Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 9 of about 1,538 results (0.031 seconds)

Feb 12 2008 (HC)

Hariender Kaur Vs. Sharan Gurdev Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)2PLR478

..... 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 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 11 1991 (HC)

Municipal Committee Through Its' President Vs. Ram Kumar and Ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1992)102PLR51

..... the present suit opd5. whether the civil courts have no- jurisdiction to entertain the present suit opd6. whether the suit is within time opd7. whether the suit is bad for multifariousness opd8. whether the plan of the property is necessary to be filed if so, its effect opd9. whether the property in dispute is a public street opd10. whether the plaintiffs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2001 (HC)

Dr. S.S. Rikhy and ors. Vs. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)772; 91(2001)DLT659; 2001(59)DRJ13; 2001RLR471

..... one unit and was in the occupation of the tenant as on unit, common question of law and facts had arisen and, thereforee, the suit still did not suffer from multifariousness nor was it hit but he provisions of order i rule 1 c.p.c.' it has evidently been overlooked that the division bench had specifically taken into contemplation the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1971 (HC)

Chhotubhai Babarbhai Patel and ors. Vs. the State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1972Guj153

..... the parties, the learned judge framed issues at ex. 25, as under:'1. whether the suit is maintainable in present form? 2. whether the suit is bad on account of multifariousness? 3. whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by res judicata? 4. whether the notice is legal? 5. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to challenge the purpose of acquisition and if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 07 1876 (PC)

Treeporasoondery Dossee Vs. Debendronath Tagore

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1877)ILR2Cal45

..... came on to be heard before me in settlement of issues, and debendro and ganendro set up three principal grounds why the suit should be dismissed: 1st, that it is multifarious; 2nd, that the plaintiff has no right to sue in respect of any of the matters complained of by her; and 3rd, that the plaintiff is barred by limitation and ..... plaintiff had, in fact, any right or interest under the deed of settlement, and having regard to the wider and more liberal view latterly taken with respect to objection for multifariousness, as shown in the cases of pointon v. pointon l.r. 12 eq. 537 and coates v. legard l.e. 19 eq. 56. i should not have been disposed to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1978 (HC)

Paikanna Vithoba Mamidwar and anr. Vs. Laxminarayan Sukhdeo Dalya and ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1979Bom298; (1979)81BOMLR501; 1979MhLJ149

..... to the property which was being rebuilt on the ground that their tenancies had not been brought to an end. an objection was raised that the suit was bad for multifariousness, and their lordships held that 'there was a common question of law which had arisen by reason of the destruction of the house in consequence of the floods. the relief .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1948 (PC)

Mohammad Khalil Khan Vs. Mahbub Ali Mian

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1949)51BOMLR9

..... district shahjahanpur on october 29, 1928. as the parties were also different, both the properties could not be included in one suit, otherwise the suit would have become bad for 'multifariousness.'(e) at the time of the institution of suit no, 8 of 1928, the second appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs against the collector's order dated june 20, 1928, was ..... 'belated' application, that it would be convenient for the rival claimants to this property to have their claims tried in the court of the subordinate judge of shahjahanpur to avoid multifarious-ness, and that the causes of action to recover the two properties were different. in the course of his order the learned judge also said,-if and when the suit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 14 1931 (PC)

Bhagvan Gokul Ji and Co. Vs. Balku Babaji

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1932Bom1; (1931)33BOMLR1291; 136Ind.Cas.497

..... common to the case against both the defendants, and this seems to me sufficient to bring the case within the rule, and the finding that the suit is bad for multifariousness appears to me on the facts to have been a mistaken one. i agree that the decree should be set aside as proposed by the learned chief justice.2. costs .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1985 (HC)

Clara Auroro De Brangenca and ors. Vs. Sylvia Angela Alvares and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1985Bom372

..... first two appellants, mainly on technical grounds. in fact, they raised quite a number of objections as regards the maintainability of the suit which, according to them, is bad for multifariousness, misjoinder of causes of action and parties and untenable under ss. 31 and 34 of the specific relief act, apart from the fact that the plaint is defective inasmuch as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

Ramchandra S/O Ukandaji, Died, Through L.Rs. Vs. Agricultural Produce ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR850; 2001(3)BomCR85

..... that subject matter of dispute and causes of actions are different. therefore, they should not have been included in one and the same suit. therefore, the suit is bad for multifariousness.(2) whether the plaintiff has proved that the disputed plots are part and parcels of survey nos. 72, 73, 27, 28 and 44 ?(3) whether the findings of the lower .....

Tag this Judgment!


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