Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-05-1952
Reported in : AIR1954Raj46
..... 23-7-1946, in the court of the judicial superintendent, malanee. the suit included two distinct claims based on two separate causes of action. there was an objection as to multifarious-ness. thereupon the court ordered in may 1947 that the plaint should be amended, and allowed 14 days' time to do so.3. in july 1947, the appellants filed two ..... court.this argument is, in my opinion, untenable. it is true that the court did pass an order to the effect that the suit, as originally filed, was bad for multifariousness, and gave an opportunity to the appellants to amend the suit. it was open to them not to amend the original plaint, in which case, it would have been dismissed .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jan-29-1952
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!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-24-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Mad132; (1952)1MLJ716
..... on 9-8-1943. sankamma, the paternal grandmother of shankari died after the disposal of the first appeal on 20th may 1949.5. it is unnecessary to re-set the multifarious controversies between the parties set out in the judgments of the lower courts because the contest has resolved itself now into a single question of fact and law regarding the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Sep-10-1952
Reported in : AIR1953Ori33; 19(1953)CLT58
..... report : 'in the administration of government in this country, the functions which are given to ministers (and constitutionally properly given to ministers, because they are constitutionally responsible) are functions so multifarious that no minister could ever personally attend to them. to make the example of the present case, no doubt there have been thousands of requisitions in this country by individual .....Tag this Judgment!