Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2019/02/07/mis-joinder-of-parties-and-causes-of-action-in-para-1-of-the-application-it-was-categorically-mentioned-that-there-was-mis-joinder-of-parties-and-causes-of-action-the-trial-c/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:12:41+00:00

Document:
“mis-joinder of parties and causes of action”. In Para (1) of the application, it was categorically mentioned that there was mis-joinder of parties and causes of action.-The trial court in its order dated 17.08.2011 has also clearly held that plaintiff has clubbed different causes of action which is to be deleted from the present suit. The trial court further held that the plaintiff is not justified in including different properties and separate cause of actions combining in single suit.
ft. X 50 ft. area 1500 Sq. Ft.
B) Bombay Suburban District S.
came in the name of widow of Babulal, Smt.
a Will executed in the year 2000 by Smt.
alleged will as per the Law.
actions cannot be combined in a single suit.
court has come up in this appeal.
respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
will do violence to the mandate of Order II Rule 2.
jurisdiction of a Court, where suit has to be filed.
be situated in jurisdiction of two or more Courts.
in the year 1975 was mutated in the name of Smt.
with the properties, transactions and persons.
property have rightly been struck off from the case.
Section 20 contains a heading “place of suing”.
business, or personally works for gain.
means property situate in India.
entire claim is cognizable by such Court.
Procedure as delineated by Sections 16 and 17.
mentions “for the partition of immovable property”.
situated in jurisdiction of two courts.
in reference to Section 17 of Civil Procedure Code.
were situated in British India but Kolhapur was not.
law prevail in the differed Courts; Hari v.
Panchanon v. Sib Chandra, (1887) 14 Cal.
835; Balaram v. Ram Chandra, (1898) 22 Bom.
922; Abdul v. Badruddin, (1905) 28 Mad.
216; Padmani v. Jagadamba, (1871) 6 B.L.R.
134; Rammohan v. Mulchand, (1906)28 All.
of suits for recovery of immovable property.
Similar view was taken in Ramdhin and Others Vs.
Das and Others, AIR 1960 Ori. 159; Laxmibai Vs.
Madhankar Vinayak Kulkarni and Others, AIR 1968 Kant.
and Others, AIR 1975 All. 91.
pertaining to property situated in different courts.
respect of the other three properties.
counsel for the respondent reported in AIR 1942 All.
properties in execution of one decree.
“11. Similar view was expressed in Smt.
Singh v. Kunwar Sen AIR 1942 All 387.
properties with different causes of action.
filed on one cause of action.
other circumstances where such decree is passed.
local limits of more than one Court.
get partition of some of the properties.
need not to be dealt with any further.
opinion we need not dwell the issue any further.
scope of Section 17 of C.P.C.
property by its order dated 17.08.2011.
defendants who have different causes of actions.
Next Post in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, possession on the date of suit is a must for grant of permanent injunction. When the first respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that he was in actual possession of the property on the date of the suit, he is not entitled for the decree for permanent injunction.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.