Civil Court Can Use Section 151 CPC To Dismiss Suit As Infructuous If Cause Of Action Ceases: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a civil court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to dismiss a suit as infructuous when subsequent events render the original cause of action non-existent. The Court observed that it is the duty of the court to terminate infructuous litigation, and it cannot retain such suits merely to preserve interim orders or on speculative future claims.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a Civil Revision Application filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the City Civil Court, which had rejected a notice of motion seeking dismissal of a suit as infructuous. The suit had been instituted by the plaintiff challenging termination orders dated 2 November 2004 relating to leasehold salt lands. During the pendency of the suit, the lease tenure expired on 14 October 2016. Following this, the defendants filed a notice of motion seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the cause of action had come to an end and the suit had become infructuous.

The Court examined the scope of Section 151 CPC and held that inherent powers can be exercised where no specific provision of the Code covers the situation. It noted that Order VII Rule 11 applies only where the plaint does not disclose a cause of action at the time of filing and does not apply where a valid cause of action subsequently ceases to exist. Therefore, dismissal of such infructuous suits must necessarily be traced to the court's inherent jurisdiction.

“… it cannot be contended that the Applicants have any other alternate remedy for seeking dismissal of the suit, which has been rendered infructuous… power of the Court to throw out such infructuous litigation must necessarily be traced to inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code,” the Court observed.

The Court further held that an interlocutory order cannot justify continuation of a suit that has otherwise become infructuous. It observed:

“… mere possibility of interim injunction coming to an end due to dismissal of the suit cannot be a ground for keeping a otherwise dead suit pending on the file of the Court.”

The Court further rejected the contention that the suit could be continued on the basis of a proposed amendment for renewal of the 6lease, noting that no such amendment had been sought at the relevant time and that a suit cannot be kept alive on speculative future claims.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the trial court had committed a jurisdictional error in refusing to dismiss the suit. The impugned order was set aside, and the suit was dismissed as infructuous.

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia [Civil Revision Application (ST.) No. 23914 of 2023]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 116

Click Here To Read/Download Order