Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Year: 1972 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.001 seconds)

May 31 1972 (HC)

P.G. Venkataswamy and ors. Vs. Mir Zahid HussaIn Saheb (Sha) and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-31-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Kant145; AIR1973Mys145

..... error, defect or irregularity inany proceedings in the suit, not affecting the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court'it is not shown that on account of multifariousness the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the trial court are affected. we do not. therefore, find sufficient reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the ..... from multifariousness. the properties involved in this case are immovable properties. defendants 2 and 3 are interested in item 1, defendant 7 is interested in item 2 and defendant 9 is interested ..... by the defendants who are appellants before us,18. sri s.k. venkataranga iyengar the learned counsel for defendant 3, submitted that the suit has to fail on account of multifariousness and that defendant 3 had perfected her title by adverse possession to item 1 of the plaint schedule. it is no doubt true that the plaint in this case suffers ..... . precludes an appellate court from interfering with the judgment and decree passed by a trial court on the ground that the suit is vitiated on account of multifariousness unless it is shown that such multifariousness has resulted in failure of justice. it reads:'no decree shall be reversed or substantially varied, nor shall any case be remanded, in appeal on account of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 19 1972 (HC)

Mania Barik Vs. Suki Bewa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jun-19-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Ori47

..... such adoption is within the period of limitation prescribed under article 118 of old limitation act the suit must fail as barred by time; (2) the suit is bad for multifariousness. the causes of action in respect of 'kha' and 'ga' schedules being separate have been clubbed together and, therefore, the suit must also fail.6. plaintiff filed, a simple suit ..... . 3 was never adopted by bhaban barik, this point has no legs to stand upon and accordingly fails.7. the next contention agitated is that the suit is bad for multifariousness inasmuch as it unites two separate causes of action, one for partition of schedule 'kha' properties and the other for a declaration of title to schedule 'ga' properties. there has ..... been disapproved in the madras case quoted above (air 1955 mad 300).for the aforesaid reasons i am satisfied that the present suit does not suffer from any infirmity of multifariousness. this point accordingly fails.11. in the result, therefore, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissedwith costs.

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1972 (HC)

Sita Ram Talwar and anr. Vs. Jai Dev Sharma

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-25-1972

Reported in : ILR1972Delhi769

..... allowing whereof would be necessary for bringing out before the court the real and pertinent aspects of the controversy in order to promote a final adjudication. it is intended that multifariousness be avoided. (8) while dealing with order 6, rule 17 of the civil procedure code the supreme court in jai jai ram manohar lal v. national building material supply, gurgaon, : [1970]1scr22 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 1972 (HC)

Mst. Ramdayee Vs. Dhanraj Kochar and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Mar-08-1972

Reported in : AIR1972Cal313,76CWN513

..... the plea for a period of more than twelve years from the date of the framing of the issues, is fatal to their claim.' in our case the plea of multifariousness was raised more than five years after the framing of issues and after various other proceedings have taken place both in the trial court and in this court. from this ..... by this court, as late as the 17th september, 1968, the two defendants made the present application objecting to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of jurisdiction and multifariousness. the objections were overruled and the trial judge passed his order on january 21, 1970. immediately thereafter the defendants obtained the present rule.15. on these facts this rule ought ..... not be sufficient for a lawful ioinder of the several causes of action against the several defendants and that, accordingly, it would be no answer to the defence objection of multifariousness. this court made the rule absolute and set aside the order of the trial judge. this court was of the view that the allegation of conspiracy in the plaint, as ..... plaintiff and a further declaration that defendant no. 2 is a trespasser. an objection was taken to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was bad for multifariousness. in the plaint, there was a specific allegation of conspiracy amongst all the defendants for keeping the plaintiff out of possession ofthe disputed property, but the learned trial judge held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 30 1972 (HC)

Rising Sun Press, Delhi Vs. Ram NaraIn and ors., Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-30-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Delhi167

..... allowing whereof would be necessary for bringing out before the court the real and pertinent aspects of the controversy in order to promote a final adjudication. it is intended that multifariousness be avoided.'the provision falls into two parts. where the amendment sought is so related to the real questions in controversy that the final determination thereof would not be achieved ..... in order to allow the parties to plead before the court all those aspects which may be concerned with the real questions in controversy between them. it is intended that multifariousness be avoided. i am of the view that whatever the negligence in seeking the amendment at a late stage or in not originally pleading that the plaintiff was the trail .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 1972 (HC)

Krishna Laxman Yadav and ors. Vs. Narsinghrao Vithalrao Sonawane and a ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-02-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Bom358; (1973)75BOMLR29; 1973MhLJ225

..... or fact arose between the plaintiffs. all the conditions of the above provisions of law are completely satisfied and the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit was multifarious was wrong. that finding is set aside.13. in connection with the arguments advanced by him mr.mhamane relied upon the judgment of mr.justice bhasme in special civil application ..... of the panshet floods. the relief claimed was essentially several and did not exist jointly in favour of the petitioners-plaintiffs. that fact was irrelevant in deciding the question of multifariousness. the result of the provisions of order 1, rule 1 of the civil procedure code is that where right to relief exists in favour of several plaintiffs as a result of the ..... the suit. the fact that the relief could be only several in respect of the premises to which each of the petitioners was separately entitled, did not make the suit multifarious. the reason was that, as is evident from the pleadings, common questions of law and facts had arisen between the parties to the suit from out of the same transaction .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1972 (HC)

C.A. Khaja Mohidden Sahib and ors. Vs. the Madras State Wakf Board and ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Mad104

..... of persons, that they are entitled to file one suit as a group. if the cause of action for each of them were different that suit will become bad for multifariousness and it will be open for attack on other grounds as well. in the decision reported in 74 ind app 223 air 1947 pc 197 the privy council clearly held .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 04 1972 (HC)

Mange Ram and anr. Vs. the State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Decided on : May-04-1972

Reported in : AIR1973P& H142

..... and in view of the common grounds sought to be urged by both the petitioners. it cannot be said that the petition is liable to be dismissed on account of multifariousness or misjoinder of petitioners.5. the second objection of mr. hooda is really responsible for the petition having been admitted to a division bench in the very first instance. according .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 1972 (HC)

C.A. Khaja Mohideen Sahib and ors. Vs. the Madras State Wakf Board Rep ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-1972

Reported in : (1972)2MLJ222

..... group of persons they are entitled to file one suit as a group. if the cause of action for each of them were different the suit will become bad for multifariousness and it will be open for attack on other grounds as well. in the decision reported in al. ar. vellayan chettiar (deceased) v. government of madras (1947) 74 i.a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1972 (HC)

The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Harasaran Dass and Sons and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-14-1972

Reported in : AIR1973Delhi258

..... such a position. that apart, this certainly would result in multiplicity of proceedings. the only bar to such jointer is that the court has to see that there is no multifariousness. when there is misguide of parties and cause of action, which certainly would cause embarrassment and the trial of the action would be prejudiced ......... in the suit, as framed, it .....

Tag this Judgment!


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