiplicity of proceedings.9. this revision petition is allowed, the order made by the court ..... confine his suit to only some of the reliefs prayed for by him, and be asked this direction to be made on the ground that the suit is bad for multifariousness.4. what was urged before the court below was that the suit in so far as it asked for the eviction of defendant 4 was based on the provisions of ..... ordera.r. somnath iyer, j.1. whether the plaintiff's suit is bad for multifariousness is the question which arises in this revision petition which is presented by the plaintiff.2. the property which is the subject-matter of the suit in the court below .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1943Mad386; (1943)1MLJ102
..... and consequently the appellants were compelled to file the present suit for the ejectment of the defendants.2. various defences were raised. one was that the suit was bad for multifariousness and another was that it could not be maintained because the provisions of section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act, 1921, had not been complied with. the city ..... civil court accepted the plea of the defendants that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness and dismissed it on that ground. the appellants then appealed to this court. the appeal was heard by patanjali sastri, j., who disagreed with the opinion of the trial judge ..... that the suit was bad for multifariousness, but he dismissed the appeal because he considered that the plea based on section 11 of the madras city tenants protection act was well founded. this appeal is from the .....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 : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1950Mad12
..... rights declared to several items of property detailed in plaint schedule a. after issues were framed, the district munsif in a considered order found that the plaint was bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties so far as plaint schedule a lands were concerned. the petitioners all sought the same relief as regards schedule. b lands holding that they were lands ..... enjoyed in common. the learned district munsif found that the suit was not bad as regards schedule. b either for multifariousness or for misjoinder.2. the plaint is interesting and has been keenly argued before me. mr. kuppuswami for the petitioners contends that the pleadings raise in question a common issue ..... are entitled to the injunction prayed for ?(7) whether the plaintiffs can ask for injunction without claiming possession of schedule b lands; and(8) whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and is liable to be dismissed on that ground ?4. the plaint was filed under the provisions of order 1, rule 1 which permits all persons to join in a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1935)69MLJ497
..... to have the earliest opportunity to repel such a disgraceful charge, and not to seek a further opportunity of having the claim against them dismissed on the technical plea of multifariousness. this natural attitude is not the attitude adopted by the petitioners in these petitions.7. no case has been brought to our notice in which leave to appeal to his ..... an appeal from the decree of the subordinate judge of devakotta dated 7th november, 1932, dismissing o.s. no. 109 of 1930 on his file on the preliminary ground of multifariousness or misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action. in appeal this court held that there was no such misjoinder and remanded the suit to the original court for disposal ..... majesty in council has been granted from an order deciding a point of procedure like a plea of multifariousness. in the present case the plea of multifariousness is moreover devoid of any real substance; persistence in such a plea deserves no encouragement. it is no doubt open to us under clause (c) of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1947)2MLJ337
..... suit decided that the suit was bad for misjoinder or for multifariousness and put the plaintiff to his election. the material seems to indicate that the plaintiff clearly anticipated failure because of the objection taken in the written statement and met that ..... one which would be un-objectionable ; but that he had been bound to elect as a result of the court's decision that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness. it seems to me that there are no such facts in the present case and there is nothing in the evidence to show that the court which heard the prior ..... , j., in gurubhotlu v. jogayya (1935) 42 l.w. 256. that was a case filed against the two sets of defendants. there was an objection taken on the ground of multifariousness. on this objection being taken the plaintiff himself admitted that the objection was good and elected to proceed against one set of defendants, the other defendants being given up and .....Tag this Judgment!