Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Mar-29-1946
Reported in : AIR1947Bom255; (1946)48BOMLR795
..... of action whose inclusion in the same suit resulted in multifariousness. when the plaintiffs elected to proceed with one cause of action only, the defendant who was then defendant no. 6, had nothing to do with that cause of action, and ..... plaintiffs were obliged to give up the defendant and the claim made against him, in obedience to the finding of the court that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness. the election to proceed with one cause of action against one set of defendants did not in such a case amount to the withdrawal or abandonment of the other causes ..... of the deposits said to have been made in ms shop by deceased deoram-the very relief asked for in the present suit. as such u suit was bad for multifariousness, the plaintiffs were called upon to elect, and they gave a purshis confining it to their claim against defendants nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 13. as the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-28-1946
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!