Section 17 in The Court-fees Act, 1870 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Court-fees Act, 1870
17. Multifarious suits
Where a suit embraces two or more distinct subjects, the plaint or memorandum
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 7011 (1.14 seconds)C.S. Govindaraja Mudaliar, Receiver, ... vs Alagappa Thambiran And Ors. on 24 March, 1926
applies to this case and that the suit is not bad for multifariousness. While on the one hand we should not allow the Court ... learned Judge held that the frame of the suit was bad for multifarious-ness and he passed an order giving leave to the plaintiff
M.K. Venkatachari And Ors. vs L.A.R. Arunachalam Pillai And Ors. on 1 April, 1966
that logically it followed that the suit as framed was bad for multifariousness though common questions of fact arose for consideration, particularly the claim that ... give relief since it held that the suit was bad for multifariousness, there could be no doubt that a claim if made under
Sm. Nagendra Bala Debi And Ors. vs Provash Chandra And Ors. on 29 January, 1952
suit in the present instance is bad on the ground of multifariousness, that is, misjoinder of parties and causes of action and is liable ... only effective decision that he has given is on the issue of multifariousness and he has dismissed the suit on that ground expressly stating that
Rafiuddin Nuruddin Musalman vs Abduyl Karim Abdul Reheman And Ors. on 17 August, 2005
plaintiff. The defendants contended that the suit is bad for multifariousness as the plaintiff has claimed possession from defendant No. 1 on the allegation that ... survive.
9. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is bad for
multifariousness Yes.
10. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes
Chandi Prasad Sikaria vs Premlata Nahata And Anr. on 19 May, 2005
ground that the suit is barred on the ground of multifariousness and bad for misjoinder of parties and misjoinder of causes of action ... action against the appellant/ petitioner in one suit. According to him, multifariousness will attract Order 7 Rule
Sri. P.Kumaran vs Sri. V.Ramaswami
rejected for misjoinder of parties and the suit is also hit by multifariousness. The other allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the application ... misjoinder of cause of action and the suit is also hit by multifariousness. It is specifically stated that the suit if filed for specific performance
Premlata Nahata And Anr. vs Chandi Prasad Sikaria on 16 June, 2004
suit is barred by law; the law that bars the suit is multifariousness.
2. The case made out in the plaint is this. The defendant ... causes of action against the defendant in one suit. According to him multifarious ness will attract the provisions of Order 7 Rule
Nistarini Dassi vs Nundo Lall Bose And Anr. on 14 June, 1899
complained of, and sought to be redressed, does not render it multifarious.
25. In the case of Pointon v. Pointon ... receiver and for an injunction, a demurrer by the uncle for multifariousness and for want of parties was overruled.
26. The frame of that suit
Laxman Balwant Bhopatkar ( Since ... vs The Charity Commissioner, Bombay on 1 May, 1962
thereby making people alive to their
political rights and carrying on other multifarious public
activities conducive to the national ideal etc." A survey ... thereby making people alive to their political
rights and carrying on other multifarious
public activities conducive to the national
ideal etc."
Pausing here