Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 7 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Apr 30 1900 (PC)

N.A. Subrahmania Aiyar Vs. Queen Empress

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1900)10MLJ147

..... , wrongly charged jointly with the second accused with the offence of abetment by conspiracy. the first count is consequently bad on account of this misjoinder. it is also bad for multifariousness the patent flaw in the count, namely, charging the commission of the two offences (1) of the abetment of extortion and (2) the abetment of bribery as one offence is ..... were obtained by bribery and which by extortion. there was thus a marked vagueness in this omnibus charge. had it been made more definite in the matters referred to, its multifariousness would have been apparent on the face of it, a fuller examination of it will, however, sufficiently disclose how radically bad it is is that respect.. the first of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1991 (HC)

Syed Abdul Jabbar Vs. Board of Wakfs

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1991KAR1628

..... of the allegations and contentions are not quite necessary. the trial court framed as many as eight issues and among them was the issue whether the suit is bad for multifariousness on which it gave a finding in the affirmative. on issue no. 1 however it gave a finding in favour of the plaintiffs that they are the chief muzawars. it ..... section 80 c.p.c. and one of the requirements of the notice is the relief which the plaintiff claims. the trial court found that the suit is bad for multifariousness and we do not propose to express any opinion with regard to this part of observation of the trial court as we are now disposing of the appeal only on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2008 (HC)

Avala Raja Reddy Vs. Gunti Radha Krishnaiah Chetty

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(2)ALT70

..... pat. 613, the parties having gone to trial on an issue of title on the merits; defendants were not allowed to succeed in appeal on the contention that there was multifariousness. it is settled law that where paramount title has been adjudicated on, in a mortgage or redemption suit the defeated party will not be allowed to raise the contention that ..... be a joinder of causes of action of this description, and in sarala sundari v. sarada prasad (1904) 12 c.l.j. 602 the ground of decision was thai such multifariousness was fatal to the suit.but even under the old code it was recognized that this general rule was subject to exceptions, and in the code of 1908 the rule ..... inconvenience and expense caused to the defendants. the written statement of the present appellants (as is common in india) contained a plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness, but their lordships have not been satisfied, that at any time before the commencement of the trial any appropriate and serious application was made to the court upon the face .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1969 (HC)

Mata Prasad and ors. Vs. Shri Sahdeo Prasad and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1970CriLJ1680

..... the opinion that the order of the magistrate dated 7-11-1968 was wholly illegal. the application which was moved by the present applicants and chhotey lal clearly suffered from multifariousness because of the 28 applicants who had joined in one application under section 145, code of criminal procedure claiming possession over separate and distinct portions of land and secondly because ..... he started the proceedings on the basis of the application jointly made by 28 persons which in this way suffered from multifariousness and in proceedings on the basis of such a faulty application he started proceedings which themselves suffered from multifariousness. the proceedings therefore wore clearly illegal. the case is clearly covered by the observations made by this court in the case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 1939 (PC)

Satruhan Singh and ors. Vs. Collector of Gorakhpur and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1940All205

..... of the case were decided by the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiffs and all that was said was that the suit of the plaintiffs was bad for multifariousness but that defect did not in any way affect the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. this argument assumes that the trial court had jurisdiction in ..... , for instance, order 1, rule 3 and order 2, rule 3, civil p.c. if he cannot do so and the joinder of such causes of action is bad for multifariousness, then the suit cannot be tried in either of the courts within whose jurisdiction the properties are situate. order 2, rule 3 says thatsave as otherwise provided, a plaintiff may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1917 (PC)

Saiyed Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 42Ind.Cas.856

..... question the finding of law on which their suit was dismissed by the court below. the pleas in the memorandum of appeal are that the suit is not bad for multifariousness, that it was maintainable as framed and that the reliefs claimed therein could have been granted in one suit against all the defendants it is unnecessary for us, as the ..... this dismissal has been affirmed by the additional district judge in appeal.2. the only point dealt with by the lower appellate court was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. as a matter of fact there had been an order by the predecessor in office of the learned judge who finally disposed of the appeal, which was no doubt well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1916 (PC)

Krishnappa Mudali Vs. Periasami Mudali

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1917)32MLJ532

..... up a title adverse to both the mortgagor and mortgagee the ground of exoneration is that he ought never to have been made a party the suit being bad for multifariousness as the plaintiff is joining causes of action which ought not to be joined and the joinder of which will be embarrassing. in jaggeswara dutt v. bhuban mohun mitra i ..... was against the provisions of sections 44 and 45 of the old code of civil procedure (order ii, rules 4 and 5 of the present code) and was bad for multifariousness and in mussammat radha kunwar v. thakur reoti singh (1916) 31 m.l.j. 571 their lordships of the privy council ware of opinion that the joinder in a mortgage .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1916 (PC)

Krishnappa Mudaly Vs. Periaswamy Mudaly

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1917)ILR40Mad964

..... up a title adverse to both the mortgagor and mortgagee, the ground of exoneration is that he ought never to have been made a party, the suit being bad for multifariousness as the plaintiff is joining causes of action which ought not to be joined and the joinder of which will be embarrassing. in jaggeswara dutt v. bhuban mohan mitra i ..... was against the provisions of sections 44 and 45 of the old code of civil procedure (order ii, rules 4 and 5 of the present code) and was bad for multifariousness and in musammat radha kunwar v. thakur reoti singh 20 c.w.n. 1279 their lordships of the privy council were of opinion that the joinder in a mortgage suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1977 (HC)

Shripati Pandu Kambale Vs. Bahu Ganpati Kambale

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1979)81BOMLR226

..... them, proceeded,] mr. s.r. adik, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the findings of the learned district judge on the point that the suit is bad for multifariousness and that the present suit was to be considered only with respect to the claim of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 relating to sub-division no, 1 of survey no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 1933 (PC)

Har Prasad Agarwala Vs. Shankar Lal and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1933All957; 147Ind.Cas.279

..... the agent shanker lal. this application has been refused by the munsif in the following words:i reject the plaintiff's application for amendment as it will give rise to multifariousness,2. it has been pointed out that under order 2, rule 6 the court has been given discretion to order a separate trial where:any causes of action joined in ..... without a complete array of the necessary parties in either. we do not think that the opinion of the court that the amendment of the plaint would give rise to multifariousness is well founded, and we find on the other hand that the addition of these further par-ties will have the result of settling the questions at issue between the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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