Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Sorted by: old Court: kolkata Page 3 of about 109 results (0.008 seconds)

Feb 25 1929 (PC)

Asmatulla Pramanik Vs. Gamir Pramanik and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.215

..... is true that there were other parties in the suit also claiming paramount titles in respect of the other portions of the property, which would have served to accentuate the multifariousness and confusion to which reference is made, but there is no indication that a court must go into a question of title paramount, even if raised in a mortgage suit ..... be proper parties : they were accordingly dismissed from the suit, and the judicial committee agreed that that was the correct view; otherwise it was said, the suit would have been multifarious and confused in the highest degree if it had gone on in that shape, as the defence raised was quite foreign to the scope of a mortgage suit. certain other .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 1933 (PC)

Debendranath Sharma Vs. Nagendranath Datta

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1933Cal900

..... the present suit, contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, that the suit was barred by limitation, and that it was bad for multifariousness and defect of party.5. on the merits, these defendants contended that plots 6 and 10 in suit appertained to taluk no. 39, two-thirds of plots 3 and 14 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1934 (PC)

Brojendra Nandan Saha and anr. Vs. Nekunja Behari Das and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1935Cal174,154Ind.Cas.775

..... exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. and the true test to apply, in our opinion, is to see whether a joint petition, treated as a plaint, would be bad for multifariousness, that is to say for misjoinder of causes of action or of parties.4. the two decisions on which the appellants rely have been dissented from in several cases. in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1938 (PC)

Midnapore Zamindary Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandra Singha Dudhuria and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1939Cal1

..... and the proprietors could not have been the same. if the patnidars wanted to litigate upon their title based on the putni lease the suit would have been bad for multifariousness. it cannot be said therefore that the matter covered by the defence in these two suits ought to have been a ground of attack in the rajshahi suit. we are .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1941 (PC)

Girija Prasanna Deb Gupta Vs. N.M. Khan and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1942Cal257

..... at the following findings : (1) that the plaintiff in his plaint did not plead expressly and specifically conspiracy among defendants 2 to 5. (2) that the suit was bad for multifariousness, misjoinder of parties and causes of action. (3) that the notice under section 80, civil p.c., was inadequate and invalid in so far as the tort of malicious prosecution ..... said criminal case. defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that they did not set up defendant 5 to file the criminal case against the plaintiff that the suit was bad for multifariousness, that the claim against them was barred by limitation and that the judicial officers' protection act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit against them. they also pleaded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 28 1946 (PC)

Anukul Chandra Chakravarty Vs. Province of Bengal, Pabna Collectorate ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1947Cal374

..... well settled that having regard to the provisions of order 1, rule 2 when common questions of law and fact are involved a suit impleading several defendants will not be multifarious only because the plaintiff's causes of action against the several defendants he has joined are different. see harendra nath singha roy v. purna chandra goswami : air1928cal199 . the same case ..... following:(2) is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, if any?(13) is the suit bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action and multifariousness? and whether the causes of action against the different defendants can be conveniently tried or disposed of together?'on 14-9-1945 the suit was adjourned to 26-9-1945 ..... overt act was alleged. the amendment mentioned was applied for after defendant 155 ka had filed his written statement and had made an application for addition of the issue of multifariousness after group ill defendants were served; appearance was entered by defendant 155 ka and a written statement filed by him alleging that the part of the chur in his possession .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1949 (PC)

The Corporation of Calcutta Vs. Radhakrishna Dev and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1952Cal222

..... were held separately by the different defendants. the learned munsif who tried the suit held that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action and for multifariousness and dismissed it stating that subject to the question of limitation the plaintiff, the corporation of calcutta was at liberty to bring separate suits against the different defendants, against this ..... the suit should be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action. in the course of his judgment the learned munsif stated that in order to guard against multifariousness he gave, the plaintiff an opportunity at the very outset of the fresh hearing of the suit to make an election as to what particular claim of the different claims ..... :'now it may be said and there is some force in the contention that a mere unity of title is not enough to save a suit from the mischief of multifariousness. for instance, if several properties belonging to a, the owner of a land have been trespassed upon by different persons at different times, can it be said that a may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1950 (HC)

Shew Narayan Singh Vs. Brahmanand Singh and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1950Cal479

..... defendants in the suit.4. the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the amendment to the plaint and the aforesaid addition of parties makes the suit bad for multifariousness and that this course is not sanctioned by the provision of the code of civil procedure. in developing this argument learned advocate points out that the plaintiff's claim against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1950 (HC)

Province of Bengal Vs. Commissioner for the Port of Calcutta and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1951Cal271,55CWN350

..... . is the suit bad for defective parties?2. is the suit barred by limitation, either general or special?3. is the suit under-valued?4. is the suit bad for multifariousness and misjoinder of parties and of cause of action?5. have the lands in suit been wrongly treated as 'added land' for purpose of assessing the game as lands never .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1952 (HC)

Sm. Nagendra Bala Debi and ors. Vs. Provash Chandra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1953Cal185,57CWN97

..... possible to give effect to mr. banerji's contention and, in our view, the learned subordinate judge was right in deciding the issue of multifariousness against the plaintiffs.9. there is, however, one matter which requires to be noticed at this stage. the learned subordinate judge gave the plaintiffs ..... before and the relevant discussion in --'anukul chandra v. province of bengal', 51 cal wn 295, above cited, where the defence plea of multifariousness was upheld.8. in the present case, the defaults were separate and made by separate individuals in respect of different separate accounts. the payments ..... involved in the case, were both satisfied and the present suit was protected by the said provisions against any challenge on the ground of defect of multifariousness. mr. banerji in this connection drew our attention to three decisions of this court reported in --'ramendra nath v. brojendra nath', 45 cal ..... , therefore, did not decide -- any of the said other issues in the case. having regard to his finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the suit was dismissed by the learned subordinate judge and against that decision the present appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs.5. on behalf of ..... of the payments alleged to have been made by them.4. the learned subordinate judge came to the conclusion that the suit was bad for multifariousness and, although he made certain observations with regard to the other issues arising on the facts of this particular case, he did not, as already .....

Tag this Judgment!


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