Mobile View
Advanced Search Search Tips
Order results by
Relevance
Document Types
All
1 - 10 of 1691 (1.00 seconds)

case and that the suit is not bad for multifariousness. While on the one hand we should not allow ... that the frame of the suit was bad for multifarious-ness and he passed an order giving leave
Madras High Court
- Cites 9 - Cited by 14 -
97 Ind Cas 212
- Krishnan
present instance is bad on the ground of multifariousness, that is, misjoinder of parties and causes of action ... that he has given is on the issue of multifariousness and he has dismissed the suit on that ground expressly
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 10 - Cited by 3 -
AIR 1953 Cal 185
- P Mookerjee
Court below have been attacked on the ground of multifariousness under the following circumstances: The District .Judge of Dacca ... been assailed on the ground that they were multifarious and conducted in a manner unknown to legal procedure
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 6 - Cited by 3 -
6 Ind Cas 327
that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes ... appellant/ petitioner in one suit. According to him, multifariousness will attract Order 7 Rule
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 16 - Cited by 1 -
2005 (4) CHN 664
- P C Ghosh
followed that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness though common questions of fact arose for consideration, particularly ... since it held that the suit was bad for multifariousness, there could be no doubt that a claim if made
Madras High Court
- Cites 17 - Cited by 0 -
AIR 1967 Mad 410
defendants contended that the suit is bad for multifariousness as the plaintiff has claimed possession from defendant ... defendant proves that the suit is bad for multifariousness Yes. 10. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes
Bombay High Court
- Cites 24 - Cited by 0 -
2005 (4) MhLj 646
- A Naik
that bars the suit is multifariousness. 2. The case made out in the plaint is this. The defendant ... against the defendant in one suit. According to him multifarious ness will attract the provisions of Order 7 Rule
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 16 - Cited by 0 -
IV (2004) BC 602
- J K Biswas
Calcutta High Court Nistarini Dassi vs Nundo Lall Bose And Anr. on 14 June, 1899
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 4 - Cited by 19 -
(1899) ILR 26 Cal 891
- Stanley
case are whether the suit is bad for multifariousness and whether the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly was justified in entertaining ... unless it be that the claim was defective for multifariousness. We have therefore first to consider whether
Allahabad High Court
- Cites 5 - Cited by 9 -
(1908) ILR 30 All 560
- J Stanley
raising an additional issue on the question of multifarious-ness. This issue was raised and decided in favour ... question whether the suit is bad for multifariousness. As the plaintiff alleges that Harendra Nath Ghose is a benamdar
Calcutta High Court
- Cites 7 - Cited by 6 -
AIR 1958 Cal 710
- S Lahiri
Get new documents for this query in your RSS feed reader -
1  
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next