Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 6 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Apr 28 1914 (PC)

Balkrishna Das Vs. Kunwar Hira Lal Bagla and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 24Ind.Cas.95

..... same lady. these transfers he alleged to be null and void as against his interest. there were various defences, among them being the plea that the suit was had for multifariousness. during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff and defendants nos. 1 and 2 came to terms. under the compromise that house which was transferred to defendants nos. 3 and ..... . on the basis of this compromise the court below gave the plaintiff a decree as against defendants nos. 1 and 2, but it held that the suit was had for multifariousness and it called upon the plaintiff to elect as to the portion of his suit with which he would proceed. the plaintiff declined to elect and so the court below ..... civil procedure, the point is covered by the clear language of order i, rule 3. under that order it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was not had for multifariousness and he was entitled to join all the defendants as parties to the suit so as to enable him to recover his share in the whole of the estate of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1960 (HC)

Kanhaiyalal Vs. Keshodas

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1961MP46; 1962MPLJ15

..... subject matter from that of the other defendants. if no connection or conspiracy is alleged to exist between the various persons joined as defendants, the suit will be bad for multifariousness. otherwise, if a common suit is permitted against two or more defendants when there is no nexus inter se, it will only lead to obscurity and confusion the policy of ..... ordershiv dayal, j. 1. this revision is directed against an order passed by the trial judge holding that the suit was bad for multifariousness. he gave the plaintiff an option to elect one of the two defendants against whom he wanted to continue the suit2. the allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiff .....

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!

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 28 1999 (HC)

Surinder Kumar Jhamb Vs. Mr. Om Parkash Shokeen

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 1999VIAD(Delhi)579; 82(1999)DLT569; 1999(51)DRJ704

..... . in the facts of this case, there arose common question of law and facts. for the reasons stated above, it can safely be concluded that respondents did not suffer from multifariousness nor hit by the provisions of order 1, rule 1 cpc. 10. now turning to the second limb of appellants, argument that suit property was not a vacant plot but ..... that unregistered lease deed cannot be looked into but for collateral purpose. mr. s.k. puri's main thrust of argument was based on the plea that suit suffered from multifariousness. according to him, once the respondents entered into three different lease agreements it would amount to creating three different tenancies. thereforee, there were three distinct transactions and three different causes ..... as under : 2. whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as pleaded in the written statement filed by the defendant? opd 3. whether suit is bad for multifariousness? opd 7. whether there existed any structure and three rooms at the time of letting if so its effect opd 8. whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 26 1921 (PC)

Bolisetti Mamayya Vs. Buragadda Venkateswaralu and anr. and Kolla Kota ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1921Mad294; (1921)40MLJ570

..... of inconvenience should not be given too much weight. as i stated, the test is whether if the application was treated as a suit, that suit would be bad for multifariousness, that is, for misjoinder of different causes of action against different defendants. if no such objection can be successfully advanced a single application is in my opinion maintainable in that ..... case. of course, we should confine ourselves to the allegations in the petition to find out whether the objection of multifariousness is sustainable. in the present case, on the allegations in the creditor's petition as it stands, the objection of multifariousness cannot be sustained. that ground of appeal is therefore rejected.8. now as regards the two other contentions, the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2004 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. Jairam P. Kamat and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(1)ALLMR446; III(2004)BC319

..... and therefore since the present suit was filed based on documents executed in march, 1979, there was no question of the said kanerker being a necessary party to the suit. multifariousness is commonly referred to misjoinder of claims. there was no other claim in this suit except against the present defendants who had executed the said documents. issue no. 1, therefore ..... bank refused to hand over the hypothecated goods to the above background three submissions have been made on behalf of the defendant no. 3. the first is regarding multifariousness and non-joinder probably of the said r.s. kanerker. this plea was part of issue no. 1. the learned civil judge, senior division came to the conclusion that the ..... that all the defendants were jointly interested in the said cause of action arising under the said letter dated 26.2.1976 and therefore the present suit was bad for multifariousness and non-joinder of necessary party.the defendant no. 3 admitted the execution of general agreement and ancillary agreement on 1.3.79 (exhs. p-1 and p-4) but .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 08 1992 (HC)

Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and ors. Vs. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1992(2)BomCR22; (1992)94BOMLR965

..... court and consequently the high court has no jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' claim. the trial judge did not accept the technical defences raised by defendant no. 5 about the multifariousness, failure to join the necessary parties, limitation, judicate etc. the trial judge held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the quantum of damages suffered for a period of three ..... be done.the suit was resisted by defendant nos. 5 to 7. defendant no. 5 claimed that the suit was barred by law of limitation and was also bad for multifariousness and for failure to join the necessary parties, that is defendant no. 11 who was a co-trustee at the time of institution of the suit. defendant no. 5 also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 1907 (PC)

Mahmud Fatima and anr. Vs. Parbati Kunwar and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (1907)ILR29All267

..... the learned judges in this expression of their view of the law. we may also refer with approval to two decisions in this high court in which the question of multifariousness was considered. the one is that of indar kuar v. gur prasad (1888) i.l.r., 11 all., 33 and the other the case of mazhar all khan v. sajjad ..... the landlord, and having obtained possession, was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants in collusion with the landlord, the defence of the defendants mainly was that the suit was bad for multifariousness inasmuch as they were severally in possession of distinct and definite portions of the land, under different demises, and that there was no community of interest between them. in delivering ..... their father to recover their shares of his property, and that that cause of action accrued to them upon their father's death. if the authorities on the question of multifariousness are conflicting, two decisions of the calcutta high court commend themselves to us: one is in the case of ishun chunder hazra v. rameshwar mondol (1897) i.l.r., 24 ..... ground of appeal we are concluded by the finding of fact of the lower appellate court.5. the next question is whether or not the claim of the plaintiffs is multifarious. both the lower courts have held that it was not so. the claim, it is to be observed, is for the recovery from parties in possession, said to be wrongfully .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 1931 (PC)

Bhagauti Shukul and ors. Vs. Chandrika Prasad Kueri

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1933All147; 150Ind.Cas.289

..... the premium, which is the consideration of the lease already given effect to.5. another argument put forward on behalf of the applicants is that the suit was bad for 'multifariousness,' which implies that there was a (sic) of defendants and causes of action. order 1, rule 3, civil p.c., is a complete answer to this contention. two sets of ..... any court situate in the gorakhpur district, and. in any case, of want of jurisdiction in a court of small causes. they also urged that the suit was bad for 'multifariousness' and that the plaintiff is not entitled to interest as claimed by her. all these pleas were overruled by the lower court and have been pressed before me in revision .....

Tag this Judgment!

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