Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-17-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR687; 2005(4)MhLj646
..... as filed was not maintainable. therefore, the trial court was right in dismissing the suit by recording the finding that the suit was bad for multifariousness and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to the possession of the suit house. in view of this finding, in my judgment, the ..... for my consideration :(a) whether suit as filed is maintainable and whether the suit can be dismissed for misjoinder of causes of action i.e. multifariousness of causes of action;(b) whether this court can interfere in the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below regarding status of defendant ..... learned assistant judge has rightly exercised his discretion in passing a decree for possession. he submitted that suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of multifariousness as on the ground that there are two distinct causes of action. he submitted that the claim put forth by the plaintiff being interdependent, this ..... of the plaintiff. he submitted that the defendant has specifically alleged and averred in the written statement that the suit is bad for multifariousness and is bad for different causes of action. he brought to my notice para 2 of the written statement which reads thus :he therefore, ..... high court. it is contended by the learned counsel that on plain reading of the plaint, it is clear that the suit is bad for multifariousness of causes of action. he therefore, submitted that the learned assistant judge has committed an error in decreeing the suit by ordering possession in favour .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jan-31-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)KLT359
..... petition is filed uniting all the causes of action there will be misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. petition of such a nature would be bad for multifariousness.12. the misjoinder of cause of action is however regarded as irregularity and not a ground on which petition be dismissed unless objection is taken at the appropriate time. objection ..... distinct portions of the same structure, in the event of which there is no misjoinder of causes of action or misjoinder of parties and the petition is not hit by multifariousness.10. the difficulty arises when the landlord unites several causes of actions against various tenants who are in occupation of distinct portions of same building under separate tenancy arrangements. question ..... tenants in a single rent control petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifariousness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.2. a division bench of this court in c.r.p. nos. 714 of 1992 and 573 of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Oct-20-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD583; 2006(1)ALT215
..... two or more causes of action accrued against the defendants separately when such defendants are not jointly liable is bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, technically called multifariousness. in a suit of contract, strangers to such contract who have distinct and separate interests cannot be joined as defendants rangayya v. subramanya air 1918 mad. 681 (f.b.).25 ..... of calcutta v. radhakrishna : air1952cal222 , the calcutta high court held that a single suit by a corporation for arrears of rent against different owners of subdivided premises is bad for multifariousness.15. where two or more persons have been joined as defendants in one suit in contravention of the provisions of order 1 rule 3, there is misjoinder of defendants.16 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jul-20-2005
Reported in : 2006(2)ALD144
..... action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. it was further held that the learned subordinate judge took a correct view that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness. however, it was observed that the learned subordinate judge should have given the plaintiffs election as to which the single plaintiff would be permitted to continue the suit and which ..... establish that they have perfected their title by adverse possession.23. before adverting to the question as to whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of multifarious causes of action, it is necessary to have a glance at order ii rule 3 cpc, which reads as under:joinder of causes of action :(1) save as otherwise provided ..... this court to remit the matter to the trial court, since the finding of the trial court on issue no. 7 that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of multifariousness, does not suffer from any infirmity.27. the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-19-2005
Reported in : 2005(4)CHN664
..... election by way of an application for amendment upon which the suit of the remaining plaintiffs against the defendant will stand dismissed on the ground of multifariousness. it will, however, be open to other plaintiffs to file separate suits against the defendant in respect of their respective agreement and/or claim ..... right of the appellant/petitioner and the appellant/petitioner has been prejudiced and would suffer if the suit is not dismissed on the ground of multifariousness as pleaded by the appellant/ petitioner. hence, we have to hold that the order so passed by the hon'ble first court rejecting the ..... to a consideration of the plaint alone in determination whether the suit is barred by any law.the 'law' in question is the rule prohibiting multifariousness.a basis suit envisages one plaintiff suing on one cause of action against one defendant. however, the law permits joinder of several plaintiffs, defendants and ..... of action. according to him, the point which has been taken by mr. banerjee is only to delay the proceedings. he further submitted that multifariousness is not a ground for rejection of a plaint. if the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of misjoinder of parties or misjoinder of causes ..... /petitioner applied before the hon'ble first court for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action.3. it appears from the facts that the instant suit was filed by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-17-2005
Reported in : 2005(2)BomCR510; 2005(2)MhLj700
..... new cause of action should be permitted to be incorporated and the only intention of the court ought to be in granting or refusing to grant amendment is to avoid multifariousness of the proceedings. in view of the judgment of the apex court which is confirmed in the subsequent judgment of the apex court in the case of pankaja and anr .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-09-2005
Reported in : AIR2005Cal268,2005(2)CHN1
..... one flat situated on the first floor and the servants' quarters and one car garage of premises no. 10, bakery road, kolkata.2. the suit was bad for misjoinder and multifariousness of cause of action. the m.b. commercial trust is the owner of the entire premises no. 10, bakery road consisting of a total area of land measuring 3 bighas .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : May-13-2005
Reported in : (2005)3CALLT297(HC)
..... a single proceeding, and they have a single opponent. asking them to file separate appeals is nothing but to encourage definitely avoidable multiplicity of proceeding; the rule of convenience, what multifariousness is, does not make it imperative. the courts and tribunals never encourage such a procedure; they always strive to curb multiplicity of proceeding.11. filing of separate appeals in the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Nov-23-2005
Reported in : 2006(1)CHN709
..... had to be performed within the jurisdiction and such part had not been performed.7. the suit i find is also bad for joinder of several causes of action namely multifariousness. the plaintiff has not elected as to which part of the relief can be retained in the plaint. considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience i find since the suit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : DRAT Madras
Decided on : Jul-29-2005
Reported in : IV(2005)BC136
..... him including the acknowledgement of debts. the suit is not maintainable as the two suit accounts are independent and they are not inter-linked and the suit is bad for multifariousness, mis-joinder of the parties and causes of action. as the 1st defendant firm was dissolved on 26.3.1983 itself, the 1st defendant firm was not in existence at .....Tag this Judgment!